homosexuality vs incest

Papa Bear · Apr 15th 2012, 8:48pm

both controversial issues between two consenting adults.

homosexuality marriage is starting to become legal. should incest be as well?

BBC News - German incest couple lose European Court case

Vladimir · Apr 15th 2012, 9:01pm

Legal where? Need... more... information.

But while we're on the topic, I hear HD TV's are selling really well. Does that mean people will soon start selling lime green underwear?

Let's start by finding the connection to my point, then we can find one in yours.

Papa Bear · Apr 15th 2012, 9:08pm

Vladimir wrote:

Legal where? Need... more... information.

Gay marriage legal in New York State after Senate passes historic bill 33-29 - New York Daily News

New York made history last night by becoming the sixth and largest state to legalize gay marriage

Vladimir wrote:

Let's start by finding the connection to my point, then we can find one in yours.

I answered this question already...

Papa Bear wrote:

both controversial issues between two consenting adults.

why shouldn't an incest couple be able to marry if they both love each other?

Vladimir · Apr 15th 2012, 9:17pm

So it's fine to link two things with a weak link such as "Two controversial issues involving two consenting adults?" and use that to apply to who should and should not marry? I have an idea, let's make that even less specific just so that we don't get accused of using any form of reason what-so-ever.

How about two issues involving consenting adults?

No, still too specific.

How about we just say any issue involving people?

I like that one much better. I say that anything involving people should not allow for marriage. You in?

Papa Bear · Apr 15th 2012, 9:31pm

Vladimir wrote:

So it's fine to link two things with a weak link such as "Two controversial issues involving two consenting adults?" and use that to apply to who should and should not marry? I have an idea, let's make that even less specific just so that we don't get accused of using any form of reason what-so-ever.

How about two issues involving consenting adults?

No, still too specific.

How about we just say any issue involving people?

I like that one much better. I say that anything involving people should not allow for marriage. You in?

find me a good reason why same-sex marriage should be legal?

find me another good reason why same-family marriage should remain illegal, mr. master of reason

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------

btw i know someone's gonna say something about kids being disabled, but the lawyer in the article brings up a good point.

The law against incest is based partly on the increased likelihood of disabled children being produced by the union.

However, their lawyer argued that there is also a greater risk when disabled people have children, or with older women, but such circumstances are not banned.

Scaredycrow · Apr 15th 2012, 9:55pm

Papa Bear wrote:

BBC News - German incest couple lose European Court case

Stuebing, who was convicted of incest and spent three years in prison, did not meet his natural sister until he tracked down his family as an adult.

He had been adopted as a child and only made contact with his natural relatives in his 20s.

Interesting.

Homosexual behaviour has been documented in a variety of animals, but as far as I know, incest in mammals is exceptionally rare. Some people have even hypothesized mechanisms that ensure that kind of thing happens infrequently.

Of course, marriage itself doesn't mean that the couple is going to have kids, but gay marriage is much more "risk free," and unfortunately, we can't really control who has kids and who doesn't. They're separate issues, and like that lawyer implies, the real debate is when it comes to having children (as it applies to all people and the risks of birth defects), rather than marriage itself.

Dexter. · Apr 15th 2012, 11:58pm

Scaredycrow wrote:

incest in mammals is exceptionally rare.

Really isn't at all though.

But why are humans being compared to other species anyway? sure, dogs may display homosexual behaviour, but they also lick their own asshole.

Linda · Apr 16th 2012, 12:01am

Dexter. wrote:

sure, dogs may display homosexual behaviour, but they also lick their own asshole.

Actually, when a male dog humps another male dog, its typically to assert dominance, and has nothing to do with sexuality.

Papa Bear · Apr 16th 2012, 12:30am

Scaredycrow wrote:

Of course, marriage itself doesn't mean that the couple is going to have kids, but gay marriage is much more "risk free," and unfortunately, we can't really control who has kids and who doesn't. They're separate issues, and like that lawyer implies, the real debate is when it comes to having children (as it applies to all people and the risks of birth defects), rather than marriage itself.

Honestly, I think they're just trying to mask their reasoning behind it, but the real reason is because it's considered a social taboo (just like homosexuality once was/is). But their lawyer is right, if the actual reason was because they wanted to prevent disabled children, then they should also ban disabled people from having children, or women over the age of 40.

It's kindda like how they used to say gays were at a higher risk of getting HIV (as far as i know, they still can't donate blood because of this)

Vladimir · Apr 16th 2012, 4:18am

Papa Bear wrote:

find me a good reason why same-sex marriage should be legal?

find me another good reason why same-family marriage should remain illegal, mr. master of reason

Find you a good reason why same sex marriage should be legal? I just told you that anything involving people should not allow for marriage, and this is your response? I have not even given a position on same sex marriage but you assume I have one? All I have done here is point out you have a weak link to draw your argument. And even if I did have an opinion, I have no idea where you are from. I would therefore like to introduce you to my friend, the Internet. It is likely we are not governed by the same laws, so who cares what I have to say about your same sex marriage? Enjoy it or ban it, just find a better argument.

Papa Bear · Apr 16th 2012, 5:57am

Heather wrote:

It's a genetics thing.

I made this beautiful picture to help explain.

Okay, let's say a brother and sister decide "Oh we love each other and we wanna have sex." kcool. Now let's say they're both carriers of a genetic disorder(i). The normal gene (I) is the non- carrying gene.

So sister gets pregnant. With the genetic makeup they both have, the baby has a 25% chance of HAVING the genetic disorder, rather than just carrying it, and have a 50% chance of carrying it. Where if both parents didn't carry the specific gene, the child would only have the chance to carry it. They wouldn't actually end up having it.

It makes sense as to why incest is looked down upon, as it's dangerous to any child that could come of the incest relationship. So no, it's not just a social taboo.

Lol heather

Papa Bear wrote:

if the actual reason was because they wanted to prevent disabled children, then they should also ban disabled people from having children.

.

Vladimir wrote:

Find you a good reason why same sex marriage should be legal? I just told you that anything involving people should not allow for marriage, and this is your response? I have not even given a position on same sex marriage but you assume I have one? All I have done here is point out you have a weak link to draw your argument. And even if I did have an opinion, I have no idea where you are from. I would therefore like to introduce you to my friend, the Internet. It is likely we are not governed by the same laws, so who cares what I have to say about your same sex marriage? Enjoy it or ban it, just find a better argument.

I don't know if youve realized, but whatever we do here won't change the laws of any place. This is just for the sake of arguing

Scaredycrow · Apr 16th 2012, 7:31am

Papa Bear wrote:

Honestly, I think they're just trying to mask their reasoning behind it, but the real reason is because it's considered a social taboo (just like homosexuality once was/is). But their lawyer is right, if the actual reason was because they wanted to prevent disabled children, then they should also ban disabled people from having children, or women over the age of 40.

It's kindda like how they used to say gays were at a higher risk of getting HIV (as far as i know, they still can't donate blood because of this)

Sometimes "taboos" are taboo for a reason - what I was getting at in my original post is that there's evidence to suggest there could be evolutionary mechanisms that are in place to avoid incest.

Regardless, I think the major basis for legalizing gay marriage is on the basis that it does no harm (or potentially even reduces harm), which isn't the case with incest.

I'd also wager that legalizing gay marriage would actually reduce the HIV rate, so it's more of an argument for gay marriage. :p (And you're right, they're not allowed to donate blood, but Canadian Blood Services just ran a survey to ask if they should change that so we'll see what happens

)

Heather wrote:

Women over 40...ehhh...that would be kind of hard to regulate tbh. Something the government probably wouldn't be able to enforce.

I don't think it would be *too* difficult to regulate, but the only ways I can think of violate human rights. Oh dear!

Papa Bear · Apr 16th 2012, 6:43pm

Heather wrote:

'Disabled people' is an incredibly vague statement and you can't just ban all people with disabilities from having children. Not all disabilities are genetically linked, so you would have to have solid evidence that a problem with someone is genetic.

"Disabled" was the term the government used. Obviously, the government wants the most healthiest babies so let's go with the first disability that comes to my mind. Down Syndrome can be passed down, so anyone with Down Syndrome should not be allowed to have children because they're at a higher risk of producing another down syndrome person.

Scaredycrow wrote:

Sometimes "taboos" are taboo for a reason

Sometimes taboos also change. Interracial couples were considered a taboo once, so was homosexuals.

Scaredycrow wrote:

what I was getting at in my original post is that there's evidence to suggest there could be evolutionary mechanisms that are in place to avoid incest.

Regardless, I think the major basis for legalizing gay marriage is on the basis that it does no harm (or potentially even reduces harm), which isn't the case with incest.

interesting, and it doesn't surprised me since inbreeding can cause a species to die out due to genetic defects.

At the same time though, it's still considered a taboo even when they don't have children, and to prohibit them from having children based on the fact that they're at higher risk would also mean we'd have to prohibit other groups from having children for the same reasons

Scaredycrow wrote:

I'd also wager that legalizing gay marriage would actually reduce the HIV rate, so it's more of an argument for gay marriage. :p (And you're right, they're not allowed to donate blood, but Canadian Blood Services just ran a survey to ask if they should change that so we'll see what happens )

Anal sex increases the chances for someone to get infected. Specially if they don't use protection (which most gays won't since they don't have that problem of getting someone pregnant). That's why they're considered to be at higher risk

Scaredycrow · Apr 16th 2012, 8:28pm

Papa Bear wrote:

"Disabled" was the term the government used. Obviously, the government wants the most healthiest babies so let's go with the first disability that comes to my mind. Down Syndrome can be passed down, so anyone with Down Syndrome should not be allowed to have children because they're at a higher risk of producing another down syndrome person.

Down syndrome typically isn't inherited, it's actually more of a risk when you age (argument for the 'women over 40').

Sometimes taboos also change. Interracial couples were considered a taboo once, so was homosexuals.

Whether or not something is a taboo is irrelevant to whether or not it is right -- some change, some don't, but "some tabbos change" isn't strong enough to suggest one should change.

To my knowledge, incest is one of the most common/"universal" social taboos - again, perhaps there's a reason for that, and not just a social one.

I agree that the incest/other high-risk couples is a legitimate issue, and I don't really have a strong opinion on it. I just don't think gay marriage and incest are the same issue or that you can justify one based on the other.

Anal sex increases the chances for someone to get infected. Specially if they don't use protection (which most gays won't since they don't have that problem of getting someone pregnant). That's why they're considered to be at higher risk

But being married reduces the chances you'll engage in risky sexual behaviour.

Papa Bear · Apr 17th 2012, 12:46pm

Scaredycrow wrote:

Whether or not something is a taboo is irrelevant to whether or not it is right -- some change, some don't, but "some tabbos change" isn't strong enough to suggest one should change.

but it also shows that what were a taboo once don't always have to be a taboo. people's feelings change throughout time (i know some people still think same-sex couple should still be considered a taboo)

Scaredycrow wrote:

I agree that the incest/other high-risk couples is a legitimate issue, and I don't really have a strong opinion on it. I just don't think gay marriage and incest are the same issue or that you can justify one based on the other.

But really, if we take kids out of the equation. the same rights that gays preach they deserve should also apply to incest couples (and any other consenting adult). but then they get offended when you compare them to incest. it's like a double standard

Vice · Apr 18th 2012, 9:15am

Agreed, and don't forget that felonious professor that gave two male twins projects about homosexuality and incest which turned them into lovers.

DamnImGood · Apr 28th 2012, 5:47pm

Both should be legal.

Papa Bear · Apr 29th 2012, 5:32pm

DamnImGood wrote:

Both should be legal.

that's what i'm sayin' boy

Manny · Apr 29th 2012, 5:35pm

It is beyond ridiculous for someone to say homosexuality is ok but incest is not. The "privacy in the bedroom" argument gets thrown out the window then.

That being said, I also believe sex with animals should be legal. (If it isn't.)

and no, I don't think pedophilia should be legal. That's a completely different story because a younger person does not have a grasp as to what they're doing. It's completely different than incest, because two consenting adults agree to have sex.

If you're going to argue about a child being "deformed", then what about crack babies and moms with aids? Do you suggest they do not have kids?

What if in the future we find out the reasoning on why some people are born mentally challenged? Do we forbid those parents to having kids?

Linda · Apr 29th 2012, 5:48pm

vigilante wrote:

That being said, I also believe sex with animals should be legal. (If it isn't.)

The animal can't consent though, so technically its rape.

Share