What Next? Incest?

[lawtonfogle]

You know, if we allow homosexuals to get married, then next we will be allowing brothers and sisters to get married!!!






Question: Is that (incestuous marriages becoming legal) a bad thing?


Please avoid the 'That's just sick' argument.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You know, if we allow homosexuals to get married, then next we will be allowing brothers and sisters to get married!!!






Question: Is that (incestuous marriages becoming legal) a bad thing?


Please avoid the 'That's just sick' argument.

If I'm not mistaken, there's a higher risk of birth defects for any offspring. But I didn't have to go through any genetic testing when I applied for a marriage license to see if my child would have a higher risk for birth defects so I'm not sure that's an excuse not to allow brothers and sisters marrying.

And I'm hoping your slippery slope argument is a joke...

You know, if those Christians are allowed to keep gays from marrying, you know the next thing they'll be doing is trying to make it a capital crime to be homosexual.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

You know, if we allow homosexuals to get married, then next we will be allowing brothers and sisters to get married!!!






Question: Is that (incestuous marriages becoming legal) a bad thing?


Please avoid the 'That's just sick' argument.

There is a much bigger possibility of a Homozygous expression of a detrimental recessive genetic trait in the offspring of two relatives than in a non related offspring.

If one parent carries a trait in a heterozygous expression the odds of finding another person that carries that same allele in an outcrossed pairing is very low so at best the offspring would also be heterozygous for the trait with a 50% chance.

If both parents carry the gene on one allele you have a 25% chance of an offspring with the Homozygous expression 50% chance of the offspring being heterozygous and 25% chance of the offspring being normal.

And since the probability of a detrimental trait increases exponentially the closer related the two parents are you also increase the prospect of not only having one detrimental trait but of having multiple traits. And that could create an offspring that has quadruple or more homozygous expression of negative traits and in a Homozygous expression 100% of their offspring would be heterozygous (carrier) of that individual trait.


If you want to do your own genetic comparison you can use a Punnett Square and use A for Homozygous and a for Heterozygous and then B,b for the next trait and so on.


http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/mendel_2.htm

 

[pgp_protector]

Why would it be bad ?
Wasn't it the way that God designed it to be ?
After all Adam & Eve's Children had no one else but themselves & there parents (According to Genesis)

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Why would it be bad ?
Wasn't it the way that God designed it to be ?
After all Adam & Eve's Children had no one else but themselves & there parents (According to Genesis)

If that were actually the case humanity would not exist since to have a viable genetically diverse population you need a lot more that even a few dozen members of a species.

 

[ZepHead16]

If that were actually the case humanity would not exist since to have a viable genetically diverse population you need a lot more that even a few dozen members of a species.

Oh, but their genes were more pure before the fall.

 

[HighwayMan]

getting married does not automatically mean you will have children.

And to be honest, I really don't see a major wave of siblings lining up to get married. It's not as if people have been dying to marry their sibling since forever, and only laws are preventing them from doing so. This isn't the same as homosexuality, which has existed since the beginning.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Oh, but their genes were more pure before the fall.

Which is even funnier since there are remnants of DNA from many species that are now extinct including fish, other primates and insects so if what you say is true that would mean that our ancestors has sexual relations with every one of those species otherwise that DNA would not exist in the genome unless it came from macro evolution which we know could never happen.

 

[lawtonfogle]

If I'm not mistaken, there's a higher risk of birth defects for any offspring. But I didn't have to go through any genetic testing when I applied for a marriage license to see if my child would have a higher risk for birth defects so I'm not sure that's an excuse not to allow brothers and sisters marrying.

And I'm hoping your slippery slope argument is a joke...

You know, if those Christians are allowed to keep gays from marrying, you know the next thing they'll be doing is trying to make it a capital crime to be homosexual.

The slippery slope deal was an intro to the topic. It can often be beneficial to tie a new topic in to relatively 'hot' topics.

Anyways, as to the birth defects. There is a small increased chance, but less of one than allowing certain other individuals (those with birth defects which can be passed on), yet they are still allowed to marry and reproduce. Also, you are inherently making the assumption sex/marriage is for kids, just FYI. Finally, there is also an increased chance for good genes, strong genes, those that make people smarter and stronger to show up as well. So in that respect, it is a bit like gambling.

 

[lilakuh]

Question: Is that (incestuous marriages becoming legal) a bad thing?

Interesting question. My first reaction was to say that yes, it is a bad thing, but after thinking about it a little I'm not so sure.

First of course there's the argument that incestuous couples should not be allowed to marry because they have a higher risk of having children with birth defects. This is certainly a valid concern, genetically speaking. However there are plenty of reasons why non-incestuous couples may run a high risk of birth defects as well. Yet no one would consider genetic or environmental factors when deciding whether a couple should be allowed to marry.

In another thread about same-sex marriage I've also made the argument that the ability or desire to have children should not be the basis for legalizing or not legalizing marriage. I still think this is true; a marriage should be based IMHO first and foremost the love between two consensual adults and their commitment to spend their life together.

Not that long ago there was a case in Germany (where incest is a criminal offense) about a brother/sister couple: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424937.stm. I do feel bad for the children who seem to have special needs; but please read the article and decide whether anyone is helped by sending the kids' parents to jail.

While I would never consider an incestuous relationship for myself, I think outlawing it is the wrong move. IMHO in the vast majority of people the natural aversion against it is strong enough that we don't need laws to make life hell for people who chose such a relationship for themselves.

Now, I assume that you are against incestuous marriages becoming legal. May I ask why? Please avoid the "because the Bible says so" argument.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

The slippery slope deal was an intro to the topic. It can often be beneficial to tie a new topic in to relatively 'hot' topics.

Anyways, as to the birth defects. There is a small increased chance, but less of one than allowing certain other individuals (those with birth defects which can be passed on), yet they are still allowed to marry and reproduce. Also, you are inherently making the assumption sex/marriage is for kids, just FYI. Finally, there is also an increased chance for good genes, strong genes, those that make people smarter and stronger to show up as well. So in that respect, it is a bit like gambling.

It is a huge increased chance, I actually work in the genetics field.

 

[AtheistPerson]

So are we talking about related people having children or homosexuals having marriage, I'm lost.

 

[lawtonfogle]

There is a much bigger possibility of a Homozygous expression of a detrimental recessive genetic trait in the offspring of two relatives than in a non related offspring.

Yay, big words. Luckily, I have my fair share of biology knowledge. At the same time as an increase of the expression of homozygous detrimental recessive genetic traits appears, there is an increase of the expression of homozygous beneficial recessive genetic traits.

If one parent carries a trait in a heterozygous expression the odds of finding another person that carries that same allele in an outcrossed pairing is very low so at best the offspring would also be heterozygous for the trait with a 50% chance.

True, but there are cases where it is clearly the cast that two people have the detrimental gene, such as when dwarfs want to marry and have kids, but last I checked no one thought this wrong or illegal, even though they have a 25% chance (which is much much much higher than the average incestuous paring) of the child not being able to survive, or even form in the womb correctly.

If both parents carry the gene on one allele you have a 25% chance of an offspring with the Homozygous expression 50% chance of the offspring being heterozygous and 25% chance of the offspring being normal.

Yet many things are not the result of a simple Punnett square, usually involving genes which help the expression of others, genes which mask the expression of others, and a number of other issues involved.

And since the probability of a detrimental trait increases exponentially the closer related the two parents are you also increase the prospect of not only having one detrimental trait but of having multiple traits. And that could create an offspring that has quadruple or more homozygous expression of negative traits and in a Homozygous expression 100% of their offspring would be heterozygous (carrier) of that individual trait.

Yes, but you are only focusing on the negative traits. And you are assuming such a couple will have kids. And you should understand that this exponential increase doesn't even show up when limited by standard sig figs (aka, 3 of them). While reproduction between genetically similar individuals with 'bad genes' can be quite harmful, it is not prohibited unless they are closely related. Also, reproduction between genetically similar individuals with 'better genes' or 'good genes' is prohibited even though the chance of major life changing mutation is extremely low.

If you want to do your own genetic comparison you can use a Punnett Square and use A for Homozygous and a for Heterozygous and then B,b for the next trait and so on.


http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/mendel_2.htm

As I said, I am quite proficient with Punnett squares and biology in general. While I am not B.S. in bio, I have an above average (what is taught in intro college) understand of it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

If that were actually the case humanity would not exist since to have a viable genetically diverse population you need a lot more that even a few dozen members of a species.

Unless you got real lucky.

 

[Sylvanspirits]

You know, if we allow homosexuals to get married, then next we will be allowing brothers and sisters to get married!!!

Question: Is that (incestuous marriages becoming legal) a bad thing?

Please avoid the 'That's just sick' argument.

Yes, incest is a bad thing. However, it's silly to think that giving the same rights to homosexuals that heterosexuals have will lead to the legalization of incest.

Slippery Slope Fallacy:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

 

[AtheistPerson]

I'm amused that someone would actually post a topic like this. Love the fact that having the desire to marry is being conflicted with arguments like these.

 

[lawtonfogle]

getting married does not automatically mean you will have children.

And to be honest, I really don't see a major wave of siblings lining up to get married. It's not as if people have been dying to marry their sibling since forever, and only laws are preventing them from doing so. This isn't the same as homosexuality, which has existed since the beginning.

Actually, the most common case I hear of is when separated at birth (or in early child hood) siblings with no knowledge of the other meat up, fall in love, and marry, and finally the court has to say something about it (funny how often the court is not allowed to mention something about it till after the wedding) and give them a divorce. Actually there is evidence the siblings raised apart fill a stronger attraction, often including erotic and otherwise non-sibling ones. There is often times a warning given to both before they are reunited in the happy cases where families torn apart from near birth get reunited... ok, so often those cases aren't happy.

That being said, incest is such a strong taboo that few people would even admit it among close friends, much less openly question the social structure which says it is wrong.

On a friendly side note, I am not sexually attracted to any of my immediate family. This holds true for a number of cousins out (first cousins, second cousins, third cousins, ect.).

See, even I had to put this disclaimer unless people start getting negative thoughts about me.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Yay, big words. Luckily, I have my fair share of biology knowledge. At the same time as an increase of the expression of homozygous detrimental recessive genetic traits appears, there is an increase of the expression of homozygous beneficial recessive genetic traits.

True, but there are cases where it is clearly the cast that two people have the detrimental gene, such as when dwarfs want to marry and have kids, but last I checked no one thought this wrong or illegal, even though they have a 25% chance (which is much much much higher than the average incestuous paring) of the child not being able to survive, or even form in the womb correctly.

Yet many things are not the result of a simple Punnett square, usually involving genes which help the expression of others, genes which mask the expression of others, and a number of other issues involved.

Yes, but you are only focusing on the negative traits. And you are assuming such a couple will have kids. And you should understand that this exponential increase doesn't even show up when limited by standard sig figs (aka, 3 of them). While reproduction between genetically similar individuals with 'bad genes' can be quite harmful, it is not prohibited unless they are closely related. Also, reproduction between genetically similar individuals with 'better genes' or 'good genes' is prohibited even though the chance of major life changing mutation is extremely low.


As I said, I am quite proficient with Punnett squares and biology in general. While I am not B.S. in bio, I have an above average (what is taught in intro college) understand of it.

There is no more a likelihood of positive genetic traits that there is of negative ones but the negative ones create a far greater burden on the child and society as a whole than positive ones do and as far as the positive ones those could be argued to only be positive in the sense of aesthetics such as blond hair and blue eyes.

As far as genes that are not simple recessive or dominant there are other gene issues such as leaky genes that increase in likelihood with two related parents. And yes I can see that there are two sides to the issue but it cannot be equated to gay marriage because there are no detrimental defects involved in offspring since they cannot have any without outcrossing with a surrogate.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Now, I assume that you are against incestuous marriages becoming legal. May I ask why? Please avoid the "because the Bible says so" argument.

What, me against it? While the Bible did forbid direct incest relationships, I am the one trying to stir up my school by writing my final paper for at least one class on why incestuous marriages, or as I will say it, social unions between genetically similar people of age, should be allowed.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Actually, the most common case I hear of is when separated at birth (or in early child hood) siblings with no knowledge of the other meat up, fall in love, and marry, and finally the court has to say something about it (funny how often the court is not allowed to mention something about it till after the wedding) and give them a divorce. Actually there is evidence the siblings raised apart fill a stronger attraction, often including erotic and otherwise non-sibling ones. There is often times a warning given to both before they are reunited in the happy cases where families torn apart from near birth get reunited... ok, so often those cases aren't happy.

That being said, incest is such a strong taboo that few people would even admit it among close friends, much less openly question the social structure which says it is wrong.

On a friendly side note, I am not sexually attracted to any of my immediate family. This holds true for a number of cousins out (first cousins, second cousins, third cousins, ect.).

See, even I had to put this disclaimer unless people start getting negative thoughts about me.

Pun intended?

I actually lost my virginity at the age of 11 to a 15 year old second cousin that went on to become a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader.