Sex or marriage with a cousin. Opinions wanted.

[Blix]

what i'm saying, though, is that they wouldn't have to know the emotinal word 'cousin' to smell the incompatible genes. Well, that, or they happened to be compatible, in which case they most likely wouldn't get birth defects anyway.

Which is the exact thing that makes it acceptable.

Also, animals very much DO have societies. Also some animals DO inbreed, though, again, not always a good idea because _breeding_ isn't usually good with incest.

~Blix

[Blix]

has it occurred to you guys that maybe it is not just a word? "family" is not just a combination of letters, it means something. Say, an extreme example, a brother and sister are estranged. And they meet not knowing they are family. I'd say the chemistry would be wrong right off the bat and they wouldn't get together anyway, but let's assume that they both can't smell or something. You're saying that when he finds out she's his 'sister', it's the WORD that puts him off, not the revelation that if their future children would probably be defect, thus making their gene line much more likely to end?

Making sure that your genes survive is a very very strong instinct in all animals, because, after all, all those who ensured that their line continued are still around.

Bear in mind that unrelated couples who find out that they are both carriers of the same illness usually decide not to risk having more children because of this.

Shown again. The word is what makes it happen.

If, before the knowladge that they are brother and sister comes out, they had decided not to have children then it wouldn't have mattered...

~Blix

[Blix]

Bear in mind that unrelated couples who find out that they are both carriers of the same illness usually decide not to risk having more children because of this.

They don't have to break up. They just have to not have children.

Exactly. You just said the same thing I've been saying...

Bear in mind that related couples who find out that they are related and thus because this can cause defective children they usually decide not to risk having any children because of this.

They don't have to break up. They just have to not have children.

~Blix

[Zyx]

We all agreed birth defects aren't a big risk. Animals don't mind screwing relatives. You can smell if someone is compatible? I ware axe
Smelling if someone is compatible? my ass.
And with "if your family is healty" I ment that there were no bad genes.

[vashti]

She is basing her "smell argument" on the idea of pheremones, which is an unproven hypothesis.

Really, incest between close relatives is illegal and increases the liklihood of birth defects. There need be no other reason to avoid it. People who choose to engage anyway are simply allowing their own desires to override common sense.

Now can we stop this silly argument?

[Blix]

By "smell" we're talking more about the pheremones* and stuff that we receive from our partners that tell us that we are compatiable with each other.

~Blix

[Blix]

She is basing her "smell argument" on the idea of pheremones, which is an unproven hypothesis.

Really, incest between close relatives is illegal and increases the liklihood of birth defects. There need be no other reason to avoid it. People who choose to engage anyway are simply allowing their own desires to override common sense.

Now can we stop this silly argument?

Everyone keeps bringing up the _breeding_ part of this! Besides the fact that it's not even close to a 100% chance of this, it's just a higher change. It's illegal for that reason. So you only really gave one reason against it.

[url]http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/columns/fl.grossman.incest.04.09/[/url]

[url]http://www.answers.com/topic/incest-taboo[/url]

~Blix

[vashti]

!) illegal
2) birth defects
3) socially unacceptable

I count three reasons. Quit splitting hairs.

[Blix]

!) illegal
2) birth defects
3) socially unacceptable

I count three reasons. Quit splitting hairs.

You count three things from one source.

It is illegal BECAUSE of the brith defects. It's socially unacceptable BECAUSE it's illegal. Two of your reasons are only by transversal.

~Blix

[Tiay]

well, on the surface it is always the word. it's what the word means, genetically, I believe, that makes the difference and causes the aversion. The words "i'm sorry, Mr and Mrs Smith, but you both carry the gene for x" have the same effect, because of what they mean for the couple's offspring.

yes.. there are people who never have children at all. I didn't say that they had to split up.
I know a person who's a wonderful teacher (teaches young kids) who doesn't have children and probably wont. Initially I wonder why such a person would exist;; is it an evolutionary glitch? Was she simply never in a position to have kids? She's contributed to society though, and maybe that's the idea.

"By "smell" we're talking more about the pheremones* and stuff that we receive from our partners that tell us that we are compatiable with each other." -blix

thank you btw, vashti, recent studies increasingly support the idea that pheromones and other signs regulate attraction without people even noticing.

quote from a Queens University Article called Sniffing out a mate:
"Wedekind was following up on earlier research that indicated mice prefer breeding with other mice that have dissimilar major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes. MHC genes are a part of the genome involved in sexual attraction, as well as in the body's defense against disease. Generally, the more diverse someone's MHC genes are, the better their children's immune system will be.
 
Wedekind collected the shirts after two days and asked 49 women to smell seven boxes-three with shirts from men whose MHC closely matched hers, three from men with dissimilar MHC genes and one control box with a new shirt. Each woman then noted which scents she preferred.
 
There was a strong correlation between the responses of the women and what one would expect based on the results of the mice experiment;the women generally preferred the scents of the shirts that came from men whose MHC genes were dissimilar to theirs. Many women noted that the scents they preferred reminded them of present or former boyfriends, and the shirts from men with similar MHC genes reminded them of fathers and brothers"


ps; this just occurred to me. There are many cases in history where royal families were inbred. What happened to the taboo? It just went poof? I'd say this is because they considered their genes so perfect, they needed to be protected from outside influence and propagated only with themselves.
Kind of like dog breeding enthusiasts are obsessed with propagating and strengthening breed traits.
Usually people should 'know' deep down that combining genes is bad and are naturally averted by it, but these people wanted to combine them. In fact, I remember reading that it was considered 'nasty' and 'disgusting' for the princess to marry outside of a certain genetic distance. hm... almost as if the 'taboo' had inverted itself. These people didn't have knowledge of how genetics works really.. it was just based on some kind of.. ingrained natural knowledge. odd..
I wouldn't be surprise to read that these royal families were like purebred dogs after a few generations; proud of their particular traits, but carrying illnesses because there wasn't enough variety.

[Blix]

Okay, well I've already pointed out that there is still a minimal chance of having defective children even with first cousins.

Though sense you all can't leave the children point alone, what if the couple has to sign a contract where they cannot have children at all, at marriage.

There's no problem in this situation.

~Blix

[Tiay]

I don't see a problem with that either.
I once saw a documentary about rare cases of half-siblings and cousins and such relations who were estranged and through particular circumstances met and fell in love with each other. First of all, they didn't look very similar to each other. And second, they were concerned about offspring, and considering adopting, or getting themselves tested for carrying serious diseases they could pass on, etc.

and vashti, I realise this is kind of drawn out debate, but nobody is making you follow it.

[vashti]

and vashti, I realise this is kind of drawn out debate, but nobody is making you follow it.

Ha! I am on YOUR side, and besides, I haven't done much more than skim your posts because they are too long to maintain my interest. I can google wikipedia just as easily.

[Tiay]

oh, i'm sorry, I thought you were annoyed because this just seems to keep going.
I'd say there are no sides, but that sounds so moral-high-ground-grabbey

[Blix]

Vashti you're really being quite hypocritical. You tell us to stop posting and let the argument die yet you reply, further bumping the thread and prolonging it's stay at the top.

By reading and replying to it you're SUPPORTING it's staying alive.

So, then Taiy, you agree.

~Blix