Everyone on the no side needs to calm down. Incest causes birth defects after the first generation and so on. Most of the royal family are products of incest. People need to calm themselves. What gives you all the right to decide who can love who? Last time I checked, your God decided all of this. And people have no problem producing children with horrible birth defects without incest.
Incest is misunderstood.
People should be able to fall in love with who ever they want to fall in love with. That goes for the brother who falls in love with the sister. There is nothing wrong with that.
Incest gets a bad rap because people think that it causes birth defects in the children. That isn't true. The child will likely have the same type of health that is in your family history. If your family history, as far as babies go, is relatively healthy, then you can expect a relativity healthy child.
There are benefits to an incest relationship. These go from security in your partners sex history relating to sexual disease, to the strong likely hood that the couple will have a stronger and more loving relationship compared to non incest relationships.
People should be aloud to love who they fall in love with. By telling people who are in a loving, long lasting, consensual, meaningful, and romantic incest relationship that their relationship is gross, sickly and wrong, then we are doing to them what the Christians and other people do to the gay community. There is a community of incest people who feel misunderstood, hated, and discriminated against because every one, not just religions people or polotitions, tell them that they are disgusting human beings. All this when most of us are just ignorant to the facts of relationships like theirs.
I won't tell them they are wrong. I would rather try to help them get the rights they deserve.
I love people who support gay marriage but are against incest marriage, especially when they use the same arguments used against gay marriage. Like for example I asked someone, who was for gay marriage but against incest marriage, on why they were against incest marriage, and they told me because it is disgusting. Well then with that logic republicans could keep gay marriage ban just because they thought it was "disgusting". Then after that they would tell me that incest would case birth defects (well ever heard of condoms/abortions?). Also, just like gay couples, family-related couples would more likely adopt children, so that would help many children who are owned by the state. Anyway, if you are against gay marriage and incest marriage, then you are against freedom and liberty.
The only issue I find is if a family becomes so insulated that underage children are raised in an environment of indoctrination to promote this sort of incestuous lifestyle.
A tremendous difference between this issue and same sex marriage, is the aspect of choice.
Gay people do not choose to be gay, but incestuous people choose to be partners with their family members, regardless of hetero or homosexuality.
A heterosexual man might find his sister beautiful, but he doesn't act on that aesthetic appreciation since they share the sibling bond. However, if he chooses to act on that attraction, rather than a natural attraction to other women, he is choosing to be incestuous.
Gay people can't choose to be heterosexual, but heterosexual people can choose not to be incestuous.
We should not confuse categories. Most people involved in consensual incest (consanguineous) relationships are heterosexual. Some LGBT people ARE in consensual incest relationships. Other LGBT people are supportive, some neutral, and some disgusted by the idea.
As with interracial, adult intergenerational, or gay sex/marriage, there is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against consanguineous sex or marriage. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in consanguineous sex or marriage, not why someone else shouldn't do it. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY consenting adults. Youthful experimentation between close relatives close in age is not uncommon, and there are more people than you'd think out there who are in lifelong healthy, happy relationships with a close relative. It isn't for everyone, but we're not all going to want to have each others' love lives, now are we?
Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. As I noted, some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry.
Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?
Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning.
Some say “There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either.
The only reason to not allow incestuous relationships is if there are children born from these relationships. It is not right to give anyone a congenital birth defect due to bad genetic mixing. As such if there are no babies, who cares if a brother and sister are having sex. As long as they are responsible.
Incest, like homosexuality, defies what some regard as natural law. These people are committing a fallacious appeal to nature. That which is natural is not always good, and that which is unnatural is not always bad. If one were to live one's life in accordance with natural law then issues such as rape, war, infanticide etc. etc. would stop being problematic. Incest, like any sexual act, which involves force, coercion etc. is wrong, if it is consensual then there is absolutely no reason for why it ought to be considered morally repugnant. This repulsion is simply how your brain is hardwired, because something like incest is not best for the future of one's species, but there is no rational basis for this repulsion.
I'm not certain whether or not consensual incest is legal, and while I'd be surprised if it isn't it definitely should be. The genetic relationship between two people does not determine how they will relate to each other as people, and if they find that they both want to have sex then it is their decision.
You should be able to be with who want. As long as you both adults and it consensual then i'm all for it. I don't think a incestuous couple should have children together, But that shouldn't mean they can't be together. If i happened to be single and my sister wanted to start something then i would definitely consider it.
In the case of incest, The only objective reasoning for forbidding incestuous relationships is the problems inbreeding can bring, Genetically speaking. However, First of all, This doesn’t apply to every relationship (more so in gay incestuous cases than in heterosexual ones, But generally, Because of the pressure that a child would trigger, And the obvious giveaway, Incestuous couples tend to avoid it altogether; this probably would change were it to be accepted, I am aware of it); second, The risk of genetically-induced diseases and malformations is “only” double the one in more “regular” relationships, With an actual amount of. 00032 percent chances.
As for their love being seen as immoral and “wrong”, However broad and subjective that last term is, So was homosexuality twenty to fifty years ago, So was interracial marriage around 60 years ago in the U. S.
Times are changing, And people along with it. If we grow accustomed to the idea of acceptance, The transition from “wrong” to “normal” (again, Very broad terms) will only be smoother.
Homosexuality is not really universally accepted, and I believe that the person who asked this question is well aware of this. A society is made up of many different opinions, and the majority of opinions around the world are, in fact, pro-family, not pro-sodomy. 70% of Americans are Christian. In fact it is the "progressive" (read: dictatorial) liberals who try to ram their agendas down the throats of the electorate. Gay marriage has just been passed in my nation of New Zealand, regardless of the fact that 60% of the populace is against it. The fascist "progressives" got around this by holding "Select Committees" who hear and review public submissions to try and get snapshots of public opinion, as opposed to a binding referendum. However, if these people believe that the public is behind them, then what are they so afraid of? Why won't they hold a referendum? The answer is, because they do not care about the public. They think they are smarter, and more "enlightened". Yes, these "progressives" are dragging us back to the 19th century views of many arrogant politicians that they "just know better". Progressive my ass. Also, interestingly, somehow these people decided that it would be appropriate to have 3 homosexuals on this "committee". Yes, my friends, that's right: Democracy is finished in New Zealand.
Moving on, incest IS a vile and disgusting practice. And yes, contrary to what another user on this site said about the issue, it does in fact cause abnormalities in the descendants of people who indulge in this sickening practice. Maybe no in the first, or even second generation, but it is an extremely widely known fact that incest does cause abnormalities. It's called inbreeding. Look it up.
Incest is wrong.
Homosexuality is wrong.
They are both sexual perversions, and both equally repugnant. However, note that I said the practices are repugnant, NOT the people. Therefore there are no grounds to call me a "hateful bigot" or any other demonising, trendy liberal buzzword that liberals love to throw at people who don't agree with them. And these people call themselves "tolerant". Ha.
Personally, I feel like two consenting adults should have the right to marry no matter what. However, there is significant evidence to support children created through incest have a much higher risk of birth defects and also less immune function/coverage. Males actually actually produce a hormone called andosterone which can be smelled in their sweat. Sweat also smells differently depending on what bacteria inhabits a person's body which is referred to as MHC ( major histocompatibility complex). Females are naturally attracted to the smell of men who have very different MHCs from them and are very unattractive to the smells of MHCs that are the same. This is thought to be to prevent incest in early humans. When you combine two sets of genes that are very similar you have create a less well rounded human and it's ultimately not advantageous for our species.
Not to say two incestuous people could not be great and loving parents. And not all incestuous relationships need result in a biological child i.e. two people of the same sex
It seems unfair to limit incestuous people in their right to have children but I feel like it's the only way to debunk almost every actual criticism against incest at this point.
God burned the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah for being perverted.
Everyone deserves the right to not be taken advantage of. In today's society, everything is becoming more and more perverted. In order to stop this perversion we as the whole human race must say No to laws supporting perverted people.
How can you even tie the two subjects together? Not to mention issues that relate to consent, power and control within the incestious relationship!
Incest creates birth defects, and let's face it, if you can't find a mate outside your own gene pool, then you probably need to be extinct!
Let's just start with the evolutionary side to this issue. In this article: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201210/the-problem-incest we are told that both animals and plants have evolved in some way or another to deter the act of incest. It also goes on to say that we as humans have developed psychological and social mechanisms to also avoid incest.
On top of that, there's the obvious problem on the physical side of things. Incest creates serious birth defects. The chart in the above link shows this to be a very obvious and very problematic effect. Children conceived from this act have a 50% chance of developing autosomal recessive disorder, congenital physical malformations, or severe intellectual disorders. Is it really any wonder why animals, plants, and, every human culture try to avoid incest?
As time carries on, we should be learning how to grow intellectually, but it seems some of us are so wrapped up in feeding every one of our various baser pleasures that we would allow ourselves to move backward. This needs to end.
Gay marriage nor incest but it did happen in the Bible...Http://www.Gotquestions.Org/incest-in-the-Bible. But note that God commanded against it after there were enough families to reproduce without 'marrying' (having sex) with your siblings. It was called a sin, (a wrong doing) after there were enough people on earth. Three more words
The reasons for making sex between relatives illegal is because of the potential birth defects, and to prevent abuses of trust in family relationships.
Whilst I agree that no one can control who they love, there are rational arguments for the illegality of incest, whilst there are none for criminalising homosexuality,
You are BLOOD related!! Family!! There are so many things wrong with that and I'm not saying this because I'm of a certain religion but because it is ridiculous! Love whoever you want but there are various types of love for various people!! Not only is this dangerous especially if it leads to pregnancies, etc. but it's socially damaging!! Imagine the rest of the families pain they'd suffer from I mean god forbid I ever have a intimate relationship with anyone in my family!
Incest does cause both defects I don't know who told you it doesn't I'm sure if you were to ask someone who has a degree in genetics or medicine they would tell you what incest does . Whomever told you incest is good lied only to further thier political agenda because you were dumb enough to fall for it.
If two people want to be together, they are free to do so.
Legalization just brings benefit of the union being recognised by the government and both parties and their offspring are protected by certain laws, which in turn stabilises the family unit (just think of it, I'm not writing details), and in turn society. If the government were to legalise incest it would destabilize the basic family unit or even destroy it. Incest is not hereditary(or it already died out), but homosexuality is (I think). Legalizing gay marriage would not disrupt the basic family unit. Equating the two is not valid I believe.
Again, you can't choose your family, the only thing you can choose is that significant other. Granted the many individuals in this world, let them choose what they may, who they may, for whatever reasons they may have be it love, money, sexual inclination etc.
Legalization of anything should be for the good of a nation. Not just so two individuals or thousands should be happy or even the nation. If the government were to distribute its treasury to the nation. That would be happy, but would it be good.