F
By "brother-sister relationships," I mean consensual relationships between siblings of similar age who freely choose one another. That is the subject I want to discuss, and I am curious what others here think. Before objections are raised, let me address the three most common arguments people fall back on:
Incest and inbreeding are not the same thing. Incest refers to the relationship itself, while inbreeding is about reproduction between close relatives. And even then, the risks are often exaggerated. Studies show the risk of congenital defects in children of first-degree relatives rises to about double the baseline (sources vary, but many report a similar range), but the baseline is only two to three percent! That means the risk goes up to around five to seven percent, which is higher but still in the same range as other situations society accepts, such as later-age pregnancies. It is a genuine concern but not the doomsday certainty people imagine, and it is managed through genetic counseling just as it is for any other couple at risk.
This objection confuses incest with abuse. When an adult relative forces themselves on a child, that is rape. Consensual brother-sister relationships between adults of similar age are not the same. The cases that make the news usually involve (statutory) rape, which is a separate crime altogether. That is not what I am defending. I am speaking of two consenting adults who are equals, which makes the power imbalance claim irrelevant.
This is not aimed at anyone here, since I doubt anyone here is a liberal (or at least I would hope not), but at those who still care about being called a racist (*cough* IT *cough*). The line of reasoning used to condemn brother-sister incest, that it is unnatural, immoral, and a threat to society, is the same reasoning once used to condemn miscegenation. So if you stand against brother and sister who choose one another freely, then you would have stood against Black and White or Asian and White couples when that was the target of the same arguments, and by that measure you are, quite simply, a racist. Eesh, so much for tolerance!
Moreover, disgust is nothing more than what a culture has trained you to recoil from, not a measure of right or wrong. And the trouble with making "morality" your guide is that morality shifts with the times and usually reflects nothing more than the prejudice of the loudest crowd. To be blunt, the best course in life is not always the "moral" one, yet it may be the reasonable one all the same.
Incest and inbreeding are not the same thing. Incest refers to the relationship itself, while inbreeding is about reproduction between close relatives. And even then, the risks are often exaggerated. Studies show the risk of congenital defects in children of first-degree relatives rises to about double the baseline (sources vary, but many report a similar range), but the baseline is only two to three percent! That means the risk goes up to around five to seven percent, which is higher but still in the same range as other situations society accepts, such as later-age pregnancies. It is a genuine concern but not the doomsday certainty people imagine, and it is managed through genetic counseling just as it is for any other couple at risk.
This objection confuses incest with abuse. When an adult relative forces themselves on a child, that is rape. Consensual brother-sister relationships between adults of similar age are not the same. The cases that make the news usually involve (statutory) rape, which is a separate crime altogether. That is not what I am defending. I am speaking of two consenting adults who are equals, which makes the power imbalance claim irrelevant.
This is not aimed at anyone here, since I doubt anyone here is a liberal (or at least I would hope not), but at those who still care about being called a racist (*cough* IT *cough*). The line of reasoning used to condemn brother-sister incest, that it is unnatural, immoral, and a threat to society, is the same reasoning once used to condemn miscegenation. So if you stand against brother and sister who choose one another freely, then you would have stood against Black and White or Asian and White couples when that was the target of the same arguments, and by that measure you are, quite simply, a racist. Eesh, so much for tolerance!
Moreover, disgust is nothing more than what a culture has trained you to recoil from, not a measure of right or wrong. And the trouble with making "morality" your guide is that morality shifts with the times and usually reflects nothing more than the prejudice of the loudest crowd. To be blunt, the best course in life is not always the "moral" one, yet it may be the reasonable one all the same.
