So, what do you think of incest?

I can see it both ways. I find it disgusting for someone to find their brother/sister attractive. But I DO see where it has been used in an okay fashion in history. Some royal families or higher up classed people have "mated" with their own family members to keep their bloodline "pure". I can understand that, as there is no love or "attraction" it is purely to keep a bloodline as pure as possible.

Of course, in todays society with discoveries that incest born children have a higher rate of deformity, I do not believe anyone would think that it would keep the bloodline pure, as deformities and such are an "impure" thing.

However, in ancient times, when these high bloodline families would mate with their own to keep their bloodlines pure, I DO believe that they most usually killed any of their children born with deformities, but its been years since I studied such things. I can't even remember what country this sort of thing took place in.

 

I wouldn't say it's the right or the wrong way I just don't think it's "natural" for you to be attracted to your siblings. Also, you would have to get donor sperm because other wise if you were to have a child together it could potentially come out with deformities.

 

I think it's disgusting, makes me sick thinking of people having sex with their own blood.

 

I voted Not Right. In my eyes it's just a matter of respect towards your own family. There are things you just don't do, and this is one of them.

 

It's not really an issue I expend much time thinking about, and being honest, I don't care too much for it, but if I had to answer - It isn't something I agree on.

 

I can't believe this is even being discussed.

 

I don't think it is right, but if the given circumstances were that the partners were old enough to decide from themselves and there is no "forced pressure" involved then it I don't see a problem. Although I would find it strange.
So I voted "Incest is absolutely not right" unless they were pretty much old enough to decide from themselves.

 

I think there needs to be a middle option on the voting, because whilst you wanted specific arguments, I do fall into the category of live and let live. Whilst I personally would not consider participating in this activity, I can't see any harm in allowing others to participate as long as both of those involved were careful to ensure that they were avoiding pregnancy and that they both gave their consent and were of legal age. I personally would find it quite an odd thing to consider if somebody I knew admitted it to me, but nor would I judge them harshly.

 

With no spam, but who ever believe's incest in right are sick minded.

 

The reason I did not include a middle option is because I'm not concerned with how many people are indifferent towards the matter.

If somebody you knew admitted they were in an incestuous relationship, would you not judge them harshly because:

1. You don't care
2. You believe incest is right
3. You don't believe incest is right, but you don't believe criticizing other people's actions is right either ("live and let live")

If 1, then I'm sorry, there's no option for you in the poll. If 2, then pick that there is nothing wrong with incest. If 3, then pick that incest is absolutely wrong.

 

This shouldn't even be discussed because if the girl was to get pregnant, as there is a chance of that happening even with protection used, you could be bringing into the world a mentally retarded child or god knows what other possible illnesses. That in itself should tell you its wrong cause it goes against nature itself. It's just not meant to be.

 

If you're rejecting it because it cannot make healthy babies and hence, is not natural, then that means you'd have to reject homosexuality as well, as that type of relationship cannot even make babies, which is against nature's tendency to continue the survival of the species.

However, if you define natural phenomena by whether an act is practiced within an animal kingdom, then both homosexuality (Bonobos, for example) AND incest (again, Bonobos) could be considered natural.

Just a thought.

 

You should have added not only homosexuals but woman who can't have babies. Because no matter how hard she tries she cannot make babies therefore according to you would fit into that category as well right?
I never mentioned homosexuals, that was all you mate. Don't twist words to try to disprove what others say because anyone can do that. Your "thought" is way off.

We humans are different in retrospect to other animals. Diseases/illnesses are resistant in some animals more than others, so comparing us to any species of the animal kingdom is just wrong. Our DNA's are not the same nor are a whole load of different aspects.

 

Yes, which sounds silly. Don't forget, you're the one who claimed that "not making healthy babies" was a valid reason to justify why incest is wrong. I have discussed numerous times on previous posts why this is NOT a good reason (counter-examples with homosexuals, infertile couples, couples with genetic diseases such as sickle-cell anemia, and whatnot). What I'm giving here is a counter-argument, not a corroboration.

It's not twisting words - I'm using your logic to deduce other conclusions. If I hate cherries because (and only because) they are red, then I should hate red apples as well. You claimed that incest is wrong because you cannot make healthy babies. Well, a couple may get married despite them both having a genetic disease, such as sickle cell anemia. Does that mean that what they're doing is wrong? Of course not. But, according to the logic that you have presented to me, I would have to deduce that you do believe such a marriage is wrong. I doubt you'd really believe so - but all I'm doing is showing you how your reasoning is not convincing.

Your conclusion may be correct - don't get me wrong! But you're reasoning is incorrect, as I have shown.

I agree, definitely. But you'd be surprised at how many people justify, for example, homosexuality by saying "animals do it, too". It's used as an argument to show that it can be "natural". But, for more reasons than you have stated, I disagree with this. However, I will not discuss them, as we'd be going off-topic then.

Don't forget, I said IF you define natural phenomena by whether an act is practiced within the animal kingdom or not - obviously you don't, which is (in my opinion) a good thing.

 

It's very disgusting, I would never even think about it

 

That's not a very reasonable deduction. I'm sorry but something as complex as gene mutation as a result of incest cannot be compared to something as simple as hating something because it's red. Not to mention the many different other results that can happen besides mutation.

Another thing I must point out, again, is this marriage thing. Where have I mentioned that a marriage between these people is wrong? I'm talking about the act of sexual intercourse. And yes if these people were so sick(which is a complete different topic), I would DEFINITELY say that a sexual relationship between them is VERY wrong because if she was to get pregnant and decide to bring this child into the world, you'd be bringing a very sick child that can possibly be mentally retarded or worse and suffer from their disease their whole life (to me thats morally wrong, again a possible other discussion). But we aren't talking about a relationship/intercourse between a sick man and or woman, but incest meaning father/daughter... etc.

Again, I don't care who can make a child and who cannot, I don't care who marries who, but engaging in intercourse with the possibility of producing a possible abbomination against nature is wrong. Now to explore all possibilites, if they were to elminate the chance to make children by say vasectomy or tie a womans tubes, then according to my argument insect can be considered ok. Still, however, there's the aspect of how moral is it in ones opinion.

Yeah to me saying "animals do it, too" is just not an acceptable justification of ones argument, especially in this case.

 

Ah, so what I said is right - you don't agree with these types of people (people with genetic diseases) getting married because they may have sexual intercourse (marriage normally implies sexual intercourse), which could lead to having unhealthy babies. This, according to you, is "producing a possible abomination against nature" which, again according to you, "is wrong".

This is not a bad thing - it means you're sticking to your logic, which was what I was trying to show you before. Surely, we can agree on this: incestuous relationships, people with genetic diseases, etc. have the potential to get unhealthy babies from sexual intercourse. It's scientifically proven. Your "premise" is this - if sexual intercourse CAN produce unhealthy babies, then the entire act is wrong. If you agree to both of these premises, then logically, you'd have to agree with the conclusion that incest is wrong, and yes, even people with genetic diseases getting married is wrong too. Don't forget, marriage normally implies sexual intercourse.

However, I just want to ask one thing - if incestuous people opted to only practice safe sex, and get children through a different means, would you say the act is morally right now?

Edit: Just read that you'd accept incest if they, for example, performed a vasectomy. Ignore the last question!

 

Marriages don't always mean sexual intercourse. There are people who get married and treat it as a buisness deal, and only ingage in intercourse to reproduce and sometimes not even have sex but through artifical insemination. There are those couples who are asexual, meaning don't partake in any sexual act but are purely in an emotional relationship/marriage. Some marry for money to hide their sexual preference, for example a rich woman marries a man who she pays money to pretend they are in a real relationship cause she is a lesbian(I saw this on tv lol, the Mentalist) but hey it happens.

I still am NOT talking about marriage but purely the action of intercourse. Whether what I say means that marriage between them is wrong or not is not the point Im trying to get accross at all and am no longer going to care to comment if it continues to be discussed.

 

Yup, but I didn't say marriage always implies sexual intercourse. I said marriage normally implies sexual intercourse. Those cases you gave are not very common.

Okay, aside from marriage, you just believe that incest is wrong because it can create unhealthy babies. Correct?

 

From the "Nature" point of view yes. Morally/Socially that's another issue as it's, by a majority of people, looked down upon.