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

[Uelvan]

I can get over the risks of a person with a genetic disorder given a fair chance. It is more unethical to me, to deny someone rights based off of their genes, no matter what it makes you.

But that's exactly what you are doing. You're punishing two people who love each other on account of an accident of birth that causes them to have very similar genes.

However, it is not unethical to tell two (probably) healthy consenting adults that their incestuous relationship will probably produce a child who will be disadvantaged, and find that grounds to deny them.

How is that different? Define "probably." And again, why would it? It is not axiomatic that marriage produces children.

If you read my first post, I pretty much flat out said incest should be illegal.

And I will flat out say that you are wrong.

They should learn better, nature alone tells us that inbreeding is bad, and produces less fertile, and more complication prone children. As an act, it is self destructive, and vile.

"How is that different? Define "probably." And again, why would it? It is not axiomatic that marriage produces children."
To use an example; a Haemophiliac did not choose to be born with his condition, and probably will pass it on, but to deny him/her the rights to marry is a form of discrimination because they did not choose to be born with Haemophilia.

prob·a·bly
[ próbbəblee ]

as is likely: as is likely or to be expected

It is not axiomatic but it is highly common and quite encouraged for spouses to settle down and have a family together.

[Mike the Progressive]

girls (usually) and their fucking cats

Ah, I gotcha. Girls and their "cats." *wink, wink cough cough* Yes some "cats" are nice and tight, others smell bad and are too loose. Girls and their "cats" indeed.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

I'm pretty much on the consent train, though I have issues with the idea of first generation inter-family boinking/marrying. Not sure what the technical term is.

Animals can't consent and rubbing peanut butter on your privates does NOT count. Also, inbreeding. I really don't think it's a good idea, but I haven't done enough research to substantiate my claim, so if one were to argue against my opinion I would likely concede while cringing on the inside.

[Demen 2]

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?

Consenting adults and animals are two different things

[Anachronous Rex]

But that's exactly what you are doing. You're punishing two people who love each other on account of an accident of birth that causes them to have very similar genes.


How is that different? Define "probably." And again, why would it? It is not axiomatic that marriage produces children.


And I will flat out say that you are wrong.

They should learn better, nature alone tells us that inbreeding is bad, and produces less fertile, and more complication prone children. As an act, it is self destructive, and vile.

Actually nature tells us that third cousins are ideal partners.

How is that different? Define "probably." And again, why would it? It is not axiomatic that marriage produces children.
To use an example; a Haemophiliac did not choose to be born with his condition, and probably will pass it on, but to deny him/her the rights to marry is a form of discrimination because they did not choose to be born with Haemophilia.

prob·a·bly
[ próbbəblee ]

as is likely: as is likely or to be expected

It is not axiomatic but it is highly common and quite encouraged for spouses to settle down and have a family together.

I want to know how likely you think it is? Do you have any stats on this at all?

Now, once again, if them having children is the part you object to: Ban that.

Sorry if seems as though I'm spelling this out, but you seem to be trying very hard not to get the point that I am making. What you are doing is denying a whole range of expressions of human connection, on the grounds that just one of those expressions might produce a negative result. You may as well ban marriage altogether, because "domestic abuse."

[Uelvan]

They should learn better, nature alone tells us that inbreeding is bad, and produces less fertile, and more complication prone children. As an act, it is self destructive, and vile.

Actually nature tells us that third cousins are ideal partners.

How is that different? Define "probably." And again, why would it? It is not axiomatic that marriage produces children.
To use an example; a Haemophiliac did not choose to be born with his condition, and probably will pass it on, but to deny him/her the rights to marry is a form of discrimination because they did not choose to be born with Haemophilia.

prob·a·bly
[ próbbəblee ]

as is likely: as is likely or to be expected

It is not axiomatic but it is highly common and quite encouraged for spouses to settle down and have a family together.

I want to know how likely you think it is? Do you have any stats on this at all?

Now, once again, if them having children is the part you object to: Ban [u]that.[/u]

Sorry if seems as though I'm spelling this out, but you seem to be trying very hard not to get the point that I am making. What you are doing is denying a whole range of expressions of human connection, on the grounds that just one of those expressions might produce a negative result. You may as well ban marriage altogether, because "domestic abuse."

I'm not talking about 3rd cousins, that's irrelevant and does not refute my point since they are distant enough.

How the hell do you expect to regulate married incestous couples from not having children? Put a camera in their pants or something? Not allowing them to marry and making their act illegal is regulation on that, as far as I'm concerned.

Cool slippery-slope fallacy, bro.

[Mkuki]

I have no problem with incestuous relationships. As long as such relationships are between consenting adults (18+).

[Demen 2]

I have no problem with incestuous relationships. As long as such relationships are between consenting adults (18+).

They're still gross though.

[Mike the Progressive]

I have no problem with incestuous relationships. As long as such relationships are between consenting adults (18+).

They're still gross though.

Oh yeah, they are...

[Anachronous Rex]

Actually nature tells us that third cousins are ideal partners.


I want to know how likely you think it is? Do you have any stats on this at all?

Now, once again, if them having children is the part you object to: Ban that.

Sorry if seems as though I'm spelling this out, but you seem to be trying very hard not to get the point that I am making. What you are doing is denying a whole range of expressions of human connection, on the grounds that just one of those expressions might produce a negative result. You may as well ban marriage altogether, because "domestic abuse."

I'm not talking about 3rd cousins, that's irrelevant and does not refute my point since they are distant enough.

Arbitrary.

How the hell do you expect to regulate married incestous couples from not having children? Put a camera in their pants or something? Not allowing them to marry and making their act illegal is regulation on that, as far as I'm concerned.

A solution that not only fails to prevent them from reproducing, but also prohibits them from having any of the benefits of married life. The worst possible outcome.

Cool slippery-slope fallacy, bro.

Wait... did you just attribute your own escalation to me? Well, that's new.

[Mkuki]

I have no problem with incestuous relationships. As long as such relationships are between consenting adults (18+).

They're still gross though.

Why should I care? I find slugs gross. Doesn't mean I advocate salting the the slimy creatures to death.

[Tel]

My only objection:

Oh, god, the inbreeding. I'll lay roses at your gravestone, Genetic Diversity. Always one of the pink ones you liked so much D:

Besides that, I cannot give a flying fuck about what you marry. You cannot impregnate an animal and you...

Don't try to impregnate your pick-up truck. That's not what the exhaust pipe is for, Cletus.

[Rocopurr]

I have no problem with incestuous relationships. As long as such relationships are between consenting adults (18+).

They're still gross though.

Not really, and even if they were why does it matter? We can't ban everything just because someone thinks its gross.

[Uelvan]

I'm not talking about 3rd cousins, that's irrelevant and does not refute my point since they are distant enough.

Arbitrary.

How the hell do you expect to regulate married incestous couples from not having children? Put a camera in their pants or something? Not allowing them to marry and making their act illegal is regulation on that, as far as I'm concerned.

A solution that not only fails to prevent them from reproducing, but also prohibits them from having any of the benefits of married life. The worst possible outcome.

Cool slippery-slope fallacy, bro.

Wait... did you just attribute your own escalation to me? Well, that's new.

How it that arbitrary, given my logic is the genetic disabilities produced from incestuous pairing? If they're distant enough to no longer be in that risk zone, that pretty much shoots a hole in my argument, now doesn't it?

They should learn better.

[Anachronous Rex]

Arbitrary.


A solution that not only fails to prevent them from reproducing, but also prohibits them from having any of the benefits of married life. The worst possible outcome.


Wait... did you just attribute your own escalation to me? Well, that's new.

How it that arbitrary, given my logic is the genetic disabilities produced from incestuous pairing? If they're distant enough to no longer be in that risk zone, that pretty much shoots a hole in my argument, now doesn't it?

No, the line of what counts as incest is. It's essentially a purely cultural norm.

They should learn better.

Yeah, how dare they desire happiness?

Look, two hypothetical sibling couples:
Couple A - lives as though they were a married couple, and would like to be legally recognized as such. Do not intend to have their own children, but would rather adopt, but have trouble with adoption agencies because they are not married.
Couple B - lives as though they were a married couple, and would like to be legally recognized as such. They do intend to have their own children, and will do so regardless of if they are married or not.

What, exactly, does your prohibition achieve here?

[Blekksprutia]

... welp, I think we may have to outlaw people training their dogs to speak. Just to make sure consent isn't faked. *nods*

Yeah, well, you can't teach a cat to speak.

"I do!"
"Meow!"

That isn't legal. I love my cats... but... not in that way!

[Uelvan]

How it that arbitrary, given my logic is the genetic disabilities produced from incestuous pairing? If they're distant enough to no longer be in that risk zone, that pretty much shoots a hole in my argument, now doesn't it?

No, the line of what counts as incest is. It's essentially a purely cultural norm.

They should learn better.

Yeah, how dare they desire happiness?

Look, two hypothetical sibling couples:
Couple A - lives as though they were a married couple, and would like to be legally recognized as such. Do not intend to have their own children, but would rather adopt, but have trouble with adoption agencies because they are not married.
Couple B - lives as though they were a married couple, and would like to be legally recognized as such. They do intend to have their own children, and will do so regardless of if they are married or not.

What, exactly, does your prohibition achieve here?

Well those 3rd cousins would make a winning argument through my logic, since I am only concerned with the genetic disorders that are likely to come from incestuous sex. If you're all of the sudden going to ignore the main argument, then that's fine but it's not very constructive.

They should learn better in the same way as robbers should be taught not to steal, murders not to murder, rapists not to rape, etc. Yes, I am comparing it to this, because when your ego and nativity decides that it's OK to bone your sister and you produce a child who bleed profusely when he falls over and scrapes his knee, it's your fault he has that disorder and you should be held accountable.

How can you make sure all incestuous couples are like Couple A and not like couple B if given the right to marry? If you can not, I do not want to give people the freedom and social stigma to feel like it's alright to inbreed.

[Kengburg]

Animal Marriage: No. Animals do not have legal rights to the degree of marriage because they are not sentient and do not realize the stipulations and legality of getting into a marriage.
Sibling/Parent Marriage: No. This would encourage incest in the bedroom which is severely damaging to The Human Race's gene pool.

[Anachronous Rex]

No, the line of what counts as incest is. It's essentially a purely cultural norm.


Yeah, how dare they desire happiness?

Look, two hypothetical sibling couples:
Couple A - lives as though they were a married couple, and would like to be legally recognized as such. Do not intend to have their own children, but would rather adopt, but have trouble with adoption agencies because they are not married.
Couple B - lives as though they were a married couple, and would like to be legally recognized as such. They do intend to have their own children, and will do so regardless of if they are married or not.

What, exactly, does your prohibition achieve here?

Well those 3rd cousins would make a winning argument through my logic, since I am only concerned with the genetic disorders that are likely to come from incestuous sex. If you're all of the sudden going to ignore the main argument, then that's fine but it's not very constructive.

Which you still have no statistics on...

The should learn better in the same way as robbers should be taught not to steal, murders not to murder, rapists not to rape, etc. Yes, I am comparing it to this, because when your ego and nativity decides that it's OK to bone your sister and you produce a child who bleed profusely when he falls over and scrapes his knee, it's your fault he has that disorder and you should be held accountable.

You think that incest causes hemophilia?

How can you make sure all incestuous couples are like Couple A and not like couple B if given the right to marry? If you can not, I do not want to give people the freedom and social stigma to feel like it's alright to inbreed.

You are an expert at missing the point. Your prohibition does nothing to help. At. All.

It's not illegal to have sex with a sibling, or produce children with them. You can do that, currently, under the law.

What you can't do is marry them, even if you have no intention of of having children with each other.

This achieves exactly nothing, and makes a lot of people unhappy for no reason.

[Haydenish People]

I'm a libertarian, but, wow, this is too much for me. A marriage to an animal is completely impossible because only one has the ability to give consent. A sibling marriage would just be...incestuous. And, a parent-child marriage is the worst of all. The idea of being married to someone you gave birth to is so morally unfeasible, wrong and disturbing that I have to question the mental state of the OP.

[Uelvan]

Well those 3rd cousins would make a winning argument through my logic, since I am only concerned with the genetic disorders that are likely to come from incestuous sex. If you're all of the sudden going to ignore the main argument, then that's fine but it's not very constructive.

Which you still have no statistics on...

The should learn better in the same way as robbers should be taught not to steal, murders not to murder, rapists not to rape, etc. Yes, I am comparing it to this, because when your ego and nativity decides that it's OK to bone your sister and you produce a child who bleed profusely when he falls over and scrapes his knee, it's your fault he has that disorder and you should be held accountable.

You think that incest causes hemophilia?

How can you make sure all incestuous couples are like Couple A and not like couple B if given the right to marry? If you can not, I do not want to give people the freedom and social stigma to feel like it's alright to inbreed.

You are an expert at missing the point. Your prohibition does nothing to help. At. All.

It's not illegal to have sex with a sibling, or produce children with them. You can do that, currently, under the law.

What you can't do is marry them, even if you have no intention of of having children with each other.

This achieves exactly nothing, and makes a lot of people unhappy for no reason.

You're the one who brought up third cousins being the ideal spouse, you provide that statistic, I am going on the mutual fallacy principal, since I really can't be assed to look through it.

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGe ... Humans.htm Read that little tid-bit about the inbred royalties having Haemophiliac children. While inbreeding doesn't always cause it, it greatly can increase the chance.

I'm not missing the point. My ban is a good way to enforce the act's illegality. I know laws are broken all the time, but taking away a law isn't going to fix it at all, now is it? Meanwhile, it gives society an reason to punish those who partake in the vile act.

[Condunum]

I'm a libertarian, but, wow, this is too much for me. A marriage to an animal is completely impossible because only one has the ability to give consent. A sibling marriage would just be...incestuous. And, a parent-child marriage is the worst of all. The idea of being married to someone you gave birth to is so morally unfeasible, wrong and disturbing that I have to question the mental state of the OP.

Why is it morally unfeasible? Does it harm you in any way?

[Geilinor]

I won't comment on incest, as I'm still mixed on the issue. But I would like to kindly tell you that animals don't have legal rights and can't give informed consent. Sorry about the large text, but the bestiality argument is just plain stupid.

[Lost heros]

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?

I think you are asking some pretty obvious questions.
Man and dog: No.
Man and son: no.
Brother and sister: possibility
Interspecial: No.
Siblings and incestual relationships: could happen (and has already happened in the past).

[Geilinor]

No, the line of what counts as incest is. It's essentially a purely cultural norm.


Yeah, how dare they desire happiness?

Look, two hypothetical sibling couples:
Couple A - lives as though they were a married couple, and would like to be legally recognized as such. Do not intend to have their own children, but would rather adopt, but have trouble with adoption agencies because they are not married.
Couple B - lives as though they were a married couple, and would like to be legally recognized as such. They do intend to have their own children, and will do so regardless of if they are married or not.

What, exactly, does your prohibition achieve here?

Well those 3rd cousins would make a winning argument through my logic, since I am only concerned with the genetic disorders that are likely to come from incestuous sex. If you're all of the sudden going to ignore the main argument, then that's fine but it's not very constructive.

They should learn better in the same way as robbers should be taught not to steal, murders not to murder, rapists not to rape, etc. Yes, I am comparing it to this, because when your ego and nativity decides that it's OK to bone your sister and you produce a child who bleed profusely when he falls over and scrapes his knee, it's your fault he has that disorder and you should be held accountable.

My parents haven't inbred and I have a genetic disability. Should they be punished? Your argument reeks of eugenics.