Quote:
Originally Posted by slayda
Many societies consider first cousin and closer marriage to be incestuous. I have heard that the Israeli crèches that is is unusual for crèche brother & sister (though unrelated by blood) to marry. That may be due to the taboo influencing people or it may just be a product of "familiarity breeds contempt".
But we wouldn't want to write "dreck" here on MR.  |
I suppose we are using different definitions of "incest" then. I am not aware of any societies in which first cousin unions were absolutely forbidden by law, and sexual relations between such individuals deemed a crime.
Granted that repeated first cousin unions over a number of generations can cause genetic abnormalities to become the norm, but to call every such union "incest" I think is taking the term too far.
I would think it would be unusual for step-brothers and sisters to marry, along the same reasoning as you posed for the Israeli creche, but an unusual union is not necessarily an incestuous one.
Society might have had a jaw dropping moment when Woody Allen married his current missus ... but the union was neither culturally or legally forbidden.
I do agree with regard to the ancient Egyptians, to the extent that full or half siblings were expected to marry and produce offspring. That's not a great way to have a genetically healthy lineage. But then ... what are you supposed to do when your kings and queens are "gods" ... you can't just have them mating with other mortals ....
That was one of those things that always amused me about the book of Genesis ... since there was only one instance of actual "creation" then where did all those other people come from ... if not for incest?