SirChained
Banned
High in the same geographical area as i have said above.
You didn't answer the question. Should dwarfs be banned from having sex with each other?
High in the same geographical area as i have said above.
Doesn't matter if they are less likely, they are still at a much higher risk than the norm. So by what you're saying, if two non-related people have the same known heritable disease, they should be prohibited from having sex, correct?
Pretty sure this is about legality, not encouragement.
Right, but then you have the argument of whether homosexuality should be treated any differently if it actually was a "choice."
The problem with incest, as mentioned in the OP, is that there really isn't any good argument against it while at the same time banning it doesn't really inconvenience many people.
Apply his logic to a group of people with a disorder who commonly procreate with one another - dwarves. The parents have dwarfism and will probably pass it on to their children. Dwarfism can come with a whole host of other problems that may or may not place limits on the child's life and development. I believe they should be allowed to try for children, regardless. Don't you?
You didn't answer the question. Should dwarfs be banned from having sex with each other?
You didn't answer the question. Should dwarfs be banned from having sex with each other?
So, how would you cab the spread of that gene? By restricting relationships between random individuals or by restricting between family? That's where legality comes in. Their multiple reasons why it would be favorable to a government to reduce chronic heritable diseases.
This is how I see it.ElectricBlue187 said:Incest is considered by anthropologists to be the world's only universal taboo. Nearly every civilization all over the globe forbids it, and for a good reason. That said if they have no intention of having children I see no reason to make it a legal problem. Disgusting, yes, immoral certainly but not something to prosecute.
Incest is disgusting and taboo for a reason. Shut up.
Or deaf people with the same type of genetic deafness.
Which tends to happen often, since they frequently go the same schools, etc.
Why should they be banned? As long as they are not related they should be able to take the chance........they could have a tall child too. But limit it within the same family and that probablility shoots up.
Why do you find this disturbing? They were both major societal taboos that people would look down and judge you upon, hell homosexuality used to be illegal by law not that long ago. One is more accepted in society today, the other not so much.
You clearly don't understand genetics. If two people with heritable recessive diseases bear a child, there is a 100% chance that the child will inherit that disease, much higher than incest. I'm not sure if dwarfism is one of them, but deafness may be.
How does dwarfism effect them? Deafness? With incest it's not that clear cut. With incest you get hemophilia, heart conditions, cancer, and other major disabilities. Do you think that's fair to the offspring and society at large?
1) If it were a choice, there would be a difference in how we see sexuality, period.
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect
How does dwarfism effect them? Deafness? With incest it's not that clear cut. With incest you get hemophilia, heart conditions, cancer, and other major disabilities. Do you think that's fair to the offspring and society at large?
So would you rather ban; among family or among random people? Which one has a higher probability than the other?
No, it's not always a 100%. You are the one that doesn't understand genetics. Only if all have reccessive recessive and no dominate allele for the normal trait.
Joint pain, crippling bone deformities, restricted lung growth and pulminary function, etc, etc. Certain forms of dwarfism also limit cranial development and brain function. It's not that simple. Should they be allowed to procreate despite that? I believe they should, honestly. The same applies to incest.
Lots of dwarfism types also affect heart and circulatory system, bones, hormonal problems etc.
Sorry, what's the point then? A clear sentence is better than an unknown one?
And what are you going to do? You said, if i'm not wrong, that they can fuck but not conceive a child. What are you going to do, fine them? Abort the child? Sterilise them?
It's disgusting.
I'd rather not even know that people support it on a hypothetical level.
If you're arguing in favor of it in this thread, call your parents/friends and tell them. See how that works out. Just say "I don't see anything wrong with incest between two consenting adults."
Holy crap. Stop making the interracial relationship comparison.
It's disgusting.
I'd rather not even know that people support it on a hypothetical level.
If you're arguing in favor of it in this thread, call your parents/friends and tell them. See how that works out. Just say "I don't see anything wrong with incest between two consenting adults."
That's why I said two people with the same recessive
disease. Try again.
I don't think that's fair to their kids either then. At some point it's not about being different but quality of life. We've entered into a gray area in which there is no right answer.
See above.
1) Our view of sexuality is constantly changing, period.
2) Hypothetical effect, doesn't apply to all incestuous relationships (as proven the by the one study it mentioned)
There is certainly a personal answer, but i think this is one of these cases where it shouldn't be the law to decide.
That's an interesting statement. How many people here would share their views with their family and friends?
If the mechanisms and predispositions behind the incestual behaviours such as overcoming the westermarck effect or abusing your children are genetic, then our nature to help each other could be allowing for this to propagate and increase with each passing generation.
It'd be weird to just say it out of the blue, but if anybody actually asked I would tell them that I have no problem with consensual adults engaging in any kind of sexual behavior so long as it doesn't directly harm another living thing.
So what is the probability of that happening? Why are you only dealing with extremes? My point is why increase the risk and make it a 100% likely a trait is passed on to a young one? We should not discourage children among let's say two dwarf.....BUT, we should discourage two dwarfs who are related. Do you say no to that?
http://i.imgur.com/jcSQj.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]
Love this gif so much.
[quote="DeathbyVolcano, post: 37512047"]This is amazing. It'd be even better if the background was the same color as Gaf's color, like that Coming to America gif[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Oy3FE.gif
That's an interesting statement. How many people here would share their views with their family and friends?
It'd be weird to just say it out of the blue, but if anybody actually asked I would tell them that I have no problem with consensual adults engaging in any kind of sexual behavior so long as it doesn't directly harm another living thing.
The "shock and awe" posts in these threads are so useless. Pretty much everyone (here) agrees that incest is disgusting. The question is why, and it's hard to answer.
And they would say "So you have no problem with a brother and sister having sex..." and you'd say "Yeah..." and they'd back slowly out of the room.
Love this gif so much.
![]()
1) In the hypothetical situation wherein it where a choice, all sexuality would be treated differently.
2) Your argument is that it's hypothetical?
Did you at least look at why it was assumed to exist? To prevent inbreeding. Do we have any similar biological block on homosexuality? No, no we don't. By that mark alone we shouldn't be comparing the two.
Dumb situation, since your fiance would unlikely be the person she is now if she was your sister to begin with.I've shared my views with my fiance, who agrees. Our consensus is that if we were brother and sister, we'd fuck anyway. Sounds about right.
Fair enough. I just know that if I had some fucked up problems that I could pass onto my offspring I'd just adopt.
Once upon a time, it was seen as perverse for a white to marry a black. It was illegal to marry. Their children were viewed as less than the sum of their parts. Some to this day argue that interracial couples shouldn't procreate because "children should look like their parents". It's a totally valid comparison because, at one point in time, interracial coupling was every bit as taboo (if not more so) than incest.