I'm fairly sure most (all) of us feel parent/child incest is wrong, and for fairly obvious reasons.
However, if a brother and sister are very careful about pregnancy prevention or, better, one or both of them is unable to conceive, what would be wrong with it?
BTW, I'm NOT trying to decide whether to do it with my sister (LOL). This is just a question that came to mind while in a discussion with another person.
i find this post rd on Google and had to join in this little talk first i would like to i I'm not a troll i would have never upload my picture up here I'm questions here to ask questions and see what u people think as a man of science i feel its my job to all way ask science I've seen something about this subject as a kid on the new is brother and sister incest really that wrong i seen this brother and sister on the news living together and even walk around in day light handing hands and people yelling out names out them yet they keep there heads hold high and they want to get married one day i had all ways had a open mind but lets go to the question of gay married for a sec the main reason why people say they should not get married is because its not right in the eyes of god or same sex people can not have kids but same people say if its for love they have ever right to get married mind u we humans are the people who write the bible i do believe in god i also believe want ever u believe u will go when u die that's will u will when u die if u believe gays have the right to marriage for love then why not brother and sister for love and fact all most anyone for love this is the main reason the government does want to make gay marriage legal because if they give that right to gays they have to give to everyone who wants marriage like brother and sister and so on and this guy its right kids are having sex at younger ages i know 12year old's who are have sex and same with older men and that fact but that not a subject or the subject of rape or sex slave the fact that things are going on like that in this world just j really piss me off if i ever met a men who do any like rape or sex with kids i would not be able to stop myself from killing right I'm a little of topic tell me want u guys think troll are welcome if u have no life
Let me guess. Instead of going to English class and doing your English homework, you were praying, right? Come back with some capitalization, paragraphing, and punctuation and you're likely to get a better response.
I think you're basically asking "If we let gays get married, isn't that a kind of slippery slope? Brothers and sisters getting married. Fathers and daughters getting married. People and their pets or their cars. Where does it stop, right?"
Before you answer, notice how much easier it is to read and understand someone who uses capitalization, paragraphing, and punctuation.
i was having trouble reading this too and chose to skip it
i was also thinking of responding with something like Unseen's last paragraph
e.g., at least a little sentence separation makes it a lot easier to read
almost all people here who's 2nd language is english write very well, compared to this
You realise gays already get married, right? Its simply a matter of federal recognition of state laws. So if it hasn't led to other matters like incest already, why would you think that this will change because of federal recognition. Let me say that again. Gays already get married in 11 states in the USA.
And, two days ago, In New Zealand.
Seeing the giant protest in France against it, I was tempted to post news footage of the protest which ensued in Wellington. 6 or 7 bedraggled protesters standing in the dark across from Parliament. Very useful in demonstrating that gay marriage is, in New Zealand, NBT, as it should be everywhere.
Yes, once the two primary concerns of genetic problems and abuse by one sibling of the other (primarily a much older sibling enticing a younger one into a situation where they are unable to give informed consent), then what one is left with is a social taboo with little foundation in science or even common sense..
If incest was 'allowed', could it become 'normal' in certain places? And then the gene pool would reduce by a considerable factor. Probably best to regulate against it.
It is possible that one of the reasons for the leaps in human intelligence is because of the widening gene pool, dominant genes wiping out recessive genes, intelligence being attractive to potential mates, etc. The last thing we want to do is reduce the size of the gene pool.
Also, considering the website we are on here, religion is spread through families. My wife was borderline religious when I met her, believing there must be some supernatural deity somewhere who made all the mountains, flowers, cute animals and people. Having to suffer/enjoy (delete as appropriate) every scientific and natural history programme on radio and TV and being dragged round my favourite museums for the last 25 years (she drags me round shops, stately homes and gardens) has convinced her that there is no god (or she just says that to shut me up). My children are atheists.
I have seen many people in Walmart who probably shouldn't be allowed to procreate with anyone, imagine what would happen if they had children with their brother/sister? The human race would be doomed!
"In the case of an increased risk of bad genes, well that argument can be equally applied to heterosexual couples trying to produce children."
From an article Inbreeding In Humans
When discussing inbreeding, one of the most important values to be concerned with is the inbreeding coefficient. The inbreeding coefficient represents the probability that an offspring will receive a gene from each parent that is a copy of a single shared ancestral gene. The inbreeding coefficient is zero if the parents do not share a common ancestor, and if the inbreeding coefficient is one than the offspring has a 100% chance of receiving two copies of the ancestral gene. However, this maximum inbreeding coefficient of one cannot be achieved in human populations (Dorsten 1999).
In western civilization consanguineous marriages and human inbreeding have been frowned upon by society for some time now. In fact, statutes passed in the 19th and early 20th centuries made inbreeding and marriages to the first cousin level illegal in the majority of the United States. The earliest recorded study of inbreeding and its effects on human health was reported by Bemiss in 1858. Charles Darwin became very interested and upset at this idea that children of .....
What part of 'normal' implies that everyone does it? Homosexuality is 'normal', not everyone is homosexual. Driving a car is 'normal' and not everyone drives a car. What an odd thought process you have.
What I was alluding to was that if it is acceptable for siblings who cannot have offspring or who decide never to have offspring to enter into a relationship, that would 'normalise' that type of relationship and others would see that it was acceptable.
Eventually there would be siblings in relationships who did produce offspring, by accident or design, and that could then become 'normal'.
I know there are a lot of 'what ifs' in there but this discussion was started by someone playing devil's advocate and I am adding to it in the same vein. I am not a biologist and do not purport to know what the full effect, if any, would be on the gene pool.
From what I have seen and read with regard to reproduction in the animal kingdom, incest does not seem that common, but I might be totally wrong there too (prepares to be flamed.) This article is not definitive but is interesting reading non the less http://www.livescience.com/2226-incest-taboo-nature.html
But we want to preserve recessive genes. A world without blondes or redheads? No more cute freckled girls? We'd also lose blue, gray, and green eyes. Straight hair is the recessive gene.
Strangely, (t)here are some dominant genes that do not often express themselves. Extra toes are dominant but are not common. Fingers that lack a joint, extra fingers, fused fingers and short fingers are also dominant. A straight thumb is dominant while a "hitchhiker's" thumb is recessive. A bent little finger illustrates a dominant gene, while a straight little finger characterizes a recessive one. (source)