Gay Marriage leads to incest and polygamy

[Singular Intellect]

Let say your average brother and sister, both adults, love eachother beyond your typical sibling relationship. They both freely acknowledge that having biological children together isn't an option (although they express an interest in adoption). Suppose their commitment is even strong enough that the male has had a vasectomy to prevent any accidental impregnation.

I'd very much like to see the logical arguement explaining why society needs to step in and prevent them from having this relationship.

There isn't any that I can think of.

Me neither, but given the apparent anti-incest attitude here, I want to hear one. Otherwise I will consider it conceded that incest itself isn't the problem, it's other factors.

[brianeyci]

You can "consider it conceded" as much as you want Bubbleass, you and your WoI. Take a look at Stormbringer's last post, and his post before that.

You don't like admitting when you're wrong do you Bubbletea? No big surprise given your response when I called you out on your intellectual laziness. Typo my ass.

[Starglider]

Otherwise I will consider it conceded that incest itself isn't the problem, it's other factors.

This only works for a ludicrously narrow concept of 'incest'. No, there is not a moral problem inherent to the physical situation of two humans sharing roughly 50% of their DNA engaging in intercourse. Not that anyone whose argument is on the 'incest ugh' level of sophistication is likely to be that materialist. But this is irrelevant to all practical questions. I've split hairs like this myself on past occasions where it is actually relevant to something (e.g. dismissing eugenics for the right reasons rather than the wrong ones so you don't wrongfully tar human genetic engineering with the same brush) but in this case I can't see how it can be.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Why is there this big biological argument against incest, exactly? Cleopatra was the result of nine generations of brother-sister incest by the Ptolemaic Royal Family. Nine Generations of brother-sister genetic unions, and that woman was still cunningly intelligent and incredibly attractive, and able to have several children of her own.

Yes, the risk of genetic defects is heightened, but there is clear evidence that very sustained incest does not result in unacceptable genetic damage to that family line until a very long period of time has passed. Even the Habsburgs, for another example, were in a situation, again, with multiple generations of cousin marriages before they got around to Felipe III's drooling insanity, and the Austrian branch of the family still exists.

The genetic argument seems to be a canard without much credence to it.

[Singular Intellect]

Otherwise I will consider it conceded that incest itself isn't the problem, it's other factors.

This only works for a ludicrously narrow concept of 'incest'. No, there is not a moral problem inherent to the physical situation of two humans sharing roughly 50% of their DNA engaging in intercourse. Not that anyone whose argument is on the 'incest ugh' level of sophistication is likely to be that materialist. But this is irrelevant to all practical questions. I've split hairs like this myself on past occasions where it is actually relevant to something (e.g. dismissing eugenics for the right reasons rather than the wrong ones so you don't wrongfully tar human genetic engineering with the same brush) but in this case I can't see how it can be.

My point is that there's plenty of room for situations where one cannot argue logically against incest beyond the "I don't like it" mentality, the same reaction that is so prevalent against homosexuality, especially among the religious.

[Superman]

Why is there this big biological argument against incest, exactly? Cleopatra was the result of nine generations of brother-sister incest by the Ptolemaic Royal Family. Nine Generations of brother-sister genetic unions, and that woman was still cunningly intelligent and incredibly attractive, and able to have several children of her own.

Yes, the risk of genetic defects is heightened, but there is clear evidence that very sustained incest does not result in unacceptable genetic damage to that family line until a very long period of time has passed. Even the Habsburgs, for another example, were in a situation, again, with multiple generations of cousin marriages before they got around to Felipe III's drooling insanity, and the Austrian branch of the family still exists.

The genetic argument seems to be a canard without much credence to it.

I think much of the argument against inbreeding lies in the fact that it's an almost universally accepted cultural taboo. Anthropologists and psychologists have written volumes on this particular subject; the exceptions are usually in cases like you mentioned, where a monarch of some type wishes a bloodline to be retained.

It also depends on the degree of the offspring. First degree offspring are far more likely to show physical or health defects than that of the a general population.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think much of the argument against inbreeding lies in the fact that it's an almost universally accepted cultural taboo. Anthropologists and psychologists have written volumes on this particular subject; the exceptions are usually in cases like you mentioned, where a monarch of some type wishes a bloodline to be retained.

It also depends on the degree of the offspring. First degree offspring are far more likely to show physical or health defects than that of the a general population.

A psychological argument against sibling and parent/child incest does hold very real water. A genetic argument does not. The risks are higher, but they are not substantially different from those of, for instance, two people from extremely highly polluted areas.

[Superman]

Actually, the dangers are a bit more specific. When we talk about biology, inbreeding runs the risk unmasking detrimental, or even lethal, recessive genes. These are these are generally thought of as the genes that Natural Selection works to select out of a population.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Actually, the dangers are a bit more specific. When we talk about biology, inbreeding runs the risk unmasking detrimental, or even lethal, recessive genes. These are these are generally thought of as the genes that Natural Selection works to select out of a population.

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.

[Superman]

Actually, the dangers are a bit more specific. When we talk about biology, inbreeding runs the risk unmasking detrimental, or even lethal, recessive genes. These are these are generally thought of as the genes that Natural Selection works to select out of a population.

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.

Most incest occurs between a parent and a child, so this leads us into the realm of child abuse. If you're talking about two grown adults, and a parent-child incestuous relationship, then we get into the realm of psychopathology. It would be difficult to find a psychiatrist who would consider this anything other than sick behavior.

[Singular Intellect]

All genetic and reproduction arguements against incest are rendered irrelevent if the pair in question understands why it's a bad idea. Things like adoption can easily fill the role of child rearing in a situation where reproduction isn't possible (homosexuality) or not recommended (incest).

Therefore the only remaining objection is issues regarding age of consent and abuse of trust between parents and children. But those concerns are not affiliated solely with incest. There is argueably a greater possbility of abuse, particularily in parent to child situations, but it strikes me as unfair to those who otherwise would have workable relationships and even productive ones (ie: adopting kids today who are parentless).

After that, all is left is taboo and personal prejudice reflecting the same condemnation brought against homosexual relationships.

[Superman]

Therefore the only remaining objection is issues regarding age of consent and abuse of trust between parents and children. But those concerns are not affiliated solely with incest.

Can you explain that?

[Singular Intellect]

Therefore the only remaining objection is issues regarding age of consent and abuse of trust between parents and children. But those concerns are not affiliated solely with incest.

Can you explain that?

Meaning that the age of consent is not a concern solely restricted between a parent and child, it goes for everyone. Although I admitted there's quite likely a greater risk of abuse of trust between a parent and child, since children would typically trust their parent(s) far more than a strange adult.

Overall my point is along the lines of a parent trying to engage in sexual activities with their underage kid, or viewing such a young individual as a sexual partner. That's wrong, whether a parent or not.

On the other hand, if a parent and adult offspring chose to engage in sexual activities together, there's really not much we can justifiably do about it. I pointed out we might have an point trying to intervene on the grounds of children being produced this way, but as I see it even that's very shaky ground. That would be much like trying to intervening between two people who have a very high risk of producing children with inherit problems because of the parents health.

[Superman]

Meaning that the age of consent is not a concern solely restricted between a parent and child, it goes for everyone. Although I admitted there's quite likely a greater risk of abuse of trust between a parent and child, since children would typically trust their parent(s) far more than a strange adult.

Overall my point is along the lines of a parent trying to engage in sexual activities with their underage kid, or viewing such a young individual as a sexual partner. That's wrong, whether a parent or not.

On the other hand, if a parent and adult offspring chose to engage in sexual activities together, there's really not much we can justifiably do about it. I pointed out we might have an point trying to intervene on the grounds of children being produced this way, but as I see it even that's very shaky ground. That would be much like trying to intervening between two people who have a very high risk of producing children with inherit problems because of the parents health.

I've always said that people should really be allowed to act out any kind of bizarre behavior they see fit, as long as they don't bring kids into it. Using law enforcement to stop these things is a waste of our resources.

That being said, you can't honestly be too shocked to discover that the overall opinion here is that of one which looks down on incest. People seem to have a genuine visceral reaction to the notion of it, and most people tend to think of child abuse when its mentioned. There may even be some biology at work here; the phenomenon that siblings do not generally feel sexually attracted to one another has been repeatedly studied and labeled the Westermarck effect.

I have to admit that the thought of having sex with my mother literally makes me want to vomit... but yes, that's my problem, and maybe I'm just unenlightened on this. I think my point is that repulsion to the idea is understandable, even if flawed.

[Singular Intellect]

I've always said that people should really be allowed to act out any kind of bizarre behavior they see fit, as long as they don't bring kids into it. Using law enforcement to stop these things is a waste of our resources.

That being said, you can't honestly be too shocked to discover that the overall opinion here is that of one which looks down on incest.

Of course not. I personally also look down on incest in any form myself. But I'm evaluating the subject in purely from a logical standpoint, similar to homosexuality which I also personally find repugnant.

People seem to have a genuine visceral reaction to the notion of it, and most people tend to think of child abuse when its mentioned. There may even be some biology at work here; the phenomenon that siblings do not generally feel sexually attracted to one another has been repeatedly studied and labeled the Westermarck effect.

I have to admit that the thought of having sex with my mother literally makes me want to vomit... but yes, that's my problem, and maybe I'm just unenlightened on this. I think my point is that repulsion to the idea is understandable, even if flawed.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I understand completely and feel the exact same way. However, if I let my personal tastes dictate what I think should be permitted or not, I'd be ranting against homosexuality rather than supporting it, even if from a distance.

Hence why I'm arguing for incest...there really is no logical justification for being against it. I've been quite clear what forms would be unacceptable, such as under age abuse of the activity and potential trust issues with parents. But that arguement holds as little water as those who oppose homosexuality and using the 'age issue'...it's a knee jerk reaction that has nothing to do with the actual issue.

[brianeyci]

The actual issue is you being a goalpost shifting turd. Incest is having sex with relatives, which includes fathers having sex with daughters and mothers having sex with sons. That you can't see the connection between child abuse and incest is because you're a pig headed arrogant prick who doesn't want to admit when he's wrong. You argued right from the start that there is nothing wrong with incest, unlike people like Duchess who talked about limited special circumstances. Then you shift the goalpost when people call you out on your bullshit.

You can't change definitions to suit you when you please when you're losing a debate Bubble Gum. Starglider is right, you're a hair splitting prick.

[Singular Intellect]

The actual issue is you being a goalpost shifting turd. Incest is having sex with relatives, which includes fathers having sex with daughters and mothers having sex with sons.

Yeah, and I've never said it was okay if the participants are underage, you lying fucktard.

That you can't see the connection between child abuse and incest is because you're a pig headed arrogant prick who doesn't want to admit when he's wrong. You argued right from the start that there is nothing wrong with incest, unlike people like Duchess who talked about limited special circumstances. Then you shift the goalpost when people call you out on your bullshit.

I haven't shifted my position at all, shitstain. I've reviewed my posts just to be certain, and yes, I never once said it was okay or implied it was okay for incest with underage individuals.

You're a lying sack of shit brianyci, who's strawmanning my position either delibrately or through stupidity.

You can't change definitions to suit you when you please when you're losing a debate Bubble Gum. Starglider is right, you're a hair splitting prick.

You're a lying fucktard. I never said or implied incest with underage individuals was okay. In fact the first time I responded to arguements about involving underage individuals, I explicitly stated that sexual relations with any underage individuals is wrong. Anyone reading this thread can verify that.

So fuck off troll. I'm tired of your lying bullshit.

[Superman]

The actual issue is you being a goalpost shifting turd. Incest is having sex with relatives, which includes fathers having sex with daughters and mothers having sex with sons. That you can't see the connection between child abuse and incest is because you're a pig headed arrogant prick who doesn't want to admit when he's wrong.

You're walking on a tight rope here, but you may have a point in one regard. For an adult who actively engages in an incestuous relationship with his or her adult son or daughter, one could see this as a failure in the development of proper boundaries. Adults learn these behaviors in formative years; if this is acceptable as an adult, then it was a 'normal' and accepted behavior in childhood. I would wonder how many people engaged in these behaviors do so because of victimization in childhood.

[brianeyci]

You actually had to review your statements to remember what you said? What's wrong, brain damage?

Let's see what you said.

I actually fail to see where either incest or polygamy is 'harmful' while homosexuality isn't.

Then I said this,

Mothers and fathers having sex with children is wrong on many levels I hope I don't have to explain.

Then you said this,

However, only a complete fucking moron interprets incest to mean "adults and children" only, as opposed to say adult brothers and sisters, or parents and adult youths.

Indicating two things:

1. You think that a mother having sex with an adult child is okay, when it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that the actual time of sex is irrelevant. The mother can raise their children to be psychologically, physically and economically dependent to her and when time comes to give consent, it is given. That you see nothing wrong with this is disturbing.

2. You are not speaking the same language as everybody else. Here's a hint: I am still my mom's child despite the fact I am over 18. Do I cease being my mother's child after I'm over eighteen? Of course not. But Bubble Ass, because he's an arrogant prick, doesn't like admitting when he's wrong. When I pointed this out to you, mothers having sex with children, you repeatedly bring up the underage red herring. Guess what: I never said you said that twenty year olds having sex with twelve year olds is okay. I said you were stupid for not seeing the obvious conflict of interest in relatives having relationships with one another, in particular relatives in a position of trust such as mothers and fathers.

Kiss my ass Bubble Gut. And make sure to lick after.

[AniThyng]

The actual issue is you being a goalpost shifting turd. Incest is having sex with relatives, which includes fathers having sex with daughters and mothers having sex with sons. That you can't see the connection between child abuse and incest is because you're a pig headed arrogant prick who doesn't want to admit when he's wrong.

You're walking on a tight rope here, but you may have a point in one regard. For an adult who actively engages in an incestuous relationship with his or her adult son or daughter, one could see this as a failure in the development of proper boundaries. Adults learn these behaviors in formative years; if this is acceptable as an adult, then it was a 'normal' and accepted behavior in childhood. I would wonder how many people engaged in these behaviors do so because of victimization in childhood.

It is unfortunate that many otherwise functional people who are against homosexual behavior see it as also a product of a disturbed childhood and sincerely believe homosexuals can be "rehabilitated" to be heterosexual or that it is a "choice" made due to "poor (read - not religious enough) upbringing". Not saying they are correct, but a lot of people (in more conservative societies, like mine) do have a similar visceral reaction against homosexuality as they do against incest, for whatever reasons.

And I won't be surprised if pedophile homosexuals are used to demonise all homosexuals.

[Singular Intellect]

You actually had to review your statements to remember what you said? What's wrong, brain damage?

No, it's just that your insistance made me double check to ensure I hadn't misspoken previously. I hadn't, you're just retarded.

Let's see what you said.

I actually fail to see where either incest or polygamy is 'harmful' while homosexuality isn't.

Then I said this,

Mothers and fathers having sex with children is wrong on many levels I hope I don't have to explain.

Then you said this,

However, only a complete fucking moron interprets incest to mean "adults and children" only, as opposed to say adult brothers and sisters, or parents and adult youths.

Indicating two things:

1. You think that a mother having sex with an adult child is okay, when it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that the actual time of sex is irrelevant. The mother can raise their children to be psychologically, physically and economically dependent to her and when time comes to give consent, it is given. That you see nothing wrong with this is disturbing.

I've pointed out there's no logical justification preventing a adult child giving consent, dipshit.

I've already pointed out I do personally find the concept distasteful. I have a problem with parents teaching their kids religion as well, but there's fuck all I can do about it.

2. You are not speaking the same language as everybody else. Here's a hint: I am still my mom's child despite the fact I am over 18. Do I cease being my mother's child after I'm over eighteen? Of course not.

We are using the exact terminology, fucktard. You're just desperately trying to act as if I've changed my position when I haven't wavered the slightest.

But Bubble Ass, because he's an arrogant prick, doesn't like admitting when he's wrong. When I pointed this out to you, mothers having sex with children, you repeatedly bring up the underage red herring. Guess what: I never said you said that twenty year olds having sex with twelve year olds is okay. I said you were stupid for not seeing the obvious conflict of interest in relatives having relationships with one another, in particular relatives in a position of trust such as mothers and fathers.

Too fucking bad for you. Once an adult, adults make their own decisions and are responsible for them. This is why we'll hold an adult responsible for stupidity influenced by religion, even if they were indoctrined into that religion by their parents.

You've hammered the last nail in killing your own fucking arguement. Thanks, it saves me the effort.

[Superman]

It is unfortunate that many otherwise functional people who are against homosexual behavior see it as also a product of a disturbed childhood and sincerely believe homosexuals can be "rehabilitated" to be heterosexual or that it is a "choice" made due to "poor (read - not religious enough) upbringing". Not saying they are correct, but a lot of people (in more conservative societies, like mine) do have a similar visceral reaction against homosexuality as they do against incest, for whatever reasons.

And I won't be surprised if pedophile homosexuals are used to demonise all homosexuals.

There are many psychiatrists and psychologists who do see homosexuality resulting from one of two things: It may be the result of traumatic childhood same-sex (usually male) sexual abuse which 'hardwires' a developing brain into taking that gender as a sexual object, or it strictly lies in the genes. Both explanations may indeed be true, and although some may find the notion offensive, it doesn't make the person's sexual orientation any more 'incorrect' than anyone else's.

Up until very recently, homosexuality was classified in the DSM as a mental disorder. This was always controversial however; even Freud stated that it could never be considered such.

[brianeyci]

I've pointed out there's no logical justification preventing a adult child giving consent, dipshit.

Lie. Stormbringer and others have pointed out the actual time of sex is not relevant to child abuse. Parents can groom their children to have sex with them when they're age of majority plus two seconds. That you don't accept this is either because you're stupid, or you're a liar.

Once an adult, adults make their own decisions and are responsible for them.

Yet the act of grooming a child to be a sex slave is done during childhood.



Go fuck yourself dumbass. Preferably your mom, since you see nothing wrong with that.

[Singular Intellect]

I've pointed out there's no logical justification preventing a adult child giving consent, dipshit.

Lie. Stormbringer and others have pointed out the actual time of sex is not relevant to child abuse. Parents can groom their children to have sex with them when they're age of majority plus two seconds. That you don't accept this is either because you're stupid, or you're a liar.

Once an adult, adults make their own decisions and are responsible for them.

Yet the act of grooming a child to be a sex slave is done during childhood.



Go fuck yourself dumbass. Preferably your mom, since you see nothing wrong with that.

Oh, wow, the activity of incest has the potential for abuse. Jee, why didn't I think of that?

Oh wait, I did and addressed it. Concession accepted, dipshit.

[brianeyci]

Oh, wow, the activity of incest has the potential for abuse. Jee, why didn't I think of that?

Oh wait, I did and addressed it. Concession accepted, dipshit.

Hahaha. Coming from a guy who interprets "mother's children" as "underage" (hint: look up the definition of child one time, you might be surprised to see that one of the definitions of child is offspring) who thinks that this is "inexact" and from a guy who thinks there's "no logical reason" why incest should be prohibited when practical reasons have already been brought up, this is hilarious. Asked and answered is a Darkstar tactic moron.

Again, go fuck your mom, since you don't see anything wrong with that. Asswipe.