English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I know why its wrong in this life time.
But during when civilzations were forming such as Egypt, the son would marry the half sister in the King's favour. and so forth.
And Greece would marry their children togeter as well.
Plus there was lots of cheating and gay's then, but we probably didnt know, cause it all took off in closed doors.
But it wasnt looked as bad then. Why?

2007-12-14 11:24:51 · 40 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships Family

Im not having sex with a family member, you people are so ill headed. Why not read my question. It was normal for insect back then. But they were still people. Why did soceity change

2007-12-14 11:43:50 · update #1

40 answers

Back then they were trying to keep their bloodlines clean from other families believing some families were better than others.Eventually through the ages things changed and people were looked at differently.People then started to marry off their children and things became more civilised.Some cultures though still marry within their families, although they may be distant relatives.

2007-12-14 11:31:12 · answer #1 · answered by Brent Z 2 · 2 4

Until maybe a century or so ago, the "royals" married among themselves to keep the power within a single family. Letting in NEW blood meant having to deal with more of these "new" people, i.e. killing (poisoning, etc) THEM, potentially.

We know NOW that incest is NOT best. It leads to all sorts of defects due to the genetic conflict that erupts when this happens. For example, among royal families, people noticed that the offspring were becoming "bleeders," i.e. their blood would not clot, and this would lead to them DYING from the smallest scratch that made them bleed the tiniest amount. Hemophylia may be the term my tiny brain can't seem to remember. While children outside the royal family had NO such issues, children within the royal family did.

So there was SOME realization, early on, that there were "issues" with intra-family relationships.

What cracks me up is that SO many of you people are assigning inbreeding only to ancient societies. Inbreeding, on a large scale, was happening until about 100 years ago, people! On a much smaller scale, it may STILL be happening!

You added, "It was normal for insect back then. But they were still people." WTH does THAT mean?

2007-12-14 11:29:16 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 4 2

Do you really think everything was OK with the marriages between close relatives? I'll bet they had more than their share of kids who were kept from the public eye.

Wonder about the offspring of relatives?

Go rent the movie, "Deliverance". Look closely at the kid playing the banjo. THAT is what happens when close relatives have a child together.

Let's just say your maternal grandfather was born with a club foot. Let's also say your maternal grandmother was born with a cleft palate.

You and your cousin on your mother's side decide you want to get married. You do, and you decide to have a child. The chances of your producing a child with a club foot AND a cleft palate are greatly INCREASED because you share common grandparents with the same congenital birth defects.

Would you want that? Built-in birth defects in your future offspring?

Well, that is why there are laws against families closely intermarrying. (And certainly against reproducing!!!)

2007-12-14 11:43:41 · answer #3 · answered by Cat Lady 6 · 0 2

first off back then they also murdered the children that were born from that because of the birth defects, retardation and so on and so forth, they thought they were keeping there blood lines strong when in all actuality they were really messing the future lines up, 2nd cousins and stuff probably isn't so bad, but when you start talkin about half siblings, that's just gross....of course I'm also from the south and the running joke around here is ya sister is also your cousin, needless to say i don't agree with it...back then they also didnt have the medical advances we now have to show you arent supposed to genetically combine siblings because of what the outcome may be

2007-12-14 11:31:41 · answer #4 · answered by leelee 1 · 1 1

The simple physical reason against cosanguinous sex is the cetainty that it would blow up some inherently damaging character in the genes. By underlining them it would be sure cause for a predestined end of the line. Besides other reasons the cause of end of the royal lines of old who indulged in this is this.The strict injunctions against such association in almost all the societies is this entirely practical consideration though it has been couched in some religious language.

2007-12-14 11:35:11 · answer #5 · answered by Prabhakar G 6 · 0 2

If you believe in creation and GOD and Adam and Eve, it is a simple answer.
In the beginning DNA was perfect. There were no flaws or abnormalities. Adam and Eve destroyed perfection when they consumed the forbidden fruit. Their children were able to mate with each other and reproduce with no abnormalities because their DNA was so extremely close to perfection. The farther away from perfection human DNA becomes, the more abnormalities and defects that are likely. So, now when close dna is combined they mess with each other and cause bad things to happen and the corruption of genes.
If you do not believe in GOD and the such, then chalk it up to cultural differences.

Society changed because the truth of imperfection and gene malformation became more evident as society was better educated.

2007-12-14 11:33:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

THERE is evidence of various congenital difficulties arising within the Egyptian royal dynasties that undermined their political power which came about time and again in the same (related) group.

basically DNA has developed various mutations that close relatives would also share so if you marry and have kids with them there is a very good chance that this fault would be magnified to produce a weaker offspring with a bigger fault and congenital condition.

Marrying someone else who isn't a close relative means that if one partner has a DNA fault in their genes then they will be matched by a stronger set of DNA from their partner to produce a child who is healthy.

so incest is bad for mankind as a whole as well as society - hence the global ban on it in every culture

2007-12-14 11:36:22 · answer #7 · answered by Aslan 6 · 1 2

Because they didn't know anything about genetics. The main thing about incest is that the girl could get pregnant, and these two people have similar genes. If there are any looming genetic disorders, they are far more likely to come out - that's one of the reasons why the Egyptian pharaohs often died young, and that's the reason why the British Royals are so damn ugly!

2007-12-14 11:31:16 · answer #8 · answered by Heidi W 4 · 0 2

Because they found out that it produced idiots. If you reproduce with a close relative you pass on all the bad stuff as well as any good stuff and eventually you will end up with idiots. Look at the hills of places like West Virginia in the Appalachian Mountains where they interbreed regularly. The is widespread ADD and ADHD and other learning disabilities and bone deformities. All types of bad stuff being passed down from both sides.

We now have knowledge of what happens when you reproduce with a close relative. We know that it will more likely produce offspring who are in some way damaged.

2007-12-14 11:31:23 · answer #9 · answered by Frosty 7 · 1 3

Originally, it was after Sodom and Gomorrah when the daughters of Lot thought that no other man existed and they needed to continue on with mankind. However it has been proposed that this happened because Lot offered up his daughters in Sodom and Gomorrah and they refused them then. This has posed many relational problems as later, incidental incest later occured by accident. It was the only way at the beginning, and later fazed out.

2007-12-14 11:56:28 · answer #10 · answered by wowwee 5 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers