German incest couple lose European Court case

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by MH

What about common sense?
What about minimizing the risks with in established social norms and trying to keep them that way instead of challenging them on some theoretical ideas?
This is a problem so why make it even bigger just because the "ancient" law must be challenged?

What if those established social norms are baseless and stupid?

[MH]

Originally Posted by CCIP

What if those established social norms are baseless and stupid?

What if not?

[Ducimus]

Hell, that couple would fit right in in the south. They'd make great southerners. After all, a southerner's family tree goes straight up, with no branch's.

[Krauter]

Originally Posted by CCIP

So what about relationships between disabled people, or women having children after 35? Both are scientifically more likely to produce birth defects than incest.

Not really sure what to think of those atm, in the middle of studying and checking this thread so I'll get back to it when I've got more concentration.

Originally Posted by Skybird

The risk of genetic defects becoming latent mounts with every incestously born generation.

Incest relations therefore should not be considered normal, and by the biological desiogn of our sexual reproduction cycle they are not normal, too, like homosexual relations aren't normal in that context, too.

I completely agree that incestuous relations, to be precise, sexual relations are not normal and naturally speaking are not in the least bit close to natural. I also agree that the risks of genetic defects mounts with each incestuous born generation.

This is why in my earlier post I said if an incestuous couple would want a child, that's fine, just adopt one or get artificial insemination from a sperm bank instead of your partner. That way the risks of genetic defects doesn't like with incestuous sexual relationships.

All I'm saying here is that if someone chooses to love another, whoever they may be, and their partner loves them in turn, it is in no ones rights to tell them they cannot do this. This is a completely different topic then that the OP posted and I apologize for derailing the thread, but I just wanted to get that out. A judge doesn't have the right, in my opinion, to tell someone he or she cannot love someone else.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Krauter

I completely agree that incestuous relations, to be precise, sexual relations are not normal and naturally speaking are not in the least bit close to natural. .

How do you know this? There is a lot of incestuous behaviour observed in nature and among primates particularly (just do a quick google search - there is a vast amount of academic material on this subject out there). What makes it unnatural, then, and how can we prove this? I'm afraid a lot of it is simply a common-sense assumption that the loss of genetic variety makes it unnatural, but in fact that in itself is pretty poor reasoning to justify the 'unnaturalness' of it alone.

[MH]

Originally Posted by CCIP

How do you know this? There is a lot of incestuous behaviour observed in nature and among primates particularly (just do a quick google search - there is a vast amount of academic material on this subject out there). What makes it unnatural, then, and how can we prove this? I'm afraid a lot of it is simply a common-sense assumption that the loss of genetic variety makes it unnatural, but in fact that in itself is pretty poor reasoning to justify the 'unnaturalness' of it alone.

There is a lot of academic material pointing to a fact that incestuous behavior is damaging genetically.
Its not just about "unnaturalness" but it became as such due to observation and conclusions as well... hence ....social norm back up currently by science.
Observation and drawing conclusion is what derives us from other primates.