German incest couple lose European Court case

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Skybird

But must we really go to extremes here to just relativise incestous behaviour? Must we really try to make incestous relations look the same as births given by mothers above 35 years? I think there still is a tremendous and extremely big difference.

No there isn't. Scientifically at least, you can't demonstrate that. There is no difference, and while incest does come with obviously heightened risks, these risks are substantially lower than many other conditions under which marriage is considered socially acceptable.

I'm not going out of my way to challenge "ancient laws" here, but there really is very poor scientific basis for this prohibition. Rather, the prohibition on incest is a purely social one, meant in large part to secure the traditional economic institution of marriage.

All I see is the usual panic-mongering of "we can't allow this one block of our traditional social norm to fall, or the rest of the society will go to hell with it", even if the norm is stupid, baseless, and in this case clearly damages and breaks up what was up to now a more or less functioning family. Society has nothing to fear from incest. What exactly is the threat from a sexual activity between two consenting adults? The fact that your tax money might have to pay for their disabled kids? Shouldn't you then attack all preventable cases of disability and demand mandatory abortions for all mothers at risk of producing unhealthy children? The fact is, incest between adults would not do anyone any significant harm, and certainly far less harm than many other things that are considered to be acceptable, right, and inalienable. But yet it's attacked, because apparently it makes a lot of people fear for their kids suddenly getting hots for their sister and/or brother. Just like allowing homosexuality is a threat because it makes your children gay, right?

[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.

[Krauter]

Originally Posted by CCIP

No there isn't. Scientifically at least, you can't demonstrate that. There is no difference, and while incest does come with obviously heightened risks, these risks are substantially lower than many other conditions under which marriage is considered socially acceptable.

I'm not going out of my way to challenge "ancient laws" here, but there really is very poor scientific basis for this prohibition. Rather, the prohibition on incest is a purely social one, meant in large part to secure the traditional economic institution of marriage.

All I see is the usual panic-mongering of "we can't allow this one block of our traditional social norm to fall, or the rest of the society will go to hell with it", even if the norm is stupid, baseless, and in this case clearly damages and breaks up what was up to now a more or less functioning family. Society has nothing to fear from incest. What exactly is the threat from a sexual activity between two consenting adults? The fact that your tax money might have to pay for their disabled kids? Shouldn't you then attack all preventable cases of disability and demand mandatory abortions for all mothers at risk of producing unhealthy children? The fact is, incest between adults would not do anyone any significant harm, and certainly far less harm than many other things that are considered to be acceptable, right, and inalienable. But yet it's attacked, because apparently it makes a lot of people fear for their kids suddenly getting hots for their sister and/or brother. Just like allowing homosexuality is a threat because it makes your children gay, right?

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Skybird]

Children born to parents who are first degree relatives have a 50% higher risk of suffering from a dominant genetic defect or disease. With second or third degree relatives as parents, the value is lower, but still significantly higher than with parents who are unrelated to each other.

And again, the latent genetic deficit, the risk, is carried over and mounts from one ioncestous generation to the next. The tribes/people'S whole gen-pool gets weakened.

Farmers know this, too. That's why they sometimes try to "inject fresh blood" into their herd. Stirr the gen-pool, that is, revitalise the diversity. Diverse gens guarantee a higher chance for strength and immunity and physical resistence than genetic monocultures. Dog breeders know this, too. Crossbreeds almost always have a higher resistence than poure dog races, also are more inspired in character and intelligence, many dog owners and breeders swear. My God, what should I talk this long - this is long held folk wisdom, since long time!

Small populations, on islands for example, also see higher genetic anomality rates, but evolutionary selection here sometimes has sorted out these deficiencies again. The focus here has to be on the fact that this works only in special circumstances, and very small populations. And only maybe. Note that what worked on some isolated exotic isalnds, did not work that well with culturally self-isolated social communities of slightly bigger sizes, namely Arab tribes and African tribes. Random chance as well as specific limits within which a community size must fluctuate seem to be inevitable preconditions for evolutionary selection having a chance to compensate for inbred defects. In the majority of cultural examples it seems to have worked NOT.

Man had to set a line that marks the limit that close family relations may go in order to breed offsprings from an incestous relation. This is what has been done, and it was done to reduce the risk. I do not know right now where the line is, but it seems to work until today. That first degree relatives always disqualify for breeding, should go without much talking I think, and second degree and I think third degree as well. Beyond that it is being legal and socially not sanctione anyway, so...

Another aspect is that incstous relationsd in the majority of cases include psychologiical dpeendencies, and abuse, either sexually or else-wise. We also kolnow that incerstous relations espoecially between close relatives cause psychological changes in at least one of the two persons involved, usually the weaker, dependent one. I think this also is worth to be noted and taken into account.

But we live in a time where people really argue that anythign goes, and any kind of order, structure, hierarchical classification needs to be destroyed or endlessly relativised. No wonder that the Western culture is falling apart and is in free fall.

If keeping it in the family was good enough for the crowned heads of europe then why can't those two get friendly?

Farmers know this, too. That's why they sometimes try to "inject fresh blood" into their herd. Stirr the gen-pool, that is, revitalise the diversity.

Doesn't that actually counter your "logic" completely as it is an example of an occasional partial break from the practice of inbreeding?
Come to think of it doesn't several examples by you in this topic completely contradict what you have claimed in other topics on breeding and society.
Doublethink at work

[Platapus]

Has it been demonstrated that the handicaps of the children were directly caused by the incestuous relationship?

Just because they came from an incestuous relationship does not mean they were caused by it.