Total Posts:259|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Incest

TheTraditionalist
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 8:38:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Should bothers and sisters be able to marry? The only real argument that I can think of that would actually support this is that their marriage would actually harm their children in a tangible way (they are certainly more at risk of being born with some kind of debilitating birth defect), but that could be true of two individuals born with some kind of intellectual or physical disability. If our laws are to be consistent shouldn't those people also be unable to marry?

Can anyone provide me with any sound, secular argument as to why incest and incestual marriage should be illegal?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 8:57:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Incest is fine as long as no children occur of it.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 9:03:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As to the children point, the same could be applied to people with inheritable diseases like Huntingtons.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 9:16:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 8:38:34 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
Should bothers and sisters be able to marry? The only real argument that I can think of that would actually support this is that their marriage would actually harm their children in a tangible way (they are certainly more at risk of being born with some kind of debilitating birth defect), but that could be true of two individuals born with some kind of intellectual or physical disability. If our laws are to be consistent shouldn't those people also be unable to marry?

Can anyone provide me with any sound, secular argument as to why incest and incestual marriage should be illegal?

The federal government had no authority to create or administer such laws. As far as the states go, I believe it's a violation of their right to liberty.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 9:20:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 9:03:39 PM, Noumena wrote:
As to the children point, the same could be applied to people with inheritable diseases like Huntingtons.

I agree. There are currently laws on the books in many states which makes f***ing retards, or simply people of lower cognitive function statutory rape. Essentially a genius can be deemed a rapist for F***ing someone with an average iq.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheTraditionalist
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 9:40:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 9:20:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2013 9:03:39 PM, Noumena wrote:
As to the children point, the same could be applied to people with inheritable diseases like Huntingtons.

I agree. There are currently laws on the books in many states which makes f***ing retards, or simply people of lower cognitive function statutory rape. Essentially a genius can be deemed a rapist for F***ing someone with an average iq.

Wait, you think its a invasive for the government to tell us who we can marry, but you think it is okay to tell us who we can bork?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 10:04:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 8:57:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Incest is fine as long as no children occur of it.

Why not?

Before you answer, look up the term "eugenics."
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 11:16:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It should not. Children born of such marriages aren't magically made disabled, they simply have a higher chance of being so overall because many such conditions are genetically recessive, to simplify things. This means that the closer related you are to someone the more likely it is that you are both carrying the recessive gene for a negative condition. Some more simplification, but even if both a brother and a sister were the carriers for recessive condition X, (Xx & Xx) there would still only be a 25% chance of then producing a child which develops the disorder. If someone argues that the government ought to prohibit such things in order to maximize the efficacy of out breeding by encouraging hybrid vigor then they are setting a very dangerous precedent which could easily be used to justify eugenics.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 11:24:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm pretty sure incest marriages are illegal less because of the likelihood of genetic anomalies, and more because complete legality would open up the floodgates for abuse.

In fact, molestation and rape is most often incestuous.
YYW
Posts: 36,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 11:42:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 11:24:42 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
I'm pretty sure incest marriages are illegal less because of the likelihood of genetic anomalies, and more because complete legality would open up the floodgates for abuse.

In fact, molestation and rape is most often incestuous.

Indeed.
Tsar of DDO
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 11:46:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 11:24:42 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
I'm pretty sure incest marriages are illegal less because of the likelihood of genetic anomalies, and more because complete legality would open up the floodgates for abuse.

In fact, molestation and rape is most often incestuous.

Good point.
yang.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 11:48:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 11:24:42 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
I'm pretty sure incest marriages are illegal less because of the likelihood of genetic anomalies, and more because complete legality would open up the floodgates for abuse.

In fact, molestation and rape is most often incestuous.

I don't see the logic here. Why would legalizing incest increase instances of abuse?
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 12:25:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 8:38:34 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
Should bothers and sisters be able to marry? The only real argument that I can think of that would actually support this is that their marriage would actually harm their children in a tangible way (they are certainly more at risk of being born with some kind of debilitating birth defect), but that could be true of two individuals born with some kind of intellectual or physical disability. If our laws are to be consistent shouldn't those people also be unable to marry?

Can anyone provide me with any sound, secular argument as to why incest and incestual marriage should be illegal?

Brothers and sisters can have children and there will only be a 3% greater chance of birth defect than if non-brother and sister have children.

Marriage is an economic relationship before it is anything else. If two sisters want to get married, while it might creep me out a bit, who am I to try to stop it.

At the very least it would make for a lasting, stable lifetime union. If anything, children might be better off given the almost certain guarantee of a 2 parent household in which to grow up.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 12:25:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 11:48:52 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/31/2013 11:24:42 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
I'm pretty sure incest marriages are illegal less because of the likelihood of genetic anomalies, and more because complete legality would open up the floodgates for abuse.

In fact, molestation and rape is most often incestuous.

I don't see the logic here. Why would legalizing incest increase instances of abuse?

Because there'd be less scrutiny of incestuous relationships...?
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 2:28:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 12:25:08 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/31/2013 11:48:52 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/31/2013 11:24:42 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
I'm pretty sure incest marriages are illegal less because of the likelihood of genetic anomalies, and more because complete legality would open up the floodgates for abuse.

In fact, molestation and rape is most often incestuous.

I don't see the logic here. Why would legalizing incest increase instances of abuse?

Because there'd be less scrutiny of incestuous relationships...?

Are abusive relationships between two heterosexual, unrelated people more common because nonabusive relationships involving the same parties are not scrutinized?

There is no proof for your assertion.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 3:47:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 8:38:34 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
Should bothers and sisters be able to marry? The only real argument that I can think of that would actually support this is that their marriage would actually harm their children in a tangible way (they are certainly more at risk of being born with some kind of debilitating birth defect), but that could be true of two individuals born with some kind of intellectual or physical disability. If our laws are to be consistent shouldn't those people also be unable to marry?

As usual on the subject of marriage, there is way too much thinking going on here. Marriage is a cultural issue. Americans will not legalize incest because we think it is disgusting and we don't condone it. The end.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 6:38:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 3:47:18 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/31/2013 8:38:34 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
Should bothers and sisters be able to marry? The only real argument that I can think of that would actually support this is that their marriage would actually harm their children in a tangible way (they are certainly more at risk of being born with some kind of debilitating birth defect), but that could be true of two individuals born with some kind of intellectual or physical disability. If our laws are to be consistent shouldn't those people also be unable to marry?

As usual on the subject of marriage, there is way too much thinking going on here. Marriage is a cultural issue. Americans will not legalize incest because we think it is disgusting and we don't condone it. The end.

There are plenty of people who think the same thing about homosexuality.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 6:44:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You should be able to marry whomever you wish as long as that person is consenting. Now, Franz claims that there would be more abuse if this was legalized. Ok, so why not ban heterosexual relationships between consenting adults because the legalization leads to more abuse? Plus, you have to proof that legalizing it would necessarily lead to more abuse, and there's no evidence of that-abusers abuse in spite of the law. It's not like rape or molestation is being legalized; only the consensual relationship.

The genetic anomaly trait argument is meaningless. We don't stop people from marrying and having children in other situations just because there is a greater chance of disorder. For example, if two Caucasians marry, there is a significant chance that the child will have cystic fibrosis as compared to a Caucasian and an African American marrying. That doesn't mean we should force people to marry outside of race if they don't want to. We don't stop carriers from marrying even though they can pass on the recessive allele to others. We don't stop people who are affected by dominant, deleterious traits (like dwarfism) from having children. There's no real justification from banning incest other than that you personally don't like it. Well, I personally don't like it either, but it's not my place to stop people from being autonomous.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 7:05:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 11:24:42 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
I'm pretty sure incest marriages are illegal less because of the likelihood of genetic anomalies, and more because complete legality would open up the floodgates for abuse.

In fact, molestation and rape is most often incestuous.

So? No one's saying let's legalize molestation and rape now are they?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 7:43:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Whether or not incestual couples *should* marry, they won't be able to so long as incest is taboo. Marriage is in part society's recognition and acceptance of the particular relationship in question - hence why interracial marriage became legal as racist attitudes decreased, and why gay marriage is being legalised as homophobic attitudes decrease.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 7:47:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 10:04:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/31/2013 8:57:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Incest is fine as long as no children occur of it.

Why not?

Before you answer, look up the term "eugenics."

I think this because I don't want a child to have a birth defect and have to suffer, not because I want the perfect human race.

However, I don't know the statistics on this so I'm probably not well-informed enough to make a decision.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Jessalyn
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 8:12:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 6:44:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
You should be able to marry whomever you wish as long as that person is consenting. Now, Franz claims that there would be more abuse if this was legalized. Ok, so why not ban heterosexual relationships between consenting adults because the legalization leads to more abuse? Plus, you have to proof that legalizing it would necessarily lead to more abuse, and there's no evidence of that-abusers abuse in spite of the law. It's not like rape or molestation is being legalized; only the consensual relationship.

The genetic anomaly trait argument is meaningless. We don't stop people from marrying and having children in other situations just because there is a greater chance of disorder. For example, if two Caucasians marry, there is a significant chance that the child will have cystic fibrosis as compared to a Caucasian and an African American marrying. That doesn't mean we should force people to marry outside of race if they don't want to. We don't stop carriers from marrying even though they can pass on the recessive allele to others. We don't stop people who are affected by dominant, deleterious traits (like dwarfism) from having children. There's no real justification from banning incest other than that you personally don't like it. Well, I personally don't like it either, but it's not my place to stop people from being autonomous.

I agree completely.
WARNING: Hitchslaps may become inflamed when accompanied by unceasing stupidity.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:46:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It would a cultural thing, I believe. However, it seems that incest is rather a common practice within Royal Family (for the purpose of keeping Royal blood pure and untainted).

Elizabeth and Philip are second cousins once removed (by descent from Christian IX of Denmark and Louise of Hesse-Kassel) and third cousins (by descent from Queen Victoria and Prince Albert). Elizabeth met Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark in 1934, at the wedding of Philip's cousin, Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark, and again in 1937.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
LatentDebater
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:59:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 8:38:34 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
Should bothers and sisters be able to marry? The only real argument that I can think of that would actually support this is that their marriage would actually harm their children in a tangible way (they are certainly more at risk of being born with some kind of debilitating birth defect), but that could be true of two individuals born with some kind of intellectual or physical disability. If our laws are to be consistent shouldn't those people also be unable to marry?

Can anyone provide me with any sound, secular argument as to why incest and incestual marriage should be illegal?

Variation drives success. If we were all members of the same family there'd be very little variation in talents meaning we'd die out since everyone would be a scientist or artist.
I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.

People who think they know everything are extremely irritating to those of us who do.

"If you believe in a god, just tell me why you don't believe in all the other gods. The reasons you give will be why I don't believe in yours." - Ricky THEGENIUS Gervais
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 11:06:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
ooOOoo, this thread got a lot more interesting than I thought it would...

At 2/1/2013 2:28:04 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 2/1/2013 12:25:08 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/31/2013 11:48:52 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/31/2013 11:24:42 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
I'm pretty sure incest marriages are illegal less because of the likelihood of genetic anomalies, and more because complete legality would open up the floodgates for abuse.

In fact, molestation and rape is most often incestuous.

I don't see the logic here. Why would legalizing incest increase instances of abuse?

Because there'd be less scrutiny of incestuous relationships...?

Are abusive relationships between two heterosexual, unrelated people more common because nonabusive relationships involving the same parties are not scrutinized?

No, the difference is that sexually abusive relationships are most often incestuous.

There is no proof for your assertion.

It doesn't require proof; only concern.

You see, siblings around the same age specifically don't apply to this contingency quite as well. But, when it comes to aunts, uncles, parents, grandparents, cousins, and siblings with an age gap, it becomes a far greater concern. Such abusers generally have unadulterated access to those they're abusing, making them extremely difficult to catch as it is. If incest were legal (and socially accepted), then it would be all but impossible. This isn't to say that there would be no such thing as victimless incestuous relationships. But, it does make it much easier for a father to coerce his daughter into a sexual relationship with him, for example. It is literally the same logic for statutory rape, because although victims of such crime would be sexually developed and fully capable of physiologically handling a sexual relationship, it is all but impossible to determine the degree of coercion that led to that relationship, nor the psychological consequences it would have.

It's far too great a risk.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 11:08:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 3:47:18 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/31/2013 8:38:34 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
Should bothers and sisters be able to marry? The only real argument that I can think of that would actually support this is that their marriage would actually harm their children in a tangible way (they are certainly more at risk of being born with some kind of debilitating birth defect), but that could be true of two individuals born with some kind of intellectual or physical disability. If our laws are to be consistent shouldn't those people also be unable to marry?

As usual on the subject of marriage, there is way too much thinking going on here. Marriage is a cultural issue. Americans will not legalize incest because we think it is disgusting and we don't condone it. The end.

Uhhh.

That's pretty... lol, hyperconservative and closed-minded, there.

But.

I will also add that marriage as a social institution is supposed to conjoin two separate families for tax and legal purposes, as well as last names.

When it comes to families, and especially siblings, every one of those reasons is entirely superfluous. They're already related, part of the same family, have the same last names, and there are both tax and legal considerations for siblings that live together that is almost indistinguishable from the same considerations for married couples.

The only difference is the children issue (which is illegal).
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 11:11:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 9:40:11 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
At 1/31/2013 9:20:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2013 9:03:39 PM, Noumena wrote:
As to the children point, the same could be applied to people with inheritable diseases like Huntingtons.

I agree. There are currently laws on the books in many states which makes f***ing retards, or simply people of lower cognitive function statutory rape. Essentially a genius can be deemed a rapist for F***ing someone with an average iq.

Wait, you think its a invasive for the government to tell us who we can marry, but you think it is okay to tell us who we can bork?

No I said I was criticizing the statutory rape laws for their inefficient utility
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 11:12:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 6:44:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
You should be able to marry whomever you wish as long as that person is consenting. Now, Franz claims that there would be more abuse if this was legalized. Ok, so why not ban heterosexual relationships between consenting adults because the legalization leads to more abuse?

Because heterosexual relationships (and homosexual relationships) between two consenting adults contain no sexual abuse. :\

Plus, you have to proof that legalizing it would necessarily lead to more abuse,

Doesn't require proof, only evidence.

and there's no evidence of that-abusers abuse in spite of the law.

What?!

Abusers always abuse in spite of the law. Abuse of any kind is illegal. It just so happens to occur more frequently within the family, because there is more access and coercive ability.

It's not like rape or molestation is being legalized; only the consensual relationship.

The problem is, it would be ridiculously difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether all relationships are consensual.

The genetic anomaly trait argument is meaningless.

Not quite meaningless, but surely not as meaningful as some people think.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 11:12:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 9:59:46 AM, LatentDebater wrote:

Variation drives success. If we were all members of the same family there'd be very little variation in talents meaning we'd die out since everyone would be retarded.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 11:17:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 9:20:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2013 9:03:39 PM, Noumena wrote:
As to the children point, the same could be applied to people with inheritable diseases like Huntingtons.

I agree. There are currently laws on the books in many states which makes f***ing retards, or simply people of lower cognitive function statutory rape. Essentially a genius can be deemed a rapist for F***ing someone with an average iq.

http://i260.photobucket.com...

Someone who is considered mentally retarded is significantly more manipulable than someone of average IQ.

Average IQ is considered the baseline for adequate protection against all forms of manipulation, including those significantly more intelligent than they.

So, no, it's not okay to sexually abuse teenagers nor the mentally handicapped. Period.