Rook (Jan 15, 2008)
—Should the twins seperate despite their genuine love for each other before the discovery of their siblingship? If they still genuinely love each other, then I don't see why they shouldn't continue loving each other. Society may find it wrong, but I find it impossible to blame them for getting together when they knew nothing of their genetic ties.
—Is it wrong to love your relatives? To fall in love with your relative? To hold feelings for them? Nope, I don't believe it's wrong in anyway to think of your relatives in such a way. What I think is wrong is having children with them. The children, as stated before, may be born with recessive genetic defects, and I personally haven't heard of anyone wanting a child —or anything, for that matter— to be born with genetic defects.
—Should marriage be allowed between relatives? I think so, concerning couples who weren't aware of their blood, and those who are. Concerning couples who weren't aware of their genetic ties to each other, it doesn't sound fair to seperate them when they —and I'm assuming their marriage is out of— love each other. And, for those who already are aware of their genetic ties, I'm sure they're already aware of the risks of bearing children, and if they're responsible adults, they won't think of copulating and bearing children.
—How is incest viewed in our society? To tell you the truth, I have no idea... It's not a topic I've discussed with anyone else, actually. Don't want to give the wrong impression to my colleagues. So I also have no idea if our society is becoming more accepting towards it.
People against incest could be wrong, I could be wrong, but just because one believes in something doesn't automatically make it right.
GALERIE : Limited Internet access for certain reasons...
Rook (Jan 15, 2008)
What was at fault here was the British child services program that didn't inform the two siblings that they had a twin out there. When they got married they had no Idea that they were related in any way, and it wasn't until they went to a reproductive specialist did they find out.
Human beings have a natural "revulsion" when it comes to doing anything reproductive with someone they are related too, its in our instincts. But that only happens when they know that they are related.
When we don't know, its also in our nature to seek out someone who is similar to us mate with, and since a twin sibling (Or even those who are not twins) are very similar, there would be a natural attraction.
Incest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
to tell you the truth.. i kinda find that disgusting. No offense but think about you having sex with your brother or sister.
On the other hand, i dnt blame them. They had no idea... but couldn't they be told before they had this sexual attraction. I think since they are twins, the should seperate, that is how it turned out anyways right?
But it's love and it's their decision^^
Incest occurs in nature, often when populations become incredibly small and other options are limited: and while it is often incredibly detrimental to the successful perpetuation of the species... sometimes it's the only way to perpetuate the species at all. There is no doubt that incest can be damaging to offspring produced through the union (which is why most close-family unions are forbidden LEGALLY). The question is if a couple is worthy of societal denigration because they choose to be with one another, in spite of their intent to have children or not. In which case: I don't agree. I think it's a form of hatred borne out of fear of what we personally aren't comfortable with.
As for religious views of incest: they are incredibly hypocritical. In nearly all religions (and in most schools of Science), mankind develops from a single set of ancestors. We are ALL the products of incest: according to the Bible, most religious myth and likely in a Scientific sense as well. "All men are brothers"... quite literally. Adam and Eve were incestuous, as were their children... oddly enough, Lot, after escaping from a city condemned for wickedness, continues his line by sleeping with his own daughters.
Most Biblical scholars believe that the prohibition against incest in the Bible is a direct attempt to further weed out the pagan elements of the Cannanites and Egyptians: demonizing their practices (homosexuality, idol-worship, interest in the occult, incest, etc) and further demonizing the enemy-religion in the process.
I'm not saying we should all go out and make babies with our sisters. But I think people need to worry more about addressing what they believe is wrong behavior in themselves than being fearful and hateful toward people who aren't bothering them (or anyone else) in the least.
If this couple takes measures to ensure that they do not have children (voluntary sterilization, birth control, etc): they should absolutely be allowed to stay together. And anyone calling their affection for each other sick needs a boot up the ass. How is this their fault? I'm sure, reguardless of the outcome, this will forever be a source of stigma for them. "You slept with your sister?! Oh that's SICK!" But personally, I think that's far more evil (and damaging) behavior than "accidentally" falling in love with a sibling you've never known.
Religion should be a PERSONAL guide to goodness. Not a textbook for social condemnation.
Last edited by tsurara; Jan 15, 2008 at 08:40 PM.
Any one who is opposed to this for genetic reasons needs to do their research! As much good from their (so called) inbreeding can come about as bad. It wouldn't be the first time in the history of the earth that inbreeding has occured... especially in humans. Their genomes are identical which means absolutely nothing. Sure you might think that you have a valid argument if you were to say that they could bring a dormant disease to surface... however because of genetic diversity and the expanse of the gene pool (this is also the reason why two parents don't have just boys or just girls or just blonds or brunettes.) it is possible for the information within the haploid cells to come from entirely different generations within their gene pool. For example suppose one only goes four generations back as opposed to the other going twenty, the genetic difference could potentially be greater then two strangers who are in no way related but just happened to have a common ancestor and by chance derive thier information from the same spot.
Although it doesn't make it impossible for them to have a child born with defects it exploits the lack of support behind your argument they have just a great a chance as anyone else to have a healthy child and potentially an even greater chance of a genius.
As for those of you who rest in saying that you are against this because it is morally / religiously wrong and you think that they'll bring an abomination into the world you have NO RIGHT!
If you believe in one God or more then you should trust that their union will be dealt with as is seen fit by your God/ gods. The fact that you don't proves your disloyalty and lack of faith in them. (and wouldn't that make you an abomination yourself?)
If however you are morally opposed you are unjustifiably WRONG again. Each person's morals are for themselves. It's the ignorance of this simple fact (and people trying to run over other people with their moral values) that leads to war (and to other smaller struggles) and the lack of union within humanity therefore, it's your belief that you have the right to exercise your beliefs over others that is really hurting our race!
END OF STORY!
I welcome any furhter arguments although I must say that unless you're ready to back them out you better not have anything to say against the way that other people choose to live their life (especially since they did nothing wrong...) If people were punished for ignorance then babies would be given the death scentence when they came out.
... and join my rebellion against time.
Inbreeding, both in animals and humans has been shown to, often significantly, increase or perpetuate recessive diseases, mutations and defects which through wider breeding would otherwise be supressed.
The same issues wildlife reserves have with inbreeding cheetah populations and that we have with purebred dogs (which are generally created through selective breeding which very quickly loops back on itself) can easily be translated to human populations.
While the affect is not certain, were incest institutionalized: it would no doubt create LARGER numbers of people with recessive diseases and conditions.
My family bred Golden Retrievers. Golden Retrievers are lovely dogs... but through hundreds of years of inbreeding they've developed tendencies toward cataracts/vision problems and fatty tumors. Mutts, in general, live longer than purebred dogs and have fewer of their unique health issues. This is due to a larger gene pool.
A paper presenting both the "for" and "against":
I'm a Bible believer so to me its wrong. I don't beleive the inital act was wrong because they didn't know, so they should repent but I don't think God would hold it against them for not knowing. If they were to continue with they're marriage and trying to have kids then I would say it flat out a sin.
98% of AO members are yaoi or lollicon fans. If you are part of the 2% that are not, copy and paste this into your sig
Sig By Me"We're all sinners in the hands of the loving God"