For example, take a "blue lagoon" scenario, except the boy and girl would be related. Do you think they would end up having sex with each other, despite the fact that they were brother and sister?

Does that make it okay?

Would people understand it if they went back to normal society?

10/3/2005 8:26:26 PM

i thought they were related in blue lagoon

10/3/2005 8:35:24 PM

Read your Bible!

10/3/2005 8:35:53 PM

biologically it is "bad" because it reduces genetic variation in a population, leaving that population more susceptible to disease and it makes the society less adaptable.

10/3/2005 8:41:42 PM

most def. probably the reason it became wrong in most places is b/c of the obvious genetic reasons... they probably saw it and developed a way of avoiding it through stigma... we tend to do that kind of thing.

10/3/2005 9:18:55 PM

So if two people genuinely have consentual sex and they are related, is that a crime prosecutable under law? "Crimes against nature" comes to mind.

Because some people say they are for abortion in cases of "rape and incest," with "incest" probably meaning "dad rapes the daughter" and not consentual incest.

10/3/2005 9:31:59 PM

Quote :

"So if two people genuinely have consentual sex and they are related, is that a crime prosecutable under law?"

Yes.

Quote :

"Because some people say they are for abortion in cases of "rape and incest,""

Both rape and incest are crimes.

10/3/2005 9:40:24 PM

So is the law a crime against nature or what

10/3/2005 9:40:50 PM

Quote :

"The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: SECTION 1. G.S. 14-178 reads as rewritten: "§ 14-178. Incest between certain near relatives. (a) The parties shall be guilty of a felony in all cases of carnal intercourse between (i) grandparent and grandchild, (ii) parent and child or stepchild or legally adopted child, or (iii) brother and sister of the half or whole blood. (b)Every such offense is punishable as a Class F felony. (c)This section applies only if the parties are 16 years old or older. This section does not apply if one of the parties is a minor. Conduct covered under this section, and committed against a minor under 16 years old, is unlawful and shall be prosecuted as provided under other provisions of applicable law." SECTION 2. G.S. 14-179 reads as rewritten: "§ 14-179. Incest between uncle and niece and nephew and aunt. (a) In all cases of carnal intercourse between uncle and niece, and nephew and aunt, the parties shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (b)This section applies only if the parties are 16 years old or older. This section does not apply if one of the parties is a minor. Conduct covered under this section, and committed against a minor under 16 years old, is unlawful and shall be prosecuted as provided under other provisions of applicable law." SECTION 3. This act becomes effective December 1, 2001, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date."

10/3/2005 9:44:08 PM

Remmber discussing this in Sociology, don't ask me ot explain this is all I remember:
Incest is the only law/disapproval/rule that is known to exsist in all known societys, in other words, at the least incest is shunned. This is the only "law/rule" that applies across the bar like this. And you can't say it's disapproved purely because of genetic factors, some societys are aware of this factor, and the genetic implications aren't horrible or devastating. Not everytime relatives reproduce does it turn out horribly, it's a fairly low percentage, still significant though. Just a little input. want more info, ask someone who has taken a sociology higher than 202.

10/3/2005 10:03:09 PM

I am overal libertarian when it comes to civil rights but I draw a distinct line at incest and beastiality. Incest crosses a line that should not be crossed.

I my view: Sex should be between consenting adult human parters who are not direct blood relatives.

Open enough but rape, incest, animals are the "no-no"s

10/3/2005 10:14:37 PM

Quote :

"Incest is the only law/disapproval/rule that is known to exsist in all known societys"

"

Is this only modern societies? I mean I've always heard older (pre-modern) societies that there was atleast some incest acceptable between noble houses.

10/3/2005 10:22:12 PM

All European royal houses were cross-fucking like crazy. Many point to this as a likely reason why they had so many health problems.

10/3/2005 10:38:32 PM

...

Quote :

"For generations, the hugely successful Rothschild banking family practiced intermarriage among cousins in order to preserve the family's penchant for financial brilliance. The billionaire duPont family in America practiced the same thing for the same reasons."

American "royalty" did the same thing.

10/3/2005 10:44:28 PM

It's been suggested as the reason why hemophilia was present in European royalty. Interestingly enough, though, there were virtually no female hemophiliacs until modern times (it's a recessive gene). But ever since hemophilia support groups started forming, they've become more common.

I can't remember the exact math involved, but if you work out the probability, cousin incest doesn't have much of a risk of passing on genetic disease.

If you look at it from the evolutionary perspective, it makes sense to shun direct-family incest (too much risk), but not cousin incest--this one lets you pass on your own genes yet still cut down on the risk of allowing harmful mutations to persist.

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 11:00 PM. Reason : and I believe this is the trend seen in most "primitive" cultures]

10/3/2005 10:47:09 PM

obviously it's biologically bad, but equally obviously, it's a socially created wrong. I mean, it has to be a social decision how related you can be for it to be "ok." second cousins? third?

10/3/2005 11:01:18 PM

no worse than homosexuality.

10/3/2005 11:02:12 PM

Quote :

"obviously it's biologically bad, but equally obviously, it's a socially created wrong."

There are quite a few aspects of human society that correlate with biology.

Read Edward O. Wilson's Sociobiology or Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene for more information.

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 11:05 PM. Reason : misplaced ']

10/3/2005 11:05:13 PM

"Incest" often doesn't refer to cousin relations, for whatever reason -- the increased genetic variation, the many degrees of cousin, whatever. I imagine what the sociology position is really saying is that incest as defined by NC law is universally rejected. I can't remember any instances of father-daughter or brother-sister marriage being considered acceptable anywhere in the world.

10/3/2005 11:20:58 PM

Quote :

"30: And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31: And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33: And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34: And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our Father. 35: And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 36: Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. 37: And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. 38: And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day."

10/3/2005 11:23:32 PM

Quote :

" Is incest a socially created wrong?"

Nature needs genetic variation for the best randomization of the gene pool, which is a fundamental advantage becuase it makes evolution more successful.

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 11:32 PM. Reason : - ]

10/3/2005 11:31:38 PM

Quote :

"For example, take a "blue lagoon" scenario, except the boy and girl would be related. Do you think they would end up having sex with each other, despite the fact that they were brother and sister? "

Hey 0.....do you have a hot sister or something?

10/3/2005 11:39:17 PM

Obviously you haven't heard of Lott and his sultry daughters.

10/4/2005 12:53:02 AM

Quote :

"I my view: Sex should be between consenting adult human parters who are not direct blood relatives."

A lot of people are saying this, but what does "direct" mean here?

First of all, ALL humans are blood relatives of each other.

But, more to the point, what about nth cousins, where n > 1?

Are those "direct" blood relatives?

And regardless, is it OK for them to marry in your view point or not?

10/4/2005 2:29:07 AM

If you're gonna let guys bwn, you should let cousins bwn.

Havin babies is something to think about, but you should let em bwn.

10/4/2005 2:32:52 AM

gays w/condoms = incest w/condoms

10/4/2005 2:46:33 AM

Quote :

""Incest" often doesn't refer to cousin relations, for whatever reason -- the increased genetic variation,"

Incest actually causes a build up of deleterious and lethal traits over time. Banging your cousin has about the same effect as doing anyone else in your family. There isn't much variation at that level. The genetic term for incest is cosanguity.

Quote :

"First of all, ALL humans are blood relatives of each other. "

That's a stretch. We have a huge amount of variability--just look at physical appearance. Even if you go by that view we've diverged quite a lot genetically since then.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 10:51 AM. Reason : a]

10/4/2005 10:47:47 AM

cross-cousins are okay, and in many societies that is the preferred method of reproduction/marriage

10/4/2005 12:52:25 PM

This is definitely a socially created wrong. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with any two adults having consentual sex.

I think the same goes with bestiality. We only hate it because the bible says its wrong and because its horribly disgusting. I guess you could say its non-consensual because the animal cant technically give consent, but no one really gives a damn about animal consent.

10/4/2005 2:08:38 PM

Where's AlterEgo in this thread?

10/4/2005 2:13:05 PM

i'd bwn my 3rd cousin if i could

10/4/2005 2:21:20 PM

From my genetics textbook:

Quote :

"The genetic risk to the offspring of marriages between related people is not as great as is sometimes imagined. The absolute risks of abnormal offspring (stillbirth, neonatal death, and congenital malformations) for marriages between first cousins is 3 to 5 percent, about double the overall background risk of 2 to 3 percent for offspring born to any unrelated couple. Consanguinity at the level of third cousins or more remote relationships is not considered to be genetically significant, and the increased risk of abnormal offspring is negligible in such cases."

Basically confirms what I said earlier.

10/4/2005 3:53:16 PM

Quote :

"Nature needs genetic variation for the best randomization of the gene pool, which is a fundamental advantage becuase it makes evolution more successful."

Not exactly.

The gene's "goal" is to pass itself on; the best way to do that is to keep it in the family, where there are likely to be more copies of itself. This returns to what I said earlier, about balancing the risk against the continued proliferation of the gene.

Dawkins does a good job of explaining this line of reasoning.

10/4/2005 3:56:39 PM

Diluted proliferation is better than quarantining a gene within a family - raising the chance that a bad gene is expressed in offspring.

Well, if we're talking about people that is

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 4:16 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2005 4:15:22 PM

It's all about your perspective. It's hard to explain this point in a short space (which is why I recommend reading Dawkins' book if you want a thorough elaboration), but I'll try to give a brief idea.

If you take the absolute evolutionary perspective, you cut out the idea of a higher purpose for a biological creature. There is no eventual goal. The purpose of a gene is merely to proliferate itself. Anything that keeps that gene reproducing and dominant will be retained; anything that doesn't will not.

So look at the situation from that view. If the carrier of the gene mates with someone from a different population, the gene may be shut off by genes from the other source. Staying within the same population carries a greater likelihood of having multiple copies of that particular gene. However, staying within too close of a population raises the risk of spreading homozygous deleterious mutations which will cut down the reproductive viability of the organism.

If you then carry that perspective further, and consider human societal behaviors to be at least partially genetic, then people will try to protect their own genes and yet also limit that same risk of allowing a harmful gene to double up in the offspring. Cousin mating addresses both of those.

From a greater perspective, yes, it makes more sense to spread genes around and increase diversity. Genes, however, don't have that perspective.

10/4/2005 4:33:12 PM

The story of Lot and his two daughters is irrelevent for this discussion. The Bible doesn't condone this course of behavior, it simply states it as having occured. If anything, it may have been included as a slander against the Moabites and the Ammonites, but that's a different issue.

As for incest in general, I think that the sibling incest thing is wrong, both morally and biologically; there must be a reason afterall that every human civilization has frowned upon, if not completely condemned, such behavior. As for cousins, I think that the second cousin rule is reasonable; first cousins may have made sense in the old days, when few people ever ventured 50 miles beyond their village during their lifetimes and thus, the choices were far fewer.

10/4/2005 5:12:41 PM

The following is my philosophical look at this, and my attempt to make a reason based (rather than faced based) argument for why incest is wrong. My most basic principle is that principles that cause undue harm are bad, and that principles that cause benefit are good - but not required. That is my absolute principle that underlies all my first principles. I am open to applying a different absolute principle, or first principles if people suggest any. My conclusion is that incest is wrong, more wrong as the relative is more related, and that homosexuality is not wrong.

Quote :

"gays w/condoms = incest w/condoms"

The only principle I can abstract from this, with its emphasis on condoms, is sex without the goal of procreation is wrong. I could just as easily make the claim that masturbation, or having sex with a blow up doll is just as bad as incest if I wasn't going to back up what I was claiming. Or even say heterosexual relations with non related parties w/ condoms = incest w/ condoms. I think claims like that should have more background.

Biologically speaking it seems to be decided that there is no imperative, or atleast it is only genes "want" to pass themselves on, which isn’t very substantial.

To make a moral claim about incest I think we have to have a starting principle that we build upon, rather than simply claiming incest is wrong. I think such a principle could be something like "P1:people have the right not to have their life opportunities unfairly limited” therefore “we have a duty not to have children when we cannot give them a reasonable chance at life.”

This could be applied in cases such as saying the extremely poor with no access to resources should not go off having lots of children at that time, but protected sex is still okay.

In the case we are interested in we could apply it to the effect of incest is increasingly worse as the relatives are increasingly more related because it increasingly violates the duty we have based off the rights of individuals.

When applied to the gay case though this right is not violated.

The steps I’m going through to do this is:
1) First Principle w/ rights & duties
2) Application to extreme poverty case
(I include this, b/c it’s a pretty good litmus test, if a first principle in application says being poor is wrong, or poor people can’t enjoy the fundamental rights we do, then we know something is off with our first principle)
3) Application to incest case
4) Application to gay case

If our first principle is “P2:one ought not to have sex without intending procreation” then in application to the extreme poverty case, if you accept P1, then the extremely poor could never have sex. In the incest case it would only say sex without the intention of kids is wrong. In the gay case it would say all gay sex is wrong.


If you wanted to broaden that first principle “P3:to sex is only okay in relationships where the act of intercourse strengthens the unity between the couple, which is a good which helps in the raising of a child” in the first case it would allow sex, in the 2nd case it would allow sex, and in the 3rd case it would allow sex provided adoption was a possibility.

I think something like P1 is what is needed for this case, and it is well founded in that its violation actually hurts people. I think that P2 doesn’t hold much water because its violation doesn’t hurt people, and following it doesn’t help people. And I think that P3 might be held by some conservatives in combination with P1 because P1 is well founded in that its violation causes people harm, and P3 has some founding in that following it helps people.

But since I believe someone has more of a duty to not harm others, rather than being forced to help them, I think only P1 should be applied.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 7:13 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2005 6:59:36 PM

And to address the question at hand

Quote :

"Is incest a socially created wrong?"

which I managed to ignore through my last big post, I'd like to ask what is meant by a socially created wrong?

I'll introduce a few distinctions between types of situations where wrongs might arise to make my point clearer.

1) Two rational beings that never interact have no duties or rights in relation to each other.

2) Two rational beings that do interact have duties and rights in relation to each other.

3) In groups of rational beings morally arbitrary norms can be created that the group feels it is wrong to violate.

4) There may be some laws of nature that determines whether things are right and wrong outside of human interaction.

I think you are probably asking is incest a number 3 case. My answer would be no. I think its a number 2 case. So I think it is a socially created wrong, but in the since that incest violate rights & duties... incest couldn't exist if there was only non-interacting inviduals. I thinking violating case 2 is just as bad as violating case 4.

I was afraid some people might see your question of "socially created wrong" and assume that all socially created wrongs are arbitrary... which I don't think is the case.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 7:14 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2005 7:07:29 PM

Quote :

"i'd bwn my 3rd cousin if i could "

she turned you down?

(why can't you? it's not illegal as 3rd cousin is "far enough removed")

10/4/2005 7:17:55 PM

Quote :

"Incest actually causes a build up of deleterious and lethal traits over time. Banging your cousin has about the same effect as doing anyone else in your family. There isn't much variation at that level. The genetic term for incest is cosanguity."

Did I say anything that would lead you to believe that I didn't know any of the shit you just said? Don't act like you're talking to a high school freshman biology student.

But you are wrong on your second point, that banging your cousins has the same effect as other types of incest. It doesn't. I read about it in several places last year; though the risk is greater than banging someone outside your family would produce, it's not nearly as bad as the more "legalistic" forms of incest.

10/4/2005 7:27:48 PM

when I said incest w/condom = homosexuality w/condom, I should have clarified more.

I mean to say that in my opinion, it is illogical to condemn one without condemning them both unless you use a certain morality, or general public opinion unfortunately.

I cannot understand how someone can hold up the idea that it is morally acceptable to be homosexual but not incest.

10/4/2005 7:50:24 PM

^what principle are you using that in application shows both homosexuality with a condom, and incest with a condom are equal. And are you saying they are both good, or they are both bad, or they are both morally arbitrary?

10/4/2005 7:55:40 PM

I suppose it's my opinion that anyone thinking of reasons homosexuality w/condom is "ok" should be able to apply that reasoning to incest w/condom (ie, not for reproduction).

If there is a reason that supports or goes against one and not the other, I'd be interested in hearing it. I wasn't offering my opinion on whether they are wrong/not wrong/ doesn't matter. However, if you are currious, my personal view is that both are "wrong," but it would be foolish to think anyone could stop either from happening.

10/4/2005 8:03:10 PM

Quote :

"If there is a reason that supports or goes against one and not the other, I'd be interested in hearing it."

My P1 from my early post meets this condition. I can understand if it was skipped over since it was really long, but now that you've declared your interest in such a condition, I hope you'll give it a look.

Quote :

"but it would be foolish to think anyone could stop either from happening."

I agree legislation and enforcement of this would practically difficult. But I believe since the title of this thread uses the word "wrong" that the title that its not a question just of biological imperatives (even though alot of people have spent alot of time discussing the biological implications), or a thread of whats practically legistlatable & enforceable, but rather on morality.

Quote :

"(ie, not for reproduction)"

I used a principle of sex not for reproduction as wrong with P2 and explored its rammifications.

Quote :

"I suppose it's my opinion that anyone thinking of reasons homosexuality w/condom is "ok" should be able to apply that reasoning to incest w/condom ...both are "wrong," "

Was it the application of a principle, or just your feelings/intuitions on the topic, or faith that these were wrong that lead you to that conclusion?

10/4/2005 8:54:09 PM

I went back and read your entire post. I have a question regarding this:

Quote :

"In the case we are interested in we could apply it to the effect of incest is increasingly worse as the relatives are increasingly more related because it increasingly violates the duty we have based off the rights of individuals."

I'm not clear on the rights of individuals being violated between consenting adults. Do you mean that the condom could break and they could have kids? Ok, change condoms to viscectame (sp?).

also, p1 bothers me because of "reasonable chance at life" does this mean a good life, normal life, or strictly a chance at survival?

10/4/2005 9:12:09 PM

Quote :

"i'd bwn my 3rd cousin if i could"

actually, my mom's parents are third cousins, but then again there from this little village in Southern Italy, and everyone's related there.

10/4/2005 9:53:37 PM

"I'm not clear on the rights of individuals being violated between consenting adults. Do you mean that the condom could break and they could have kids? Ok, change condoms to viscectame (sp?)."

I was talking about intercourse in general, but I suppose with my principle P1 that I am comitted saying that incest with any chance of reproduction is wrong in that it violates P1, but wrong in the way (out of my distinctions between types of situations where wrongs might arise) described by number 2.

2) Two rational beings that do interact have duties and rights in relation to each other.

And that incest with absolutely no chance of reproduction is wrong in the sense described by number 3.

3) In groups of rational beings morally arbitrary norms can be created that the group feels it is wrong to violate.

While relegating some kinds of incest as wrong is a nearly arbitrary way is somewhat troubling, I believe the finding of incest with reproduction as a possibility being worse than incest without reprodcution as a possibility is what I expected to find & fits in well with my intuitions on the subject.

So far I think I've got a pretty good principle going. I have yet to see what principle you are using. I understand that you believe its application to the gay sex case says gay sex is wrong, and its application to incest says incest is wrong. But I still don't know what that principle is, so I can't evaluate its merit. Your emphasis on fulproof condoms or viscectame make me think it might be something like sex with out the intent of reproduction is wrong, but I believe my examination of P2 with such a principle leads to consequences you could not possibly accept. So again I am left knowing what you think the applications results in, but not what the underlying principle is.

Quote :

"also, p1 bothers me because of "reasonable chance at life" does this mean a good life, normal life, or strictly a chance at survival?"

Here I meant more of the decent/normal life idea that you mention, not strictly just survival. (although i think being brought into the world and freezing to death right away b/c your parents have no means of getting you shelter would fail the decent life standard too)

10/4/2005 11:46:43 PM

I think you're misreading his point.

Quote :

"I suppose it's my opinion that anyone thinking of reasons homosexuality w/condom is "ok" should be able to apply that reasoning to incest w/condom (ie, not for reproduction)."

The reasoning there doesn't say one or both is morally "wrong." He's just offering the point that they are essentially equivalent situations, in that you are practicing sex for enjoyment rather than for procreation (making the assumption that condoms protect from disease as well as they function as prophylactics, which could be the basis for an entirely different debate.

10/5/2005 12:10:54 AM

Quote :

"Not exactly. The gene's "goal" is to pass itself on; the best way to do that is to keep it in the family, where there are likely to be more copies of itself. This returns to what I said earlier, about balancing the risk against the continued proliferation of the gene."

i can't say that I agree w/ that notion. The major probelm with it is two-fold:

1) you are assuming that what the gene is "good." Thats not something the gene itself can determine (that and the fact that the gene has no "goal" whatsoever...). What is "good" or "bad" is not constant. there's simply no such thing as a good gene. there are genes that are favorable given one set of circumstances, and their are genes that are favorable in other circumstances. A healthy variety of genes ensures that few, if any, circumstances could arise such that there are no good genes. Thus, trying to maximize one particular gene is bad, inherently, no matter how good it may seem.
2) its pretty damned conceited of anyone (not you, but anyone, in general) to conclude that theirs are the best genes. Yes, you might have a shit ton of money, and while we generally assume that your genes had something to do with that (beyond inheriting money), we also accept that chance, itself, played a part, as well as environment. Thus, its not really the genes that made the person, and its not just the environment that did so (fuck you, Kris ), but rather its a combination of the two.
Furthermore, just got downright nasty, such a notion of gene superiority sounds strikingly similar to the thought processes of racial supremacist groups. And we generally consider their arguments to be absurd. And while their are "results" behind the wealthy families, we've also got to consider again the argument of chance / genes.

10/5/2005 1:37:49 AM

I agree incest is not normal, so it would fit in with what you were saying, but I happen to think homosexuality would fit too.

What is better about homosexuality than incest? (putting aside peanut head children and the AIDs)

10/5/2005 6:35:25 PM