Cousin Marriage

[ClydeR]

"Women over the age of 40 are not prevented from childbearing, nor is anyone suggesting they should be, despite an equivalent risk of birth defects," write zoologists Hamish Spencer and Diane Paul. Bans against cousin marriage, they say, should be repealed, "because neither the scientific nor social assumptions that informed them are any longer defensible."

Thirty-one states outlaw marriage between first cousins, making the United States the only developed country in which the practice is regularly banned. Most were passed in the Civil War's aftermath — not, say Spencer and Paul, to reduce the chance of defects caused by combinations of deleterious genes, but as part of a radical expansion of government authority over private lives.

"Unlike the situation in Britain and much of Europe, cousin marriage in the U.S. was associated not with the aristocracy and upper middle class but with much easier targets: immigrants and the rural poor," they write.

But their argument is far from consensus: in Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage, Kansas State University anthropologist Martin Ottenheimer argues that the bans were driven by now-discredited 19th century research on birth defects among children born to first cousins.

Whatever their motivations, the laws are not supported by science. According to the National Society of Genetic Counselors, birth defects are 2 to 3 percent more common in children born to first cousins than among the general population — a real risk, but not enough to justify the bans.

More... (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/cousinmarriage.html)

The article has a map showing where it's legal and illegal in the United States.

I vote that it should be illegal everywhere.

[Jorddyn]

So long as it is consenting adults, I don't care who marries who. (whom?)

[Parkbandit]

So long as it is consenting adults, I don't care who marries who. (whom?)


So you have no issue with a mother marrying her son or a brother and sister getting hitched?

Gross.

[CrystalTears]

The southern states didn't have a ban? Shocker!

But seriously, who cares about marrying cousins? As long as they've concluded that the birth defects are too low to be a problem, let them be. Keep it in the family.

[CrystalTears]

So you have no issue with a mother marrying her son or a brother and sister getting hitched?

Gross.
Egyptians did it all the time.

After watching Rome, nothing surprises me anymore. :D

[Jorddyn]

So you have no issue with a mother marrying her son or a brother and sister getting hitched?

Gross.

Not wanting it legislated and having "no issue" are two entirely different things.

I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't encourage it. I don't think it's a good idea. I also really don't see how my life is effected if two people I don't know and will likely never meet decide they want to have a piece of paper saying they're legally bound to each other.

[Parkbandit]

Not wanting it legislated and having "no issue" are two entirely different things.

I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't encourage it. I don't think it's a good idea. I also really don't see how my life is effected if two people I don't know and will likely never meet decide they want to have a piece of paper saying they're legally bound to each other.


"I don't care" sounds much more like "I have no issue" than it does "I don't want it legislated".

Personally, if someone feels the need to marry a relative, they should sign a life-long waiver from seeking any federal assistance for their kid with 3 heads.

[Jorddyn]

"I don't care" sounds much more like "I have no issue" than it does "I don't want it legislated".

That's not how I meant it. Sorry you misinterpreted.


Personally, if someone feels the need to marry a relative, they should sign a life-long waiver from seeking any federal assistance for their kid with 3 heads.

Pandora's box.

[Methais]

Afterall, people eat wasabi, cottage cheese, pickles, etc, and I can't understand that desire either.

Because all that stuff pwns. Especially wasabi + sushi or Steve-O's nose.

[Gelston]

If people are going to get married but can't, they are probably still fucking anyways, so I don't think disallowing it really effects birth defects.

[Nieninque]

"Unlike the situation in Britain and much of Europe, cousin marriage in the U.S. was associated not with the aristocracy and upper middle class but with much easier targets: immigrants and the rural poor," they write.

ROFL...not much aristocracy on the Isle of Sheppey.

[Clove]

It's all relative.

[Methais]

It's all relative.

http://lolthulhu.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/bill-seewhatyou.jpg

[ClydeR]

ROFL...not much aristocracy on the Isle of Sheppey.

I don't understand that reference. Is there some historical association between the Isle of Sheppey and incest?

[NocturnalRob]

i'm assuming it's not in reference to the Maugham play?

[g++]

Not wanting it legislated and having "no issue" are two entirely different things.

I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't encourage it. I don't think it's a good idea. I also really don't see how my life is effected if two people I don't know and will likely never meet decide they want to have a piece of paper saying they're legally bound to each other.

Erm its a social problem because birth defects rapidly increase over a few generations and can become a burden on the rest of society. I mean I imagine thats why its legislated against. If a couple has 3 kids and they all have birth defects or double recessive traits that limit them theres simply no way they can support all three into adulthood leaving us to hold the bag. Its just common sense it should not be allowed, same reason setting your apartment on fire on purpose is arson because it can burn your neighbors house down.

[Methais]

Erm its a social problem because birth defects rapidly increase over a few generations and can become a burden on the rest of society. I mean I imagine thats why its legislated against. If a couple has 3 kids and they all have birth defects or double recessive traits that limit them theres simply no way they can support all three into adulthood leaving us to hold the bag. Its just common sense it should not be allowed, same reason setting your apartment on fire on purpose is arson because it can burn your neighbors house down.

In conclusion, if you bang your cousin and a retard pops out...

http://remiq.net/static/img/remiq.net_537.jpg

[g++]

In conclusion, if you bang your cousin and a retard pops out...

http://remiq.net/static/img/remiq.net_537.jpg

Methais your the reason I have images turned off at work theres absolutely no way I am clicking that till I get home heh.

[diethx]

It's totally SFW.

[Methais]

It's a Resident Evil 4 gif of Leon blowing up a pack of zombies with a rocket launcher.

No goatse here.

[CrystalTears]

Cousin mating increases risk by about at most 3%, but actually having children after the age of 35 holds higher risks, at about 6% or so.

So what's the point in legislating it away for genetic reasons when it doesn't have enough evidence to base it upon?

If you want to say it's a moral issue for our society, I can live with that. I personally wouldn't marry someone in my family. But if other families have reason to marry within their family, who are we as a society to stop them?

[g++]

Cousin mating increases risk by about at most 3%, but actually having children after the age of 35 holds higher risks, at about 6% or so.

So what's the point in legislating it away for genetic reasons when it doesn't have enough evidence to base it upon?

If you want to say it's a moral issue for our society, I can live with that. I personally wouldn't marry someone in my family. But if other families have reason to marry within their family, who are we as a society to stop them?

Erm yah title of thread aside Jordynn was saying as long as two consenting adults have a blast. Not trying to say how its legislated but obviously if anything closer than cousins are walking down the aisle your starting to get into the arena of creating a bag of shit for the rest of the world to hold. Just trying to defend the idea of legislating it at all.

[Methais]

Actually I lied. CTHULU GOATSE IS HEREEEEEE!!!!1

http://raincoaster.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/cthulhu-goatse.jpg

[CrystalTears]

It only becomes a problem if the married cousins' kids marry their cousins or whatever. It's the second and third cousins after that that would cause more birth defects.

Immediate family members are the problem and I doubt people will start begging for legislation to allow someone to marry their mother or brother. Cousins are little more removed and just a bit more socially acceptable, but not completely.

[Jorddyn]

Erm its a social problem because birth defects rapidly increase over a few generations and can become a burden on the rest of society. I mean I imagine thats why its legislated against. If a couple has 3 kids and they all have birth defects or double recessive traits that limit them theres simply no way they can support all three into adulthood leaving us to hold the bag. Its just common sense it should not be allowed, same reason setting your apartment on fire on purpose is arson because it can burn your neighbors house down.

1. You don't stop childbirth by stopping marriage.
2. There are many groups (as stated in this thread) that are known to produce higher rates of birth defects/genetic diseases. As I said before - Pandora's box.

[diethx]

If you want to say it's a moral issue for our society, I can live with that. I personally wouldn't marry someone in my family. But if other families have reason to marry within their family, who are we as a society to stop them?

I think morals are relative and should be kept out of legislation. Gay marriage might violate some peoples' morals, but who the fuck is anyone to say that two other people can't be married if they're both of legal age and consent? I think people need to start staying out of other peoples' business unless someone is getting harmed and needs outside intervention. Yes, that includes allowing gay marriage and sibling marriage and whatever other shit you can come up with.

[g++]

1. You don't stop childbirth by stopping marriage.
2. There are many groups (as stated in this thread) that are known to produce higher rates of birth defects/genetic diseases. As I said before - Pandora's box.

Yes there is no correlation between marriage and child birth its just an unexplained phenomenon that so many married people tend to have children together. Short of two people who both already have the same genetic disorder its pretty hard to find a group that will rear more fucked up offspring than nuclear family members. Its not a victimless crime as stated it causes a burden on society not to mention the kids that result who will be disadvantaged from the outset of their lives.

[CrystalTears]

If they're going to screw and procreate anyway, may as well allow them to marry so that they can try to support the offspring together. Or something.

[Sean of the Thread]

I kissed my non blood cousin once does that count? I think I saw her front butt too.

[Jorddyn]

Yes there is no correlation between marriage and child birth its just an unexplained phenomenon that so many married people tend to have children together.

I didn't say there is no correlation. I said that by stopping one, you don't stop the other. Given the propensity for unwed childbirth in this country, that should not be a difficult concept to grasp. Saying that if you don't let cousins marry they won't have children is like saying if you don't let teenagers marry they won't have children. Yes, they will.



Short of two people who both already have the same genetic disorder its pretty hard to find a group that will rear less fucked up offspring than nuclear family members.

I think you mean more, not less. Additionally, CT already pointed out that those age 35+ have a much higher risk for birth defects than family members.


Its not a victimless crime as stated it causes a burden on society not to mention the kids that result who will be disadvantaged from the outset of their lives.

Won't somebody please think of the children??!?

Again, stopping marriage doesn't stop childbirth. Even if it did, are you going to legislate against the poor having children? Their children are disadvantaged from birth. What about dwarfs? Those who have a history of heart disease? Breast cancer? Near sightedness? Or would you be comfortable with mandatory sterilization, followed pre-screened embryos being implanted into pre-screened parents?

[Jorddyn]

If they're going to screw and procreate anyway, may as well allow them to marry so that they can try to support the offspring together. Or something.

You know it's an off day when CT and I completely agree on a topic.

( :love: CT even when we don't agree )

[Jorddyn]

I think morals are relative and should be kept out of legislation. Gay marriage might violate some peoples' morals, but who the fuck is anyone to say that two other people can't be married if they're both of legal age and consent? I think people need to start staying out of other peoples' business unless someone is getting harmed and needs outside intervention. Yes, that includes allowing gay marriage and sibling marriage and whatever other shit you can come up with.

I think CT was just saying that the logic of "this = against my morals" at least makes sense. "This = bad for society" doesn't, when there are so many things that are worse, but legal.

[g++]

Again, stopping marriage doesn't stop childbirth. Even if it did, are you going to legislate against the poor having children? Their children are disadvantaged from birth. What about dwarfs? Those who have a history of heart disease? Breast cancer? Near sightedness? Or would you be comfortable with mandatory sterilization, followed pre-screened embryos being implanted into pre-screened parents?


We already did we legalized abortion remember. LOL

[Jorddyn]

We already did we legalized abortion remember. LOL

Allowing a woman the choice whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is not even close to the same thing as legislating who can have children.

[CrystalTears]

You know it's an off day when CT and I completely agree on a topic.

( :love: CT even when we don't agree )What the hell... when don't we agree???! :(

Heh, I probably don't notice it, much like when DeV posts, because you're both rational human beings. And hot.


I think CT was just saying that the logic of "this = against my morals" at least makes sense. "This = bad for society" doesn't, when there are so many things that are worse, but legal.
Yep.

[g++]

[/color]

I didn't say there is no correlation. I said that by stopping one, you don't stop the other. Given the propensity for unwed childbirth in this country, that should not be a difficult concept to grasp. Saying that if you don't let cousins marry they won't have children is like saying if you don't let teenagers marry they won't have children. Yes, they will.




I think you mean more, not less. Additionally, CT already pointed out that those age 35+ have a much higher risk for birth defects than family members.?

CT was talking about cousins.

Father/daughter - mother/son - brother/sister -> 25%
Half-brother/half-sister -> 12.5%
Uncle/niece - aunt/nephew -> 12.5%
Cousin -> 6.25%

Loss of heterozygosity per cycle.

It tells anyone procreating with a family member that society does not approve and wont sanction their relationship even if it does not specifically prevent people from fucking it certainly lets them know where the state stands on the issue.

[Jorddyn]

CT was talking about cousins.

Cousin mating increases risk by about at most 3%, but actually having children after the age of 35 holds higher risks, at about 6% or so.


I don't think so.



It tells anyone procreating with a family member that society does not approve and wont sanction their relationship even if it does not specifically prevent people from fucking it certainly lets them know where the state stands on the issue.

Fine, then pass a resolution saying that the state doesn't believe cousins should procreate. While our government may do a fine job of backdoor, backwards, and in general ineffective legislation, I can't condone it just because it gives you warm fuzzies.

Edited to add: While your "heterozygosity" statistics are lovely, and something that anyone who passed 8th grade should be able to calculate, it does nothing to show actual risk of birth defects by category of parentage. Unless you were trying to mislead some into believing that a full 25% of brother/sister children would have birth defects, in which case, carry on.

[CrystalTears]

Well I was discussing cousins because intimacy among your immediate blood relatives is already incestuous and against the law.

[diethx]

I think CT was just saying that the logic of "this = against my morals" at least makes sense. "This = bad for society" doesn't, when there are so many things that are worse, but legal.

I understood what she was saying... i'm just saying that I think that logic doesn't make sense to me. :D

[Jorddyn]

I understood what she was saying... i'm just saying that I think that logic doesn't make sense to me. :D

That's because you're smart enough to realize that not everything you dislike should be illegal. Duh. Shouldn't you be googling hairy men? :)

[diethx]

That's because you're smart enough to realize that not everything you dislike should be illegal. Duh. Shouldn't you be googling hairy men? :)

I was until I came across a picture of you. I'm permanently off that now - just hoping the retina scarring fades.

[g++]

I don't think so.

Dont think what? She is talking about cousins in relation to older women. I am saying that it becomes FAR more severe when we get to nuclear family inbreeding which you dont think should be illegal.




Fine, then pass a resolution saying that the state doesn't believe cousins should procreate. While our government may do a fine job of backdoor, backwards, and in general ineffective legislation, I can't condone it just because it gives you warm fuzzies.

No the state passed laws saying nuclear family members cant procreate and even if its futile because its unheard of anyway that doesnt mean it should not be there just in case someone wants to be crazy. I mentioned at the start I dont care where they draw the line and am not going into that but the reasoning behind enacting laws to stop nuclear family members from marrying is sound.

[Jorddyn]

No the state passed laws saying nuclear family members cant procreate and even if its futile because its unheard of anyway that doesnt mean it should not be there just in case someone wants to be crazy.

Uh, what?


I mentioned at the start I dont care where they draw the line and am not going into that but the reasoning behind enacting laws to stop nuclear family members from marrying is sound.

The reasoning is not sound.

[g++]

This is how im summarizing at this point.

You: Anyone should be able to marry anyone.
Me : Imbreeding depression is a real phenomenon that causes hardships on society and individuals and the government is right to have laws enacted against it.
You: Its a slipperly slope.
Me : Fine. I still think the law has merit as a deterent.
You: It doesnt.
Me : Cool we disagree.

[CrystalTears]

According to the article posted, the bans were put in place for reasons other than birth defect reasons.

[Jorddyn]

This is how im summarizing at this point.

You: Anyone should be able to marry anyone.
Me : Imbreeding depression is a real phenomenon that causes hardships on society and individuals and the government is right to have laws enacted against it.
You: Its a slipperly slope.
Me : Fine. I still think the law has merit as a deterent.
You: It doesnt.
Me : Cool we disagree.

Or, alternately:

Me: I don't care who marries who.
You: Inbreeding is bad.
Me: So is other stuff. In fact, some stuff is worse. Are you going to legislate that?
You: It is still bad so we should legislate against something that doesn't directly cause it.
Me: That's ridiculous.
You: It has merit.
Me: Uh, no.

[g++]

Or, alternately:

Me: I don't care who marries who.
You: Inbreeding is bad.
Me: So is other stuff. In fact, some stuff is worse. Are you going to legislate that?
You: It is still bad so we should legislate against something that doesn't directly cause it.
Me: That's ridiculous.
You: It has merit.
Me: Uh, no.

Sure ill go with that version too.

[Clove]

I never realized that Jorddyn was from West Virginia.

[Jorddyn]

I never realized that Jorddyn was from West Virginia.

That'd be if I actually married my cousin. I just say I don't care if other people do.

:club:

Full disclosure: I did once kiss my ex-step-cousin.

[Some Rogue]

Well, Iowa is the West Virginia of the Midwest. :D

[Fallen]

Why not deny all financial/government aid from the spawn of such a union should the child be diagnosed with any problem directly relating to their parentage? A bit harsh, but fucking your cousin and marking retard babies is pretty harsh too.

[Keller]

Well, Iowa is the West Virginia of the Midwest. :D

Iowa is the Pennsylvania of the midwest.

Missouri is definitely the W.V. of the midwest.

Farmers are distinguishable from hicks.:tumble:

[CrystalTears]

Why not deny all financial/government aid from the spawn of such a union should the child be diagnosed with any problem directly relating to their parentage? A bit harsh, but fucking your cousin and marking retard babies is pretty harsh too.
I don't think it's a good idea to punish the child (which you'd essentially be doing) by stop helping the parents financially.

[ClydeR]

Why not deny all financial/government aid from the spawn of such a union should the child be diagnosed with any problem directly relating to their parentage? A bit harsh, but fucking your cousin and marking retard babies is pretty harsh too.

That's an excellent idea.

[Fallen]

I don't think it's a good idea to punish the child (which you'd essentially be doing) by stop helping the parents financially.


I suppose, but outlawing such a practice is seen as improper. I think it is improper to pay for the result of such an act. How about we go the other way? Declare they are unfit parents and take the child away. Though that might be an incentive for some.

[Jorddyn]

Farmers are distinguishable from hicks.:tumble:

:love:

Though I kind of like everyone thinking what they do about Iowa. Keeps our state free of the riffraff (SomeRogue). :)

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Why not deny all financial/government aid from the spawn of such a union should the child be diagnosed with any problem directly relating to their parentage? A bit harsh, but fucking your cousin and marking retard babies is pretty harsh too.

Because it's stupid to punish the children for something they had no control over, which is essentially what that does.

[g++]

I suppose, but outlawing such a practice is seen as improper. I think it is improper to pay for the result of such an act. How about we go the other way? Declare they are unfit parents and take the child away. Though that might be an incentive for some.

I honestly think if you did a poll any where in America except this board you would find its not seen as improper to outlaw incest. Just a guess.

[CrystalTears]

I suppose, but outlawing such a practice is seen as improper. I think it is improper to pay for the result of such an act. How about we go the other way? Declare they are unfit parents and take the child away. Though that might be an incentive for some.Improper because you find it to be immoral?

If you feel that cousins having offspring knowing there's a chance that there will be a genetic defect should be "punished", then you may as well apply that standard to women who insist on having kids past the age of 40, since the odds of them having defects is higher.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I suppose, but outlawing such a practice is seen as improper. I think it is improper to pay for the result of such an act. How about we go the other way? Declare they are unfit parents and take the child away. Though that might be an incentive for some.

Because anyone who has a kid with birth defects is going to live off of welfare and not pay for anything anymore. Better to pre-emptively take that child from their family and put them into our wonderful foster care system, which totally isn't government funded or anything.

[Jorddyn]

I honestly think if you did a poll any where in America except this board you would find its not seen as improper to outlaw incest. Just a guess.

I'm glad laws are not written based on your guesses.

[CrystalTears]

I honestly think if you did a poll any where in America except this board you would find its not seen as improper to outlaw incest. Just a guess.
This topic is regarding cousins. I don't believe we've been advocating incest (at least I haven't), which would involve immediate family members, which is universally taboo and against the law.

There's also a difference between saying that cousins should be able to marry if they wish, and saying that it the practice is fine and dandy. One can be for their right to do as they wish and still find the practice unthinkable for ourselves.

[Some Rogue]

:love:

Though I kind of like everyone thinking what they do about Iowa. Keeps our state free of the riffraff (SomeRogue). :)

Don't hate because Illinois > Iowa.

:club:

[g++]

I'm glad laws are not written based on your guesses.

You realize incest is still illegal right? By convincing CT and Diethx that the law is wrong you did not actually repeal it.

[g++]

This topic is regarding cousins. I don't believe we've been advocating incest (at least I haven't).


So long as it is consenting adults, I don't care who marries who. (whom?)


So you have no issue with a mother marrying her son or a brother and sister getting hitched?

Gross.


Not wanting it legislated and having "no issue" are two entirely different things.

I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't encourage it. I don't think it's a good idea. I also really don't see how my life is effected if two people I don't know and will likely never meet decide they want to have a piece of paper saying they're legally bound to each other.

Jorddyn and me have not been talking about cousins.

[Valthissa]

I think morals are relative and should be kept out of legislation. Gay marriage might violate some peoples' morals, but who the fuck is anyone to say that two other people can't be married if they're both of legal age and consent? I think people need to start staying out of other peoples' business unless someone is getting harmed and needs outside intervention. Yes, that includes allowing gay marriage and sibling marriage and whatever other shit you can come up with.

I never liked moral relativism - I can go for a little value pluralism, but relativism just never made sense to me.

C/Valth

[Keller]

I honestly think if you did a poll any where in America except this board you would find its not seen as improper to outlaw incest. Just a guess.

Anywhere?

[CrystalTears]

Okay, fair enough.

However I will say that I understand where she's coming from, and people will sexually do whatever the hell they want whenever they want despite taboos and laws. So why not lift those laws and let people do as they please, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's life?

What do you care what some mother and son do together? How does that affect you?

[Fallen]

Because anyone who has a kid with birth defects is going to live off of welfare and not pay for anything anymore. Better to pre-emptively take that child from their family and put them into our wonderful foster care system, which totally isn't government funded or anything.

Isn't this called Strawman? Where you take someone, give them an argument that isn't their own, then attack it.

Edited to add: I will say that in my mind, two cousins who willingly (no rape, or instances of the very young having sex) produce a child with birth defects are automatically unfit parents in my mind.

[Keller]

And for the record -- seeing how the biblical history is full of incestual marriage, I think family members should be able to marry. But, they should be prevented from entering into domestic partnerships, because that is not in the bible.

[Jorddyn]

You realize incest is still illegal right? By convincing CT and Diethx that the law is wrong you did not actually repeal it.

I do applaud you for moving closer to the source of children (incest rather than marriage), which seems to be your major, if flawed, argument. And yes, I do realize that incest is illegal depending on the relationship in some places. I still think it is ridiculous.

The point of my post was simply that I'm glad that laws are made based on your flawed logic and guesses. That holds true, even though many laws are made based on others' flawed logic and guesses.

And you obviously don't know CT and diethx if you think I convinced them of anything.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Eh, I agree with Jorddyn.

Outlawing incestuous marriage isn't gonna stop incestuous sex. Do people here on the PC all not have sex before they're married? Was everyone born in wedlock, or have kids in wedlock?

If people are going to have incestual sex and procreate that way, banning their marriage isn't going to do jack to stop it one way or another. Does anyone really think a brother and sister who are a "couple" are going to stop before having sex and think, "You know we shouldn't do this because sex before marriage is a sin"?

So if it makes people feel fuzzy and happy inside to outlaw it, that's fine and I can even respect that. But there's really no practical reason to do so and ultimately it's not gonna stop a son with a raging Oedipus complex from fucking his mom if that's what they both want to do.

[Jorddyn]

Don't hate because Illinois > Iowa.



Oh, c'mon. You know why Iowa is so windy, right?

[g++]

Okay, fair enough.

However I will say that I understand where she's coming from, and people will sexually do whatever the hell they want whenever they want despite taboos and laws. So why not lift those laws and let people do as they please, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's life?

What do you care what some mother and son do together? How does that affect you?

ugh i mentioned earlier the effects of incest and how long term it would be a drag on society like on page 3. I seriously cant believe the majority of the people in this thread are backing incest. This thread should be in a text book on group think. But I digress taken enough negative rep for stating that incest should be illegal. I SERIOUSLY cannot believe that a few logical expansions that are completely unnecessary like next well outlaw older women having kids(obviously we wont) have convinced you all that incest should be legal. Its mind boggling to me.

[CrystalTears]

Yeah diethx and I are known for being sheep and just mimicking what others say all the time. Yep.

:lol:

[Keller]

ugh i mentioned earlier the effects of incest and how long term it would be a drag on society like on page 3. I seriously cant believe the majority of the people in this thread are backing incest. This thread should be in a text book on group think. But I digress taken enough negative rep for stating that incest should be illegal. I SERIOUSLY cannot believe that a few logical expansions that are completely unnecessary like next well outlaw older women having kids(obviously we wont) have convinced you all that incest should be legal. Its mind boggling to me.

I think incest should be illegal.

If driving without a safety belt is illegal, so, too, should be incest.

[Jorddyn]

I seriously cant believe the majority of the people in this thread are backing incest.

I seriously can't believe you don't understand the difference between "backing" and "don't care what consenting adults do".

[g++]

I seriously can't believe you don't understand the difference between "backing" and "don't care what consenting adults do".

Theres a law on the books against incest. Your saying there should not be. You didnt say I dont care you said it should not be a law.

[Jorddyn]

If driving without a safety belt is illegal, so, too, should be incest.

I think people should be required to drive without safety belts, a 5" knife sticking out of the center of their steering wheel, and a hotplate for a drivers' door. The roads would be a much nicer place.

[Keller]

Theres a law on the books against incest. Your saying there should not be. You didnt say I dont care you said it should not be a law.

Saying, "I don't care if people drive with or without seatbelts," is not backing people driving without seatbelts. It's saying that you don't think there should be a law against it.

[Keller]

I think people should be required to drive without safety belts, a 5" knife sticking out of the center of their steering wheel, and a hotplate for a drivers' door. The roads would be a much nicer place.

Empty?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Isn't this called Strawman? Where you take someone, give them an argument that isn't their own, then attack it.

Edited to add: I will say that in my mind, two cousins who willingly (no rape, or instances of the very young having sex) produce a child with birth defects are automatically unfit parents in my mind.


You said you thought it was improper to have to pay for the fucked-up spawn of an incestuous union, and therefore the state should take the child away from the parents on grounds of them being unfit. I'm pointing out that the child then becomes a ward of the state, which you then get to pay for anyway, which makes your point very self-defeating.

Now if your point is just that the parents are unfit, and it has nothing to do with the financial aspect of taxpayers having to pay for said fucked up children, then that makes much more sense.

[g++]

Saying, "I don't care if people drive with or without seatbelts," is not backing people driving without seatbelts. It's saying that you don't think there should be a law against it.

Fine Jord is for legalizing incest. I thought it went without saying that no one here was actually excited about the prospect but consider the air cleared.

[Jorddyn]

Theres a law on the books against incest. Your saying there should not be. You didnt say I dont care you said it should not be a law.

Because I don't think it should be a law, because I don't care what people do. I'm not advocating, encouraging, or otherwise prompting anyone to engage in a relationship with a close relative. I'm saying if they make that choice, I don't care, and I don't get why anyone else does.

Here, let me explain. Let's talk about supergluing your hands together. I don't think that supergluing your hands together is a good idea. I'm certainly not going to push for a law against it, and would condemn any such law as stupid. If you want to glue them together, cut them off with a chainsaw, soak them in draino, shove spikes through them - have at it. That doesn't mean I back any of those ideas. Instead, I back the idea that adults do and should have control of their own bodies, and be free to use them as they see fit.

Of course, if you can't grasp that concept, perhaps I should push for a law banning all of the above offenses against hands, as you just may be dumb enough to try them.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Also:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/images/strawman.jpg

It had to be done.

[Keller]

Because I don't think it should be a law, because I don't care what people do. I'm not advocating, encouraging, or otherwise prompting anyone to engage in a relationship with a close relative. I'm saying if they make that choice, I don't care, and I don't get why anyone else does.

Here, let me explain. Let's talk about supergluing your hands together. I don't think that supergluing your hands together is a good idea. I'm certainly not going to push for a law against it, and would condemn any such law as stupid. If you want to glue them together, cut them off with a chainsaw, soak them in draino, shove spikes through them - have at it. That doesn't mean I back any of those ideas. Instead, I back the idea that adults do and should have control of their own bodies, and be free to use them as they see fit.

Of course, if you can't grasp that concept, perhaps I should push for a law banning all of the above offenses against hands, as you just may be dumb enough to try them.

Here is what I don't get: How can you (generic) (1) say that children of incestuous parents should not be denied government assistance because that would be hurting the innocent child and also say (2) we should legally permit incestuous relations that risk harming an innocent child.

I need to understand that.

[g++]

Because I don't think it should be a law, because I don't care what people do. I'm not advocating, encouraging, or otherwise prompting anyone to engage in a relationship with a close relative. I'm saying if they make that choice, I don't care, and I don't get why anyone else does.

Here, let me explain. Let's talk about supergluing your hands together. I don't think that supergluing your hands together is a good idea. I'm certainly not going to push for a law against it, and would condemn any such law as stupid. If you want to glue them together, cut them off with a chainsaw, soak them in draino, shove spikes through them - have at it. That doesn't mean I back any of those ideas. Instead, I back the idea that adults do and should have control of their own bodies, and be free to use them as they see fit.

Of course, if you can't grasp that concept, perhaps I should push for a law banning all of the above offenses against hands, as you just may be dumb enough to try them.

If an adult glues his hands together hes the only one hurt. You have never tried to say that children of incestous relationships are not hurt or that incest would not cause a drag on soceity you have just pointed out that other naturally occuring, much less avoidable, things also cause drags on society. Essentially your argument is arson should be legal because wild fires happen alot. You also have a side argument that the law is inneffective because marriage does not produce children sex does but you dont advocate making the law stronger you advocate abolishing it which essentially leaves you in the land of I know incest is a practice that hurts other people but choose to ignore that and dont give a fuck so abolish the law.

Push for whatever you want. So far you have rallied 4 votes to the cause of repealing a law against incest. I dare you to go door to door.

[Jorddyn]

Here is what I don't get: How can you (generic) (1) say that children of incestuous parents should not be denied government assistance because that would be hurting the innocent child

Here, there is a living being. This child had nothing to do with the relationship that created said child.


and also say (2) we should legally permit incestuous relations that risk harming an innocent child.

Here, there is the potential of a living being, and the relationships risk creating a child with defects (as do many other relationships). It's not like the potential child already exists and would be fine if only it had been born to a different set of parents. Is this potential child better off not being born? What about the children who would have been born had the parents chosen different breeding partners? Why aren't we asking about them?

Also - what if the parents are too old to bear children, or otherwise infertile? Is it ok then?

I will err on the side of letting people do what they want, regardless if I think it is stupid or not, than drawing arbitrary lines.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Here is what I don't get: How can you (generic) (1) say that children of incestuous parents should not be denied government assistance because that would be hurting the innocent child and also say (2) we should legally permit incestuous relations that risk harming an innocent child.

I need to understand that.

I think it comes down to where you stop on the slippery slope argument.

For the record, I don't have a problem with the fact that incestuous relations are illegal.

I just think it's kind of willfully ignorant to think that people never break the law and that the type of people who would do something like that would suddenly decide not to because they find out it's illegal. That's not to say that I think the law should be repealed, simply that laws are not really preventative and justifying a law's existence as "preventative" is silly to me.

[g++]

I just think it's kind of willfully ignorant to think that people never break the law and that the type of people who would do something like that would suddenly decide not to because they find out it's illegal. That's not to say that I think the law should be repealed, simply that laws are not really preventative and justifying a law's existence as "preventative" is silly to me.

Really? Laws arent preventative? Why are they there?

[Keller]

In both instances, the only time the child is harmed is if the child has incest-related abnormalities.

It's not different at all.

I call bullshit.

[Keller]

Really? Laws arent preventative? Why are they there?

Stop being obtuse.

She's obviously distinguishing deterrance from prevention.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Really? Laws arent preventative? Why are they there?

To establish order.

[g++]

To establish order.

Isnt that order instilled through fear of the consequence of law?

[Jorddyn]

If an adult glues his hands together hes the only one hurt.

What about those who have to help him? The potential medical expenses that will most likely be paid by his group insurance? The person who has to drive him to the hospital, or the person he may hit driving himself as his hands are glued together and he doesn't have good control of his car?


You have never tried to say that children of incestous relationships are not hurt
"Hurt" is an interesting word. The kids wouldn't exist at all if not for the relationship. Would you rather be born with a messed up left arm, or not born?


or that incest would not cause a drag on soceity you have just pointed out that other naturally occuring, much less avoidable, things also cause drags on society.

Lots of stupid things people do cause drags on society. If only we were all perfect.


Essentially your argument is arson should be legal because wild fires happen alot.
Uh, no. It's more like candles shouldn't be banned because some of them will cause fires.


You also have a side argument that the law is inneffective because marriage does not produce children sex does but you dont advocate making the law stronger you advocate abolishing it which essentially leaves you in the land of I know incest is a practice that hurts other people but choose to ignore that and dont give a fuck so abolish the law.

You can continue to twist my words all you want. That doesn't change my arguments which you're free to go back and read.


Push for whatever you want. So far you have rallied 4 votes to the cause of repealing a law against incest. I dare you to go door to door.

I'm not pushing for, rallying for, campaining for, or going door to door for anything. I'm saying the laws we've been discussing are ineffective, arbitrary, and in general stupid.

[g++]

Stop being obtuse.

She's obviously distinguishing deterrance from prevention.

Was not trying to be obtuse. I dont see the difference. Deterrance....you killed some one so I am sentencing you to 25 years in prison. Prevention "Hey buddy you see what I just did? You kill someone im going to sentence you to 25 years in prison." right?

[Keller]

I'm not pushing for, rallying for, campaining for, or going door to door for anything. I'm saying the laws we've been discussing are ineffective, arbitrary, and in general stupid.

I'm not sure.

Even if the legal consequences don't deter anyone, the social stigma created does.

I know I've got some hot ass cousins whose poon I will never slug because it seems morally wrong.

[Jorddyn]

In both instances, the only time the child is harmed is if the child has incest-related abnormalities.

It's not different at all.

I call bullshit.

And you're free to do so. I still say that the child, once born, is our responsibility as a society. I also say that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to have these children.

I do believe the world would be a much better place if people would make wise and responsible choices regarding procreation, but I believe legislating that they have to is a futile exercise.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Isnt that order instilled through fear of the consequence of law?


Fear of the consequence could possibly deter someone, but that does not make it preventative. It does establish order and a clear set of rules/boundaries, which helps when someone does do something bad and it comes time to punish them.

If laws were truly preventative, it wouldn't be the case that pretty much every single person in the United States has broken the law at some point or another. The death penalty is another great example where in theory it would be preventative, but in reality all data shows that it doesn't stop hard criminals one way or another.

People who have their heart set on doing something are gonna do it, no matter what a law says.

[Jorddyn]

I'm not sure.

Even if the legal consequences don't deter anyone, the social stigma created does.

I know I've got some hot ass cousins whose poon I will never slug because it seems morally wrong.

If it was legal, would you suddenly go out and do it?

I don't foresee the social stigma going away simply because the law does.

[Keller]

Was not trying to be obtuse. I dont see the difference. Deterrance....you killed some one so I am sentencing you to 25 years in prison. Prevention "Hey buddy you see what I just did? You kill someone im going to sentence you to 25 years in prison." right?

I think it's more like, "Laws against speeding don't prevent speeding. People still speed. But less people speed than would without the law prohibiting it."

[Keller]

If it was legal, would you suddenly go out and do it?

I don't foresee the social stigma going away simply because the law does.

I don't think there would be a social stigma if it weren't for the law.

And I would totally do it.

[Jorddyn]

I don't think there would be a social stigma if it weren't for the law.

And I would totally do it.

I guess that's where we're different. I definitely think the social stigma would still exist.

And you're a sick man :)

[Keller]

And you're free to do so. I still say that the child, once born, is our responsibility as a society. I also say that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to have these children.

I do believe the world would be a much better place if people would make wise and responsible choices regarding procreation, but I believe legislating that they have to is a futile exercise.

Should getting drunk while pregnant be illegal?

[Keller]

And you're a sick man :)

One of my cousins: http://www.beaubronze.co.uk/img/tracey-anderson.jpg

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I think it's more like, "Laws against speeding don't prevent speeding. People still speed. But less people speed than would without the law prohibiting it."

Very close.. the person who's going 100 mph in the 25 mph zone, however, is not going 100 mph simply because they didn't see the speed limit sign.

A majority of people seem to obey a majority of the laws. The people who break laws I would wager are well aware that they are breaking the law, but don't care that they are. You're not preventing them with the law because they don't care about breaking it.

[Jorddyn]

Should getting drunk while pregnant be illegal?

There's a difference between getting pregnant knowing very well that there may be genetic defects (alternative: baby never exists) and taking an action while pregnant that may harm an otherwise healthy fetus (alternative: baby is born healthy).

Plus: How do you define drunk? Is she allowed to drink at all? What if she's 2 weeks along and doesn't know? What if she's 3 weeks along, does know, but is going to have an abortion?

So, to sum up - I don't know.

And you're still sick - your cousin is still your cousin.

[Fallen]

That is the crux of the matter, Keller. Is sleeping with your blood relative to knowingly try to spawn a child the same as smoking, or drinking while pregnant. I am not sure how law handles the issue, but to me such acts should be punishable. The intent behind the punishment is meant to discourage the action. If you want to get into the argument of laws not instilling such discouragement, THEN you get into slippery slopes.

I believe that two blood relatives actively choosing to have a child is a risk that calls into question their judgement. On the flip side of that coin, I would imagine some mental/physical handicaps greatly increase the risk that your offspring would also inherent your affliction. Should these people be allowed to have children? Yes. For better or worse they are.

The difference is preventable action. The cousin-fucker COULD decrease the odds of spawning an unhealthy child by not having the kid with his blood relative. Nothing the dwarf, or down syndrome person does can decrease his risk. I think the moral of the story here is, "If you're going to fuck your cousin, use protection." I doubt anyone here is actively seeking to protect the right to have kids by blood relatives.

[Keller]

There's a difference between getting pregnant knowing very well that there may be genetic defects (alternative: baby never exists) and taking an action while pregnant that may harm an otherwise healthy fetus (alternative: baby is born healthy).

Plus: How do you define drunk? Is she allowed to drink at all? What if she's 2 weeks along and doesn't know? What if she's 3 weeks along, does know, but is going to have an abortion?

So, to sum up - I don't know.

And you're still sick - your cousin is still your cousin.

Isn't having sex with your brother an action taken while ovulating that may harm an otherwise healthy egg?

[Jorddyn]

Isn't having sex with your brother an action taken while ovulating that may harm an otherwise healthy egg?

I refuse to apply "sanctity of life" arguments to a single cell of tissue that alone has no possibility of becoming a human being.

Otherwise, we're going to have to start discussing all the murders you commit in the shower every morning.

[Keller]

I refuse to apply "sanctity of life" arguments to a single cell of tissue that alone has no possibility of becoming a human being.

Otherwise, we're going to have to start discussing all the murders you commit in the shower every morning.


The point is this: Should individuals be permitted to engage in activities that endanger the health and safety of innocents?

We're getting caught up in, or you're evading with, semantic distinctions.

[Jorddyn]

The point is this: Should individuals be permitted to engage in activities that endanger the health and safety of innocents?

We're getting caught up in, or you're evading with, semantic distinctions.

Except you're dealing with one case where there is a fetus and the fetus might be harmed, and one where an action might create a fetus that is imperfect. There is a difference.

[g++]

Except you're dealing with one case where there is a fetus and the fetus might be harmed, and one where an action might create a fetus that is imperfect. There is a difference.

I need side by side pictures to be sure their different.

[Keller]

Except you're dealing with one case where there is a fetus and the fetus might be harmed, and one where an action might create a fetus that is imperfect. There is a difference.

That was not the question.

[Keller]

Should I be allowed to salt my food? What about my kid's food? You get basically all the salt you need from modern food without salting it. Adding salt contributes to high blood pressure and other ailments.

Should parents be banned from ever feeding their children ice cream, endangering their health with high amounts of saturated fat, refined carbohydrates and high calories?

Should a parent be prohibited from smoking in their own home if there are kids there to be exposed to the smoke? If your answer is "yes," how on earth do you propose to ENFORCE that or any of these laws?

Education is the key to changing lifestyle habits; not the government trying to ban everything that may harm every citizen and constantly monitoring everyone. No nanny state, thank you.

What about putting their children in seatbelts of child-safety seats? What about putting beer in their bottles?

I know you're super-cool and totally libertarian, but "hands off!" isn't always the answer.

[Jorddyn]

Which question are we now returning to?

[Keller]

The point is this: Should individuals be permitted to engage in activities that endanger the health and safety of innocents?

We're getting caught up in, or you're evading with, semantic distinctions.
This.

[Jorddyn]

Should individuals be permitted to engage in activities that endanger the health and safety of innocents?

Sure. We do it every day. You put your kid your car, you take off their training wheels, you take them on a canoe ride, you let them walk to their friends' houses, you let them climb a tree. You feed them donuts, McDonald's, or Chinese food. You take them to Uncle Joe's house even though he smokes. You pick their pacifier up off the ground and stuff it back in their mouth. You feed them meat that's been "defrosting" on the counter for 2 hours.

[RainyDay2080]

The point is this: Should individuals be permitted to engage in activities that endanger the health and safety of innocents?


You need to clarify your question. Are you asking if individuals should be permitted to engage in activities that have the potential to endanger innocents? Or are you asking if they should be permitted to engage in activities that do endanger innocents?

The potential for children to be born with problems to first cousins isn't any larger than what it is for a lot of other things that are perfectly legal. If you're going to argue that the mere potential of harming an innocent is the correct basis for making actitivies illegal we have a lot of work to do adding 100's of new laws to the books!

If you're arguing that activities that do harm innocents shouldn't be permitted then the issue of cousins having children together doesn't qualify.

There are hundreds of conditions that adults have that have the potential to be passed on genetically to their children, but it's not illegal for those people to marry and have children. Are you saying it should be? Or should it only apply to first cousins for no reason other than that of cultural taboo?

RD

[Keller]

Good. I'm glad we've gotten to the point where we're seeing that there are shades of grey.

Now -- is it possible that I can legitimately feel like incest provides such a level of risk to an innocent that I think it should be detered through the law?

[Keller]

You need to clarify your question. Are you asking if individuals should be permitted to engage in activities that have the potential to endanger innocents? Or are you asking if they should be permitted to engage in activities that do endanger innocents?

The potential for children to be born with problems to first cousins isn't any larger than what it is for a lot of other things that are perfectly legal. If you're going to argue that the mere potential of harming an innocent is the correct basis for making actitivies illegal we have a lot of work to do adding 100's of new laws to the books!

If you're arguing that activities that do harm innocents shouldn't be permitted then the issue of cousins having children together doesn't qualify.

There are hundreds of conditions that adults have that have the potential to be passed on genetically to their children, but it's not illegal for those people to marry and have children. Are you saying it should be? Or should it only apply to first cousins for no reason other than that of cultural taboo?

RD

Are you trying to distinguish endanger from harm?

I'm not sure I am following you.

[Jorddyn]

Good. I'm glad we've gotten to the point where we're seeing that there are shades of grey.

I totally agree that there are shades of grey. That's part of the reason I feel like legislating this would be difficult, ineffective, and pointless to name but a few.


Now -- is it possible that I can legitimately feel like incest provides such a level of risk to an innocent that I think it should be detered through the law?

Of course it is possible that you can feel that way. It's also possible that I don't agree with your logic for a myriad of reasons.

[Keller]

So long as we agree that we both draw the subjective line in different places.

[RainyDay2080]

Now -- is it possible that I can legitimately feel like incest provides such a level of risk to an innocent that I think it should be detered through the law?

It's possible since you seem to feel that way! But since you do feel that way, you should also be supporting laws against women over a certain age not having children, people with conditions that are passed on genetically not having children and so on when the risks are as high or higher than that of cousins having kids. BTW, what is your acceptable level of risk when it should be legal to have children? Would it be 2%, 1%, even less?

On another part of the topic, what exactly is incest? Not legally, I mean how individuals define it for themselves. How close or how far do people need to be in blood relationships to avoid setting off the "ew gross" response?

I'd assume we all agree it's incestuous to have sex with immediate family members. But isn't a lot of that due to the social aspect of them actually functioning as family members? Is there a difference in how taboo it feels between two cousins who played together growing up and two cousins who never met until they were 25 years old and fell in love in the same way two unrelated strangers would meet and fall in love? What about cases of siblings or half-siblings who were adopted, never knew they had a sibling, met and fell in love with a stranger, only to find out with a marriage blood test that they're closly related. How big of an "ew gross" factor is that one?

RD

[RainyDay2080]

Are you trying to distinguish endanger from harm?

I'm not sure I am following you.

Sorry, meant to use endanger, not harm, since that's what you said.

RD

[Keller]

It's possible since you seem to feel that way! But since you do feel that way, you should also be supporting laws against women over a certain age not having children, people with conditions that are passed on genetically not having children and so on when the risks are as high or higher than that of cousins having kids. BTW, what is your acceptable level of risk when it should be legal to have children? Would it be 2%, 1%, even less?

On another part of the topic, what exactly is incest? Not legally, I mean how individuals define it for themselves. How close or how far do people need to be in blood relationships to avoid setting off the "ew gross" response?

I'd assume we all agree it's incestuous to have sex with immediate family members. But isn't a lot of that due to the social aspect of them actually functioning as family members? Is there a difference in how taboo it feels between two cousins who played together growing up and two cousins who never met until they were 25 years old and fell in love in the same way two unrelated strangers would meet and fall in love? What about cases of siblings or half-siblings who were adopted, never knew they had a sibling, met and fell in love with a stranger, only to find out with a marriage blood test that they're closly related. How big of an "ew gross" factor is that one?

RD

The correct analogy would be "woman over a certain age having sex," which complicates the issue even more.

I admit it's a good question and I'll have to think about it.

[CrystalTears]

I'm probably going to have a child someday, and I'm past the age of 35, so I guess you'd lock my ass up for endangering an innocent? :(

[g++]

I'm probably going to have a child someday, and I'm past the age of 35, so I guess you'd lock my ass up for endangering an innocent? :(

I think people are making too much out of this analogy, its not really even a good one. Its a low percentage one shot deal that something will go wrong when an older woman has a child. Its a down the genetic line graded genetic cluster fuck when immediate family members have children that spirals through generations causing problems in all the ancestors.

[Keller]

Sorry, meant to use endanger, not harm, since that's what you said.

RD

You can't just substitute endanger for harm. I think you mean to distinguish endanger from harm, but are couching it in language of "potential to endanger" and "endanger".

[Fallen]

The question of "Where does it end?" For laws based primarily off morality issues, and the issue of self or child endangerment is answered by, "When the majority of the people in a given area disagree with the law." Other than the courts or congress/president stepping in to veto or overturn a law, that is the answer.

The majority decides where "it" does end.

[Jorddyn]

So long as we agree that we both draw the subjective line in different places.

Yep.

I guess I just can't wrap my head around legislating so that a child won't be conceived, simply to save it from potential birth defects. Again, it's not like the child will just go to the neighbors house and be born there instead. It will simply not exist. So are we doing it a greater disservice by stopping it from existing, or by allowing it to exist with the 3% chance of birth defects? I don't know, but I prefer to allow those who do exist to make their own choices, poor as they may be.

[Jorddyn]

Its a down the genetic line graded genetic cluster fuck when immediate family members have children that spirals through generations causing problems in all the ancestors.

So now we're legislating on behalf of potential great-great-grandchildren?

[g++]

So now we're legislating on behalf of potential great-great-grandchildren?

Im not advocating anything I am just pointing out that the low potential for a birth defect caused by a middle aged woman having a child and the dead certaintly of inbreeding depression in an inbred child are completely different and have nothing to do with each other.

[CrystalTears]

Im not advocating anything I am just pointing out that the low potential for a birth defect caused by a middle aged woman having a child and the dead certaintly of inbreeding depression in an inbred child are completely different and have nothing to do with each other.
Dead certainty? There is no such thing as 100% genetic defect in an incestuous mating. Increased risk, yes. Guaranteed? No.

[g++]

Dead certainty? There is no such thing as 100% genetic defect in an incestuous mating. Increased risk, yes. Guaranteed? No.

Inbreeding depression is a syndrome caused by loss of heterozygosity. It always happens when you create a child with an immediate family member. A symptom of inbreeding depression is an increased chance for genetic defect. It does not dissipate in the child it carries on for several generations and if inbreeding continues increases in magnitude.

[Jorddyn]

By itself, however, it is not a birth defect. It's essentially a description of the increased possibility of birth defects due to inbreeding.

[CrystalTears]

Except you are behaving as though if these bans are lifted that people will suddenly start sleeping with their sisters and uncles because OMG IT'S LEGAL NOW!

That kind of deep inbreeding depression you're referring to happens mostly where, in the middle of fucking nowhere tribes, where all they have is each other?

[g++]

By itself, however, it is not a birth defect. It's essentially a description of the increased possibility of birth defects due to inbreeding.

Right its not a birth defect in the classic sense, you might not be walking dead. Its well documented that a loss of heterozygosity results in less fit individuals. You might not have 3 legs or be retarded but your less fit than a person who is not inbred. More likely to sickly, protein disorders etc.

[g++]

Except you are behaving as though if these bans are lifted that people will suddenly start sleeping with their sisters and uncles because OMG IT'S LEGAL NOW!

That kind of deep inbreeding depression you're referring to happens mostly where, in the middle of fucking nowhere tribes, where all they have is each other?

I was just saying the birth defect and inbreeding depression are different. Your right I doubt everyone would suddenly jump in bed together but if some sick fuck does try to screw his daughter I want a law in place so he cant bang her on the court house steps? Im fucking weird like that.

Also it does not have to be deep inbreeding depression. You lose 12-25% everytime it could stack up quickly if you went any closer than first cousins for more than one generation.

[CrystalTears]

I was just saying the birth defect and inbreeding depression are different. Your right I doubt everyone would suddenly jump in bed together but if some sick fuck does try to screw his daughter I want a law in place so he cant bang her on the court house steps? Im fucking weird like that.
I'm pretty sure no one can screw on the court house steps.

Just saying.

[g++]

I'm pretty sure no one can screw on the court house steps.

Just saying.

LOL you know what I mean. Anyway cool cool.

[CrystalTears]

Also it does not have to be deep inbreeding depression. You lose 12-25% everytime it could stack up quickly if you went any closer than first cousins for more than one generation.Doesn't that also include reduction in fertility? They probably couldn't have a child anyway.

[Daniel]

ugh i mentioned earlier the effects of incest and how long term it would be a drag on society like on page 3. I seriously cant believe the majority of the people in this thread are backing incest. This thread should be in a text book on group think. But I digress taken enough negative rep for stating that incest should be illegal. I SERIOUSLY cannot believe that a few logical expansions that are completely unnecessary like next well outlaw older women having kids(obviously we wont) have convinced you all that incest should be legal. Its mind boggling to me.

Is it really that hard to understand the concept of a slippery slope?

[g++]

Is it really that hard to understand the concept of a slippery slope?

The most absurd part of the slippery slope argument is that this law has been on the books already for like a hundred friggin years and we just look past that and continue arguing about how the world will end once we theoretically put it in place when its already friggin there.

[CrystalTears]

Yeah, it's been in the books for hundreds of years, and people have been saying for a while now that there's no scientific reason for it any longer.

By the way, you're the one saying the world will end if we take it away.

[g++]

Yeah, it's been in the books for hundreds of years, and people have been saying for a while now that there's no scientific reason for it any longer.

By the way, you're the one saying the world will end if we take it away.

You keep thinking were arguing about first cousins. Thats not where I am at. I dont have an opinion on that I just said there should be a line placed somewhere because the effects for the extreme are so bad. I dont think the world will end if its repealed I think some asshole will definately make a public mockery of human decency by publicly conceiving children with an immediate family(not his wife assholes) member if its repealed. He might even start a website.

[Keller]

Is it really that hard to understand the concept of a slippery slope?

That's yo momma's belly after I jizz on her funbags, right?

[Jorddyn]

I think some asshole will definately make a public mockery of human decency by publicly conceiving children with an immediate family(not his wife assholes) member if its repealed. He might even start a website.

I just can't imagine the repeal of this law causing me (or anyone) to suddenly be physically attracted to a close family member, and to procreate with them just to "make a mockery of human decency". Plus, imagine how Christmas would be if you and your brother got divorced.

Besides, as CT said, publicly conceiving children is pretty much illegal everywhere.

[g++]

Besides, as CT said, publicly conceiving children is pretty much illegal everywhere.

Oh come on, were on the INTERWEBS.

[TheEschaton]

I had an awesome debate in guild chat today about gay marriage. And by awesome, I mean I totally WTFpwned this idiot who voted YES on 8. Hopefully he'll gquit now.

[g++]

I had an awesome debate in guild chat today about gay marriage. And by awesome, I mean I totally WTFpwned this idiot who voted YES on 8. Hopefully he'll gquit now.


TheE !?! You associate the plight of a minority to seek its rights with incest?? For shame. lol j/k

[Keller]

I had an awesome debate in guild chat today about gay marriage. And by awesome, I mean I totally WTFpwned this idiot who voted YES on 8. Hopefully he'll gquit now.


Playing WoW at lunch time.

Isn't 3L year awesome?

[RainyDay2080]

You can't just substitute endanger for harm. I think you mean to distinguish endanger from harm, but are couching it in language of "potential to endanger" and "endanger".

Are you trying to make me crazy?! If so, it's working!

I accidentally used the word harm in my post. I meant my post to use endanger in exactly the same way you used it. I didn't mean to use or imply harm.

I was asking you to clarify because the way you'd written your question it sounded like you were equating activities that have the potential to endanger to activities that do endanger.

If your sole reason for saying cousins shouldn't marry is because it potentially endangers resulting children, then there's a shitload of other stuff we need to outlaw on the same basis. Hell, if potential endangerment is our big reason, no one should be marrying and having kids at all because there's always some risk of something endangering the innocent child.

I'd be fine with that. The little buggers annoy the hell out of me.

RD

[Keller]

Are you trying to make me crazy?! If so, it's working!

I accidentally used the word harm in my post. I meant my post to use endanger in exactly the same way you used it. I didn't mean to use or imply harm.

I was asking you to clarify because the way you'd written your question it sounded like you were equating activities that have the potential to endanger to activities that do endanger.

RD

I don't see the distinction between "potential to endanger" and "endanger". To me, endanger means "potential to harm," which is why I was using it. Maybe there are degrees of difference in the "potential" of the harm between "potential to endanger" and "endanger," but I don't think it's relevant.

The issue is, I think, the distinction between "harm" and "endanger".

[diethx]

Sure. We do it every day....Chinese food.

WTF is wrong with Chinese food?!

[Jorddyn]

WTF is wrong with Chinese food?!

Americanized Chinese Food isn't typically very healthy.

But it's so so yummy. Mmm, crab rangoon.

[diethx]

I guess it is really salty. BUT IT'S SO GOOD NOMNOMNOM.

[CrystalTears]

Americanized Chinese Food isn't typically very healthy.

But it's so so yummy. Mmm, crab rangoon.Ugh. Damn you woman. I love crab rangoon. Now I want some.

[diethx]

Not me, I only like cream cheese on bagels.

[Jorddyn]

Ugh. Damn you woman. I love crab rangoon. Now I want some.

Me, too. But I can't do it, as I'm currently sitting in my office skipping my Weight Watchers meeting because I'm scared of the scale this week.

[Xeromist]

Springfield vs. Shelbyville

[CrystalTears]

Me, too. But I can't do it, as I'm currently sitting in my office skipping my Weight Watchers meeting because I'm scared of the scale this week.
I had a few for dinner. Nom nom nom!

BTW, I'm doing the WW thing too along with coworker friends, and they basically called me a liar when I told them that I only gained 4 pounds this holiday. :(

[Jorddyn]

I compromised and had sushi. It was fantabulous, and not quite as bad for my diet as fried cream cheese. But I still want rangoons.