I know for a fact that incest is wrong for many reasons. But looking into it, made me think of a few things: Offsprings from Incestious relationships have a higher or guarantee chance of birth defects. But what could be worse?

The fact that relationships with blood-relatives is morally wrong, or is it because you cannot have healthy children?

If having healthy children wasn't an issue, would the fact that Incestious relationships would intensify the immorality of the taboo?

If there was a virus that spread across the world, causing humans unable to procreate with one another, only to realize that healthy offsprings can be born through incestious means, would humanity really take their chances to go down that path in order to survive?

This is what been on my mind for a while. If there anyone who can answer my questions, I don't expect a clean answer, nor a lecture. But the second question is something I though about the most.

[img]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c303/jasonpark1987/0c01ca55-eed4-4af9-a361-1d424276fe1e.jpg[/img]

I looked into this incest thing after playing Crusader Kings II(specifically the Zoroastrian religion). Nothing more than browsing through wikipedia though. I'm not an expert on it or anything.

There is a popular theory that the taboo originated from a human psychological preference. I can't remember the name of it but it says that humans are naturally attracted to other humans who resemble themselves(physical, behavioral etc.) and the most immediate he/she will be able to find are ofcourse his/her family members(parents, siblings, counsins etc). BUT, if he/she grew up close to them(as in if siblings grew up together) then the effect of this is negated or reversed.

Meaning if you have an estranged sibling you only met when you're already adults then there would be higher than normal attraction between you two. But if the two of you grew up together there will be significantly less attraction than normal. This is probably an evolutionary trait we got, in order to lessen the chance of deformed offsprings which eventually turned into a cultural taboo.

So about your question. I think that:

1. It became morally wrong because of the chance of having deformed offsprings.

2. If there wasn't a chance of having deformed offsprings then there wouldn't be a taboo.

3. Why not? It's not 100% of the time that deformities will form. Frequent inbreeding is the main cause of the more monstrous deformation like Charles II of Spain and the mad king in AGOT(though he's fictional). If the offspring is healthy then protect it from the virus and marry it to another healthy unrelated child.

If I got any of these wrong then please enlighten me as well. I'm also interested in this topic ^^

[img]http://vdexproject.net/p/46642/partymini.png[/img]

actually I believe that in early time of humans, they would do incestious relationship due to lack of humans around
it become forbidden due to several religion teachings after there are lots of humans on the earth 🤣 🤣 🤣

sorry for being silly.. at least I tried 😛

Some studies have shown that the increase in chance in birth defects from incestuous couplings is only about 3% higher than the average chance for birth defects overall. If, for example, and brother and sister were to have a child, and they both have recessive genes that caused a defect, there would be a higher chance for their children to have that defect. However, if neither child or only one child has the recessive gene that causes said defect then their chances aren't that much different from the standard population.

Now that said, sibling-sibling and parent-child couplings will have an even higher chance than other incestuous couplings of getting a birth defect (easily as high as 30%); however, those couplings are far less common. Some areas, for example, allow second cousin, first cousin, and even uncle/aunt-niece/nephew marriages (depending on country and state). While still considered incestuous, they run a lower risk than direct relatives since their genes aren't nearly as close.

Mind you, for a the longest time it was considered natural for all the members of the royal family to be related to each other in some form or another, which of course led to what was mentioned later in the previous post, as well as some members of the royal family being hemophiliacs (their blood wouldn't clot).

animals in general do not care about incest
humans are animals
win

moral and etics are human concepts

I know for a fact that incest is wrong for many reasons. But looking into it, made me think of a few things: Offsprings from Incestious relationships have a higher or guarantee chance of birth defects. But what could be worse?

The fact that relationships with blood-relatives is morally wrong, or is it because you cannot have healthy children?

Ok, so first of all, how is it "morally wrong"?
By whose standards? It's not a fact.

The most common first degree incest usually involves siblings that had grown separately and met in adulthood, in which case, they have no previous connection that would make their relationship psychologically similar to that of true siblings who grew up together. For that same reason, you don't see many couples form in families with multiple foster children, because while not being related by blood, they see each other as family.

But if a pair of siblings who grew up together want to get it on, who are you, me or anyone else to tell them otherwise? It's their lives.

I do have a problem with child/parent incest though, because you can't really be sure where parental control ends and informed consent begins.

If having healthy children wasn't an issue, would the fact that incestuous relationships would intensify the immorality of the taboo?

I'm not following.
If you're asking that people will be more accepting if the birth defect issue didn't exist - I doubt that.
I think it's just an excuse. People like to come up with reasons for things that make them uncomfortable.
And the birth defect is a pretty silly argument, especially at this day and age, with all the tests we have available. Or are you going to tell every ethnic group or couple with genetic dispositions to certain ailments not to have children because the risks are higher? I doubt that.

If there was a virus that spread across the world, causing humans unable to procreate with one another, only to realize that healthy offsprings can be born through incestious means, would humanity really take their chances to go down that path in order to survive?

That's a very unlikely scenario, in my opinion, but yes, I believe they would, especially since artificial insemination is the reality for many couples even today. No actual intercourse if necessary, if that's what worrying you.

Please don't think of this as a lecture, those are mere opinions.
But I'd advise you to step off the moral tree you think you stand on, because morals are but man made and prone to fluctuations. =)

Hrodulf and Bjornolfr, you will not be forgotten.
[img]http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp199/SyberAngelGabrielle/couplesig.jpg[/img]
[color=black]And if the world were black and white,
you would be my rainbow in shades of grey.[/color]

Click 'n Play!

If I had a fantasy self, it'd be a tentacle monster.

It's not "morally wrong" in a sense. Almost all of our so-called morals are standards that change from time to time and almost all of them are based more or less on our instincts which is based on our genes rather than reasoning. Gene an extreme form of experience as it is shaped by trials-and-errors over thousands of generations. The cost of the error was complete extermination so our genes are the results of hard lessons, not something we cooked up.

Incest is extremely bad for the gene as a whole unless you're breeding to select certain traits. It's a long process that takes a couple generations to show rather than your immediate offspring. The 2 most obvious traits you'll get would be lower IQ and much more prone to illness. Then ugliness and even craziness would follow. Eventually, you'll end up with complete infertility - reduced sperm count and sperm defects. The people who liked incest failed to reproduce and got exterminate - thus gone with their gene pool. Thus, our genes will generally protest at the highest degree towards incest; probably equal to killing yourself but less than lust.

On the other hand, having kids with people who are completely different than you (e.g. extremely different gene sets) would be extremely advantageous for human. You can see the effects in dogs. Mongrels (mixed blooded) tend to be more intelligent and even more vigorous compare to pure breed. They are also less prone to diseases and other defects.

If offspring is no longer an issue (say infertility) then it's not a morally issue or even taboo. People can have platonic relationship but even sexual relationship is not that bad. This is because of LBGT effects. Generally, these people don't have offspring and the moral issue comes from the gene that tells people to have offsprings. As they start winning the votes, so would the protest towards not having any offsprings.

On the 2nd hypothetical question about incest as the only means of reproduction then it is a yes. However, human would be more likely to clone itself as it is the perfect form of incest. You have sex with yourself and reproduce yourself (like a plant but probably involves more than bees). Of course, this also make it certain that the entire human race would be wiped out with 1 single virus as everyone would have the same immune system.

Interesting topic, indeed.

I personally don't see anything "morally wrong" in incestious relationships.
I mean, there IS always the increased chance of having deformed children, but as far as I know, it's almost nonexistent. (correct me if I'm wrong)

Besides, there are a lot of illnesses which a child can inherit from his or her parents with much higher percentage. So, that can't be the only reason to make incest a taboo.

Most of the negative opinions might have stemmed from cases where an older sibling had been sexually abusing the younger one, which is, obviously, a crime.

Sadly, things like that happen, but in this case I'm referring to blood relatives who have sincere feelings toward each other.

I know there are a LOT of people who think it's not acceptable or just plain disgusting, but why should we be judging other people's relationship if they are happy together?

Loving someone shouldn't be considered wrong.

I am pretty liberal on this subject, I feel about incest the same way I feel about homosexuality. I think it's harmless for siblings to love each other romantically but I still think they shouldn't try to have a baby.

    Obviously because of birth defects. I'm not one to say that adopting children is the same as actually conceiving a child through mutual insemination but the risks are too much for the child. I'm not saying they can have sex, just don't try to have an offspring.

    Of course the chance of the offspring coming out fine and dandy is higher,but 25% is huge in my opinion to take a risk. I don't like the idea of preventing 2 people from creating a family but I don't know. I feel like I'm going in circle and now I'm not sure if I'm OK with them having a child or not XD. I replied to this thread knowing exactly what my opinion on this but now confuzzled. Complicated subject for my tiny brain to process.

[img]http://i373.photobucket.com/albums/oo176/myint/5g.jpg[/img]
Nuff said.