Why is it wrong if it's two consenting adults that take responsible measures to not get pregnant?

Are you saying that other cultures which allow it are indecent?

I agree completely and you explained it so well

Yes, well said.

Agree somewhat. Prevent pregnancy, otherwise, best to get DNA scans first.

"23 and me", and other genetic testing labs, can provide one with information about potential recessive gene issues.

It is funny how technology both creates new ethical issues, yet resolves others.

WTF? What? I don't understand?

@paul1967 I think she is saying she is against it LOL. I would ask her but her profile says if you are not a level four she will block you. WTF? That doesn't sound like anyone I'm interested in communicating with.

Ok, so habitual inbreeding sucks for the species. I'm with you there.

What about selective inbreeding for desired traits? Un-natural selection at it's finest! I'm pretty sure the genetic errors could be identified and sterilized before being introduced to the larger gene pool.

At which point does this strategy become morally unconscionable? Who ever thought non-reproductive sister-fucking would become the safe argument?

@xylophonix Are you talking about Eugenics by any chance?
Mankind has tried that over 100 years with canines in particular and now the sickening results, sickening when viewed in the various forms of defects, etc, that are common-place in various dog breeds btw,.
It is not religion that first said NO to in-breeding, it was nature itself, religion only, as it has done with everything else, grabbed the idea and ran with it for its own ' benefit.'

@Triphid I was totally talking about Eugenics. Mind you, not advocating it. Well, Devil's Advocating, I suppose.

I would contend that man has been selectively breeding dogs for a lot longer than 100 years. More like 10,000. I've heard it theorized that the first "dogs" were wolves that followed hunter-gatherer humans and lived off their scraps much like urban raccoons. The more docile of these wolves were tolerated by said humans, and they became "successful" in an evolutionary context by ultimately forming a symbiotic relationship (you give them food, they tell you if a threat is near). Over time, these animals would grow more and more docile as all of the aggressive ones would have been killed or driven off, and these non-desireable traits would not become part of the "dog" gene pool. The results are hard to dispute. We've got a whole race of subservient creatures.

Now, targeted inbreeding for physical traits tends to yield undesirable results due to the fact that our genetic markers do not serve a single purpose... they express themselves in various disparate ways. It could be that within a limited gene pool a double-recessive target trait is only expressed when coupled with other non-desireable traits, but when introduced into a larger gene pool, some of these undesirable traits can be bred out while leaving the desirable one.

I feel like I sound like a Nazi. All of this is just trying to justify sister-fucking. FYI- I have no sisters, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. I do have an agressive, non-domesticated wolf in it, though.

@xylophonix Yes, I agree that humans have been selectively breeding dogs, in particular, for over 10,000 years however it has been since the arrival of the Pedigreed " Show" Dogs and breeding of such in the last hundred+ years that the genetic damage has become far more obvious, e.g. the British Bulldog which now has such a shortened nose that it finds it almost impossible to breathe and thus cannot cool its blood and lower its body temperature normally as do other dog breeds, it cannot mate without human intervention now since its hind quarters are far to weakened by specific breeding that the male cannot mount the female and the female cannot support the weight of the male anyway during mating.
That is just 2 example of the damage wrought by humans on the various ' breeds' of dogs, there are innumerable more examples that I could list but I'll leave those examples for others who may be concerned enough to research them for themselves.
If this is what we have done and are still doing to ' man's best friend,' then what are doing to man himself with, for example, the massive upward rise of things such as Invitro -fertilization using virtually anonymous Sperm Donors and laws supposedly protecting their identities from the children they produce?
How, I ask, can for example male child A ( born by such intervention or adoption know that female child A is NOT a blood and genetic close relative when they decide to wed and start a family?
The American idea of ' blood tests' before marriage appears to be a ' good' one BUT that only goes just so far and, in my opinion, smacks a bit of the Eugenics Ideology as well.
Are we not simply 'paving the road' to the eventual 'dumbing down' of our own species by so rapidly embracing things such as Invitro-fertilization without pausing to consider the future outcomes?

The goats I raise were feral for a couple hundred years, so essentially wild animals, until the 1980s & I assure you, they have absolutely NO qualms about incest. The dominant male goat will drive out only his male kids & happily mate with his daughters & the daughters he has by them.

@Carin Yes that does happen in numerous species but eventually the genetic pool becomes so polluted that all kinds of deformities, etc, begin to show up.

Well, when I first started school back in 1959 there was still that archaic ' push' ( religion based of course) that left-handed people MUST be FORCED at all costs to become Right-Handed.
I've lost count of the numbers of knuckles that I had from Teachers wielding wooden rulers fitted with thin metal strips in the edges of them that they repeatedly lashed my knuckles because I refused and was unable to learn to write with my right hand.
I still have, somewhere stored away, a letter sent home by one particular Teacher, a True Dragon-Lady in every way, shape and almost form btw, to my Dad stating that " Your child is little more than a terrible, sinful, sinister Imp of the Devil himself because he resists our kindly(????) efforts to help him mend his defective ways."
Later I found that the word ' sinister' was derived from the Latin - sinistera/sinisterii meaning anything LEFT of the normal ( recto - RIGHT, socially acceptable, etc, etc,) and that Catholicism had altered the meanings to imply that ' sinister' should mean ' sinful,' evil,' or ' in league with the forces of Evil.'
Guess what, I'm still left-handed when writing and using various tools, etc.
So, YES, tying your left shoe first was once classed as being an Immoral person and should religion ever get its way as it once had, we may, very sadly, see the old attitudes rear their ugly, disgusting heads once more.

@Triphid I'm left handed too and I was never subjected to that kind of abuse (I went to grade school in the 1970s and 80s). I have never read anything in the Bible condemning left-handed people either.

@DaleHusband_HS But you went to ' Grade School in America I presume whereas I went to Primary School ( Grade School) in Australia in the late 50s and early 70s.
In the ORIGINAL transcription of the Goat-Herders Guide to the Galaxy, aka the bible, you will a passage in Exodus ( Chpt. 2, verse 11 if memory serves me correct) that states, " Thou shalt smite off the hands and heads of those whom with their sinister ( left) hands cannot change to the ways that are those the Lord, thy God and be of the Recto ( right) handed ones."

And yet there are still Siamese twins!

Also, who did Adam & Eve's kids marry?

p.s. i do wonder what you mean by christian influence. the taboo dates back WELL before christianity!

@genessa Exactly, it goes back to the earliest times even before the evolution of mankind.

@Triphid earliest times, definitely. before the evolution of mankind... no such thing as "before" because evolution is a continuous process. perhaps you mean prehistorical times?

g

@genessa Hominids/Humans eventually evolved from a very early mammalian species that was around during the final decades or so of the Age of the Dinosaurs, that in turn slowly evolved into numerous other forms, one of which was the earliest primate type species and over more ages of time it too evolved and various "off-shoot" species evolved from there, one being the earliest hominids such Australopithecus and onwards until man ( Homo Sapiens) arrived upon the scene. Ergo, " before the Evolution of Mankind" is NOT incorrect.
Prehistoric is simply a broad terminology used to describe events etc, that occurred BEFORE written Historical Records were kept.
Yes, evolution is a continual process but it has a starting point for every living thing and for some it also has a finishing point whether by natural terrestrial, extra-terrestrial or, in the case of human actions and interventions, slow extinction events such as humans are bringing upon the life of animals etc, ( including our own future generations) on this planet.
Why then, since Incestuous mating, according to your comment only seems to have occurred in humans, out the thousands and thousands of fossils of earlier animal species, etc, have there not been the malformations/deformities found that are directly attributable to incestuous behavior amongst them?

@Triphid i didn't say incest started only with human beings, or that it is unique to human beings! gosh, why would i say that? my cat tries to hump his daughters all the time (good thing he's fixed). i didn't, and i wouldn't, say that. and i know what prehistoric means, thanks. i said incest taboos in humans predates written history. i don't know why or how, but think you thought i said the opposite of what i said! i might also note that there is no clear date when suddenly homo sapiens popped into being. it was a slow process like so much else, and mankind as we know it involves a little cross-breeding with neanderthals, who, i suspect, may have had the same taboos against incest. i believe there are other animals (not my kitties) that have such taboos, but they don't write them down lol

g

If that be your opinion then I feel sorry for both you and any future generations that hold to your principles for most surely there will be some possibly horrific malformations/deformities occurring in your genetic lines of the future.

@Triphid who said anything about procreation?

@Ktruin Well, unless precautions such as a Vasectomy for the males and a total Hysterectomy for the female are undertaken prior to any sexual relations taking place, somewhere sometime and somehow Nature will have its own way and suddenly procreation has become a reality.

god (fictional character of course) was just fine with lot's daughters getting him drunk and raping him in order to repopulate the world, as they saw it. then, this god was a funny character all around.

g

@genessa "God a funny character all round, " I'd say this Imaginary, Invisible Sky Daddy was more of a cross between a Narcissist, Psychopath, Socio-path, Ego-maniacal Egotistical Misogynist with attributes that the likes of Nero, Caligula, Hitler and the Nazis and even Pol-Pot lacked and would be jealous of.
Is it any wonder that Atheists are the most caring and humane of the human race with such a role model as this Judeo- Xtian-Islamic Supreme Being.

@Triphid again, i gently disagree only in part, because there are different gods even in the same bibles. they're all supposed to be the same guy but they can't be. some of them are dreadful and some are not. it doesn't matter because they're ALL fictional.

g

@genessa Earlier mankind literally INVENTED Gods/Goddesses, etc, in attempts to explain how things happened etc, and then these " supreme beings" developed the traits, both good and bad, of the purveyors of those beliefs.
As a Philosopher once said, " When creating a Deity, first one MUST it Invisible, Intangible, Unimpeachable then add the best and worst traits of those who both invent it and will worship it."
Hence, the Abrahamic God was invented as per the Old Testament one filled with Ire, Dictatorial behaviour and actions, Blood-lust, etc, etc, then altered somewhat to suit the times as the New Testament was created and written, i.e. a few new P.R. writers and voila, we have the deity that is worshipped these days, same deity, slightly mellowed down to suit the tastes, etc, of the more enlightened worshippers, nothing more, nothing less, just the same wolf, the same sheep's clothing just a small change of overall colour.

safe sex means no breeding, in or otherwise.

g

Cousins