SuperSatellite ||

First a brief note. Did you know that MySpace’s blog editor doesn’t cater to those of us in the Linux community? *tear* Looks like it’s hard coding for me today! Plus another feather in the cap for switching to my own blog.

So, I had some difficulty deciding where to categorize this blog at. I think I got close enough for government work anyway. I have no clue why I felt the need to talk on this subject, but I just found some mild amusement in the topic.

Our friends at Fark.com had a little link to this article on a brother diddling his sister’s pooter. Yeah I know, crazy right? The headline did make me giggle a little: From today’s "Why don’t you just move to Arkansas?" file: German brother and sister challenge country’s incest laws. Bonus: story Godwins the thread. It’s the part about the story Godwining the thread that gets me (although, one could argue that since the reference was in context, it doesn’t count as a Godwin). There’s all sorts of weird stuff going on in the article, like the birth defects (how were they caused?), or the fact that they keep having kids despite jail and getting them taken away (surely if we have enough they’ll let us keep on eventually!).

So let’s talk morals for a second. I know, this is going to make me sound like I am on their side. Let me state for the record I don’t really think this is a good idea. But I do so love the role of devil’s advocate. Especially on moral issues. So what really is the problem here? A lot of people always use the birth defect defense to justify a stance against incest. But seriously? Old age and drugs can lead to higher rates of birth defects, but we don’t lock people up for having kids in those conditions (granted, drugs are illegal, but having a crackbaby isn’t a crime. Kudos to the judges ordering irresponsible mothers on birth control though). And how about the perscription drugs that carry the fun warning that pregnant women shouldn’t even touch the drugs. Totally safe, right? Some studies even posit that extended inbreeding actually eliminates defects in the long term as the ones who survive early on are the most genetically "pure," making them more compatible for future breeding. Of course, worded like that doesn’t sound real great, "the ones that survive…" That would be interesting to see more research on. Like, on rats and stuff, you know? Maybe some pigs too. Not people. Obviously.

In the discussion thread, one user brought up an interesting religious point. Some of my more thoroughly educated Christian friends might be able to point out errors to this rationale though. But, the thing is, in theory wasn’t there a lot of inbreeding at the dawn of time. Adam and Eve would have to have a number of kids with all sorts of intermixing to start things a’spinnin’. And if that’s the case, wouldn’t you expect there to be stronger Christian support for inbreeding? It’s how the world would have started, after all. People like the notorious and reprehensible Fred Phelps love to use the Bible’s references to homosexuality to bash that form of relationship. Is not the other therefore afforded protection on an inverse rationale?

There’s just something unusual about the taboo I guess. We have a natural aversion to familial relations. I think understandably so. But the justification seems like it would be simply more biological than anything, right? I am always interested in things like that, why we have the morals and standards we do. Is just because we disagree with something really grounds to say it is wrong? If something makes us uncomfortable can we reasonably outlaw it? Obviously this particular issue has a number of other sides involved that could justify not allowing it. But I do love questioning values.