1. I would not like to try an incestuous relationship. It does not fit my life style or personal preferences.

2. I do not believe incest should be persecuted. Under certain conditions.
   a. Both parties are of legal age
   b. Both parties consent
   c. Both parties agree to use birth control to prevent conception and even secondary birth control in case that fails.

The third may sound strict and harsh, but I do not believe that it is morally just to risk genetic deficiency in a child, and further corrupt the human gene pool because of one's sexual passion for his/her family member.

4. Though I do not disagree with one's choice to pursue incestuous relations, I see the potential for abuse, which is why I am hesitant to accept it as a practice to be considered "safe and normal".  

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

I... understand society's issues with it. Society's selfish and egocentric. They need something to hate, well, several things, and anything not strictly common - ie, other than heterosexual intercourse and of late, homosexual intercourse - is a perfect target.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. As I said, it can be desirable. We do it with animals to create purebreeds. Why not with people too?

-------
When they leave me, they're all smiles.
When they leave you, they're in tears.

---

For the record, the "increased risk of defects" is pretty much bullshit. It's only increased if you have defective genes in the first place. It has an equal chance of bringing out desirable recessive traits.

I... understand society's issues with it. Society's selfish and egocentric. They need something to hate, well, several things, and anything not strictly common - ie, other than heterosexual intercourse and of late, homosexual intercourse - is a perfect target.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. As I said, it can be desirable. We do it with animals to create purebreeds. Why not with people too?

---

Incorrect.
While it is true that one act of inbreading does not typically yield some monster of genetics, the limitations of variability in genes creates a much greater chance of undesirable traits coming to the surface. The more inbreading, the greater the chance of bad traits coming through.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

I... understand society's issues with it. Society's selfish and egocentric.

---

right, because "society" is a giant sentient being. both you  and beautifulsorrow allude to "society" when you really mean "people who think incest is disgusting."

but more to the point: purebreds often run into health problems characteristic of a small gene pool. look at the cheetah: due to mass amounts of inbreeding, the species is no longer flourishing and they are endangered. i find it disturbing you promote incest as a form of eugenics.

Post edited at 6:48 pm on June 4, 2008 by SovSull

-------
what do i write here

---

Quote: from allsmiles at 5:21 pm on June 4, 2008

---

For the record, the "increased risk of defects" is pretty much bullshit. It's only increased if you have defective genes in the first place. It has an equal chance of bringing out desirable recessive traits.  

 I... understand society's issues with it. Society's selfish and egocentric. They need something to hate, well, several things, and anything not strictly common - ie, other than heterosexual intercourse and of late, homosexual intercourse - is a perfect target.  

 Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. As I said, it can be desirable. We do it with animals to create purebreeds. Why not with people too?

---

Incorrect.
While it is true that one act of inbreading does not typically yield some monster of genetics, the limitations of variability in genes creates a much greater chance of undesirable traits coming to the surface. The more inbreading, the greater the chance of bad traits coming through.

---

How does that bear relevance to a first generation, one off product of an incestuous relationship though? It's not like many outside the royals and amish (who are only running into genetic problems this past 30 years or so, about 350 years after their conception) are inbreeding for hundreds of years, and if they are, they're very much a tiny majority. Quite frankly, the reason it's considered so evil, ONE act of incest, even just consensual, protected sex, is because the big boys up top want(ed?) us to think so.

SovSull, I'm sorry if you don't consider that implicit to the word. Also, note: mass amounts of inbreeding. Mass amounts of sex generally causes overpopulation, and as a consequence famine. Should we think sex disgusting also?

-------
When they leave me, they're all smiles.
When they leave you, they're in tears.

If there are two consenting adults who would like to pursue a relationship (whether related or not) they should be allowed. However, that being said, I personally disagree with incestuous couples bringing a child into the world for the sake of the child.

Yes, there is a chance of defects in every birth but would you like to see your child born only to suffer from some horrible condition which causes THEM pain or suffering?

On a side note, I take the same stance on gay and lesbian couples but for a different reason. Parents are a vital part of every child's development process and not having a mother or father, in most cases, would be detrimental to the child. Also take into account the amount of bullying the child would be subject to at school etc. In a perfect world, same-sex couples would be as widely accepted by society as opposite-sex couples but we don't live in a perfect world.

-------
Alexander The Great.

If there is proper protection or the couple is unable to create children, I will never condemn any incestuous couple-- to their faces.  I can not help how I was raised.

I think the reason why so many people and families, including my own, have a problem with incest is that it takes away something that is sacred.  Incest allows relationships that are cultivated to be purely paternal and supportive to become sexual-- possibly creating awkwardness and gaps within the family.  Especially in cultures where families are very close, this is unacceptable.

-------
A billion Chinese can't be wrong: eat rice.

Post edited at 5:52 pm on June 29, 2008 by The Artful Dodger

---

The third may sound strict and harsh, but I do not believe that it is morally just to risk genetic deficiency in a child, and further corrupt the human gene pool because of one's sexual passion for his/her family member.

---

Therefore, your answer is still a typical society answer.<<

Considering that ALL humans are something like 99% genetically similar, I share "the same DNA" with everyone. Therefore, any sexual relationship I have, by your standards, would be considered to be an incestual one.


-------
This is my signature.

---

Quote: from Event Horizon at 4:16 pm on June 4, 2008

---

 The third may sound strict and harsh, but I do not believe that it is morally just to risk genetic deficiency in a child, and further corrupt the human gene pool because of one's sexual passion for his/her family member.  

---

This isn't just directed at you, but everyone else who included this as an example. What about couples who are high risk for genetic diseases? Would you apply this to them as well, why or why not?

---

I mean, if you already had the answer in your mind, why even ask the question?

-------
Character Speak: An LW Contest
Access Denied