Its okay to be gay, but if you shag your realitve your a freak.....

I know a great number of liberals who are for the rights of gays, but when it comes to incest-its “icky”.

LIB: It’s okay if two consenting adults of the same sex want to have sex, BUT it’s not okay if two consenting adult want to shag their cousins/siblings/parents.

I really don’t there a real argument against incest, except for the fact that it’s already a social taboo in many cultures. Studies last year only said incest was a lot less likely to cause birth defects in resultant children, but that the chance of birth defects was still higher than the population on average. (Currently looking for the cite)

Just for the record, I’m against both, but isn’t it hypocritical to be against one and not the other?

Yeah, find me that cite with your fine grammar skills there, Sinful. And while you’re at it, here’s a tool:

It’s only hypocritical if there’s some parallel between being gay and commiting incest, which there isn’t. Is this thread about incest, or simply a rant against liberals and gays?

Well, picking through the OP trying to make sense of it, I think the suggestion is that incest isn’t really a big deal when it comes to offspring, and no more a deal than homosexal relationships.

Unfortunately it doesn’t require ‘recent studies’ to knock this one on the head. It has been known for hundreds of years that breeding between close relatives, be it humans or animals, is a bad idea resulting in congenital defects. It’s also been suggested that this social taboo has evolutionary pressures behind it. Animals as a whole have a natural, instinctive adversion to breeding with close relatives and those who might even be perceived as close relatives.

Quite how this can be compared to homosexual relationships is beyond me, unless we want to discuss homosexual relationships within families??

Sure, but what about two brothers getting it on? No risk of birth defects there. Or if you have a really hot sister and you use protection?

Well, if I may take things off on a tangent here:

Since incest is bad because it can result in deformed children (which I agree with), why do we allow parents who are known carriers of horrible genetic deformities to reproduce without at least some level of genetic screening? It seems to me it’s the same moral argument, that the right of the parents to shag who they like is balanced against the harm they’re going to do to their kids.

In theory, I’m not against incest, as long as it’s between parallel relatives; IOW, mothers and fathers having sexual relationships with their children is wrong, on the basis that, even if the offspring is an adult at the outset of the relationship, there is still a dominant/submissive thing going on. The parent is in control, even if this is only an emotional perception. Therefore, the relationship is emotionally harmful. Same basic thing is a sibling is a lot older than the other. It’s a power thing. Also, because of the risk of birth defects, precautions should always be taken. If the relationship is between cousins/siblings/etc. who are equals, then theoretically, it’s the same as any other sexual relationship: it’s two consenting adults, and it’s their business.

Of course, all that is theoretical. On an emotional level, when it comes to incest (esp. with an immediate family member), I think, ewww. The idea of homosexual relationships doesn’t bother me this way.

Now I’m really gonna blow the OP away, and add that I’m not even a liberal!

It’s overly exaggerated due to the stigma attached to it, but biologically speaking there really isn’t that much of a risk especially among first cousins. Do a google and you’ll see. In fact, it’s only about a 7% risk for birth defects, as opposed to 5% for the general population if I remember right. I doubt the numbers would be that much different between Aunt’s and Nephews, and Nieces and Uncles either, although it would probably be harder to find statistics on this.


Incest isn’t a social taboo in many cultures – it’s forbidden by practically all human cultures. The ban on incest is about as universal as the ban on murder. In some cultures, an exception is made for monarchs, because it’s socially and politically advantageous for monarchs to marry relatives who are also high-ranking. The ‘increased birth defects’ explanation of the incest ban actually doesn’t hold up experimentally – anthropologists have different explanations for the ban. One seems to be that humans are innately repulsed by the thought of incest, as they are innately repulsed by murder.

On the contrary, precepts against homosexuality are by no means universal. Homosexual relationships have been integral to many cultures (e.g. the ancient Greeks, and some cultures in Papua New Guinea). Many species of primates form homosexual relationships (bonobos, for example, are pansexual and engage in group sex with members of both genders), but no primates are incestuous (males often leave the group they travel with as infants to join another group later in life). Humans do not have an innate repulsion to homosexuality, and it is natural to a certain percentage of them. Precepts against homosexuality can probably best be explained as repulsions or pratically-based bans (if men lie with man as with woman, then God will have fewer chosen people) that were imposed upon cultures by a small group of people. The Hebrew moral code, upon which the Christian moral code is based, happened to forbid homosexuality under some circumstances – the modern incarnation of homosexuality was not forseen by the ancient Hebrews. So it has happened that much of the world believes that homosexuality is wrong mostly because they share the moral code of one of the ancient cultures that forbade it.

Incidentally, there is no parallel between incest and homosexuality. The argument made in the topic is just as valid as “It’s okay to be gay, but if you like prepubescent children you’re a freak” or “It’s okay to be gay, but if you have sex with animals you’re a freak”. You can’t just lump together all non-heterosexual non-marital sexual activity as ‘freakish’, and then compare the natural sexual orientation of a small but significant percentage of the population to a practice which is forbidden by nearly all human cultures. Certain sexual practices – homosexuality, pre-marital sex, non-procreative heterosexual intercourse, and so on – are practiced by a large number of people and are not considered repulsive by many of those who don’t practice them, even though they’re forbidden by the Judeo-Christian code. Others, such as incest, bestiality and pedophilia, are universally recognized as repulsive.

Here’s a link for the study on birth defects among cousins.

Actually, many cultures encourage marriages between cousins. There may be a stigma between siblings marrying in most cultures, but it usually stops there. As for a “natural instict” against mating with close relatives, I think it can be equally shown that there is a natural instict for most people (and animals) not to mate with the same sex. Does that prove that homosexuality is unnatural?

If you want to shag your cousins/siblings/parents, I, for one, won’t hold it against you.

And if their offspring sleep with their first cousins?

Close relative breeding is a taboo that applies to generations and societies as much for the cumulative effect as for any individual relationship.

IIRC, what caused genetic deformities in royal lineages was not the incest per se, but rather the continuous incest. One person marrying a relative further out than a sister is probably safe defect-wise. One family continually marrying within itself over generations? Very dangerous.

Where do I stand on this issue? Dunno. I’d have to think about it more.

Damn you, Futile Gesture!
shakes his fist in your general direction

By what definition of pedophilia? Here in America, a female can have breasts, pubic hair and mentrual periods, but still be considered a “minor” as late as just before her 18th birthday; and if an adult male has sex with her, he’s branded as a “sexual predator”. Through most of human history this would have been considered imbecilic. Thanks to our modern need to have very long periods of education before someone is ready to be independent, we have grossly overextended what’s considered “childhood”.

As a libertarian minded guy, I have no legal problem with incest (or polygamy for that matter, another one of those often being thrown in) as long as both are consenting adults and no children are produced. Outside the law, I’d be a bit wary deeming relationships where one is the parent of the other as healthy, as this can build on previously established parent child power relationships.

Also I think ‘increased birth defects’ explanation holds up very much experimentally. At least children of cousin marriages have shown a markedly higher percentage of deformities.

As for bestiality, if it doesn’t harm the animal. Go for it Sinful. Screw that ewe silly.

And I generally consider it ridiculous to label it paedophilia when we’re talking about 16 or 17 year old.

  • Rune

I think there is a misunderstanding of the underlying motivation behind Sinful’s OP. I don’t think this is meant as a pep rally for the acceptance of incest. I rather see this as a “can’t you see how gross homosexuality is” type of thing.

She equates incest with homosexuality as two icky sexual pursuits. I find one behavior repulsive and the other as normal. Feel free to guess which falls into what category.

Homosexuality is a normal, non-pathological part of human sexuality. Incest is almost always a symptom of emotional or psycological disorder. It’s not a normal part of human sexuality. There is no comparison.

Sinful, why don’t you tell us why homosexuality should be considered “icky” on a level with incest. What do you mean when you say you’re “against” it?

Actually, the recent data suggest the exact opposite is true.