<Insert Alabama joke here> - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

<Insert Alabama joke here>

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:38 am

Madison,

There very well is a difference between incest and gay relationships. I don't think anyone in here can claim to be an expect on incest (aside from our Canadian brothers) and, even after this long thread, I'm still not sure if incest increases the chance of birth defects.

That's the difference. If it increases the chance of birth defects, I want it to be illegal. If it doesn't, I don't care. I'm always on the side of more freedom until it hurts someone.

I find the following things gross and wrong:
Texas
Zoroastrianism
Line dancing
stupid sports nicknames
scotch and milk, mixed together
people who meet other people online
Yankees fans
Cole Slaw
And about 1000 other things.

I don't think any should be illegal, though, since they don't hurt anyone. As far as I can tell, and I reserve my right to change my opinion if anyone presents a good argument, incest hurts no one. I'm totally for it.

Question:

1. My friend Jeremy's father got remarried. His stepmother and daughters moved in. 2 years later... Well, you can see where this is going. He was 18. His stepsister was 18. You get the idea.

2. Hypothetical Steve met a really sweet girl. They date for awhile. Things progress. And then they find out they have the same father.



Out of curiousity, which is worse?
Absolutely Adequate
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 5000
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

Postby Half Massed » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:39 am

I don't have the time to do much research right now, but it does seem there is some increase, large enough to be significant, in possibility of deformity in children due to genetic similarity. Should one of the siblings carry a gene, recessive or dominant, for a disease, the chance that the disease is realized in the child is significantly greater.

Art's point about the negative and positive balancing out is not a legitimate point, as far as I've seen. The only positive effects that could be seen would be the weeding out of the genes of certain diseases over time. That would be great, but this only happens because the children that do receive the genetic diseases usually don't live long enough to pass them on. If you were looking to create a group of ideal humans in terms of genetic diseases and had the time, inbreeding would be the way to go, but in every day life that's not an acceptable risk.

All the genetic similarity that is created weakens the immune system as well. Without much diversity, a child born of incest would be at a disadvantage when faced with a new disease that a normal child would usually be more prepared to handle.

So yeah, incest is biologically fine for the child, assuming both sibling parents are free from genetic diseases, dominant or recessive (which is unlikely to say the least).

I see the parallels between gay marriage and incest, and I'd honestly never made them before. I thought the possibility of genetic disease in children of incest was a lot higher than it was. Regardless, the possibility is higher, if not by as much as I'd thought, which is why I don't like incest, but perhaps I need to look into it a little more.
Image
Half Massed
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 4084
Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Busting ghosts

Postby luckygehrig » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:43 am

I remember doing some sort of genotype activity in my high school biology class using the example of hemophilia in some royal family from centuries ago. Basically, what I remember of it, is that if there is a trait such as hemophilia or sickle-cell anemia in a family, it will more likely be passed onto children conceived through incest than if a carrier were to conceive with some other individual. I don't know how scientific that exercise was, but I think that the idea behind it is right. The thing is though, as mentioned by others earlier is that those who get those traits would be less likely to live to reproduction age to pass on the diseases.

I don't necessarily have an opinion on either this or gay marriage as I don't think I know enough about either to have one. However, I do know that I am naturally repulsed by the idea of incest.

Also, did anyone happen to see this link on that page?
RAT CHEWS OFF BABY'S FACE: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1253518,00.html
luckygehrig
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1633
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Nevada

Postby JTWood » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:44 am

Absolutely Adequate wrote:I don't think anyone in here can claim to be an expert on incest (aside from our Canadian brothers)

aaand... I'm done reading.

:-D :-D :-D
Image
JTWood
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyeWeb Supporter
Posts: 11508
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Unincorporated Heaven

Postby TheRock » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:45 am

glcmustliveon wrote:
The very idea of sexual relations with a brother, uncle, cousin, anyone with whom there is an implied trust, even later in life, needs to be completely foreign to a child.


Where do you draw the line though? Second Cousins? No family relationships? The fact of the matter is that as Americans, or westerners in general, our tolerance for incest is very, very low. However, in other cultures marrying cousins is commonplace. There is some overlap most if not all cultures consider sibling/parental relationships as a taboo.
[/quote]

Well, now we're just splitting hairs. My opinion - family relationships are completely non-sexual forever and always. That needs to be a sacred truth all can rely on. What is family? That might depend on the situation. I have people living in my town with my same last name who I've never met but I know are related to me. Cousins of my great grandfather, something like that I dunno. Some people have first cousins they've never met, whereas I grew up with 2 of my cousins almost like they were siblings. Anyone you'd introduce your child to as family, I would call off limits.

And yeah, some places allow it. A few states even do, which is cool cuz then we can make fun of them. If you've never heard the joke that ends "kick his cousin in the jaw", have someone tell it to you.
Image
TheRock
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 3055
(Past Year: 8)
Joined: 16 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: America's Heartland

Postby Art Vandelay » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:53 am

Alright, so I emailed a former bio instructor of mine about this and this was his reply:

They're called "polygenic traits" and s*** as simple as eye color is controlled by them. Mendelian Genetics was based on the existence of one gene for one trait, which we know now isn't the case (hence polygenic). For you to produce significantly compromised offspring with your relative, you would both need to be heterozygous recessive for enough of the polygenic traits to dictate a serious change, and then have all of those recessive genes become homozygous in the offspring which, statistically speaking, is staggering. While its indisputable that generations of inbreeding can f*** your shit up significantly, the fear of retard mutant babies is not what causes the taboo of brother/sister f***ery.


From the sources I've been able to find online, and this, it seems to me that only multi-generational inbreeding significantly improves the chances of birth defects.

edit: I guess I should censor that.
Image
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5265
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Madison » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:59 am

Absolutely Adequate wrote:Madison,

There very well is a difference between incest and gay relationships. I don't think anyone in here can claim to be an expect on incest (aside from our Canadian brothers) and, even after this long thread, I'm still not sure if incest increases the chance of birth defects.

That's the difference. If it increases the chance of birth defects, I want it to be illegal. If it doesn't, I don't care. I'm always on the side of more freedom until it hurts someone.


Oddly enough, we agree. However, you didn't give a reason as to why incest and gay marriage is different. No one is an expert on "gay thinking" or "incest thinking", so it's just opinions, thoughts, and what studies have been done. I'll stipulate that more studies have been done to understand being gay, then those that have to study incest, but even at that, there are still no "experts" on either subject with concrete proof of anything significant. So you say there's a difference in the two, what is it?

I also agree that if the rate of birth defects is significantly higher for incest relationships, that they should remain illegal. If they don't (which nothing here has shown they do), then why not make them legal?

Absolutely Adequate wrote:I find the following things gross and wrong:
Texas
Zoroastrianism
Line dancing
stupid sports nicknames
scotch and milk, mixed together
people who meet other people online
Yankees fans
Cole Slaw
And about 1000 other things.

I don't think any should be illegal, though, since they don't hurt anyone. As far as I can tell, and I reserve my right to change my opinion if anyone presents a good argument, incest hurts no one. I'm totally for it.


Good, because Texas hates the rest of the world too. Kidding. ;-) Back to the topic:

Absolutely Adequate wrote:Question:

1. My friend Jeremy's father got remarried. His stepmother and daughters moved in. 2 years later... Well, you can see where this is going. He was 18. His stepsister was 18. You get the idea.

2. Hypothetical Steve met a really sweet girl. They date for awhile. Things progress. And then they find out they have the same father.



Out of curiousity, which is worse?


Which side do you wish for me to argue? I've said if gay marriage is legal, then so should incest marriage, and if one is illegal, then both should be illegal, so I can argue either side of this one.

For the legal side: Neither. All are consenting adults in this hypothetical, yes? I see nothing any more odd, different, or unusual about this, or two guys wanting to get married. If one's legal, so should the other one.

For the illegal side: Both are wrong because they are related. Be it by blood, or legally. Tack on the standard majority's morals about incest being morally wrong, and there you go. But that would also mean gay marriage is illegal in this scenario as well, as gay marriage goes against the morals of the majority.

My stance is simply that if one is legal, so should the other one. I stipulated long ago that if it can be proven that incest marriages produce more deaths for children, I'd change my mind on this, but nothing's been proven so far. So either both are legal, or both are illegal. There's no real difference in the two things. Honestly doesn't bug me one way or the other though. Just curious to see if there would be any discrimination against one simply because people feel one is more morally wrong than the other. Seems to be the case so far, which is very interesting. :-)
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:22 am

Madison wrote:
Absolutely Adequate wrote:Madison,

There very well is a difference between incest and gay relationships. I don't think anyone in here can claim to be an expect on incest (aside from our Canadian brothers) and, even after this long thread, I'm still not sure if incest increases the chance of birth defects.

That's the difference. If it increases the chance of birth defects, I want it to be illegal. If it doesn't, I don't care. I'm always on the side of more freedom until it hurts someone.


Oddly enough, we agree. However, you didn't give a reason as to why incest and gay marriage is different. No one is an expert on "gay thinking" or "incest thinking", so it's just opinions, thoughts, and what studies have been done. I'll stipulate that more studies have been done to understand being gay, then those that have to study incest, but even at that, there are still no "experts" on either subject with concrete proof of anything significant. So you say there's a difference in the two, what is it?

I also agree that if the rate of birth defects is significantly higher for incest relationships, that they should remain illegal. If they don't (which nothing here has shown they do), then why not make them legal?


The difference is that one (incest) might cause birth defects. I don't know that it really does, but I'm not convinced one way or the other yet. And I don't have the time to research and understand it well enough on my own right now.

If incest causes defects, there is a difference. If not, I don't care what Texans do. Clear enough?
Absolutely Adequate
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 5000
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

Postby Madison » Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:33 am

Absolutely Adequate wrote:
Madison wrote:
Absolutely Adequate wrote:Madison,

There very well is a difference between incest and gay relationships. I don't think anyone in here can claim to be an expect on incest (aside from our Canadian brothers) and, even after this long thread, I'm still not sure if incest increases the chance of birth defects.

That's the difference. If it increases the chance of birth defects, I want it to be illegal. If it doesn't, I don't care. I'm always on the side of more freedom until it hurts someone.


Oddly enough, we agree. However, you didn't give a reason as to why incest and gay marriage is different. No one is an expert on "gay thinking" or "incest thinking", so it's just opinions, thoughts, and what studies have been done. I'll stipulate that more studies have been done to understand being gay, then those that have to study incest, but even at that, there are still no "experts" on either subject with concrete proof of anything significant. So you say there's a difference in the two, what is it?

I also agree that if the rate of birth defects is significantly higher for incest relationships, that they should remain illegal. If they don't (which nothing here has shown they do), then why not make them legal?


The difference is that one (incest) might cause birth defects. I don't know that it really does, but I'm not convinced one way or the other yet. And I don't have the time to research and understand it well enough on my own right now.

If incest causes defects, there is a difference. If not, I don't care what Texans do. Clear enough?


Such a mean mean man. :-b Besides, it's those to the east of us that supposedly do those things. :-D

I don't know about the birth defects either, and have asked if any studies show anything. So far, the results are not a big deal or anything to worry about, so my stance is that incest marriage should be legal if gay marriage is legal. Until I'm shown otherwise, that's where I stand. Or of course, if someone could show something other than one is more morally wrong than the other one, I might be swayed as well. For now though, I'm content to see what's produced and discussed as I find this to be a very interesting topic because it does appear to simply be a matter of getting to the ground floor morals of the entire population. Exactly where those ground floor morals are, is an intriguing paradox. :-)
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Postby Pokeyouindaeye » Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:24 am

Art Vandelay wrote:Alright, so I emailed a former bio instructor of mine about this and this was his reply:

They're called "polygenic traits" and s*** as simple as eye color is controlled by them. Mendelian Genetics was based on the existence of one gene for one trait, which we know now isn't the case (hence polygenic). For you to produce significantly compromised offspring with your relative, you would both need to be heterozygous recessive for enough of the polygenic traits to dictate a serious change, and then have all of those recessive genes become homozygous in the offspring which, statistically speaking, is staggering. While its indisputable that generations of inbreeding can f*** your shit up significantly, the fear of retard mutant babies is not what causes the taboo of brother/sister f***ery.


From the sources I've been able to find online, and this, it seems to me that only multi-generational inbreeding significantly improves the chances of birth defects.

edit: I guess I should censor that.


Even though multigenerational inbreeding has a higher chance of producing birth defects, I still wouldn't condone it on a singularly generational model. Retard/mutant babies just really aren't that high up on my list of things to deal with in my lifetime, no matter how low the possibility.

I also wish I was on such frank speaking terms with my earlier bio profs. :-D
Yes, I was, uh... I was thinking about ordering the tape, the videotape... about the college girls and the... the wild... the wildness. They're going wild or something? Somebody told me... about going wild.
-Larry David
Pokeyouindaeye
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1852
(Past Year: 6)
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: @ the banana stand.

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: assiquate and 2 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Thursday, Jul. 31
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Chi White Sox at Detroit
(1:08 pm)
Colorado at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
St. Louis at San Diego
(3:40 pm)
Philadelphia at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Seattle at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
LA Angels at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Cincinnati at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Toronto at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Minnesota at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Pittsburgh at Arizona
(9:40 pm)
Atlanta at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact