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

[Anachronous Rex]

Which you still have no statistics on...


You think that incest causes hemophilia?


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.

You want me to provide a statistic proving a point you think is irrelevant?

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535_2_2004/Inbreeding_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.

It didn't cause it at all. Genes periodically break, and hemophilia is caused by one such mutation. This can happen to anyone, incest has no effect upon it. The reason it pertains to inbreeding, is that, because the royal houses of Europe have children mostly with each other, one such mutation linked to Queen Victoria ended up being common amongst all of them. If they had ceased reproducing exclusively with each other, and started picking up commoners, it would not have stopped the spread of the hemophiliac gene, but it would have stopped it from spreading to the other royal houses.

Which is to say, you example demonstrates nothing about the danger of incest.

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.

It is not illegal. You can have sex with your sister currently, under the law. No one will stop you (unless you live in Iran or something.) You can even have children with her. You just can't marry her.

What is it exactly you fail to comprehend?

[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.

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.

No, because your parents did not do an act that's known to greatly improve the chances of genetic disabilities. That's what we call being unlucky, and I'm sorry that you had to be born with a disability but that's outside man's control.

[Geilinor]

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).

I agree. Parent and child could be unusual because the child is producing children with the person who produced him or her, but even if it was legal, very few people would ever think of doing that.

[Geilinor]

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

No, because your parents did not do an act that's known to greatly improve the chances of genetic disabilities.

OK,now what about people with genetic disabilities who have children, knowing full well that their children could likely have the same disability?

[Lost heros]

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).

I agree. Parent and child could be unusual because the child is producing children with the person who produced him or her, but even if it was legal, very few people would ever think of doing that.

Also, why I think parent child would be unlikely, is because I have never heard of instances like this in history.

[Anachronous Rex]

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).

I agree. Parent and child could be unusual because the child is producing children with the person who produced him or her, but even if it was legal, very few people would ever think of doing that.

It doesn't seem especially likely, I agree.

I think there is a concern that the power dynamic could never be equal in such a relationship. But, I'm not sure how to regulate that. There are, after all, plenty of asymmetrical relationships in existence currently, and not all of those should clearly be annulled.

[Uelvan]

No, because your parents did not do an act that's known to greatly improve the chances of genetic disabilities.

OK,now what about people with genetic disabilities who have children, knowing full well that their children could likely have the same disability?

I've covered that earlier in my argument, stating it would be unethical and immoral to deny anyone the right to breed based off of genes they have no control over.

[Uelvan]

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.

You want me to provide a statistic proving a point you think is irrelevant?

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535_2_2004/Inbreeding_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.

It didn't cause it at all. Genes periodically break, and hemophilia is caused by one such mutation. This can happen to anyone, incest has no effect upon it. The reason it pertains to inbreeding, is that, because the royal houses of Europe have children mostly with each other, one such mutation linked to Queen Victoria ended up being common amongst all of them. If they had ceased reproducing exclusively with each other, and started picking up commoners, it would not have stopped the spread of the hemophiliac gene, but it would have stopped it from spreading to the other royal houses.

Which is to say, you example demonstrates nothing about the danger of incest.

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.

It is not illegal. You can have sex with your sister currently, under the law. No one will stop you (unless you live in Iran or something.) You can even have children with her. You just can't marry her.

What is it exactly you fail to comprehend?

Do it.

Prove it.

In most places it is illegal to marry them, and I have already stated it should be illegal. How are you not retaining these things?

[Geilinor]

Incest was remarkably common throughout history. It's only in the past one or two centuries that it's become virtually unspeakable. http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/incest.htm

The census returns of Roman Egypt, preserved on papyrus, provide quantifiable documentary evidence of brother-sister marriage, mostly for the 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD. At that time, one in five attested couples in Middle Egypt consisted of brothers and sisters. The incidence of incest in the city of Arsinoe in the Fayum was higher still, indicating that virtually every man with a living younger sister married her instead of someone from outside the family.

[Australian rePublic]

But what next? What about a man and his dog? Should they get married?

Well I've heard that in Japan that dogs may marry eachother and that are sent on honeymoons

[Yankee Empire]

Incest was remarkably common throughout history. It's only in the past one or two centuries that it's become virtually unspeakable. http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/incest.htm

The census returns of Roman Egypt, preserved on papyrus, provide quantifiable documentary evidence of brother-sister marriage, mostly for the 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD. At that time, one in five attested couples in Middle Egypt consisted of brothers and sisters. The incidence of incest in the city of Arsinoe in the Fayum was higher still, indicating that virtually every man with a living younger sister married her instead of someone from outside the family.

I thought we were supposed to be progressive?

Also im sure this like many supposed cases of ancient sexual deviancy is grossly overstated.

[Mkuki]

But what next? What about a man and his dog? Should they get married?

Well I've heard that in Japan that dogs may marry eachother and that are sent on honeymoons

That happens in the US. It was on an episode of "Taboo" on National Geographic. Waste of money if you ask me.

[Farnhamia]

Incest was remarkably common throughout history. It's only in the past one or two centuries that it's become virtually unspeakable. http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/incest.htm

The census returns of Roman Egypt, preserved on papyrus, provide quantifiable documentary evidence of brother-sister marriage, mostly for the 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD. At that time, one in five attested couples in Middle Egypt consisted of brothers and sisters. The incidence of incest in the city of Arsinoe in the Fayum was higher still, indicating that virtually every man with a living younger sister married her instead of someone from outside the family.

That seems like a research proposal, not a conclusive study. It says, right before the part you quoted, "By contrast, habitual nuclear-family incest outside ruling families was exceedingly rare." I'd love to see the data and the actual paper.

[Yankee Empire]

Well I've heard that in Japan that dogs may marry eachother and that are sent on honeymoons

That happens in the US. It was on an episode of "Taboo" on National Geographic. Waste of money if you ask me.

The lunacy of Consumerist economics.

[Yankee Empire]

Incest was remarkably common throughout history. It's only in the past one or two centuries that it's become virtually unspeakable. http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/incest.htm

That seems like a research proposal, not a conclusive study. It says, right before the part you quoted, "By contrast, habitual nuclear-family incest outside ruling families was exceedingly rare." I'd love to see the data and the actual paper.

As would I

[Czechanada]

I would love to replace homophobes with animals.

Think of how the world would be a happier place.

[Farnhamia]

That seems like a research proposal, not a conclusive study. It says, right before the part you quoted, "By contrast, habitual nuclear-family incest outside ruling families was exceedingly rare." I'd love to see the data and the actual paper.

As would I

Me first!

[Salandriagado]

No, it is a discussion on whether or not people should ever be prohibited from reproducing. I happen to agree with the UN on this issue.

I do not believe people should be prohibited from reproducing simply because their children may be born with disorders.

Where does that provide them the rights to marry their family members?

What percentage of incestuous relationships produce any children at all?

[Anachronous Rex]

You want me to provide a statistic proving a point you think is irrelevant?


It didn't cause it at all. Genes periodically break, and hemophilia is caused by one such mutation. This can happen to anyone, incest has no effect upon it. The reason it pertains to inbreeding, is that, because the royal houses of Europe have children mostly with each other, one such mutation linked to Queen Victoria ended up being common amongst all of them. If they had ceased reproducing exclusively with each other, and started picking up commoners, it would not have stopped the spread of the hemophiliac gene, but it would have stopped it from spreading to the other royal houses.

Which is to say, you example demonstrates nothing about the danger of incest.


It is not illegal. You can have sex with your sister currently, under the law. No one will stop you (unless you live in Iran or something.) You can even have children with her. You just can't marry her.

What is it exactly you fail to comprehend?

Do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOY3QH_j ... 68C90DDC3D

Prove it.

Yes. The burden of proof is totally on the guy who doubts a causal relationship...

I explained exactly how this works. Unless you have some credible source that tells you otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on. Even your own source does not say that incest caused hemophilia.

In most places it is illegal to marry them, and I have already stated it should be illegal. How are you not retaining these things?

You don't have to be married to have sex. You don't have to be married to have babies. And you don't have to do either of these things because you are married. How are you not getting that your stance is absurd?

[Gauthier]

(Image)

hooray for incest.

"Virginia is for Lovers, Brothers, Sisters or All of the Above."

[The Broken Imperial Sector]

I wouldn't doubt, it when the real sickos ask to be allowed to marry their dogs and cats or brothers and sisters.

[Farnhamia]

I wouldn't doubt, it when the real sickos ask to be allowed to marry their dogs and cats or brothers and sisters.

27 pages in and you post this?

[Benomia]

If we reach the point where animals can give informed consent, I will have no problem with a man marrying his dog.

The same goes for rocks, or corpses.

[The Broken Imperial Sector]

I wouldn't doubt, it when the real sickos ask to be allowed to marry their dogs and cats or brothers and sisters.

27 pages in and you post this?

Sry, if I didn't read thru the twenty seven pages but i'm pretty sure this has already been posted?

[Boer Republics (Ancient)]

I wouldn't doubt, it when the real sickos ask to be allowed to marry their dogs and cats or brothers and sisters.

27 pages in and you post this?

7 years of NSG and you are surprised by this?