Turn on thread page Beta

If Homosexual relationships are acceptable, why aren't incestuous ones? (EDIT: CHAT) watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    Are you saying that the relationships should be allowed but not to procreate?
    It seems to be where the logic takes you; but I see it could be rather difficult to legislate for!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lepr)
    Firstly, I'd like to say that I doubt incest's banning is solely on medical grounds. Secondly, gay sexual practice has it's own medical problems; namely through the increased chance of transferring STDs.

    But what if medical problems were to be put aside. What if there was a gay incestuous relationship? Or one where one of the partners was infertile, or if contraception was regularly used? Then there are no medical grounds for banning it, surely.
    But STD's are a problem for all sexual relations, even if they may be increased on homosexual realtionships. But STDs are preventable, genetic diseases, at present, are not.

    If the couple were unable to reproduce there are no medical grounds for not allowing it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Of course it's also been postulated that the reason for large increases in the rate of evolution following mass extinction events is because an increase in incestual sex increases the likelyhood of mutations which may or may not be beneficial in the new environment.

    So you could argue that we should all marry our cousins in a deliberate campaign to help the human species evolve quicker
    Ah, something interseting to debate!

    That has been suggested but maybe not for the reasons you suggest. The benficial mutations may be thought to occur because the few individuals that survive have survived the extinction so have some characteristic that helps them to survive.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm trying to be as objective as possible when talking about this, and I am trying not be emotive.

    Presumably there would be 2 intial reasons for legislating against incestuous procreation.

    1. Growing up in such a scenario damages the child - however, again following the liberal rationale, society should be tolerant so no damage ensues.

    2. There is a chance of the child being genetically defected - I assume this would depend on the likelihood and severity of any gene mutation.

    Remember though, to respond to both these points: we let drug addicts, whores, and other irresponsible individuals procreate (in response to point 1). We also let those with hereditary diseases procreate (in response to point 2).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    But STD's are a problem for all sexual relations, even if they may be increased on homosexual realtionships. But STDs are preventable, genetic diseases, at present, are not.

    If the couple were unable to reproduce there are no medical grounds for not allowing it.
    I'm glad we agree then.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    But STDs are preventable, genetic diseases, at present, are not.
    Selective abortions for selective genetic diseases.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lepr)
    If Homosexual relationships are acceptable, why aren't incestuous ones?
    I hink it has something to do with the protection of family members from other family members. There are obviously cases in which siblings/cousins are having sexual relationships without anyone being taken advantage of, and then I frankly dont care. I would never even considder having sex with anyone in my close family, but quite honestly I see no reason Why I should bother about other peoples sexual life as long as they are not hurting anyone. Arguments about inherited diseases are quite borderline to racist if you ask me ( We would not deny a person with an inherited disease from having children ). If it was such a huge problem with siblings having kids then evolution would have exloited it long ago. In fact, with todays increasing globalisation and developing means of communication, it is very unlikely that close family relationships will have a significant impact on the development of genetic diseases because the genetic variance in our immediate environment is much greater now than it was just a few hundred years ago.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There's a whole can of worms that could be opened when discussing this issue; personally that's not what I want to bring up. I just wanted to see if the transition in liberal logic which I made would stand up, it has, so I'm happy
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    Incestuous relationships are not acceptable because it leads to an increase in inherited diseases in the childeren among other things.
    Well surely if the risk of disease is the sole reason that incestuous relationships are not acceptable then homosexual relationships should also be regarded as unnaceptable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I hink it has something to do with the protection of family members from other family members. There are obviously cases in which siblings/cousins are having sexual relationships without anyone being taken advantage of,
    The main reason for justifying the ban on incest is that it often- nearly always when it involves prosecution- involves coercion- physical or moral-by one of the people involved. It is like paedophilia in that respect.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well surely if the risk of disease is the sole reason that incestuous relationships are not acceptable then homosexual relationships should also be regarded as unnaceptable.
    If risk of disease was the problem *all* sexual relationships should be regarded as unacceptable.

    There's a reason that women have to start having cervical smears soon after they become sexually active...sex is bad for your health!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm really surprised at the responses here; it's good to see no one's advocating homosexuality and bashing incest, perhaps because such a position is untennable
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    If risk of disease was the problem *all* sexual relationships should be regarded as unacceptable.

    There's a reason that women have to start having cervical smears soon after they become sexually active...sex is bad for your health!
    Are you sure about the *all* bit? What about protection? What about oral activities?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Are you sure about the *all* bit? What about protection? What about oral activities?
    Penetration in itself can cause problems (cystitis anyone?)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Are you sure about the *all* bit? What about protection? What about oral activities?
    There is still a chance of infection during these acts; but i suspect the odds are so miniscule that they do not deserve attention.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Sex is bad for you. Being sexually mature is bad for you. Penetration is bad for you. I think that is what PQ meant.

    <wonders if men just don't REALISE things about women's bodies)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well surely if the risk of disease is the sole reason that incestuous relationships are not acceptable then homosexual relationships should also be regarded as unacceptable.
    There is a responsibility to minimise the risk of diseased offspring.

    Diseases transmitted between the two consenting adults are a different issue.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've heard of a story where a load of trees were going to be cut down because there was a risk that a conker could fall on someone's head... It's becoming ridiculous.

    Follow this through, and perhaps you'll realise where I'm coming from. Everything has a risk, and some risks have to be taken.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by 2776)
    Are you sure about the *all* bit? What about protection? What about oral activities?
    Never heard of herpes (coldsores to most people)? Although genital herpes if transmitted to the mouth can be far far nastier than bog standard coldsores.

    We're probably pretty safe with masturbation - unless there are external stimuli used - and provided you don't get *too* excited.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    There is a responsibility to minimise the risk of diseased offspring.

    Diseases transmitted between the two consenting adults are a different issue.
    You are assuming that insestuous relationships are never between two consenting adults. They often are, as any visit to West Virginia would reveal. :eek:
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 21, 2004
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.