Should incest be legal?

[The Zeonic States]

Sure; My family a few generations Ago was related by blood and the marriages between the families today would be considered Incest if that had remained true as such its mostly just related distantly through marriage two or three generations ago.

I don't have any issue with it

[Great Nepal]

No, it shouldnt. The human body is naturally programmed to not be sexually attracted to the people they are brought up with/by.

Good.
So that means if incest is legal, we wont see any significant difference.

[Ceannairceach]

No, it shouldnt. The human body is naturally programmed to not be sexually attracted to the people they are brought up with/by.

That may be more of a cultural norm than a genetic rule. Mind sourcing that?

[Norstal]

No, it shouldnt. The human body is naturally programmed to not be sexually attracted to the people they are brought up with/by.

That may be more of a cultural norm than a genetic rule. Mind sourcing that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect

Come on people. It's on the first page.

[Ceannairceach]

That may be more of a cultural norm than a genetic rule. Mind sourcing that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect

Come on people. It's on the first page.

...Who reads the first page?

[The Holy Twig]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect

Come on people. It's on the first page.

...Who reads the first page?

Who reads?

[South Samarchy]

Nowa I maself am a Redneck, Hick that personally supports incest & dunt tink it's any of da Government's business who people choose to have sex, marry or have children with. As long as both parties consent there is nothing wrong with incest. Yes I understand that incest can cause deformites, mutations & disabilities in the wee babys produced from it (but come on that's not all bad), mutants are awesome, it makes the population like Delivernce characters. (Diliverance kicked ass ). Not to mention what about non-incestuous relationships between people with genetic disorders? (I myself have Autism), do you think I shound't be allowed children because of my disability (I don't wan't kids or a romantic relationship, but obviously still have needs).
Non-incestuous sex between people with genetic disorders carries the same risks of incest. Finally another reason why I support incess, is that as a narcissus having my sexual partners related to me is a big turn on. In fact one of my biggest sexual fantasies is fucking a female version of ma self....Mmmmmmmm Now dats hot

[The Emerald Dawn]

No, it shouldnt. The human body is naturally programmed to not be sexually attracted to the people they are brought up with/by.

And the female body has mechanisms in place to prevent pregnancies because of rape.

[Zottistan]

Be nice. All God's snowflakes are special.

Anyway, I'm still not seeing how it is evidence. It seems like it would be a very large assumption that things then and things now are the same. Like plonking a fish in milk and expecting it to breathe.

Because human biology hasn't changed all that much in a few hundred years. Health care has, and diagnosis of various diseases has. But semen go in, baby come out, that's stayed pretty much level.

Culturally? Doesn't matter. Law can't change people's minds with regards to culture, only time can, when combined with exposure.
Ethically? Doesn't matter. Law can't change ethics, it can only punish the lack of it.

So that leaves biology.

Biologically, the only evidence we have of what prolonged intrabreeding does to humans is the well documented European Royalty.

So you're going to have to prove that the incidence of genetic malformity is high enough that the outlawing of incest/intrabreeding meets the needs for maintaining the laws against it.

If you can't, then you're legislating because of "ew, gross". And that's a piss-poor reason for anything.

Cultural differences between then and now do indeed matter. Back in the day, monarchs were God's chosen, and peasants were filth. There could be no fornicating with filth. Today, it's much more acceptable. Biology had little to do with why the monarchs of Europe engaged in incest, it had to do with what was expected of them and what standards they were held to. Culture.

[Ceannairceach]

No, it shouldnt. The human body is naturally programmed to not be sexually attracted to the people they are brought up with/by.

And the female body has mechanisms in place to prevent pregnancies because of rape.

Mr Akin, what are you doing here!?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Because human biology hasn't changed all that much in a few hundred years. Health care has, and diagnosis of various diseases has. But semen go in, baby come out, that's stayed pretty much level.

Culturally? Doesn't matter. Law can't change people's minds with regards to culture, only time can, when combined with exposure.
Ethically? Doesn't matter. Law can't change ethics, it can only punish the lack of it.

So that leaves biology.

Biologically, the only evidence we have of what prolonged intrabreeding does to humans is the well documented European Royalty.

So you're going to have to prove that the incidence of genetic malformity is high enough that the outlawing of incest/intrabreeding meets the needs for maintaining the laws against it.

If you can't, then you're legislating because of "ew, gross". And that's a piss-poor reason for anything.

Cultural differences between then and now do indeed matter. Back in the day, monarchs were God's chosen, and peasants were filth. There could be no fornicating with filth. Today, it's much more acceptable. Biology had little to do with why the monarchs of Europe engaged in incest, it had to do with what was expected of them and what standards they were held to. Culture.

But why create a law designed to stop something from happening that won't happen, if what you're saying is true. Culture only matters if the law was the only thing stopping millions of brother/sister/father/mother/aunt/uncle/grandparent/greatuncle/greataunt fuckfests. If the incidence is so low as to be culturally irrelevant, as you contend, then the law needn't exist.

[Zottistan]

No, it shouldnt. The human body is naturally programmed to not be sexually attracted to the people they are brought up with/by.

And the female body has mechanisms in place to prevent pregnancies because of rape.

You know, I actually spent a few days pondering how such mechanisms would work and what kind of differences they would make to today's society. 'Tis great to be bored.

[The Emerald Dawn]

And the female body has mechanisms in place to prevent pregnancies because of rape.

You know, I actually spent a few days pondering how such mechanisms would work and what kind of differences they would make to today's society. 'Tis great to be bored.

Seriously. I was trying to figure out if there was some sort of "fear-induced chemical" that could be at work. Maybe adrenaline causes the egg to not latch onto the uterus? Then I realized that I was wasting time I could be spending learning to juggle while singing.

[The Holy Twig]

Guys, now that I look at the quiz again, I noticed something odd.

There's the option "Family members should be allowed to have sexual relationships and get married." Followed by the option "Family members should be allowed to have sexual relationships, get married, and have kids"

For the 11% that voted for "They should be allowed to have sexual relationships and get married" without kids... What happens if they have kids? Is there a fine? Do Obama death squads haul them off?

[Illestia]

No, it shouldnt. The human body is naturally programmed to not be sexually attracted to the people they are brought up with/by.

Then why should there be any legislation at all?

And aside from that: It still happens, doesn't it?
I find the arguement actually pretty weird. The human body is also naturally programmed to NOT digest milk properly in a lot of cases (the ability to digest it at all as an adult is just about 8000 years old, evolutionary speaking a mere fraction of a second), so does that mean there should be legislation to ban milk for every person over the age of 2?

(Yes, its a bad example, but i think my point can be understood from it)

[Antiliberalbis]

Ah, slipperly slope. Just got gay marriage into people's heads and now you've skipped all the way to incest. You liberals and your "pushing moral boundaries" scheme never ceases to amaze me.

[Zottistan]

You know, I actually spent a few days pondering how such mechanisms would work and what kind of differences they would make to today's society. 'Tis great to be bored.

Seriously. I was trying to figure out if there was some sort of "fear-induced chemical" that could be at work. Maybe adrenaline causes the egg to not latch onto the uterus? Then I realized that I was wasting time I could be spending learning to juggle while singing.

I always likes the idea of some chemical induced muscle contraction that would crush the penis.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Seriously. I was trying to figure out if there was some sort of "fear-induced chemical" that could be at work. Maybe adrenaline causes the egg to not latch onto the uterus? Then I realized that I was wasting time I could be spending learning to juggle while singing.

I always likes the idea of some chemical induced muscle contraction that would crush the penis.

If adrenaline caused the woman to go Jennifer Walters down there, I think rape would happen less frequently. Not necessarily not at all, some guys may be into cock-crushage. I don't judge.

[The Holy Twig]

I always likes the idea of some chemical induced muscle contraction that would crush the penis.

If adrenaline caused the woman to go Jennifer Walters down there, I think rape would happen less frequently. Not necessarily not at all, some guys may be into cock-crushage. I don't judge.

Penis-crushing is the best.

[Illestia]

Guys, now that I look at the quiz again, I noticed something odd.

There's the option "Family members should be allowed to have sexual relationships and get married." Followed by the option "Family members should be allowed to have sexual relationships, get married, and have kids"

For the 11% that voted for "They should be allowed to have sexual relationships and get married" without kids... What happens if they have kids? Is there a fine? Do Obama death squads haul them off?

I was one of the 11% so i'll explain.

they could/should? be discouraged from having kids because of the genetics arguement (because if only ONE incestous couple would have a handicapped child there would under guarantee be an immidiate outcry of "SEE? We told you so!". So in the name of peace i was willing to go with a compromise).

If they do happen o have kids: Well, so? People with hereditary diseases aren't forbidden to have kids either, arn't they?
Yes, doctors will tell them that they might want to reconsider but if they want to have kids they can.

And btw: What's with the "Obama death squads"? I mean, aside from not being american and therefor not being directly affected by who the us presindet is i am really curious why anything left of romney nowadays gets the "obama-something" treatment? Not everything is his fault, ya know^^

[South Samarchy]

...Who reads the first page?

Who reads?

Nowa listen up good Bwoy. The Westermarck effect is a merly a generalization, it applies to most people. (but not all people), sexual attraction affects everybod differently. I myself for example am a compleate individualist, who has absolutely no regards for societal norms and taboos. I like what, aignt nobody gona tell me what I can & can not like. I am most certanitly not affected by no FOOKING Westermarck effect. As I previously mentioned having my sexual partners related to me is a big turn & one of my biggest sexual fantasies is fucking a female version of ma self. Infact I have a few hot Cousins & Aunty's I wouldn't mind fucking.

[Darkarbia]

I'm not sure about siblings in general having kids per se, they should test for that first. Otherwise go ahead, it's not of my business to look into other people's bedrooms (with or without a telescope). But sibling ADULTS? Hell no

[Ceannairceach]

I'm not sure about siblings in general having kids per se, they should test for that first. Otherwise go ahead, it's not of my business to look into other people's bedrooms (with or without a telescope). But sibling ADULTS? Hell no

As apposed to sibling children...?

[The Emerald Dawn]

I'm not sure about siblings in general having kids per se, they should test for that first. Otherwise go ahead, it's not of my business to look into other people's bedrooms (with or without a telescope). But sibling ADULTS? Hell no

As apposed to sibling children...?

Did Adam and Eve's kids not get it on?

[Zweite Alaje]

Ah, slipperly slope. Just got gay marriage into people's heads and now you've skipped all the way to incest. You liberals and your "pushing moral boundaries" scheme never ceases to amaze me.

I agree, but don't know if poster is serious or committing an act of satire.