Amie

Hi everyone
I was curious to your views on Incest. And when I ask for your perspectives, I am asking whether or not you believe the act of incest is immoral and if so, do you think that belief stems from your socialization or do you think it is possible that humans are instictively opposed to incestual acts? Aside from birth defects do you believe there may be emotional problems involved? and if so, what? The view sociologically is that our behaviors are due to our socialization and this is one of the taboos of our culture. However in some cultures it is socially acceptable, and at one time was even required. The ancient Egyptians as well as the Incas actually required brother/sister marriages for their nobility in blodd lines. Some groups also allow sex between father and daughters. The Thonga tribe in Africa permit a hunter to have sex with his daughter before going on a lion hunt and another African tribe, the Azande permits nobles to marry their own daughters (noble blood) Coincidentally a similar tribe in Africa believes when a son is impotent, it is vital for his birth mother to have sexual intercourse with him to cure him of his "ailment" Now follow along the history of the Ptolemies who ruled Egypt during the Hellinistic Age. It all came down to "noble blood"
The first siblings to marry were ArsinoeII to her half brother Ptolemy. They had a bad start, he murdered his new wife's(half sister) two sons by her previous marriage the day of the wedding. He was killed in battle shortly after that and she fled to Egypt where she partcipated in a full sibling marriage and married her younger brother PtolemyII. This marriage gave them the heir PtolemyIII who defied custom and married a half cousin instead of a sibling thus producing PtolemyIV who married his full sister ArsinoeIII. Their child PtolemyV had to "marry out" since he had no sister. However his two sons each married their sister KleopatraII in succession...The next heir PtolemyVI died after marrying his sister so her brother PtolemyVII was brought in to take his place, thus producing another offspring...PtolemyVIII married his niece(stepdaughter) KleopatraIII. One of their sons, PtolemyIX married not one, but two of his sisters in succession which was sort of greedy considering his brother PtolemyX had to settle for a niece. After the death of PtolemyX, his son PtolemyXI married the same woman who was wed to his father(his cousin and STEPMOM) Their heir, PtolemyXII, the father of the famous Kleopatra(KleopatraVII) was married to either a full or half sister(no one knows for sure whether it was Kleopatras birth mother) Kleopatra herself most likely married both of her brothers in succession, but each died early before gaining any dominance over her. None of her children were fathered by a brother.
Now thats a hell of a lot of incest! Did any of these people really love each other? who knows, however it was "normal" for them. They were raised for this particular lifestyle, not wanting to "go outside their kind" This was the only life they knew...

I read an interesting article on "Inbreeding Depression" at:
<a href="http://biology_online.org/2/12_selective_breeding.htm" target="_blank">http://biology_online.org/2/12_selective_breeding.htm</a>

Inbreeding Depression:
"However, while it is an advantage both to the species and to the humans to produce these desirable qualities that may benefit the organisms in question, continuous inbreeding and selective breeding of particular genes runs the risk of losing some of the other genes from the gene pool altogether, which is irreversable. This is called "Inbreeding depression", where the exclusivity of the advantageous genes means that some less desirable genes are phased out. In the long term it is more advantageous for organisms to remain heterozygous for the following reason:
Genetic diversity means the gene pool of a species is prepared for a wide range of scenarios such as food shortage or an epidemic of disease. Some genes in some organisms may provide the organism with immunity against the disease or the ability to go long periods of time without food. If continuous inbreeding has occurred in a species, some of these genes may have been phased out due to the breeder wanting other more desirable genes to be present. Genetic diversity in the long term is reduced because many organisms end up with similar genomes from breeding with each other constantly. In normal circumstances this process would be more random and produce more variable offspring. The most important thing here is to preserve the genetic diversity of a species and keep the gene pool of a species as diverse as possible"

So while I think incest is an immoral act, I do acknowledge the societal implications on the subject to play a big part, along with family upbringing, culture, code of ethics, and what not. I could not imagine myself ever becoming sexually attracted to one of my brothers. EVER.
So does it come down to social acceptance to conform to our cultures? I think yes.
Any thoughts?
Amie~

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Amie ]</p>

Mad Kally

Yes. I feel exactly the way you do on the subject. Were you expecting a different answer from an atheist?

Amie

Of course not. Theistic/atheistic stance has nothing to do with this.

Amie

I also have to add that I have a friend who believes that humans are instictively opposed to relations with people along the same blood lines. he believes that culture and society play no part and that it is all instincts. I disagree, could be all 3, however I believe society plays the biggest part. If I was a noble in Egypt way back when, I would probably be married to my brother. UGH! shoot meh...
Amie~

Mad Kally

My brother is such a GEEK! &lt;shiver&gt;

99Percent

There is no doubt that incestous breeding is bad.

Question is - should we by force prevent consenting adults, but nevertheless incestous couples from engaging in sex even if they are sure not to have children?

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

Mad Kally

I don't think consenting adults should be prevented by force from having sexual relations. Even though I personally find it morally repugnant.

Amie

I don't necessarily think that the government laws should restrict who two consenting adults choose as sexual partners. In the case of incest, I personally find it disgusting. However I wonder if incest between consenting adults can theoretically be possible from a healthy base? It seems to me the answer would be no, however the exception may be adult orphans who are unknown to each other as brother and sister and then by chance meet, fall in love, have sex...Would this scenario be unhealthy or neurotic? it seems not...
Amie~

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Morality is neither intrinsic (in the universe independent of human beings) nor subjective (existing only in our minds, irrespective of external reality).

It is objective.

In our culture, incest is viewed as harmful, and (if it involves adults incestuously involved with minors) it is additionally considered a crime. Incestuous parents (who are caught) will lose custody of their minor children. The children will suffer tremendous emotional damage, given the cultural stigma of incest, plus the additional loss of their incarcerated parents.

Morality serves no purpose other than to guide people toward actions which do not violate the rights of others. Harming another is clearly a violation of their rights, and is thus immoral.

In this culture, at this time, parent-child incest can potentially cause a great deal of harm.

Thus, I have to view parent-child incest as extremely immoral.

Keith.

Ab_Normal

I have to agree with Keith.

Oh no, another story from Ab_Normal... feel free to move along...

In ninth grade, my closest friend ended up going to the police because her father had been raping her for *years*. Over the last 20 years, I've had a front-row seat for the devastation it caused in her life and the lives of those who love her.

edited for grammar

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Ab_Normal ]</p>