Gay Marriage leads to incest and polygamy

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And how many of these conditions are those that could not be discovered by scanning in vitro and result in the termination of the fetus?

I'm not saying it's a brilliant idea here, just that there isn't enough justification to ban it outright on genetic grounds.

Prenatal screening can detect some problems, but not all. The current data suggest that about 40% of chromosomal abnormalities and birth defects are never detected at all.

Among the problems with inbred individuals is facial asymmetry, high levels of infant mortality, smaller adult size, loss of immune function, and the list goes on. Creating an inbred individual is both cruel and dangerous.

For all the risks you state, they are simply increased possibilities, not certainties. Cleopatra would no doubt be quite amused at the idea that her existence was "cruel", along with several of her quite clever sisters, the result of nine generations of brother-sister inbreeding. Brother-Sister: Give birth to a boy and a girl. Boy and girl marry and have babies, too, and they did they for nine generations. And at the end of it there was still an elder sister who stood up to the full might of the Roman Empire and died bravely for it (Berenice IV), Cleopatra herself, fluent in eight languages, exquisitely beautiful, and a cunning and skilled administrator (who was quite capable of bearing healthy children with Caesar and Marc Antony), and her younger sister Arsinoe who personally commanded armies in the streets of Alexandria against Caesar.

BTW: I already said I support banning it anyway on psychological grounds, bub. So you're preaching to the choir there.

[Superman]

For all the risks you state, they are simply increased possibilities, not certainties.

Of course. Driving while drunk at 100 mph may result in death, but it's not a certainty either.

Cleopatra would no doubt be quite amused at the idea that her existence was "cruel", along with several of her quite clever sisters, the result of nine generations of brother-sister inbreeding. Brother-Sister: Give birth to a boy and a girl. Boy and girl marry and have babies, too, and they did they for nine generations. And at the end of it there was still an elder sister who stood up to the full might of the Roman Empire and died bravely for it (Berenice IV), Cleopatra herself, fluent in eight languages, exquisitely beautiful, and a cunning and skilled administrator (who was quite capable of bearing healthy children with Caesar and Marc Antony), and her younger sister Arsinoe who personally commanded armies in the streets of Alexandria against Caesar.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

For all the risks you state, they are simply increased possibilities, not certainties.

Of course. Driving while drunk at 100 mph may result in death, but it's not a certainty either.

Cleopatra would no doubt be quite amused at the idea that her existence was "cruel", along with several of her quite clever sisters, the result of nine generations of brother-sister inbreeding. Brother-Sister: Give birth to a boy and a girl. Boy and girl marry and have babies, too, and they did they for nine generations. And at the end of it there was still an elder sister who stood up to the full might of the Roman Empire and died bravely for it (Berenice IV), Cleopatra herself, fluent in eight languages, exquisitely beautiful, and a cunning and skilled administrator (who was quite capable of bearing healthy children with Caesar and Marc Antony), and her younger sister Arsinoe who personally commanded armies in the streets of Alexandria against Caesar.

:wtf:

So that's the best response you can muster to the factual historical record of the Egyptian Ptolemaic Dynasty?

[Superman]

So that's the best response you can muster to the factual historical record of the Egyptian Ptolemaic Dynasty?

I didn't know that we're debating Cleopatra. You seem to think I said that inbreeding has always produced genetically inferior people, then blasted into some tangent about Cleopatra and the Roman Empire. Go back and read what I wrote.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I didn't know that we're debating Cleopatra. You seem to think I said that inbreeding has always produced genetically inferior people, then blasted into some tangent about Cleopatra and the Roman Empire. Go back and read what I wrote.

:roll:

We're not debating Cleopatra, we're debating the consequence of brother-sister incest. The proof that nine generations of it can still produce robust, healthy, and intelligent individuals is a demonstration of the fact that the genetic argument is not a major factor in why we ban incest.

I would further add that the Ptolemaic Dynasty is one of but numerous Egyptian dynasties which practiced such incest (most of them also had father/daughter), and they all lasted about the same period of time, through many generations of such extreme inbreeding.

You do realize that after nine generations of brothers and sisters having children from incestuous sex that the prospects of genetic defects are staggeringly higher than a single generation, right? But they still produced not just healthy children, but in the case of some of them, some of the most successful and famous people in world-history.

No, this shouldn't be allowed in a normal setting, but I can understand why a woman who had strong personal beliefs against abortion might start planning for her child's college funding after mentally and emotionally recovering from the experience of incest, rather than immediately having an abortion. In such a situation, abortion is by no means something that should be recommended--it should be a personal choice just like in all others. Your suggestion that bringing such children into the world is "cruel" is laughably fallacious.

Intentionally it is wrong (though I'd hardly call it a "cruelty"), but an abortion of a fetus of an incestuous union should not be any different than the abortion of any other fetus, and should not be given higher priority, except in the considerations of the emotional condition of the mother.

[Stormbringer]

So that's the best response you can muster to the factual historical record of the Egyptian Ptolemaic Dynasty?

Given the fact that the Ptolemaic Dynasty also had a good many members that were mentally ill to one extent or another they're not the best advertisement. A lot of the mental illness that did crop up are now recognized as being passed on, if only as a risk factor for the kids. As such one has to question whether the inbreeding of the dynasty contributed to that.

I may be wrong but I believe that the dynasty was also suffering from a relative lack of fertility (quite apart from the extremely high number of homosexuals) and a relatively high child mortality rate. Certainly the same came up in Roman patrician lines which were very closed off even with out direct incest.

[Superman]

We're not debating Cleopatra, we're debating the consequence of brother-sister incest. The proof that nine generations of it can still produce robust, healthy, and intelligent individuals is a demonstration of the fact that the genetic argument is not a major factor in why we ban incest.

That's like saying a man who smoked heavily for 80 years offers proof that smokers are at no increased risk for lung cancer or heart disease. There are always exceptions.

I would further add that the Ptolemaic Dynasty is one of but numerous Egyptian dynasties which practiced such incest (most of them also had father/daughter), and they all lasted about the same period of time, through many generations of such extreme inbreeding.

While I can't say specifically about Ancient Egypt (but I would happily look into it), I can tell you that inbreeding amongst British royals has been linked as the cause of the widespread number of cases of hemophilia in the families. Queen Victoria gave birth to three children with the hemophilia allele; Leopold, Alice, and Beatrice. Alice then gave birth to two female carriers and one male hemophiliac.

If there are harmful recessive alleles present in the population, the genes and characteristics still have the possibility of surfacing and negatively affecting a population, but it is very possible that the population will never see any harmful effects due to incest.

No, this shouldn't be allowed in a normal setting, but I can understand why a woman who had strong personal beliefs against abortion might start planning for her child's college funding after mentally and emotionally recovering from the experience of incest, rather than immediately having an abortion. In such a situation, abortion is by no means something that should be recommended--it should be a personal choice just like in all others. Your suggestion that bringing such children into the world is "cruel" is laughably fallacious.

Intentionally it is wrong (though I'd hardly call it a "cruelty"), but an abortion of a fetus of an incestuous union should not be any different than the abortion of any other fetus, and should not be given higher priority, except in the considerations of the emotional condition of the mother.

First of all, I never said anything about abortion. If that's what you're getting at, then that's fine, but I never once referred to it.

You're all over the map. I gave reasons why this is considered a high-risk behavior, and that biology has seemed to bear out what most societies have generally accepted as taboo. I'll get some numbers on the likelihood of increased incidences of genetic problems if you want, but I'm not quite sure that's what you're looking for.

[The Yosemite Bear]

so the jeff foxworthy joke should read: "If your family tree doesn't fork, you might me royalty.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That's like saying a man who smoked heavily for 80 years offers proof that smokers are at no increased risk for lung cancer or heart disease. There are always exceptions.

I'm not saying there's no risk. Sheesh. Where have I said that? I've repeatedly stated my opposition to the practice. I've just been saying that the genetic consequences are not by themselves severe enough to legally ban it--the psychological consequences, however, are.

While I can't say specifically about Ancient Egypt (but I would happily look into it), I can tell you that inbreeding amongst British royals has been linked as the cause of the widespread number of cases of hemophilia in the families. Queen Victoria gave birth to three children with the hemophilia allele; Leopold, Alice, and Beatrice. Alice then gave birth to two female carriers and one male hemophiliac.

If there are harmful recessive alleles present in the population, the genes and characteristics still have the possibility of surfacing and negatively affecting a population, but it is very possible that the population will never see any harmful effects due to incest.

I'm aware of this.

First of all, I never said anything about abortion. If that's what you're getting at, then that's fine, but I never once referred to it.

Then why, praytell, are you posting in a thread on abortion?

You're all over the map. I gave reasons why this is considered a high-risk behavior, and that biology has seemed to bear out what most societies have generally accepted as taboo. I'll get some numbers on the likelihood of increased incidences of genetic problems if you want, but I'm not quite sure that's what you're looking for.

To recap: We're in a thread talking about abortion in cases of rape and incest. The livelihoods of child born of incestuous unions is therefore a highly relevant consideration.

[Gil Hamilton]

Well, you can see the risk of genetic inbreeding in dogs. A great many dog breeds are the direct result of inbreeding to heighten certain traits. In-breeding in itself isn't inherently bad, genetically. What it does is increase the probability of certain gene expressions due to basically the same genetic code being remixed. This leads to positive qualities to be sure. Dogs, peach trees, and cauliflower are all a result.

However, if you know about pure breed dogs, you know about how dangerous and frequent health problems are. Inbreeding gave pugs their squashed faces, but it also gave them severe respiratory problems. German shepherds are amazingly strong animals, but the same breeding gave them a history of hip dysplasia. Bulldogs have powerful jaws, but every single one of them has to be delivered by caesarian section because even their puppies head's are too large to be birthed naturally, to the point that bulldog breeders are now deliberately breeding the strain back now.

All of that is the result of inbreeding close relatives. Compare that to mutts, who almost universally are healthier and longer lived. "Hybrid Vigor" is something to be sought. This applies to humans as well, for the same reason.

[Anguirus]

Up until very recently, homosexuality was classified in the DSM as a mental disorder.

1973 is "very recently?"

[Adrian Laguna]

Up until very recently, homosexuality was classified in the DSM as a mental disorder.

1973 is "very recently?"

In historical terms at least, yes it is. Mostly because 34 years is nothing out of the 5300 that span human history.

[Superman]

Up until very recently, homosexuality was classified in the DSM as a mental disorder.

1973 is "very recently?"

In historical terms at least, yes it is. Mostly because 34 years is nothing out of the 5300 that span human history.

Right. Remember that psychiatry as a discipline has been around since the early 20th century, and neurology has been around longer than that. So yes, and what Adrian said.