German incest couple lose European Court case

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Krauter

Just a quick question, point to ask. I can't remember where/when I read or saw this but I remember reading or seeing in a documentary on ancient cultures and such that incestuous relations were looked down upon not only because it is socially unacceptable, but because it is a natural instinct imbedded in us to not view family members as potential partners. From what I believe this was an instinctive countermeasure to ensure that a species gene pool does not become contaminated or reliant on solely one groups DNA.

Oh there is definitely a measure of aversion that most people have. But it's the same as the aversion to, you know, homosexual relations. And yet many people do not have this aversion - just as there are many people who are instinctively homosexual. I think it's dangerous to assume that a majority aversion is the "natural" thing, and a minority deviation is "unnatural". The fact is that deviations from the norm are also part of nature.

I don't dispute that there is a natural element to the taboo on incest - there is definitely that. But that's not the whole story. I don't think you can make an argument about 'unnaturalness' based on that alone. The nature of the aversion is also not entirely clear. In many cases, animal populations (and indeed human populations) rely on incest to survive. In some cases, preservation of same DNA is no less important than the drive for genetic diversity, and we in fact see this expressed in many people's preference for particular genotypes that are more similar than different to them (or, to put it less politically correctly, people's pickiness about the race and appearance of their partners). It's not simply an A vs. B thing going on here in terms of genetics.

[Krauter]

Originally Posted by CCIP

I don't dispute that there is a natural element to the taboo on incest - there is definitely that. But that's not the whole story. I don't think you can make an argument about 'unnaturalness' based on that alone.

What argument would you use/support then to explain the taboo on incest?

The fact is that deviations from the norm are also part of nature.

Exactly, I think that naturally if there were no mutations or deviations (and I do not mean this in an offensive way) then things would stagnate and the gene pool would bog down. In my mind, homosexuality is just a natural deviation or mutation. I won't really say that incest is a useful mutation or deviation, or one that will lead the gene pool to further advancement, but in my mind its simply a deviation from the norm.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Krauter

What argument would you use/support then to explain the taboo on incest?

To be honest, I always saw this as something that developed primarily out of the economics of marriage and dowry. Societies where these institutions didn't/don't exist don't seem to have the same prohibitions on incest, which does point to something going on beyond just biology. At the same time, no human or animal population is known to have been 'killed off' by incest alone, while many have survived in part because of it. Usually the loss of genetic diversity has other antecedents.

[Krauter]

Originally Posted by CCIP

To be honest, I always saw this as something that developed primarily out of the economics of marriage and dowry. Societies where these institutions didn't/don't exist don't seem to have the same prohibitions on incest, which does point to something going on beyond just biology. At the same time, no human or animal population is known to have been 'killed off' by incest alone, while many have survived in part because of it. Usually the loss of genetic diversity has other antecedents.

Hmm, Social Pressures (dowrys, marriage, etc) isn't something that I'd considered before Thanks for opening my eyes to this

Also no human/animal population is known to have been killed off solely by incest, but where does a species cross the line of committing incest to preserve itself and hamstringing itself genetically for generations to come?

Edit: Rather, where does society and science draw the line?

[CCIP]

I think my point here is purely one of fairness. Yes, the biological problem is still there. But the economic motivation is not really relevant anymore. My whole point is that incest, as such, is really not terribly damaging to other people and the society as a whole. What did the German state achieve here? They broke up a family that, as difficult and dysfunctional as they might have been, are probably more functional than millions of other families out there who are probably even less qualified to raise children, and yet not only do but even get all sorts of government and tax incentives for it. Then why is this guy going to jail, while other "normal" families with unhealthy kids and poor living practices out there encouraged? Why is consensual sexual behaviour between adults, and the risks to the genetics of their children, the business of government and courts, anyway?

Consider this: eating high-fat processed foods, smoking tobacco, or driving SUVs is SUBSTANTIALLY more damaging to the health of people and their children and to the economy (including cost to the taxpayer) than incest will ever be. Not to mention even more unnatural, and the result of (in the big scope of things) far more recent inventions than tolerance of incest. Then why are those things protected as rights of conscious, consenting adults while the provably lower-risk incestuous relationships aren't? Something's fishy here. Which is exactly what I'm getting at here - except in a warped "the sky is falling!" world that social conservatives seem to live in when it comes to changing social rules to reflect material reality, this sort of thing really makes no sense.

[MH]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Consider this: eating high-fat processed foods, smoking tobacco, or driving SUVs is SUBSTANTIALLY more damaging to the health of people and their children and to the economy (including cost to the taxpayer) than incest will ever be. Not to mention even more unnatural, and the result of (in the big scope of things) far more recent inventions than tolerance of incest. Then why are those things protected as rights of conscious, consenting adults while the provably lower-risk incestuous relationships aren't? Something's fishy here. Which is exactly what I'm getting at here - except in a warped "the sky is falling!" world that social conservatives seem to live in when it comes to changing social rules to reflect material reality, this sort of thing really makes no sense.

Now...what this has to do with the issue?
Oh... i see you look at this from the conservative vs uhh...progressive point.
....in that case i probably would have to be a TEA party voter because one must be against it all for it all.

The German court avoided setting an unhealthy precedent which would add to all the fat food and SUV issues....products of modern lifestyle?