It can be accepted as a given that incestual reproduction is a bad idea. But what about nonreproductive incestual relationships?

What moral reasons are there against incest?

For the record, like most of you I am sure, I have personally an extreme aversion to the idea of having incest.

Not really.

That's assuming a hetero relationship. Or assuming a hetero relationship is able to conceive.

Do we discriminate against blood relatives marrying because they can reproduce - yet use birth control - but allow blood relatives that can't reproduce (i.e. same sex, sterilized, etc) to marry?

For the record, this subject is repugnant to me, but necessary to expose the true stance of people wanting to legitimize gay marriages.

What people do in the privacy of their own home is their business, but when they demand legal protections, this is how it becomes my business.

I have no moral objection to incest between fully consenting adults. I would even support legal marriage for such persons.

I also believe that the possibility of increased genetic defects in children resulting from incest is not as great as generally thought. If incest were very common (and I believe it is somewhat more common than you might think) or if people have the gene for a severe genetic disorder, some caution would be necessary. However, if both partners are in reasonably good genetic health, I think that their child would be healthy also. (One could even make a case that incestuous reproduction should be encouraged in people with very good genetic health.)

For a fictional treatment of this theme, with a strong defense of incest, read "If All Men Were Brothers, Would You Let One Marry Your Sister?" by Theodore Sturgeon.

I would not be in favor of this. Aside from the genetic defect aspect, there's a very real potential for child abuse. This happens now, when incest is considered unthinkable. If we legitimized it as acceptable in our culture we would change the relationship dynamic within the family. The unthinkable would be shifted to the potential.

If gay marriages are acceptable, there is no "genetic defect" aspect. You're assuming a hetero relationship. And as Victoria said, the physical problems among healthy people may not be what we think.

But all in all, it's wrong. Unlike the animal kingdom, we are a moral society and we can't just wish that away. And if some of us follow our morals, we get labeled as a "----phobe".

That's why I said, 'Aside from the genetic aspect'. Meaning, in addition to the genetic aspect, there is the risk (I would say inevitability) of increased child abuse. Hetero or homo, the vilification of incest eliminates the confusion which could result from dissolving the psychological barriers of sex between family members.

I think what vic is talking about is sex between two people over the age of 18, knowing what they are doing, and agreeing to do it. in this case they could be mother-child, father-child or brother-sister. this isn't child abuse. it would be if the one person was say 35, and the other 12, but that isn't what vic means.

what goes on in someones bedroom is none of my business, unless they what it to be. sex between two consenting adults should be be legal, no matter what their relationship.

And what if they have kids, supporting more than one family is almost impossible.

CP

What I mean is that, even if the legalization of incest would be between legal aged adults, the psychological barriers of sex between family members would be eliminated at birth. That is not a good thing, and would be potentially confusing for members of the household as they mature.

Whereas homosexual relationships (and certainly monogamous ones) are family strengthening (IMO) incestual relationships are divisive to the family foundation.

While I am not sure I can disagree with that, I disagree with it being encouraged. That's what started this thread.

The premise being, that any two consenting adults, absent the risk of any health issues (i.e. Victoria's point), should be able to get married. This would include blood relatives.

So, to keep from discriminating, if we allow gay marriages, we should allow couples of incest to be married as well. Some supporting gay marriages are supporting this notion.

This is repugnant beyond words in my opinion. To say that you have no moral objection to brothers marrying brothers is saying you have no morals. Yet, if we object on moral grounds, we get labeled as some type of "phobe" and are prejudiced bigots.


And I suppose you have evidence to back that up? According to Victoria, she has evidence of the contrary.

Or are you just arbitrarily discriminating so you don't have to admit you condone incest?

Inbreeding is detrimental to the genetic welfare of offspring. That is a fact. Repeated inbreeding exponentially increases the risk of genetic birth defects. The first of a lineage of sister-brother offspring might not manifest a problem but repeated inbreeding does. This isn’t only inherent within incestual relationships, the genetic consequences of breeding within a closed society (not only of humans, but also groups of animals) are also apparent. Hemophilia in the Czarovitch, Tay- Sachs disease, Sandhoff disease, Sickle cell anemia, ect.

The taboo of incest serves a purpose. It ameliorates any underlying psychological sexual predilections between children and parents maturing within a household. It protects against inbreeding. Civilization will not outlive the benefits of this taboo until people are hatched from pods and nurtured by robots.

Homosexual taboo has no such foundation. It is the relic of a time in the past when reproduction was imperative to the sustainability of the population. That is no longer the case, so we (IMO) have outlived that taboo.

That's true if harmful recessive genes are present, and even more particularly if they are present but undetected. Modern genetic screening makes it possible to avoid the worst risks, though, and as the risks are avoided the genes themselves cease to propagate, so I think this aspect of inbreeding is somewhat overstated. However, much of the world does not have access to genetic screening, and there are many genetic factors short of actual disease that can be reinforced by inbreeding. I'm not enough of a biologist to hold forth for long about things like monocultures and hybrid vigor, but I do know that nature tends to favor balance. Inbreeding might reinforce both good and bad characteristics, but in terms of ecological fitness it's the reinforcement of bad characteristics that tends to matter more. Nature's not symmetrical that way.

In other words, inbreeding is bad from a biological point of view, but not always as bad as some people think, and not for the same reasons. It might not actually be worse than homosexuality, which - aside from social/moral issues - cannot be considered a species-survival trait. Neither is worse, biologically speaking, than inheritable predispositions to violence or alcoholism, obesity or mental deficit. The endpoint of the anti-inbreeding argument is eugenics. I'm no fan of slippery-slope arguments, and I'm not saying there aren't meaningful distinctions to be made somewhere between opposing incest and allowing only an elite to reproduce, but anybody who tries to use biology as the basis for an anti-incest or anti-homosexual argument had best be prepared to explain those distinctions.

You knew the Kentucky boy would have to chime in...


Actually, to say that you have no moral objection to family marrying family is to say that you have different morals, not that you have absolutely none. Some people approve of stealing or cheating on their spouse, others do not. Different morals, not the lack thereof.

It might be helpful to point out that this thread is asking more specifically about nonreproductive incestual relationships as well. It seems there has been a great deal of discussion about the biology of it all, what kind of genetic risks would such a couple be taking with their offspring. This wasn't ruled out by Quark at the beginning of this topic, but it seems that the focus was meant to be nonreproductive couples so as to focus solely on the notion of family bumping family.

In this regard, with the complicated biology thankfully aside, I would have to say that while I find no appeal in it myself (even coming from Kentucky), I also don't have any moral objection to others making such a choice. Much in the same way some people have problems with interracial relationships, homosexual relationships, relationships with inanimate objects, etc... while I have a personal objection to incest, I'm not going to stand in the way of two responsible, consenting adults engaging in any form of sex not harmful to the rest of society.

I expect the argument to that might be some wild claim that it is harmful to society, that it threatens to tear at the very fabric of our family structure. But those are mere institutions. They change and that's all they would do if we were to accept any of the relationships I mentioned above. None of those relationships actually serve to harm another person or to harm the growth of our society as a whole. While some of them may not result in procreation, if people are going to engage in such behavior whether it's accepted or not, those individuals aren't going to contribute to the societal gene pool anyway. As such, I see no reason to encourage an atmosphere of hatred and intolerance just because we can't accept what's different.

Not all of genetic defects due to inbreeding are the result of unfortunate inheritance of recessive traits. It is impossible (today) to screen for every potential genetic contingency.

http://wwwusers.brookes.ac.uk/99035491/#Inbreeding




Slippery slope argument? I don’t know. This topic is pertaining to the moral reasons behind the vilification of incest. I find it hard to discuss without bringing forth the biological rationale behind its foundation.

Simply said, incestual marriages with children cause pshycological damage: First hand information about incest
This damage is very hard to get over, why subject someone to it?

CP

The article you provide, Pat, appears to deal more with child abuse, and the psychological or physical trauma suffered by it. While it does pertain to incest as the tool of this child abuse, it is not the central focus.

I believe in addition to discussing nonreproductive incestual relationships that Quark was also intending to discuss consentual incestual relationships, principally among adults.

While the damage presented in your link is indeed very hard to get over, the focus again is the child abuse.

Edited to add: A possibly more useful personal experience link...
Genetic Sexual Attraction: Can we legislate morality?

Let's at least try not to conflate issues here. The problems with parent/child incest are primarily the problems with any kind of adult/child sexual relationship and have more to do with authority/power issues than blood relationships. This kind of incest can even occur, and be a problem, between those who do not have a blood relationship - e.g. stepchildren or adopted children. What people are primarily talking about here, it seems, is incestuous relationships between consenting adults which lack those sorts of power dynamics.

Mrspigpen, thanks for the additional info on the biological/medical risks of inbreeding. I was kind of getting at something similar when I mentioned "factors short of actual disease that can be reinforced by inbreeding" but it always helps to have things explained in more detail.

Yes, yes, thank you Abs and Platypus. I am talking about consenting adults. Allowing consenting adults to engage in consensual relationships, of any stripe, does not mean one has to include relationships between adults and children. By definition, in our paradigm, that is nonconsensual.

Where's all the libertarians when you need them?!?!?

I think there is a natural force opposing siblings engaging in consensual sexual relations after adulthood-they know each other too well. There is no legitimate argument against it from a libertarian perspective. Yes, there could be negative consequences. There can be negative consequences to drug use, gambling, prostitution, eating red meat, drinking,parachuting, the list goes on and on. The legalization of incest,IMO, would do little to increase incestuous relationships. I believe the cultural taboo is so strong that laws are unneccesary. The few individuals who wish to engage in incest should be allowed to do so.

I'm a Libertarian

There are concrete, psychological and physical reasons behind the vilification of incest, Quarkhead. You might make exceptions, such as ‘suppose they’re both fixed, suppose they are adults….’ But, the REALITY of the matter is, we cannot enforce those assumptions. A brother and sister don’t usually meet when they’re 18 and say, ’Hey, I’ve never noticed it before, but you’re really hot. Let’s both get fixed and have sexual intercourse.’

If you are going to realistically delve into a subject such as incest, you must base the outcome on some sort of real conclusion. The REALITY is, there are serious potential genetic consequences for the offspring (which is why biologists consider anything less than 5000 species a non-viable population, if memory serves. The minimum viable population differs depending on the species, but you get the point).

Some of the posters here have expressed their viewpoints concerning aids in Africa. Some have (properly, IMO) explained that barriers to natural behaviors are not enforceable (such as expecting people to abstain from sex), the solution lies in prevention through protection(education and awareness), rather than prevention through self-moderation. The taboo against incest is a preventative mearsure.... It is self- evident that non propagating incestual relationships which are strictly between consenting adults probably does no harm. However, suggesting the acceptance of that practice opens the floodgate to the problems I’ve mentioned again and again on this thread.

I agree with Vic and Hugo that the laws against it when both parties are consenting adults should be repealed. However I also agree with Mrs. P that the social taboos against it serve a positive purpose. So where does that leave me? In favor of repealing the laws, because I do not believe in George Will's notion of "statecraft as soulcraft." Laws are one thing, social taboos are another, and if the sole reason for retaining a law is to reinforce a social taboo, then I guess we're admitting that churches. families, and other institutions of cultural value transmission aren't doing their job properly. Ok, that's true, but let's fix them instead of abusing the law by making it perform an un-libertarian role.

Incest is unhuman. It is a moral outrage to have sex with your own blood.

Like ABS said, the consequences can result in psychological damage to the child which would result in things like schizophrenia & dissociative Identity disorder (Multiple Personality Disorder) It can also lead to depression.

There should be major laws against this (i think there are....it's called Child Abuse Laws)

The problem is, you've defined a more narrow form of this type of relationship. It could be sister/sister, brother/brother, etc.

By legitimizing gay marriages, we would have to accept gay incest marriages.

Some of us are grossed out by gay relationships and are against it for moral reasons, so we're labeled as narrow minded homophobes.

But if I want to marry my brother and practice monogamous sex with him (disclaimer: yuck), I should be allowed to.

When I stated what gay marriages could lead to in another thread, I was accused of using gross out tactics to derail a debate. A person for gay marriage was grossed out by incest, but I was the one labeled some-kind-of-phobe because I'm grossed out by the gay marriage. In other words, I'm not allowed to be grossed out by gays without being bigoted and prejudiced, but he/she was allowed to be grossed out by incest and that's ok.

So, the subject was separated to discuss this issue. Or just gross us all out...


Incest occurs in the wild all the time, so according to the promoters of gay marriages (who use this reason to support homosexuality as being natural), it should be perfectly natural for me to have sex with my sister (disclaimer: double yuck).

Of course, I should be able to abandon my family, eat my kids, and pee on the carpet using that logic.

First of all, I said nothing about psychological damge or depression resulting from incest. I said these were the results of child abuse, which was the focus of Pat's link on the previous page.

Secondly, incest isn't "unhuman," no matter how repulsive it may be to you personally. It's a naturally occurring event, whether intentional or not, both in humans and other members of the animal kingdom. It became a taboo in cultures because it can greatly increase the risk of genetic defects, which I believe has already been discussed. Were a couple to be without such defects, incestual reproduction would pose no more a problem than any other chosen relationship.


Not necessarily. We try not to allow people to abandon their family or eat their kids because we try to respect the rights and life of individuals in our societies. Abandoning, abusing or eating any individual unable to care for itself, placed under the responsibility and care of a parent, is not allowed because it neglects the rights of that individual. Peeing on the carpet, to the best of my knowledge, is not only legally allowed but also a common occurrence until we are trained (like any other animal) not to.

When we seek to ban either gay marriages or consentual incestual relationships, we infringe upon the rights of an individual, instead favoring social taboos. There's a difference between the abandonment, abuse or devouring of people and allowing them to marry people of the same sex and family.

And as repugnant as that premise is, I at least appreciate your lack of hypocrisy.

With all this, why have marriage? If any two people, including blood relatives, can marry each other, marriage becomes a mere formality to get additional benefits.

If we're going to use the law to enforce social taboos, then we're going to use the law to enforce morality, because while cultural anthropologists and philosophers may be able to distinguish between the two, the average voter and the average politician cannot. Shall we not then make anything at all that we disapprove of illegal? And if so, we no longer have any principled argument for limiting the role of government.

If we can make incest between consenting adults illegal, though there is no power relationship involved and no one's right are violated, then why not make drugs illegal? And pornography and prostitution, and gambling, and failure to attend church. And if we disapprove of inequality of income, as I know some here do, then let's make redistribution of income universal and mandatory. Bah! I say it's spinach and I say to perdition with it!

My, that slope sure looks slippery!

In fact, though, that average voter you mention can and does make distinctions between the "wrongness" of incest and the "wrongness" of gambling. It is possible and practical to outlaw one without the other, and even to have a logically consistent reason for doing so.

I’m assuming you aren’t suggesting we make America a massive, unrestricted red light district. In other words, legalization of prostitution is should be regulated in some way- at least restricted by zoning, away from neighborhoods. Drug use should be legal, but regulated (so as not to have the massive problem of discarded syringes, as the London subways once had). Pornography shouldn’t be distributed throughout nursery schoolyards. Is lewd and lascivious public conduct okay?

If you agree that some or all of these things should be regulated in some way, then you agree that the law has the power of ‘enforcing morality’ in certain cases. Why not incest, for the same reasons?

Anybody who believes that "non-reproductive incestual relationships between consenting adults" aren't colored by the power dynamics of the family is an idiot.

There, I said it. Nothing magical happens when a person turns 18 that suddenly frees them from any influence that other family members may have on them. This doesn't even begin to get into the realm of parents who so manipulate and dominate their children that somewhere a shrink is guaranteed a lifetime job. Does the girl who was totally dominated by her older brother suddenly become a "whole person" when she turns 18, or does he manipulate this "consenting adult" into the sack?

If its good enough at 18, then why should the brother wait? Why not 17, or 16, or... That's a lot of what MrsP is talking about with the "legitimization" of incest. Further, anybody who claims that the social taboo is sufficient is also an idiot.

We have a weak social taboo in America against spitting your gum onto the sidewalk. Singapore has a strong social taboo, and strong laws aginst it. Guess who has cleaner sidewalks? Guess who has to spend more time wiping gum off their shoes?

Divorce was once 'taboo', now the taboo is virtually non-existent, undermined by no-fault.

Laws and social taboos work together. Bastardy used to be taboo, now its subsidized, and voila, we have lots of it. There is no, none, zilch, zippo, nada reason for laws prohibiting public nudity, except as an expression of the taboos against public nudity. Yet, every civilization has both the laws and taboos against public adult nudity. Surely we should toss them as well...

All of those examples are at the community level. That's fine with me. If your town wants to designate "no incest" zones I guess I can live with that. I'll allow more scope for government intervention when it's at the local level, not state and certainly not federal. All on the Swiss Cantonment principle: let people have it their own way within their own community.

The idea of incest sickens me. I don't want to ever see or hear of it in my family.

When did we get the idea that in order to express love for one another we have to have a sexual relationship? There are so many other dimensions to love. My brother and I are friends as well as siblings.

There are power issues in incestuous relationships. It might indeed be hard to extricate these issues in order to determine that a sexual relationship was of each person's own free will.

My opinion is that incest is morally outrageous. But then, I would like to get Jerry Springer and his "trailer trash" boink-everybody-and-everything-in-sight show banned.

The August 2003 issue of Discover magazine would appear to suggest incest is not necessarily as bad as thought. I imagine that's the first impression anyone would get viewing an article titled, "Go Ahead, Kiss Your Cousin... Heck, Marry Her... If You Want to."

First, for those repulsed by even the mere practice of incest, some of the more notable products or participants of incest: the Rothschilds, the du Ponts, Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein.

A paragraph that sticks out goes on to say:
The article also states that "the children of first cousins face a 2 to 3 percent higher risk of birth defects than the population at large. To put it another way, first-cousin marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of abnormality that a woman undertakes when she gives birth at 41 rather than at 30."

A stat that may really creep you out later comes from Robin Fox, professor of anthropology at Rutgers University. According to her it's "likely 80 percent of all marriages in history have been between second cousins or closer."

In tackling the issue of why the practice is so shunned by mainstream America the article suggests:

I couldn't find the article, Abs. The link only shows articles through July 2003.

I believe the key word in the article is MODERATE. The most egregious problems with inbreeding are seldom the result of first generation mating. It is subsequent incestual pairings which have the most disastrous effects. The following link disagrees with your article… According to it, first cousin matings have 2.3 times a greater occurrence of congenital disorders, as well as higher mortality rates (provided in the second link). Offspring of blood-relative marriages tend towards lower intelligence, poor hearing and higher susceptibility to infections. Very close, continuous incestual breeding leads to unhardy and sterile offspring.

inbreeding depression



Mortality risk increases with inbreeding, even between cousins.
inbreeding depression 2

Those are first cousin stats. The potential problems are exponentially greater for siblings. Up to 42% of the offspring from sibling marriages, die before reaching reproductive age as a result of the expression of recessive lethals. I’ve actually worked out formulas expressing genetic potentialities and number of generations to extinction for closed societies, while in the University. The stats aren’t good, even assuming non sibling and non first cousin pairings.

THIS THREAD HAS BEEN CLOSED. PLEASE JOIN US IN A NEWER VERSION HERE: Incest

With the advent of closed adoption comes the risk of incestual relationships..Take for example a brother and sister are married, have a couple of kids only to find out they ARE indeed brother and sister? Then what? Do the kids need to be penalized their entire lives for the actions of their parents? How do you say this is wrong yet if it's happened its ok? Or do we go so far as saying ok well everyone has to undergo DNA testing before being married?

I mean if you want to take a biblical aspect the Lord destroyed the earth leaving 4 men and 4 women to reproduce and refill the population of the earth so somehow we are all related extremely distantly. Still related none the less..Where (and how) do you draw the line? (or even the example in the bible if a man dies his brother should take and care for his wife, then what? you have cousins that are also half brother and sisters to each other?)

I will concur that daddy doing his daughter over and over just to have kids, that is a little extreme yes. Or on the flip side Mom doing her son to have his children. Yes that also is extreme.

In other parts of the country marriages are arranged and usually between 1rst counsins (yet we in this country for the most part even shy away from that). There is a gray area to all of this somewhere and I honestly don't believe you can say it's totally correct or incorrect.

If people are that set on incest for the start and get "fixed" then who is it hurting? No one is asking it to be legalized or asking for any special benefit from it. And even the children of such said relationships (again see above for my first example) do not need to suffer because of acts their parents were not aware they commited until the deed was done. This is an extremely gray area to be sure