Let's say a brother and sister were to have sex....

[mal]

Obviously. Its not God's way. Its simply unnatural and wrong.

When Adam and Eve had children, were they not expected to procreate to continue building humanity?

During this time, because the population was sparse,it was the norm for Adams children to marry their siblings. Only later did God make a restriction against this.

Well, the British didn't hear him apparently.



peace...

 

[BluePhantom]

Who I'm confused.

My aunt married my girlfriend's father. That made my girlfriend my cousin (by marriage at least). Pissed my girlfriend and I off.

Well that is wierd but you don't really share any blood with her, did you keep seeing her after that?

Reminds me of an old, silly joke: "where do cousins come from?" "Antholes"

 

[007]

Yeah **** your sister, daddy ***** daughter, mama ***** the dog, daddy ***** the little 9 year old neighbor boy.... oh yeah... let's just throw ALL MORALITY and sense of DECENCY to the wind and just have a good ole **** FEST... FREE *******... EVERYBODY... EVERYTHING... JUST ****... DON'T WORRY ABOUT ANYTHING... JUST ****.

What a bunch of filthy DEGENERATES...

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Do we forbid people who have high chances of passing on diseases to their children from having children or marrying people who might increase that chance? Seems to me that we make them aware of the high chance they have of passing on genetic disabilities to their children - genetic counseling - and then let them do what they choose to. While I am morally opposed to incest, I'll hypothetically enter the conversation to ask: What is the difference between two none-related people with high chances of passing on genetic disabilities to their children and two consenting siblings with high chances of passing on genetic disabilities to their children? In both cases, they know the risks in advance - yet we allow one set of consenting adults to procede as they wish and we forbid the other set of consenting adults to do so...all based on the whims of our societal morality.

It seems to me that the argument against incest doesn't hold much water (legally speaking) if we are, as a society, legally pursuing a course of saying what happens between two consenting adults is the the business of no one but those two (or three or four or ???) people. Here's where legal precedent becomes a very tricky thing.

You clearly don't know the odds of brothers and sisters having f'd up children. It's about a 19 in 20 shot with a 1 in 20 margin of error. For regular people it's like I don't know 1 in 6 to 1 in 25 depending on who you believe. And if you have good genetics and aren't engaging in drugs and alcohol and are of proper age then I think it's way better yet.

 

[rdean]

Ah, I bet I got your attention with that header!

Anyway...

Let's say a brother and sister were to have sex. It is completely consensual and they had no regrets afterwards. Assume the sister is unable to become pregnant.

Given those parameters, is incest still wrong? How so?


Before you all start flaming me, know that I do not condone incest. I have never done it nor do I encourage anyone else to do it. I just find this question interesting.

Go to the confederate south. You don't have to imagine.

 

[BluePhantom]

Yeah **** your sister, daddy ***** daughter, mama ***** the dog, daddy ***** the little 9 year old neighbor boy.... oh yeah... let's just throw ALL MORALITY and sense of DECENCY to the wind and just have a good ole **** FEST... FREE *******... EVERYBODY... EVERYTHING... JUST ****... DON'T WORRY ABOUT ANYTHING... JUST ****.

What a bunch of filthy DEGENERATES...

Spoken like a man who can't grasp the concept of "hypotheticals"

 

[percysunshine]

If both of your parents were blood relatives? Kind of scary.

The only thing scarier is if they were both different species.

Then you would be rdean.

 

[BluePhantom]

If both of your parents were blood relatives? Kind of scary.

The only thing scarier is if they were both different species.

Then you would be rdean.

Man I have given too many reps today...but you SO deserve them for that one.

 

[Montrovant]

Do we forbid people who have high chances of passing on diseases to their children from having children or marrying people who might increase that chance? Seems to me that we make them aware of the high chance they have of passing on genetic disabilities to their children - genetic counseling - and then let them do what they choose to. While I am morally opposed to incest, I'll hypothetically enter the conversation to ask: What is the difference between two none-related people with high chances of passing on genetic disabilities to their children and two consenting siblings with high chances of passing on genetic disabilities to their children? In both cases, they know the risks in advance - yet we allow one set of consenting adults to procede as they wish and we forbid the other set of consenting adults to do so...all based on the whims of our societal morality.

It seems to me that the argument against incest doesn't hold much water (legally speaking) if we are, as a society, legally pursuing a course of saying what happens between two consenting adults is the the business of no one but those two (or three or four or ???) people. Here's where legal precedent becomes a very tricky thing.

You clearly don't know the odds of brothers and sisters having f'd up children. It's about a 19 in 20 shot with a 1 in 20 margin of error. For regular people it's like I don't know 1 in 6 to 1 in 25 depending on who you believe. And if you have good genetics and aren't engaging in drugs and alcohol and are of proper age then I think it's way better yet.

I think it's very dependent upon the individuals involved. It's hard to come up with an accurate number for odds, as I understand things. A lot of it has to do with recessive genes; if two random people have a child, the odds of both having the same dangerous recessive gene and passing it along to their child is less than for close relatives, they are more likely to carry the same gene and therefore more likely to pass it along.

So, it's more dangerous for siblings or other close relatives because if there is a dangerous gene in the family, both are much more likely to have it, but if the siblings have good genes it's not much more dangerous than for anyone else, if at all. When family interbreeds over generations would be where the real problems occur.

This is all my layman's understanding and not based on any extensive knowledge or research. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to just take my word for it, I'm not entirely certain of how it works myself.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Do we forbid people who have high chances of passing on diseases to their children from having children or marrying people who might increase that chance? Seems to me that we make them aware of the high chance they have of passing on genetic disabilities to their children - genetic counseling - and then let them do what they choose to. While I am morally opposed to incest, I'll hypothetically enter the conversation to ask: What is the difference between two none-related people with high chances of passing on genetic disabilities to their children and two consenting siblings with high chances of passing on genetic disabilities to their children? In both cases, they know the risks in advance - yet we allow one set of consenting adults to procede as they wish and we forbid the other set of consenting adults to do so...all based on the whims of our societal morality.

It seems to me that the argument against incest doesn't hold much water (legally speaking) if we are, as a society, legally pursuing a course of saying what happens between two consenting adults is the the business of no one but those two (or three or four or ???) people. Here's where legal precedent becomes a very tricky thing.

You clearly don't know the odds of brothers and sisters having f'd up children. It's about a 19 in 20 shot with a 1 in 20 margin of error. For regular people it's like I don't know 1 in 6 to 1 in 25 depending on who you believe. And if you have good genetics and aren't engaging in drugs and alcohol and are of proper age then I think it's way better yet.

I think it's very dependent upon the individuals involved. It's hard to come up with an accurate number for odds, as I understand things. A lot of it has to do with recessive genes; if two random people have a child, the odds of both having the same dangerous recessive gene and passing it along to their child is less than for close relatives, they are more likely to carry the same gene and therefore more likely to pass it along.

So, it's more dangerous for siblings or other close relatives because if there is a dangerous gene in the family, both are much more likely to have it, but if the siblings have good genes it's not much more dangerous than for anyone else, if at all. When family interbreeds over generations would be where the real problems occur.

This is all my layman's understanding and not based on any extensive knowledge or research. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to just take my word for it, I'm not entirely certain of how it works myself.

Yea. I don't think that's correct. It's not generational incest that leads to problems for children when the relationship is close as brother and sister. For brother and sister offspring, the odds for a bad outcome are astronomical. You're thinking of 2nd and 1st counsin generational incest.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Ah, I bet I got your attention with that header!

Anyway...

Let's say a brother and sister were to have sex. It is completely consensual and they had no regrets afterwards. Assume the sister is unable to become pregnant.

Given those parameters, is incest still wrong? How so?


Before you all start flaming me, know that I do not condone incest. I have never done it nor do I encourage anyone else to do it. I just find this question interesting.

Go to the confederate south. You don't have to imagine.

Go to Chicago's North Lawndale neighborhood.

A 6 year old virgin is a girl who can outrun her brothers.

 

[Sarah G]

This thread has an ick factor. If you're having sex with a sibling consensually, keep it to yourself. Jeezus.

 

[Artevelde]

This thread has an ick factor. If you're having sex with a sibling consensually, keep it to yourself. Jeezus.

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

[freedombecki]

My tome of love teaches that it's a really bad idea for brothers and sisters to have intercourse. Sad to see the teachings of the Bible laying in the dust of our devoted Founders' posterity's unconcern.

Leviticus 18:9 "'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

 

[henry23]

I would say that it would be fine if it is consensual, you just cannot control who it is you are attracted to, of course if the attraction is not reciprocated by the other person, well then the person would simply have to forget about it all together, so that you can move on with your life, while it is still going normally

 

[Lovebears65]

Coming from someone who was molested by my brother at at 7 until 14. I find this question un called for. Especially when I brought it up this year to my mother who believed him and not me . I was a child. He is 8 years older then me Now she knows he did do it . I guess she was in denial. I was held it in for almost 40 years.. It never went away and still have issues. I think its SICK!!! Now that it is out in the open I feel I am now able to heal about it. I was horrible.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If both of your parents were blood relatives? Kind of scary.

The only thing scarier is if they were both different species.

Then you would be rdean.

Seriously. I don't think anybody that has known a kid from a brother/sister relationship would be for it. I knew a kid like that. He was bouncing off of the walls and he was not going to have any real shot in society. He was a great kid too. But mentally, he was very stunted.

 

[007]

Yeah **** your sister, daddy ***** daughter, mama ***** the dog, daddy ***** the little 9 year old neighbor boy.... oh yeah... let's just throw ALL MORALITY and sense of DECENCY to the wind and just have a good ole **** FEST... FREE *******... EVERYBODY... EVERYTHING... JUST ****... DON'T WORRY ABOUT ANYTHING... JUST ****.

What a bunch of filthy DEGENERATES...

Spoken like a man who can't grasp the concept of "hypotheticals"

Spoken like a man who likes to fantasize about siblings ******* each other.

It's a perverted, degenerate scenario, hypothetically or otherwise.