Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Im adopted and my sister is also adopted (from different parents) so we have no DNA in common at all. I still am absolutely disgusted by the remote thought of anything sexual with her. So this leads me to believe that we are programmed psychologically to reject the idea of intercourse with siblings, even non blood relations. So yes I think its definitely wrong. Im not religious either, I base this "wrong" purely on science/basic human morality.
Most animals do, unless you take steps to prevent it. Most animals will also exhibit homosexual behavior if there's not a suitable mate of the opposite gender.
A few days ago a two year old baby giraffe was killed at the Copenhagen Zoo. The zoo said the drastic move was needed to combat inbreeding. Captive animals are bred from a limited gene pool, zoos are monitored to prevent inbreeding and ensure the health of future generations.
The same thing can be said for humans but I can't conceive of anyone wanting to have sex or even marry a brother, sister or even a cousin.
Most animals do, unless you take steps to prevent it. Most animals will also exhibit homosexual behavior if there's not a suitable mate of the opposite gender.
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidty223
Where the hell did you get this from?
They probably got it from some gay rights website. You'll hear some of the most ridiculous arguments sometimes from biased people.
The Genesis story is just that, a story.
Humans were always part of a species of creatures similar to them.
I doubt that a single family could be the source of a viable population. Remember the story from a few months ago about an australian family that lived in the desert and had been reproducing in isolation ? By the 3rd generation there seem to have been a lot of sick and disabled people among them.
Your missing the point. Whether you believe in the book of genesis or not, the fact remains that the earliest human beings had to practice incest in order to reproduce. The further back in time you go, the less families there are.
The OP asks a valid question. How many of our taboos are fundamentally cultural, vs. essential to biology? For instance, it is a cultural taboo, in some cultures, not to eat pork. But with modern hygiene, presumably the risk of pork-borne parasites is miniscule, whence the taboo becomes strictly cultural. On the other hand, we have a taboo against eating excrement – for which, I dare say, there are also good biological reasons.
With incest, no doubt the consequences to reproduction are deleterious. But must we connect sex and reproduction? What about the case of men who have had vasectomies, or women who are past menopause and so forth… should sexual relations between such persons, who happen to be close relatives, still be taboo? What about a brother and sister, who are both in their 60s, both unmarried and without children, who share a household together, for economic reasons. What is so morally abhorrent about them having sex?
The OP asks a valid question. How many of our taboos are fundamentally cultural, vs. essential to biology? For instance, it is a cultural taboo, in some cultures, not to eat pork. But with modern hygiene, presumably the risk of pork-borne parasites is miniscule, whence the taboo becomes strictly cultural. On the other hand, we have a taboo against eating excrement – for which, I dare say, there are also good biological reasons.
With incest, no doubt the consequences to reproduction are deleterious. But must we connect sex and reproduction? What about the case of men who have had vasectomies, or women who are past menopause and so forth… should sexual relations between such persons, who happen to be close relatives, still be taboo? What about a brother and sister, who are both in their 60s, both unmarried and without children, who share a household together, for economic reasons. What is so morally abhorrent about them having sex?
You're mixing apples with oranges, and please tell me you weren't being serious with your latter statement...
It's understood that the potential for genetic defects is magnified should offspring result from sexual contact between closely-related individuals. However, that same potential exists for non-related individuals who know themselves to be carriers for specific genetically-transmitted diseases (Huntington's, Tay-Sachs, Sickel-cell, etc.). None of these individuals are legally precluded from engaging in sexual contact, or from reproducing.
Incest certainly has the potential to create a broad range of domestic and psychological discomfort. So, on a pragmatic level, it may be worth avoiding.
People are free to speculate how incest relates to their personal, religious, moral, and social beliefs; but in a legal sense, if those involved are legally capable of consenting to sexual contact--and choose to do so, it is no business of mine, yours, or the government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
