NationStates

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?

Well, if you got an A in Genetics, you'd know that people are naturalyl averse to incest and legislating against incest is like legislating that you have to breathe or any other natural needs.

Smartass alcoholics wrote: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.

You seem to assume because it is legal, people will go around marrying their family members. Those incidents are rare to say the least.
I doubt you will find many people look at their mother, father sister, brother, cousin etc and think "hey I wana have sex with him/ her and have kids!!!"

Also, at first cousin level, genetic disease chances is really low and banning act on basis of that will result in you having to ban middle aged women having kids, and most of humanity having sex.

nope

Norstal wrote:

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

Well, if you got an A in Genetics, you'd know that people are naturalyl averse to incest and legislating against incest is like legislating that you have to breathe or any other natural needs.

I still don't get the Legalizing it=Generations of inbreeding.

Apparently, legalizing it would only allow you to lay with your siblings and no one else.

The Holy Twig wrote:

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

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.

1. Its not a straw man argument as the logical line is very clear and present within the statement. It also isn't a straw man because I equated two things which stand on similar ground. Face it you lost.
a. I never said Murder was Incest. I said they were on even ground or "equatable"
b. Murder and Incest are both considered immoral and wrong on many grounds that are similar. They both can and should be justly banned.
c. Blacks marrying whites isn't illegal, your just an idiot, not to mention your ludicrous line of logic that can be equated to that of a squirrel.

2. MY words came out in a clear and coherent manner. I used Soda as an analogy which you clearly couldn't follow. Let me use another, maybe you can grasp this one...

You ban me from voting in elections. However a person of equal standing and race has the ability to vote, though he does not differ from me. He is NOT more wealthy, of a different race, social standing, or contain any serious difference from me. However, I cannot vote and he can. That is discrimination. Do I need to use a dictionary?

Smartass alcoholics wrote: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.

Incest just means that the chance of genetic deformity is higher than regular reproduction. It's not a 100% guarantee that the next product of incest will turn into that one guy from The Goonies.

And what happens if two brother and sister didn't know they were related? Will they be criminally prosecuted? Legislation against incest is just absurd.

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?

You've got to be kidding me! It is disgusting and it should not be legal in any circumstances. They should definitely NOT have kids due to the extremely big risk of getting deformed and handicapped. This is not an option.

Why not? It's not as if the reason it's illegal is actually because of the increased risk of genetic disorders/mutations. If that were true, there'd be a lot more rules or at least debate for rules restricting people with mental/physical diseases from having children. The only reason that it's illegal is because most people think it's icky. And that's because it's a natural response to be sexually repulsed by your family which probably means that the majority of the people who would really be effected by legalizing incest would be people who do not think of themselves as family and so might as well not be family.

The Emerald Dawn wrote:

The Holy Twig wrote: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?

That's a charming personal insult right there, I feel demeaned just looking at it. It's like being in middle school all over again. Calling out bullshit doesn't make me a snowflake. I'm more of a lardflake, really.
No, actually, he said that social conditions have changed. You said that he was telling you that because social conditions have changed, he was clearly stating that the children in past conditions weren't human.

This is a flawed statement because
1) You're saying that society never changes on any level unless you're not human.
OR
2) You're saying that when society changes, the people from before the change aren't human.

Incest is frowned upon in most modern societies (As this thread clearly demonstrates) and it is therefore less likely to happen then in - say - the 1500s, when rich people were thrown into arranged marriages with their cousins and so forth. Overall, what I'm trying to say is that you should read someone else's argument before rebutting it; you'll get less of a backlash that way.

The Emerald Dawn wrote:

The Holy Twig wrote: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?

Be nice. All God's snowflakes are special.

Anyway, I'm still not seeing how it is evidence. It seems like it would be a very large assumption that things then and things now are the same. Like plonking a fish in milk and expecting it to breathe.

What to consenting people do with each other should be the concern of no others than themselves. So let people do it.

The Holy Twig wrote:

The Emerald Dawn wrote: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?

That's a charming personal insult right there, I feel demeaned just looking at it. It's like being in middle school all over again. Calling out bullshit doesn't make me a snowflake. I'm more of a lardflake, really.
No, actually, he said that social conditions have changed. You said that he was telling you that because social conditions have changed, he was clearly stating that the children in past conditions weren't human.

Seriously, you two, cool it.

Norstal wrote:

Trotskylvania wrote: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.

Don't really know him, except for that people apparently read his posts

Arberiia 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?

You've got to be kidding me! It is disgusting and it should not be legal in any circumstances. They should definitely NOT have kids due to the extremely big risk of getting deformed and handicapped. This is not an option.

What's the provisions of an anti-incest law? The framework of such laws? Would you arrest two people who had sex who have the same last names even though they're not related?

Tunasai wrote:

The Holy Twig wrote:
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.

1. Its not a straw man argument as the logical line is very clear and present within the statement. It also isn't a straw man because I equated two things which stand on similar ground. Face it you lost.
a. I never said Murder was Incest. I said they were on even ground or "equatable"
b. Murder and Incest are both considered immoral and wrong on many grounds that are similar. They both can and should be justly banned.
c. Blacks marrying whites isn't illegal, your just an idiot, not to mention your ludicrous line of logic that can be equated to that of a squirrel.

2. MY words came out in a clear and coherent manner. I used Soda as an analogy which you clearly couldn't follow. Let me use another, maybe you can grasp this one...

You ban me from voting in elections. However a person of equal standing and race has the ability to vote, though he does not differ from me. He is NOT more wealthy, of a different race, social standing, or contain any serious difference from me. However, I cannot vote and he can. That is discrimination. Do I need to use a dictionary?

Oh, you got me there.

No, wait, hold on a moment - actually, your entire post was bullshit

You're adorable.

By equating Murder - the taking of another's life - with incest - fucking a relative - you equated defending one's right to fuck their relatives with defending Jack the ripper. My "Interracial marriage" point shows that people could have used the same argument you did right there to defend keeping interracial marriage illegal, if it were illegal, and it would look just as daft then. Taking someone's life is not equivalent to boning a consenting adult who happens to be related to you. I would be cool with you calling me unintelligent if you made adequately thought-through or sensible points.

Anyway, no, if you're not allowed to vote but someone of exactly equal status were allowed to vote, that wouldn't be 'discrimination' as it is generally recognized - I should think it would be on the grounds of an expired personal ID or some such. Discrimination would be if a white man were allowed to vote but a black man weren't because the black man was black.

I never really understood the taboo regarding incest. I'd say to just let people do whoever they want; It isn't my business.

Zottistan wrote:

The Emerald Dawn wrote: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?

Be nice. All God's snowflakes are special.

Anyway, I'm still not seeing how it is evidence. It seems like it would be a very large assumption that things then and things now are the same. Like plonking a fish in milk and expecting it to breathe.

Are you trying to say that fish aren't human?

Arberiia 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?

You've got to be kidding me! It is disgusting and it should not be legal in any circumstances. They should definitely NOT have kids due to the extremely big risk of getting deformed and handicapped. This is not an option.

Well, it actually *is* an option... You know, since it's legal in some jurisdictions?

Ceannairceach wrote:I never really understood the taboo regarding incest. I'd say to just let people do whoever they want; It isn't my business.

Unless you run an incestuous dating website.
If that were the case then incest would be your business.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Churchilland wrote:NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

YES YES YES OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD YES YES YES!

The Holy Twig wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:I never really understood the taboo regarding incest. I'd say to just let people do whoever they want; It isn't my business.

Unless you run an incestuous dating website.
If that were the case then incest would be your business.

...Noted, but such a website probably wouldn't be very successful.

"I am looking for a girl with >5% genetic relation to me. Must be dtf, blond, big butt."

Tunasai wrote:

The Holy Twig wrote:
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.

1. Its not a straw man argument as the logical line is very clear and present within the statement. It also isn't a straw man because I equated two things which stand on similar ground. Face it you lost.
a. I never said Murder was Incest. I said they were on even ground or "equatable"
b. Murder and Incest are both considered immoral and wrong on many grounds that are similar. They both can and should be justly banned.
c. Blacks marrying whites isn't illegal, your just an idiot, not to mention your ludicrous line of logic that can be equated to that of a squirrel.

2. MY words came out in a clear and coherent manner. I used Soda as an analogy which you clearly couldn't follow. Let me use another, maybe you can grasp this one...

You ban me from voting in elections. However a person of equal standing and race has the ability to vote, though he does not differ from me. He is NOT more wealthy, of a different race, social standing, or contain any serious difference from me. However, I cannot vote and he can. That is discrimination. Do I need to use a dictionary?

Your arguement is flawed due to two things.

One: Murder, unlike Incest, actually has a victim whilst Incest does not as long as it is practiced by two consenting humans (adults is a little too vage since a 16 year old is not yet an adult but very capable of consenting to a sexual relationship), which means that these can not be equated.

Two: the reasoining from Morality is flawed since what is moral and what not is, to a large part, dependent on the society. In Ancient Greece it was absolutely moral to have sex with little boys, in sparta homosexuality amongst men was encouraged and so on. So why should the current moral code have any impact on legislation when there is, as i said, no victim?

Zottistan wrote:

The Emerald Dawn wrote: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?

Be nice. All God's snowflakes are special.

Anyway, I'm still not seeing how it is evidence. It seems like it would be a very large assumption that things then and things now are the same. Like plonking a fish in milk and expecting it to breathe.

Because human biology hasn't changed all that much in a few hundred years. Health care has, and diagnosis of various diseases has. But semen go in, baby come out, that's stayed pretty much level.

Culturally? Doesn't matter. Law can't change people's minds with regards to culture, only time can, when combined with exposure.
Ethically? Doesn't matter. Law can't change ethics, it can only punish the lack of it.

So that leaves biology.

Biologically, the only evidence we have of what prolonged intrabreeding does to humans is the well documented European Royalty.

So you're going to have to prove that the incidence of genetic malformity is high enough that the outlawing of incest/intrabreeding meets the needs for maintaining the laws against it.

If you can't, then you're legislating because of "ew, gross". And that's a piss-poor reason for anything.

No, it shouldnt. The human body is naturally programmed to not be sexually attracted to the people they are brought up with/by.