What do you think about this?

[Akka]

Depends what age the kids were when the 2 parents got married. If they were quite young it would be wierd because they should have developed an incest taboo toward each other eventhough they are not genetically related.

Just like I was about to answer.
If they grew up as brother and sister, yes it would definitely be sick.
If they saw each other for the first time at 20, then...

 

[wit>trope]

Incidentally, for someone who thinks that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore immoral, your views on incest are somewhat strange.

Well you can't "pigeon hole" me. Fact is people's belief systems are multi-faceted. It can't really be placed on a one dimensional spectrum that has any real meaning aside from it being terse and convenient. If there are 100 facets to human belief, the spectrum would have to be 100-dimensional.

I don't see why it would be strange btw since as a Christian I believe in the bible including that Adam and Eve's children married each other and had children ... there would be no other way for them to do that and God wouldn't have set it up so that the only way would be the wrong way.

 

[Mise]

Well you can't "pigeon hole" me. Fact is people's belief systems are multi-faceted. It can't really be placed on a one dimensional spectrum that has any real meaning aside from it being terse and convenient. If there are 100 facets to human belief, the spectrum would have to be 100-dimensional.

I don't see why it would be strange btw since as a Christian I believe in the bible including that Adam and Eve's children married each other and had children ... there would be no other way for them to do that and God wouldn't have set it up so that the only way would be the wrong way.

What I meant was that incest is clearly unnatural, yet you are not against it, whereas your reasoning for being anti-homosexuality is that homosexuality is unnatural.

 

[wit>trope]

What I meant was that incest is clearly unnatural, yet you are not against it, whereas your reasoning for being anti-homosexuality is that homosexuality is unnatural.

OK I understand that, but IMO brother-sister love is NOT clearly unnatural. In fact IMO it is at least for those who would accept the bible clearly NOT unnatural since if God approved of Adam and Eve's kids doing it, it can't be unnatural since God doesn't approve of the unnatural.

I would agree that parent-child love would be clearly unnatural -- so that kind of incest I would be totally against.

 

[farting bob]

In theory no, it would be fine. However, i think i would be slightly grossed out by it. Depends how long they have known eachother from. If it was since early childhood, its basically the same as incest. If they are teenagers or above when they first met, then i think it would be reasonable.

 

[Renata]

If they were raised together as brother and sister, I'd find it very strange and creepy, whatever its legal status. If they only met as adults, it'd just be an oddity, nothing immoral or abnormal about it.

 

[Truronian]

OK I understand that, but IMO brother-sister love is NOT clearly unnatural. In fact IMO it is at least for those who would accept the bible clearly NOT unnatural since if God approved of Adam and Eve's kids doing it, it can't be unnatural since God doesn't approve of the unnatural.

Scientifically it is very much unatural. Human's have evolved to not be attracted to siblings due to the dangers of unattractive recesive genes surfacing. Morally, I think that is another question.

 

[CurtSibling]

An unmarried man has a daughter. An unmarried woman has a son. The man and woman marry each other. So the daughter and son are now like step sister step brother. Would it be OK, weird, wrong, healthy, good, etc. for the daughter and son to (presuming they are old enough etc) to marry each other? Or would that be like incest or what?

There is nothing to stop the son/daughter getting married, save for any ideas society might have about it.

And if they are related, doubly so.

.

 

[Mise]

OK I understand that, but IMO brother-sister love is NOT clearly unnatural. In fact IMO it is at least for those who would accept the bible clearly NOT unnatural since if God approved of Adam and Eve's kids doing it, it can't be unnatural since God doesn't approve of the unnatural.

We know that God (if we are to accept God as the creator of everything) created diseases which are directly caused by generations of incest. The laws of nature clearly are against incest, and this is backed by empirical evidence.

A less well-known fact is that humans naturally develop an aversion to those in close proximity to them when growing up, which is why incest is so rare (despite obviously brothers and sisters often being very close friends - as close as any lovers at least.)

 

[wit>trope]

We know that God (if we are to accept God as the creator of everything) created diseases which are directly caused by generations of incest. The laws of nature clearly are against incest, and this is backed by empirical evidence.

I don't believe diseases existed in the Garden of Eden so your example doesn't work for me. I also don't believe "laws of nature" are against incest. If you're referring to defects, they happen less often then you would think and also defective children can be as loved and cherished as less defective children. Check out cousincouples.com if I remember the address correctly for more info

A less well-known fact is that humans naturally develop an aversion to those in close proximity to them when growing up, which is why incest is so rare (despite obviously brothers and sisters often being very close friends - as close as any lovers at least.)

I believe the aversion is more of a cultural one. But even if it is a genetically determined biological one, that would not prove anything for me. For I do not buy into the notion that if something is determined by genetics that it is thereby right or "natural". To be natural for me means to be in accord with how humans were made to be. Since genes are far from perfect or a perfect marker for how humans were made to be (due to mutations and defects and due to the fact that there's been a MASSIVE amount of genetic drift since Adam and Eve's days and our day)

 

[Grisu]

why do so many believe that it would be wrong if they grew up as siblings? How is it in any way different than growing up with the girl next door you've known since kindergarden and then when you're older fall in love with?
I can see nothing wrong with it (except maybe for intolerance from society that might hurt the relationship).

 

[Mise]

I don't believe diseases existed in the Garden of Eden so your example doesn't work for me. I also don't believe "laws of nature" are against incest. If you're referring to defects, they happen less often then you would think and also defective children can be as loved and cherished as less defective children. Check out cousincouples.com if I remember the address correctly for more info

Homosexuals can love children just as much as heterosexuals. And the fact remains that defects result from incest; this is undeniable.

I believe the aversion is more of a cultural one. But even if it is a genetically determined biological one, that would not prove anything for me. For I do not buy into the notion that if something is determined by genetics that it is thereby right or "natural". To be natural for me means to be in accord with how humans were made to be. Since genes are far from perfect or a perfect marker for how humans were made to be (due to mutations and defects and due to the fact that there's been a MASSIVE amount of genetic drift since Adam and Eve's days and our day)

But genes were made by God How can they be imperfect?!

And FYI, the aversions are not cultural. There was a (very convicing) link in a recent thread on incest started by silver, if you're interested.

 

[wit>trope]

Homosexuals can love children just as much as heterosexuals.

I don't see how this is related to what I wrote in the immediate context.

And the fact remains that defects result from incest; this is undeniable.

My point was that defective children are not any less valuable or worthy of being loved and cherished than less defective children. Secondly my point was that defects happen even without incest -- if you don't realize this fact, just google it and you'll see I'm right. Thirdly, my point was that defects happen with incest far less often than you might think. BTW when speaking of "incest" in this context I am referring strictly to incest in the "collateral" line, as opposed to parent-child. 2nd cousins making love is not a significant problem genetically, though one could still talk to a genetic counselor to be sure -- yes they exist, there are even professional associations of them. 1st cousins is a significant issue, but it's not as big as people think. Here are some facts about "incest" that should dispel all the common myths you have about it from the website I referenced above:

Fears of cousins who marry having children with birth defects are exaggerated. Simply marrying within your own race increases the odds of birth defects. Marrying within your own town further increases your chances. Cousin couples have only a slightly higher incidence of birth defects than non-related couples.
26 states allow first cousin marriages; most people can marry their cousin in the US.
US prohibitions against cousin marriages predate modern genetics.
No European country prohibits marriage between first cousins. It is also legal throughout Canada and Mexico to marry your cousin. The U.S. is the only western country with cousin marriage restrictions.
Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk. Genetic counseling is available for those couples that may be at a special risk for birth defects (e.g. You have a defect that runs in your family) In plain terms first cousins have at a 94 percent + chance of having healthy children. Check the links section for more information on genetic counselors. The National Society of Genetic Counselors estimated the increased risk for first cousins is between 1.7 to 2.8 percent, or about the same a any woman over 40 years of age.
Second cousins have little, if any increased chance of having children with birth defects, per the book "Clinical Genetics Handbook”– courtesy of the March of Dimes.
The frequency of cousin marriages in the USA is about 1 in 1,000. The frequency of cousin marriages in Japan is about 4 in 1,000
It is estimated that 20 percent of all couples worldwide are first cousins. It is also estimated that 80 percent of all marriages historically have been between first cousins!
In some cultures, the term cousin and mate are synonymous.
Albert Einstein married his first cousin. And so did Charles Darwin, who had exceptional children.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, the longest serving US president in history married his cousin (not a first cousin, however they shared the same last name).
Leviticus 18 lists all forbidden sexual relationships. Cousin relationships are not included.
God commanded many cousins to marry, including Zelophehad's 5 daughters, Eleazar's daughters, Jacob (who married both Rachel and Leah, first cousins), and Isaac and Rebekkah (first cousins once removed)
It is likely that Joseph and Mary -- Christ's earthly parents were first cousins.
Current studies indicate that cousin couples have a lower ratio of miscarriages -- perhaps because body chemistry of cousins is more similar. The verdict is still out.

So it appears that not only are the risks overstated in your mind but also you are unaware of a potential BENEFIT of cousin couples -- lower ratio of miscarriages.

But genes were made by God How can they be imperfect?!

No, genes are not made by God out of nothing. Genes are formed from pre-existing matter that is just re-arranged in structure. If you're referring to the genes of Adam and Eve -- well then their genes may have been made by God out of nothing, perhaps, but that doesn't entail that their children's genes are made by God out of nothing ... to suppose so would be a fundamental logical fallacy.

And FYI, the aversions are not cultural. There was a (very convicing) link in a recent thread on incest started by silver, if you're interested.

Specify whether you are including parent-child (or grandparent-child) incest or limiting yourself to brother-sister(or cousin-cousin) incest. If it's the former, then I am not contending with regard to that. I am only contending with regard to the latter. So your link which I suspect includes parent-child in its analysis would do nothing for me.

 

[Leonel]

Don't see anything wrong with that. They're only bro/sis in the legal sense, but I can definately see how this could be weird.