NationStates

Chinamerica wrote:In response to a thread questioning the legality of polygamous marriages, I ask you: should incestuous relationships be legal? It seems a lot of libertarian-minded folk think that any consenting adult should do what they want in the privacy of their homes. Do you think that two adult family members should be able to have a sexual relationship/get married/have kids?

I think the idea of incest being legal is absolutely ridiculous. Generations of inbreeding limits the gene pool and highly increases the risk of disease. It should never be legalised. What do you guys think?

I think if you want to ban people from reproducing based on genetics, then please go get yourself tested so we can determine whether you're fit to contribute to the gene pool.

Ifreann wrote:

Chinamerica wrote:In response to a thread questioning the legality of polygamous marriages, I ask you: should incestuous relationships be legal? It seems a lot of libertarian-minded folk think that any consenting adult should do what they want in the privacy of their homes. Do you think that two adult family members should be able to have a sexual relationship/get married/have kids?

I think the idea of incest being legal is absolutely ridiculous. Generations of inbreeding limits the gene pool and highly increases the risk of disease. It should never be legalised. What do you guys think?

I think if you want to ban people from reproducing based on genetics, then please go get yourself tested so we can determine whether you're fit to contribute to the gene pool.

It applies to everyone but him, obviously.

Chinamerica wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:Yea, no.
What ever two consenting organisms do is their business.
This whole nonsense about genetic disease is nonsense firstly because we don't ban marriage between two people with faulty DNA that increase chances of disease (or else human race would go extinct quite fast) and secondly because it is over hyped.

In the end, it comes down to "I find it icky".

You didn't get As in science, did you?

Science has shown that it takes repeated inbreeding for there to be an effect comparable to having a forty year old mother. Will you ban middle aged women from procreating?

Great Nepal wrote:

Chinamerica wrote:You didn't get As in science, did you?

I did and also in English.
Thus, I can read study that states that excess mortality at the first cousin level was 4.4%.

You had a monolithic "science" class?

Hell, here we have "Biology," "Chemistry," and "Physics." Sounds like your school had it way streamlined.

Great Nepal wrote:

Tunasai wrote:
Thats discrimination, now if I said I was part of an ethnic group that wasn't white, this would really backfire on you

Mind explaining how what I said is in any way different logically to what you said.
You find incest disgusting so it should be banned.
I find you disgusting so you should be banned.

Tunasai wrote:Fine, go participate in incest sex,

No thanks.

Tunasai wrote:when your children are all defective.

With exception of parent-child or sibling-sibling relation: chances of genetic disease on offspring is 4.4%.

Since you aren't intelligent enough to figure it out yourself, I'll guide you

1. Incest is an act, right now, its also a crime, like murder. Murder is an act considered immoral, as is incest. Since I doubt you would advocate murder being legalized you should just shut up since both murder and incest are found on common ground. (As in both incest and murder are moral issues considered to be wrong and disgusting)

2. Banning a person (though it has no logic and no specifics on what I would be banned FROM) is discrimination since it highlights a specific person and dis-permits said person from participating in the same activities and or having the same rights someone of equal footing would have. For example, you ban me from drinking Soda. But a person of the same nationality and standing can drink Soda legally. Thats called Discrimination

Think before you type

Depends how close, sibling and sibling, parent and offspring etc. is no go area

Meh, realistically, this subject kinda depends for me. I would by no means participate in anything close to it personally, but I don't really feel like I should strongly be against it.

Specifically, a story once that didn't trigger any bad reaction from me. These 2 siblings were separated at birth, but met again yeeeaaars later, and fell in love with each other. Then got married (Supposedly, not sure), and had kids. For whatever reason, that didn't bother me. Them meeting at that point is pretty much like me meeting the 'girl of my dreams' at some point in my life (If that happens, and if I care for it to happen, that is). Your friendship with them wouldn't feel so much like a sibling relationship anymore, and could more easily lead to what happened. I dunno, I'm mixed on the whole thing.

Aalnordhavn wrote:Yeah, that's kind of disgusting...

But to answer the question, no it shouldn't. Mainly because it would mess up the child. That and we all know what happened to the Ancient Egyptians.

Honestly, i don't approve because of genetic issues. Would you like to marry a sister/brother, have children, then watch your children grow up, they have children with another sibling (if it were legal), and the child has a high chance of defection?
Forget all of the science, and focus on emotions for a second. Would you want anyone, especially a child/grandchild of yours, to grow up different, and obviously so? Brain defects, organ defects, missing limbs... Corrupted genetics would ruin a child's life - physically, mentally, socially, and otherwise.

Gaveo wrote:

Aalnordhavn wrote:Yeah, that's kind of disgusting...

But to answer the question, no it shouldn't. Mainly because it would mess up the child. That and we all know what happened to the Ancient Egyptians.

Same thing can really be said about the European Royal Line, as they all interbred with eachother for hundreds of years.

Tunasai wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:Mind explaining how what I said is in any way different logically to what you said.
You find incest disgusting so it should be banned.
I find you disgusting so you should be banned.


No thanks.


With exception of parent-child or sibling-sibling relation: chances of genetic disease on offspring is 4.4%.

Since you aren't intelligent enough to figure it out yourself, I'll guide you

1. Incest is an act, right now, its also a crime, like murder. Murder is an act considered immoral, as is incest. Since I doubt you would advocate murder being legalized you should just shut up since both murder and incest are found on common ground.

2. Banning a person (though it has no logic no specifics on what I would be banned FROM) is discrimination since it highlights a specific person and dis-permits said person from participating in the same activities and or having the same rights someone of equal footing would have. For example, you ban me from drinking Soda. But a person of the same nationality and standing can drink Soda legally. Thats called Discirmination

Think before you type

Point 1: "LOOK AT MY STRAW MAN"
Incest is not, in fact, murder. Murder is considered immoral on different grounds from incest.
One could equally say "Because murder is illegal and blacks marrying whites is illegal, we can't legalize blacks and whites marrying"

Point 2: Get back to me when the words in your head begin coming out onto the page in a coherent, logical manner. You seem to be defining discrimination as banning people from drinking soda pop unless they're standing and the same nationality as yourself.

Tunasai wrote:Since you aren't intelligent enough to figure it out yourself, I'll guide you

1. Incest is an act, right now, its also a crime, like murder. Murder is an act considered immoral, as is incest. Since I doubt you would advocate murder being legalized you should just shut up since both murder and incest are found on common ground.

2. Banning a person (though it has no logic no specifics on what I would be banned FROM) is discrimination since it highlights a specific person and dis-permits said person from participating in the same activities and or having the same rights someone of equal footing would have. For example, you ban me from drinking Soda. But a person of the same nationality and standing can drink Soda legally. Thats called Discirmination

Think before you type

1. No, murder is illegal because it deprives a non-consenting indivudal of their life. Incest is illegal because people find it disgusting as only people affected are two consenting people.
2. You implied that finding something disgusting is legitimate reason to ban something. Thus, me finding you disgusting is legitimate reason to ban you. Not that hard to figure out.

The Holy Twig wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:I did and also in English.
Thus, I can read study that states that excess mortality at the first cousin level was 4.4%.

You had a monolithic "science" class?

Hell, here we have "Biology," "Chemistry," and "Physics." Sounds like your school had it way streamlined.

We have Biology, chemistry and physics as part of sciences. Then iGCSE in specific science.

The Emerald Dawn wrote:

Zottistan wrote:No, they were human. They were humans who existed in circumstances that no longer exist.

Right. The children they had, and the issues those children faced are completely different, because those children are not human. Or something.

That's not the point. Of course the kids would face similar issues. But generations of inbreeding probably wouldn't occur, because social conditions have changed.

I support incest being legal simply because I don't really care who fucks who in the privacy of their own home.

Trotskylvania wrote:

Chinamerica wrote:I think the idea of incest being legal is absolutely ridiculous. Generations of inbreeding limits the gene pool and highly increases the risk of disease. It should never be legalised. What do you guys think?

Then it's a good thing that incest being legal or not has no effect on its incidence.

Seriously, this is a basic biological imperative. It doesn't need to be legislated against. People are already naturally averse to fucking their siblings. Hell, anyone who they grew up in close proximity to. It's called the Westermarck effect.

Those people who do end up falling in love with their biological siblings are usually in tragic situations. Criminalizing it isn't going to make things any better. It's just callous and heartless. You can make the case for criminalizing sexual relationships between parents and children (whether biologically related or not) because it's inherently an unequal relationship and abusive, but you can't make that sort of blanket claim for sibling relationships, or cousin relationships.

I just realize that you're like CTOAN, with the exception that no one ever reads your post.

I don't really have any problem with incest, so long as it is consensual and there are no children resulting from those relationships.

Of the Quendi wrote:

The Emerald Dawn wrote:Right. The children they had, and the issues those children faced are completely different, because those children are not human. Or something.

Because there is no reason to believe that legalizing incest today would lead to generations of interbreeding. Incest is legal in many jurisdictions and it doesn't seem a problem. Pointing out a highly specific group from a historic period of a particular class and calling it evidence of anything is laughable.

Pointing them out as the only documented evidence of interbreeding and saying this is all we have is the only honest thing to do. Unless you have some hidden trove of documented evidence of health issues faced by generations of interbreeding.

Oh, that's right, you're too busy projecting.

How disgusting.

Tunasai wrote:

Gaveo wrote:


But to answer the question, no it shouldn't. Mainly because it would mess up the child. That and we all know what happened to the Ancient Egyptians.

Same thing can really be said about the European Royal Line, as they all interbred with eachother for hundreds of years.

This explains everything! Now I know why Europe is so screwed!

Zottistan wrote:

The Emerald Dawn wrote:Right. The children they had, and the issues those children faced are completely different, because those children are not human. Or something.

That's not the point. Of course the kids would face similar issues. But generations of inbreeding probably wouldn't occur, because social conditions have changed.

It's unfortunate when people making good argumentative points (e.g. Zottistan) are drowned out by NSG's endless stream of straw men and slippery slopes. It's like NSG isn't even creative enough to find new ways to be incorrect.

Gaveo wrote:

Tunasai wrote:
Same thing can really be said about the European Royal Line, as they all interbred with eachother for hundreds of years.

This explains everything! Now I know why Europe is so screwed!

Cause they turned to democracy? What?

Tunasai wrote:1. Incest is an act, right now, its also a crime, like murder.

Depends on where you are in the world. Cross a border, and that status might change.

The Holy Twig wrote:

Zottistan wrote:That's not the point. Of course the kids would face similar issues. But generations of inbreeding probably wouldn't occur, because social conditions have changed.

It's unfortunate when people making good argumentative points (e.g. Zottistan) are drowned out by NSG's endless stream of straw men and slippery slopes. It's like NSG isn't even creative enough to find new ways to be incorrect.

Absolutely. What I was doing was a strawman. Instead of it being me pointing out that this is all the evidence we have to go off of, and everything else is really supposition.

Special little snowflake, aren't you?

No, it is a perversion and causes genetic problems.

Norstal wrote:

Gaveo wrote:This explains everything! Now I know why Europe is so screwed!

Cause they turned to democracy? What?

Never mind. I was trying to be funny. I guess that failed.