Gay marriages....now what about siblings parents or animals?

[Zaunt]

Wait hold up...people actually support incest on here? What kind of sick shit is this.

If two siblings who are of the age of consent, and are indeed consenting, want to have sex, how does that hurt you?

Whilst not assuming that every sibling couple would seek to have children, there's pretty substantial scientific evidence that inbreeding is not great for the children. Procreative relationships between close relatives could be argued to be unethical because of the likelihood of genetic problems. They may well hurt the community. It is not as simple as 'people get to do whatever they like because they're individuals'. Individual choices impact the community, and the well being of the whole must also be considered. Inbreeding is directly harmful to communities.

On saying that, non-procreative or non-heterosexual sibling relationships? It doesn't hurt anyone, from an objective ethical standpoint. If they're consenting, who has the right to impinge? Encouraging adoption amongst sibling couples is a perfectly feasible strategy, if they want kids.

In regards to the original topic: Gay marriage has no logical relationship to incest, or child abuse, or even heterosexual relationships. I'm not sure why the comparison has even been suggested. It doesn't harm anyone. Offence and belief... are not the same as harm. Change of a social paradigm is not the same as harm. Offense, faith and reluctance to change are not valid reasons to deprive 5 - 10% of the human population essential human rights, privileges, and responsibilities.

No religious zealot was harmed in the making of this marriage.

[Fascist Worcestershire]

I need a source for what should be common knowledge?
In the UK we have had a problem with Pakistanis marrying first and second cousins as the babies they produce are putting a strain on the NHS as they are born with a lot of defects now imagine that for siblings.

Srry for saying that, but any reasonable person in UK is putting a strain on the NHS..

Sorry I should have said needless strain.



NHS is best woo!

[AiliailiA]

It's incest, it's not meant to happen.

First, Does not make it harmful to the participants. Second, Still not harmful to others. Third, Source.

You shouldn't ask for a source, unless you have 55 minutes to spare to watch an episode of Shameless from the BBC.

[Myrensis]

If two adults who are consenting decide they want to blow up their house should we still allow that?

Provided they can guarantee that nobody gets hurt, and that it will cause absolutely no damage to any other person's property, sure, why not?

[Fascist Worcestershire]

OK I'm abandoning this thread Libertarian overload ahh.

[Lyassa and Nairoa]

You´re absolutely right. It´ll only hurt them.

Oh? I assume with such a statement you've got a lovely science backed source that isn't just incredibly biased nonsense?

No, I don´t. I admit it.
But it´s not nonsense. It´s called "being healthily free from having an ill-gotten sexual attraction towards my sister".

[Fascist Worcestershire]

First, Does not make it harmful to the participants. Second, Still not harmful to others. Third, Source.

You shouldn't ask for a source, unless you have 55 minutes to spare to watch an episode of Shameless from the BBC.

Hahhaa bloody brilliant mate.

[Tsuntion]

First, Does not make it harmful to the participants. Second, Still not harmful to others. Third, Source.

I need a source for what should be common knowledge?

Yes. I expect that it's more of a personal "ew" reaction than it actually being "not meant to happen".

In the UK we have had a problem with Pakistanis marrying first and second cousins as the babies they produce are putting a strain on the NHS as they are born with a lot of defects now imagine that for siblings.

First, Birth defects can happen in children not created through incest and children created through incest can have no birth defects. Second, We do not require that every non-incestuous couple (a) not have sex if one or both partners have a genetic disorder and (b) not have sex if it is known or suspected that they carry genetic disorders. Third, Incestuous relationships do not necessarily result in children anyway, and someone might be able to argue for allowing incestuous relationships but requiring that no children are born of them.

[Conserative Morality]

I think we should ban interracial marriages. Because, y'know, if you let blacks and whites marry, what's next?

[Pillea]

Oh? I assume with such a statement you've got a lovely science backed source that isn't just incredibly biased nonsense?

No, I don´t. I admit it.
But it´s not nonsense. It´s called "being healthily free from having an ill-gotten sexual attraction towards my sister".

I've got absolutely no attraction towards anyone in my family. Doesn't mean I think I have a right to infringe on consenting adults because they do.

[Tsuntion]

First, Does not make it harmful to the participants. Second, Still not harmful to others. Third, Source.

You shouldn't ask for a source, unless you have 55 minutes to spare to watch an episode of Shameless from the BBC.

Hm, true. Catching up on Doctor Who is a far more important way to spend my time and bandwidth.

[Big Jim P]

You know what they say about incest. Keep it in the family.

I'm also somewhat miffed that you left out necrophilia. Ain't no harm if the meat's still warm.

And as long as there are microwaves, the meat can always be warm. Not that there is anything wrong with cracking a cold one now and then.

[AiliailiA]

I could care less what you marry

You should care more. If I'm earning $100,000 a year in my job as a media consultant (I'm not, it's a hypothetical) you should care that I marry a potplant so I can income-split with it. My potplant (excuse me, my spouse) earns nothing, but he/she is a homemaker. He/she is photosynthesising all day long, removing carbon dioxide from my dwelling and replacing it with lovely invigorating oxygen. For that, I credit my spouse with half my earnings.

So my potplant earns $50K a year, and I earn $50K a year, and between us we pay $4,000 dollars less federal income tax! That's about a quarter less income tax. I love my potplant very much, so thanks for being so understanding.

[AiliailiA]

You know what they say about incest. Keep it in the family.

I'm also somewhat miffed that you left out necrophilia. Ain't no harm if the meat's still warm.

And as long as there are microwaves, the meat can always be warm. Not that there is anything wrong with cracking a cold one now and then.

That's a big microwave oven you have there. If I ever visit your house, I will be very particular about the exact directions to the lavatory.

[Lyassa and Nairoa]

No, I don´t. I admit it.
But it´s not nonsense. It´s called "being healthily free from having an ill-gotten sexual attraction towards my sister".

I've got absolutely no attraction towards anyone in my family. Doesn't mean I think I have a right to infringe on consenting adults because they do.

I don´t think I have the right either. I´m a catholic, but not the Spanish Inquisition.
But I still believe words like "every right to" and "consent" are being stretched to the point where all rules are broken. And that I won´t comply with. Even freedom has boundaries.

*edited, spelling

[Pillea]

I've got absolutely no attraction towards anyone in my family. Doesn't mean I think I have a right to infringe on consenting adults because they do.

I don´t think I have the right either. I´m a catholic, but not the Spanish Inquisition.
But I still believe words like "every right to" and "consent" are being streched to the point where all rules are broken. And that I won´t comply with. Even freedom has boundaries.

And someone's blood relation to someone is that boundary?
Depending upon how devout a Catholic you are, you would think you might be very happy for incest, what with the whole Adam and Eve and their kids things. Or Noah and Sons/their wives.

I mean the human start, and restart, in the Bible are basically guaranteed incest.

[Oceanic people]

Well why not? On what moral, ethical, religious, legal or even medical grounds could you refuse to allow it? In fact, we should encourage the degenerates to do what ever they want to excess. It should be the same with drugs. "You want heroin and meths: OK great!" It will make them easier to identify so as to separate ourselves from them and leave them to it. If we have the courage to do just that, leave them to it in a generation, two at the most, they will die off.

[Lyassa and Nairoa]

I don´t think I have the right either. I´m a catholic, but not the Spanish Inquisition.
But I still believe words like "every right to" and "consent" are being streched to the point where all rules are broken. And that I won´t comply with. Even freedom has boundaries.

And someone's blood relation to someone is that boundary?
Depending upon how devout a Catholic you are, you would think you might be very happy for incest, what with the whole Adam and Eve and their kids things. Or Noah and Sons/their wives.

I mean the human start, and restart, in the Bible are basically guaranteed incest.

If you´re quoting or referencing the Bible to support incest, doesn´t that make you as religious as I ?
Also, I thought you couldn´t use God or faith in these threads.
And no...FYI, I don´t take creation myths literally.

[AiliailiA]

You shouldn't ask for a source, unless you have 55 minutes to spare to watch an episode of Shameless from the BBC.

Hm, true. Catching up on Doctor Who is a far more important way to spend my time and bandwidth.

You got me. I am horrified by the big-budget dumbed-down pablum that passes for Doctor Who now, but I do watch it. Fascination and horror, disgust and curiosity, it's a very fine line. Also, it's free to air so all it costs me is the electricity to run my TV set.

I'll just say this: it's better without the sound.

[Pillea]

And someone's blood relation to someone is that boundary?
Depending upon how devout a Catholic you are, you would think you might be very happy for incest, what with the whole Adam and Eve and their kids things. Or Noah and Sons/their wives.

I mean the human start, and restart, in the Bible are basically guaranteed incest.

If you´re quoting or referencing the Bible to support incest, doesn´t that make you as religious as I ?
Also, I thought you couldn´t use God or faith in these threads.
And no...FYI, I don´t take creation myths literally.

People of faith often use their faith as the foundation of mores. It's often quite amusing how much they conveniently ignore.
I did leave room for you not taking them literally.

Scientifically though, our species exists because of incest. We're doing okay as a species as far as genetic stability goes. It apparently isn't that destructive to society.

[Arglorand]

There is no way to prove an animal consented to a relationship with you.

[Suicune]

Yeah any two consenting people should be able to get married imo. Pretty sure no animal can understand the concept of marriage, so that's a no. Don't think incestual marriages will be legalized within my lifetime though.

[Samuraikoku]

Someone needs to learn what "consent" is.

[Tekania]

I feel like It's going to come up sooner or later.

As far as I can tell, Liberals are pushing for more and more civil liberties (which isn't necessarily a good or bad thing) and eventually, this is going to come up. Years ago, inter racial marriages were unacceptable, and I'm sure gay marriage was just...unthinkable at the point. Now, we have inter racial marriage, and gay marriage is starting to rise in most of the world except for a few nations that are refusing to let go.

But what next? What about a man and his dog? Should they get married? Or what about a man and his son? Or a brother and sister? When is it too much? How far are people going to be allowed? What should be allowed? I'm personally undecided on the issue of what a marriage really means, but what do you guys think about sibling, inter special or other kinds of bizarre civil unions?

One of these things is not like the other:
A. Adult man marries adult woman
B. Adult man marries adult man.
C. Adult man marries dog

Answer:[ ]

[AiliailiA]

Procreative relationships between close relatives could be argued to be unethical because of the likelihood of genetic problems.

Not your call. Not our call. Not the call of government.

Trying to make that call, for children and against the wishes of parents, is what gave Eugenics a bad name. Restricting the reproductive choices of people against their will is what gave eugenics a bad name. Because it is eugenics. It is Bad Eugenics.

Good Eugenics is giving biological parents the choice. A brother and sister, or a parent and child, seeking to concieve a child of their own should be considered no more and no less responsible than any other biological parents. Like any other biological parents, they should have easy access to pre-birth screening of embryos and easy access to abortion early in term (when unwanted heritable conditions can be detected if the pregnancy is planned and properly attended by doctors).

This is Good Eugenics: the biological parents decide. If they don't agree, the biological mother decides. They should be informed, and the services to inform them and to do their will should be state subsidized or free to them at expense of the state.

I know, I could shout myself hoarse about Good Eugenics, and all most people will hear is "eugenics" and decide that it must be bad because the Nazis did it. But I don't care: eugenics is happening already, at the choice of parents. It's happening in bad ways, because it isn't equally available to all. If you want to trust in your balls or ovaries to get it right, then good luck to you. The rich and the informed will outbreed you, with fewer but better children, and your children (or their children) will be disadvantaged in that future society.

Everyone should have access to Good Eugenics. This isn't just a matter of government getting out of the way, it's a matter of government levelling the playing-field for all prospective parents by subsidizing or fully funding embryo screening and abortion on demand. Everyone should have it, to give all the advantages possible by their own genome and the genome of their chosen partner.

This is Good Eugenics. It is expensive to government, it is unnatural, but it is necessary. It is necessary because some have it now, by virtue of wealth and knowledge, and allowing them to leverage their genes with their wealth will impoverish the genetic diversity of all mankind. The improved and selected children will have a further advantage beyond the significant advantage of having wealthy and knowlegable parents. Ulimately, this will narrow the human gene pool, discarding many useful genes. It will also widen the already dreadful divide between children born lucky and children born unlucky: who their parents were.

Eugenics for all parents, if they choose it. Eugenics for no parents, if they reject it. This is Good Eugenics.

The word "Eugenics" is from the Greek "well born". Let's reclaim it from the Nazis and make it what it should be: a tool for parents to choose, with the advice of doctors, the balance of advantageous and disadventageous characteristics there child will have. We can't trust all parents to choose wisely, but that doesn't mean we should leave it only to the rich and well-informed to so choose. We should make it available to all parents, and restrict that later only if it proves necessary. Trusting parents to make the best decision on behalf of their future child is a pretty safe bet in my opinion.