Is Incest Without Procreation Wrong?

liah

It's a deeply ingrained taboo, but every so often we hear stories, usually of a brother and sister separated at birth who miraculously (and unknowingly) end up in bed together as adults, then find out and deal with it accordingly. Seemingly, a lot choose to stay together, despite being more or less social outcasts. Believe the most recent version of this was a daughter and father on the news recently. Stories of cousin-lovin' aren't altogether uncommon, though I reckon they're heard about more often than they actually happen.

Now, there's obvious logical arguments for why incest that leads to procreation is wrong. It's simply not fair to the child, who knows what could be wrong with it? We're not meant to breed with our family members, and that's just how it is.

But in fairness, procreation isn't the only part of being in a relationship now that we're in the age of contraception, and if they've honestly found someone who they love and adore just as much as any 'normal' person loves their non-related partner, is it really anyone's place to judge other people's happiness as 'wrong,' if they're not hurting anyone?

Is incest wrong between consenting adults in all situations, or just those that involve procreation?

Turtwig

I take the line that if it's not harmful to anyone then it's not really an issue. Incest is ok as long as no procreation is involved because we know for a fact that the lack of genetic variation carries a significantly increased risk to the Child's health. Perhaps one day when medicine becomes almost perfect this con will be negligible too?

Standman

No I don't think it's anyone elses business if two relatives are in love with each other and are happy together. Why should it be? Obviously the thought of being sexually intimate with a close relative is instinctively disgusting to the vast majority of people, and in that sense it these people would regard it as wrong, but who are they to judge other people who do it and are happy? From an evolutionary standpoint incest is definitely a bad thing, but is this a valid reason to make a moral judgement on the act itself? I'm not so sure.

raah!

I don't understand the line of argument that "it's harmful to the child". The child doesn't exist: and when it is made to exist, as the mutant that it is, then we can hardly say that bringing it into existence is harmful to it.

To say that "starting a life in which a person suffers is wrong" is to assume that those children born into suffering would rather die, or that they have no say in the moral issue. It is to say that their "well being" is to be decided completely by other people. It's a bit like "putting someone out of their misery" when they never asked you to, and may want to continue living. As far as I can see many handicapped or deformed people are happy with being alive. Down syndrome people seem very cheery. Maybe they have really high suicide rates I don't know about but all that is important is that we don't know whether or not they are happy with being alive, it's not fair to decide for them in advance.

I think the clearest and strongest arguments to be made against incest, or even against people making babies which have deformities, are eugenic ones. I find eugenics very unattractive.

An important question related to this question you have posed is "is it wrong to make retarded babies", and a case study to consider would be when some two deaf lesbians chose to have a baby which was deaf rather than one which wasn't. (I don't know how they chose it but this case study was presented in a lecture once, I guess I'll look it up)

liah

Never really thought of it that way before, tbh. I just know that, if I had to choose, I'd much rather be born normal than deformed or disabled. I have a cousin with pretty severe cerebral palsy and know how frustrated he was growing up and would hate to knowingly take a chance of putting a kid through something like that.

I don't think the argument is necessarily about eugenics (at least, not for most people), more sympathy for the struggle a lot of disabled people have to deal with and not wanting to consciously take the chance of subjecting someone to that rather than wanting to 'breed out' disabilities for the sake of breeding out disabilities, if that makes sense.

I mean, when the child is still hypothetical, you can't really take the 'well maybe he/she would probably rather be alive than dead' route - you can't know that a child wouldn't rather grow up 'normal' rather than disabled, either. My cousin would've, anyway. I think most people would love the hell out of their child regardless of what was 'wrong' with it after the fact, it's just most would also rather prevent the child having to deal with the myriad of issues that come with being disabled.

Earthhorse

There are only two things wrong with incest as far as I can see.

The first, already discussed, is the increase in health risks to the child which is a real consideration in my opinion even if the child doesn't exist. But if we're really so concerend about such things are we going to implement genetic screening for all couples in the future? There can be terrible medical outcomes for children even when people aren't related. I doubt we will.

The other consideration is in the case of an adult-child grooming scenario. That someone would manipulate a younger family member into idol-worshipping them and start a relationship with them once they were of adult age. Such a scenario would obvsiously by wrong. But there is nothing inherently wrong with incestuous relationships where the two people have fallen in love without coercion, imo.

liah

Earthhorse wrote: »

There are only two things wrong with incest as far as I can see.

The first, already discussed, is the increase in health risks to the child which is a real consideration in my opinion even if the child doesn't exist. But if we're really so concerend about such things are we going to implement genetic screening for all couples in the future? There can be terrible medical outcomes for children even when people aren't related. I doubt we will.

I think there is a big difference there though - most people who procreate with someone unrelated wouldn't expect a disabled child (but if they ended up with one would love it anyway), whereas anyone who procreates with someone related probably knows there's a pretty high chance of it, unless they're grossly uneducated.

I think knowingly going into it is a bit cruel.

The other consideration is in the case of an adult-child grooming scenario. That someone would manipulate a younger family member into idol-worshipping them and start a relationship with them once they were of adult age. Such a scenario would obvsiously by wrong. But there is nothing inherently wrong with incestuous relationships where the two people have fallen in love without coercion, imo.

Agree with that - I don't agree at all with incest if they've grown up together as it's generally the result of some serious issues. But when they've never known each other, I can't find anything ethically/morally wrong with it. Sure, you can't help who you're attracted to.

Earthhorse

liah wrote: »

I think knowingly going into it is a bit cruel.

I agree, which is why I ended by asking if we were going to start genetically screening people to see if there were any potentially harmful risks to them procreating. In either case, should it not be left to the couple to decide? Even if we disagree with that decision.

raah!

liah wrote: »

I just know that, if I had to choose, I'd much rather be born normal than deformed or disabled. I have a cousin with pretty severe cerebral palsy and know how frustrated he was growing up and would hate to knowingly take a chance of putting a kid through something like that.

Well yes, but it is not as clear cut whether or not one would rather be dead than disabled. Your cousin was frustrated, and most people would rather not be disabled. But the choice is being disabled, or never having been born.

A scenario which may illustrate this is the following:

If when the fellow's parents conceived, they did some genetic screening, and picked a different batch of genes, genes which did not produce palsey, then the boy (as he is) would not exist. It's not different versions of him. He is the set of genes with palsey. To screen and pick a different set of genes, is to pick a different person. The boy himself, after the fact, would probably want to exist with the palsey than not at all.

Of course it could be argued that this doesn't make sense. It presupposes that who a person is is in their genetics, and perhaps arguments can be made against that.

I don't think the argument is necessarily about eugenics (at least, not for most people), more sympathy for the struggle a lot of disabled people have to deal with and not wanting to consciously take the chance of subjecting someone to that rather than wanting to 'breed out' disabilities for the sake of breeding out disabilities, if that makes sense.

Yes there is a difference there. But if we accept that the disabled person could not have been otherwise (which we don't have to), then sympathy for disabled people should not consist in trying to consign disabled people to nonexistence. It's not the same as things like poverty or ... something else that can be changed. All they are being subjected to is existing as themselves. To say "I would rather you were someone else" doesn't sound very sympathetic to me. Again, this depends on someone's identity being linked with their genetics.

I mean, when the child is still hypothetical, you can't really take the 'well maybe he/she would probably rather be alive than dead' route - you can't know that a child wouldn't rather grow up 'normal' rather than disabled, either. My cousin would've, anyway. I think most people would love the hell out of their child regardless of what was 'wrong' with it after the fact, it's just most would also rather prevent the child having to deal with the myriad of issues that come with being disabled.

If we are talking about genetic screening, the choice is to exist as a handicapped person, or not at all. Of course anyone would rather not have a disability, but if a persons identity lies in their genetics, then it's disability or nothing. Though, to be honest, I've become rather confused over the course of posting this post, so it may be somewhat incoherent.

The whole idea of a person being contained in their genetic code... before they exist as a person. It makes some sense, and then it doesn't make any. So perhaps this post is best read with a grain of salt. Perhaps it's best to read it merely as "is a person completely determined by their genetic code". If the answer to that question is yes then I guess the arguments hold.

Joey the lips

All i can think of saying liah is if a 50 year old man were to ask this question then what would society think of him? Granted its you and not him.


I dont think incest is wrong but is it a question of ethics and being ethically wrong...

After all whats wrong with a 50 year old man having a relationship with a 25 year old women...... Nothing?

What if the 50 year old man was the father and the 25 year old was the daughter.... Has the man groomed the daughter? Is it not a burden on society to have to investigate this?

I have never really considered it morally or eticically wrong to love your cousins. Some of mine are fab and georgous... However i wonder would the fabric of the relationship change if they realised or though i was looking at them in a sexual loving way...

It all really boils down to society and ethics.

liah

Joey the lips wrote: »

All i can think of saying liah is if a 50 year old man were to ask this question then what would society think of him? Granted its you and not him.

In fairness, I have no siblings or any close relatives other than my mother - it's just a matter of curiosity with an area I'm very unfamiliar with. I'm not writing this because I'm secretly harbouring desires

Joey the lips

liah wrote: »

In fairness, I have no siblings or any close relatives other than my mother - it's just a matter of curiosity with an area I'm very unfamiliar with. I'm not writing this because I'm secretly harbouring desires

I never thought that of you. Its just your commenting on society but i simply through the question back that if you want to understand it imagine a man had said it...

Another shinny example of society.....

If a women says "You have a nice ass in that" its a compliment.

If a man says " You have a nice ass in that" its an insult depending on the age....

the same with incest... It depends on who is doing the incest...

later12

liah wrote: »

It's a deeply ingrained taboo, but every so often we hear stories, usually of a brother and sister separated at birth who miraculously (and unknowingly) end up in bed together as adults, then find out and deal with it accordingly. Seemingly, a lot choose to stay together, despite being more or less social outcasts. Believe the most recent version of this was a daughter and father on the news recently. Stories of cousin-lovin' aren't altogether uncommon, though I reckon they're heard about more often than they actually happen.

To be honest, the only time Ive ever heard of an incident like the first you outline was a particularly bad Fair City storyline.

However, I must hold my hands up here and admit that I am the offspring of cousin love on the part of my great-grandmother and her first cousin. They had one perfectly healthy daughter, born in the same year as the Irish state. However, they soon divorced and were, incidentally, the last couple to have a divorce granted in the Irish free state. Must have put a bitter edge to family gatherings.

So as an eventual product of a form of incest, I dont see the taboo. Personally I find the idea more than a little disturbing, but I believe in a policy of live and let live. I would even have a hard time accepting a principle of state intervention whereby any offspring would be likely to be physically or intellectually challenged as a result of the pairing. I mean, it isnt as though we legally prohibit known carriers of Cystic Fibrosis from procreating, despite the obvious and significant risk of the emergence of CF in the offspring.

diddlybit

I have no issues with it.

liah wrote: »

Agree with that - I don't agree at all with incest if they've grown up together as it's generally the result of some serious issues. But when they've never known each other, I can't find anything ethically/morally wrong with it. Sure, you can't help who you're attracted to.

Is this because of the potential to have huge disparities of power in the relationship as a result of their place in family, for example a mother and son, both consenting adults but, with an imbalence of power as one is a parent and one is a child figure. Someone mentioned grooming earlier on, and I just wondering if would they apply their views on incest to siblings that had grown up together?

Morag

It is not just the genetic taboos it is the corruption of the loving and caring relationship which can be there between family members. To use that bond to foster or push a sexual relationship on someone is unethical to say the least.

diddlybit

Yes, but what if the two indiviuals involved in the relationship began it when both were well into adulthood, and so therefore, would be both consenting adults?

kerryman12

In general I would have to say that I do have a problem with this.

Of course the example given at the start of two people who dont know each other ending up in a relationship is not the issue here.

Human nature being what it is, certain individual will abuse a given situation to suit there own ends.

Statements such as

Sure, you can't help who you're attracted to.

can be used to justify anytype of horendous behaviour, - I know this is not the point the OP was trying to make.

Seems to me that society has a lot of both written and unwritten rules - most of which are there for a good reason.

Problem is that they can all to easily be manipulated to suit any agenda.

later12

Sharrow wrote: »

It is not just the genetic taboos it is the corruption of the loving and caring relationship which can be there between family members. To use that bond to foster or push a sexual relationship on someone is unethical to say the least.

Well there is no impediment to best friends from childhood having sex later in life, why ought there be a legal impediment to siblings, again, later in life, having sex outside of the genetic argument (which is itself shaky).
Equally there, is no legal impediment to senior friends of a family marrying junior members of that family, I'm not sure that genetic relationship ought to come into it.

I don't really see any reasonably argument as to why the state ought to interfere in a relationship between two consenting adults, even in cases where a genetic relationship exists between these adults.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

liah wrote: »

Now, there's obvious logical arguments for why incest that leads to procreation is wrong. It's simply not fair to the child, who knows what could be wrong with it? We're not meant to breed with our family members, and that's just how it is.

There is no "meant" to be about it.

I have followed this conversation on this forum before, and many other forums. I have read many arguments from both sides on it. Thus far I have not heard anyone else give a good argument for what is “wrong” with incestuous love* without some appeal to procreation.

What worries me is that many people seem to use procreation as their argument in order to cover up their bias on the subject. The way I discover this is that if you ask people who say incest is wrong because of procreation, if they would be ok with it if there was no possibility somehow of procreation or the problems with them procreating were “fixed”**, they STILL say no. This clearly means that whatever their beef is with incest… it is not for the reasons they are giving. The reasons they are giving is just their after the fact retrospective justification for the bias they already hold.

So I am mostly in the camp of there being nothing wrong with it.

There is the obvious 4 step point which can be made. It is however not an argument AGAINST incest, but an argument to be very very sure it is what you want BEFORE you enter into an incestuous relationship:

1) Sexual relationships are 2 a penny. We can all go out and find someone to have that kind of relationship with. It is not EASY of course, as the preponderance of dating websites and failed marriages will testify too, but relatively they are common and so not as “precious”.

2) Sibling and other family relationships however are relatively rare. Many of us are only children and have no such relationships, many of us only have 1 or 2 siblings, not many of us have more than 4. We only ever have 2 parents. These relationships are rare, precious.

3) Sex rarely leaves relationships unchanged. When you have sex with someone, more often than not the relationship is left changed forever. Many of us have had the experience, or indirectly know someone who has, of having a one night stand with a friend and that friendship was never the same again, or even ended entirely.

4) Therefore having sex with a sibling is likely to change a precious relationship that one will likely never find again… into one that is relatively common as much and not as precious. This is cause for concern, but it is the concern of the people entering into such a relationship, not of US the observers.

* I think it important to note that we have one word “incest” for many many types of sexual encounter. “incest” can refer to consentual adult siblings entering into a relationship together. “Incest” can also refer to a father taking advantage of his under age innocent daughter. For the purposes of THIS post I use the word “incest” solely to refer to adult consensual relationships.

** remember incest for by far the most part does not CAUSE genetic defects, it merely increases the probability of existing defects being expressed in the off spring. If there is nothing genetically wrong with the parents, then incest is not going to cause something to be genetically wrong with the children. This is a subtle point, but one that most people discussing this “issue” do not consider, or even know about.

liah

Think you seriously took me up wrong on my use of the word "meant." I just mean, from an evolutionary perspective, we're not meant to interbreed, as evidenced by birth defects being common when we do. I wasn't making any kind of moral or ethical judgment. Just presenting the arguments given.

nozzferrahhtoo

liah wrote: »

Think you seriously took me up wrong on my use of the word "meant." I just mean, from an evolutionary perspective, we're not meant to interbreed

No that is exactly what I think you meant by "meant". In evolution the word "meant" simply does not apply generally. However it is a bit tangential to this thread topic so I will not turn this into a pedantic boring lecture on how evolution works It is enough to point out that evolution does not "Mean" anything for us, or how we act or proceed.

Suffice to say however, or at least to repeat what I put in the small print above, incestuous sex does not cause defects. It only increases the likelihood that defects that are already there will be expressed in the off spring.

Given increases in our ability to scan DNA for defects, it is justifiable to assume that some day we will be able to check couples, incestuous or not, for such defects and predict whether there is a chance of defective children. If the brother and sister are "clean" then there is no significant increased likelihood their off spring will be in any way "defective" when compared to any other couple.

The issue that I highlight therefore, which is at least on topic to the thread, is that those people who say they are against incest because of the procreative issues... are more often than not STILL against it when you remove those issues. This means that whatever their reasons for being against it... they are not the reasons they are pretending they are. This is cause for some concern I feel.

Morag

later10 wrote: »

Well there is no impediment to best friends from childhood having sex later in life, why ought there be a legal impediment to siblings, again, later in life, having sex outside of the genetic argument (which is itself shaky).
Equally there, is no legal impediment to senior friends of a family marrying junior members of that family, I'm not sure that genetic relationship ought to come into it.

I don't really see any reasonably argument as to why the state ought to interfere in a relationship between two consenting adults, even in cases where a genetic relationship exists between these adults.

So you have no qualms with the type of relationship which Morgan Freeman and E'Dena Hines wife have? That he is her stepgrandfather, 40 years older then her and they have been having a sexual relationship over the last 10 years from the time she was 17?

liah

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No that is exactly what I think you meant by "meant". In evolution the word "meant" simply does not apply generally. However it is a bit tangential to this thread topic so I will not turn this into a pedantic boring lecture on how evolution works It is enough to point out that evolution does not "Mean" anything for us, or how we act or proceed.

Suffice to say however, or at least to repeat what I put in the small print above, incestuous sex does not cause defects. It only increases the likelihood that defects that are already there will be expressed in the off spring.

Given increases in our ability to scan DNA for defects, it is justifiable to assume that some day we will be able to check couples, incestuous or not, for such defects and predict whether there is a chance of defective children. If the brother and sister are "clean" then there is no significant increased likelihood their off spring will be in any way "defective" when compared to any other couple.

The issue that I highlight therefore, which is at least on topic to the thread, is that those people who say they are against incest because of the procreative issues... are more often than not STILL against it when you remove those issues. This means that whatever their reasons for being against it... they are not the reasons they are pretending they are. This is cause for some concern I feel.

Again, you're misinterpreting. The only thing I mean is that it's probably not the best idea because you've a fairly decent chance of having a child with a defect of some kind. Evolution doesn't 'mean' anything and I certainly don't need the lecture on it, my point was the way we've evolved means it's unwise, at least from a 'survival of the fittest' perspective, to breed with close family, as the best way for our species to survive is generally spreading our genes outside of our own circle (e.g. why mutts are generally healthier than purebreds when we're talking about dogs). That's literally all I meant. I don't get the need for the lecture.

I'm certainly not against it without procreation and I don't like the implication. I genuinely have absolutely no qualms with two consenting adults doing whatever they damn well please. I'm still unsure as to how I feel about procreation in this context - I can't help not liking the idea of knowingly having a child that will be at high-risk for disability after seeing how my cousin grew up; it strikes me as cruel and I would have the same concerns for anyone who reproduces who has a high risk of that, not just those who are incestuous. That said, it's a moral question, and imo the law should never make that decision.

It really seems like you're trying to paint anyone who has concerns with procreation as some kind of bigot, and I simply don't think that's the case.

nozzferrahhtoo

liah wrote: »

Again, you're misinterpreting. The only thing I mean is that it's probably not the best idea because you've a fairly decent chance of having a child with a defect of some kind.

Not misinterpreting anything. I am merely pointing out that terms like "meant to" rarely apply in evolution because evolution does not "mean" us to do, or not do, anything. Terms like this infer intent or design, which evolution does not have. If you understand that then thats fine, we have no argument. At worst it was simply a poor choice of words and I jumped on it. No beef.

However it is worth pointing out that the statistical increase in the probability of birth defects through incest is not actually as high as some people might make it out to be.

For example a report from the Journal of Genetic Counseling gives cousins only 2 percent more probability of having children with defects. This is a lot less than the probabilities SOME couples face if they know certain conditions exist in one or both of their family histories. Yet we do not condemn the unions of such couples as we do incestuous couples.... despite the relatively higher risks of the former over the latter. Also worth reading is Thornhill, Nancy, ed. 1993 The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding. Chicago: UNiversity of Chicago Press.... where it is argued that in the long term incestuous sex could cause an improvement in gene pool quality on some levels.

So the issue is that incest does not cause defects.... it only increases the chance of defects being expressed.... and those statistical increases are not even nearly as large as some people think.... and most of the people that use procreation as an argument in such a conversation as this often (I have found anyway) are not against incest for the reasons they are giving.

These are all points of concern worth mentioning, which is why I do. At length.

liah wrote: »

I'm certainly not against it without procreation and I don't like the implication.

Then it is lucky I made no such implication. I am addressing my points about people in general and I have said nothing about you specifically.

liah wrote: »

It really seems like you're trying to paint anyone who has concerns with procreation as some kind of bigot, and I simply don't think that's the case.

No. Not at all. If it seems like that to you then thankfully this is only in your mind and not reality. What I am pointing out is not that anyone who has such concerns is a bigot, but that there are many people who are bigots who hide falsely behind such concerns.... which is easily discoverable by the fact that if you construct an argument that removes those concerns, they STILL are against incest. If someone is against X because of Y, but are still against X if you remove Y... then the person you are conversing with is being less than honest with you.

liah

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not misinterpreting anything. I am merely pointing out that terms like "meant to" rarely apply in evolution because evolution does not "mean" us to do, or not do, anything. Terms like this infer intent or design, which evolution does not have.

Yes. I know. Most people who've gone through basic highschool science know this. I was speaking colloquially, using "meant" in the context of "it has a negative outcome." I don't need the lecture. I know what context I used it in (since, you know.. I wrote it and all) and it is not the one you are on about.

However it is worth pointing out that the statistical increase in the probability of birth defects through incest is not actually as high as some people might make it out to be.

Do you have any links to the studies? Not asking to be aggressive, I just like studies.

wes

In my parents culture, Cousins can marry (my parents weren't cousins thankfully), but this has lead to quite a great deal of health problems in children, and I have seen this first hand within my own family. On my Fathers side, quite a few people suffer from mental illness, and with other family members, I have seen children suffer from crippling disabilities, and they also died a quite an early age, and have seen other family member born with more managable problems, as well.

Now, this happened after generations of people marrying with cousins, and I would imagine, the genetic problems would be much, much worse amongst closer relatives. Channel 4, did a show on it a while ago:

When Cousins Marry

So, I would be very much against any incest, with the intent of pro-creation, as it will cause a great deal of suffering to a lot of children, and I have seen this suffering first hand myself.

Now, if there is no intent to pro-create, and the couple take precautions, then its ultimately there own business for the most part.

nozzferrahhtoo

liah wrote: »

Yes. I know. Most people who've gone through basic highschool science know this. I was speaking colloquially, using "meant" in the context of "it has a negative outcome." I don't need the lecture. I know what context I used it in (since, you know.. I wrote it and all) and it is not the one you are on about.

Then as I said above we have no argument. It was a poor choice of words and I jumped on it, mainly because many people on the planet DO think there is intent and design behind evolution. I do not know you. I can not read your mind. I can not read you say X and assume you mean Y. I saw words that inferred something (something you did not mean as it turns out) and I responded accordingly. I can not apologise for that.

liah wrote: »

Do you have any links to the studies? Not asking to be aggressive, I just like studies.

Of course. I referenced one already in the post above, but I think I may have added it while you were typing this reply so I would be entirely unsurprised if you missed it. I would recommend any of the following things as a good starting point:

Bennett, Robin L.,Motulsky, et al ""Genetic Counseling and Screening of Consanguineous Couples and Their Offspring: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors"

Livingstone, Frank B. 1969 "Genetics, Ecology, and the Origins of Incest and Exogamy"

Thornhill, Nancy, ed. 1993 The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding.

Alexander, Richard 1977 "Natural Selection and the Analyusis of Human Sociology"

Bittles et al. 1991 "Reproductive Behavior and Health in Consangueneous Marriages"

Bittles, A.H. (2001). "A Background Background Summary of Consaguineous marriage"

Many of these may require you to have paid up subscriptions to the sites that host them, but I trust you, like me, with your love of studies you will feel ok forking out a few quid to support science

Also worth noting is that around 70 percent of the marriages in Pakistan are between cousins and if the increased likelyhood of genetic defects was significant with incest, you would expect a relatively massive increase in such defects. What are the relative statistics between there and the US for example after normalising for all factors? I have not got those figures to hand, but you would expect them to be significant IF you assume incestuous genetic defects were significant would you not? I have heard no such results however.

EDIT: For those who prefer to get their science from news papers rather than science journals, I dug out a news paper article referencing the study to which I reffered above. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children-of-1st-cousins.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all An interesting line in it is...

He and his colleagues said no one questioned the right of people with genetic disorders to have children, even though some have far higher levels of risk than first cousins. For example, people with Huntington's disease, a severe neurological disorder that comes on in adulthood, have a 50 percent chance of passing the disease to their children.

.... which shows a double standard who DO fight against incest because of the genetic risks. They would ban as illegal sex between people with 2 or 3% increases in defective off spring... but where are they when it comes to ensuring people with Huntingtons are prevented from procreating? The report also highlights the current deficiency in our statistics on sibling parents, and that we need to know much more about this in the future. I look forward to such information.

However it is worth noting that we have now gone WAY off topic of the thread, given that the OP very specifically started a conversation about incest without procreation. So any discussion on the results of incestuous procreation is likely only going to P the OP off. So I will leave it rest with the links above and hope you enjoy them. On topic the only argument I can find against incest that is not reproductive is simply the cheapening of an otherwise precious and rare relationship, but that is not an argument against incest per se, just a "be aware of this please" to anyone considering it. In short: If you drop the reproduction side of things from the argument I can find little or nothing wrong with incest in and of itself.

later12

Sharrow wrote: »

So you have no qualms with the type of relationship which Morgan Freeman and E'Dena Hines wife have That he is her stepgrandfather, 40 years older then her and they have been having a sexual relationship over the last 10 years from the time she was 17?

A 27 year old woman and a, what, 67? year old man? No. And that is none of my business, either.

DublinWriter

wes wrote: »

In my parents culture, Cousins can marry (my parents weren't cousins thankfully)

It's genetically far more dangerous for cousins to procreate than siblings.

nozzferrahhtoo

DublinWriter wrote: »

It's genetically far more dangerous for cousins to procreate than siblings.

Based on what? Why do you think so? I have not read or seen anything to support such a statement to date, so I would be genuinely curious to read what you know.

Nodferatu

fritzl would argue