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. Besides, it's those to the east of us that supposedly do those things.
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.
im so late into this discussion that im not even going to jump in. but i should say that before i read this, i never ONCE in my life gave thought about incest marriage being legal. i still wont ever again, but i did while i was reading this...art, very very good arguments. i cant do anything but agree with everything you said, and yes, speaking to a bio professor like that is pretty awesome.
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.
haha...his classroom manner was about the same, only with a little less swearing. He was actually very funny and engaging, it was about the only science course I could stand.
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?
how can you hate Cole Slaw? load it up with salt and it's the pefect ending to Fish and Chips...and seeing the ACS and Cu posts with Woody above it looks like the thread has gone off track
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Besides, it's those to the east of us that supposedly do those things.
