If there was a vote to repeal "Incest" would you vote for it or against it?

Dude I was just trying to be a dick to the people who voted that they would vote for incest being legalized. The Mom(as in their actual Mom) banging morons.

against. Genes 'n such.

I currently live a middle eastern country where it is common for people to marry their cousins. There are a lot of special needs children. If first cousins are producing children like that imagine what brothers and sisters would produce.

It is sad that this day and age people would think incest is ok as long as it is consenting adults? What about it being morally wrong? People shouldnt be allowed to just do whatever.

In Germany a few years back there was a case where this brother and sister had 4 kids. They all had mental disorders and serious health issues. You allow incest sex to go on people are going to produce offspring.

For as long as it's consenting adults. There isn't really a non-moral argument against it.

I think incest is pretty gross, but as long as they're consenting adults, let them do whatever they want to eachother.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't mutations from inbreeding typically only happen after several generations?

Well, I'm not an a**hole, so I don't give 2 craps what people do with each other so long as everyone is of legal age and willing participants. Hell if there's some weirdo out there that is genuinely in love with his damn dog and wants to marry it, it has no bearing on me so I don't care.

Now...do you have any evidence that the frequency of special needs children is CAUSED by incest? Or is it more likely that the incest and the special needs kids are the result of living in a backwater $hithole of a country?

Did those 4 kids have mental disabilities because they were the product of incest? Or did the incestual relationship only occur in the first place because the parents were already f***ed in the head and unfit to raise a family?

These are the kinds of questions that need to be established before establishing a causal relationship. Correlation doesn't equal causation, dude. And furthermore, you seem to be operating off of mere anecdotes rather than any kind of statistical evidence. And anecdotal evidence is basically worthless.

the country im working in hardly is a shit hole. they have the highest number of millionaires in the world. and yes studies have been done and it was determined it was because of too much of marrying the 1st cousin.

why so touchy? do you have a kid with your sister?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children-of-1st-cousins.html

Care to show some of these studies? Care to even tell me what country you're talking about, so I can see just how prevalent "special needs" children even are?

Because there have been a shitload of studies concluding that reproducing with first cousins carries only a slightly higher risk of defects than that of a couple who is not related. You've got a greater risk of having a child with birth defects if you're old. Would you like to place an age limit on how old people can be before they aren't allowed to have sex?

Granted, that's not to say that incest is good, but you need to provide some info here. If you're saying that your country is being overrun with special needs kids because of people marrying their cousins, I'm calling bullshit on that.

Mentioning something that probably didn't happen nullifies an argument. Even the highest members of the church realize the Adam and Eve story is a generalized piece of fiction that serves more as a way to introduce the presence of God at the early stages of man.

The Bible is not fact, it's a work of fiction based on certain events that may have been true as a way to teach people to not be assholes, because early on, people realized most people weren't capable of being good people just for the sake of it; there had to be consequence involved. Perfect example, the way people talk to each other on this message board. This is how people behave when there's no chance of consequence.

http://www.qatarliving.com/qatar-living-lounge/posts/risks-cousin-marriages

I live in qatar. I've worked in a primary school here for 7 years and it is common to to see children with special needs unfortunately a lot of the children aren't even properly diagnosed because of the stigma.

It's not just 1 or 2 people marrying their first cousin. It's whole families where everyone marries their first cousin.

My issue wasn't so much with cousin marriages. My point is. If there is a risk with cousin marriages why f your brother or sister. That's just nasty. Or even worse there are people having sex with a parent.

Why does voting for something mean you must take part in it? Are you really this stupid?

If you look at the numbers in that link, it says the same thing. There's normally something like a 1%-3% chance of defects. For children whose parents are first cousins, that jumps to a whopping 2%-6% chance of defects. He's not saying anything new, that's precisely what I was saying. Sure, it doubles the risk of defects, but that risk is already so damn small that there's still a 93%-94% chance that the kids will be completely 100% normal. It's still better to not reproduce with your cousin, but the risks to the child are grossly exagerrated. Regardless of whether or not people should do it, it should be LEGAL for them to do it. And if there's an extremely high number of special needs kids in your country, then it ISN'T because of marriages between first cousins. Though to be honest, I'm not even sure to what extent there is a problem. You haven't provided any actual statistics on what percentage of children require special needs, you're just basically using anecdotal experience and saying that it seems like a lot to you.

Read this line again, and think to yourself who is the stupid one.

Well why are you trying to be a dick to them?

Cause nothing good comes from Incest, well tell you the truth if they have sex, but take extreme measures to avoid having an offspring, ok I guess that may be ok, but if they want to have a kid, or just go completely unprotected in the end they are just going to bring a kid into this world with many extremely probable problems, and I don't think that would be fair to that kid.

I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be legal as long as both people are over 18 and consenting.

So long as it remains as something between two consenting adults that agree not to have children.

It's an "increased risk" of problems, especially if it is a inheritable genetic disorder (the child would be at significantly higher risk of being born with it if both parents are related and are already carrying it).

Mutations are something else entirely.

And I assume we are talking about brother and sister here, and not merely cousins.

Why should they have to agree not to have children? The higher risk of birth defects argument is not a consistent argument unless you want to impose stronger parental screening standards, or want to require abortions of children who would be born with severe birth defects.

Are you going somewhere with this?

I fail to understand why you quoted me when posting this.

I don't like the idea of people putting possible children at a heightened risk for birth defects or inheriting genetic disorders because they didn't want to broaden the gene pool their children would be pulling from.

Just for fun:

(1) Incestuous relationships should not be allowed to bear children because of a heightened risk of birth defects/genetic disorders.

(2) There exist certain birth defects/genetic disorders for which it is preferable to never be born than to be born with (implied by (1))

(3) Abortions should be mandatory for women bearing children who would have these defects (implied by (1) and (2))

Why stop at incest induced deformities or disorders?
Diseases such as Huntington's are of a much higher risk rate.

Your arguments sound too close to eugenics anyways.

I don't follow.

maybe i guessed wrong? it comes down to regulation pal.
How you gonna regulate people with genetic birth defects? get real

You brought up the Adam and Eve story in a post about incest, talking about God populating the world with siblings that have sex. I'm not sure if you were kidding or not, but even the church admits the Adam and Eve thing is just a story...

Depends which church you ask.
There is no "The Church", every religion has different sects, different interpretations of the same holy book, resulting in different followings.

Ignorance FTL.

Adam and Eve are the first people.....but not bound by only two individuals.

ITT: Lots of dudes with ugly mothers/sisters/cousins.

As long as the incestual couple were sterilized, I don't give a crap what two consenting adults do. I do have an issue with them "contaminating" the gene pool, so they would have to take the steps necessary to make reproduction impossible.

Most everyone, including members of most churches, understand the purpose of the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor for human creation. What's ignorant is believing a woman was created out of a man's rib bone. That's just silly.

Adam and Eve is merely a story.

Citations please?Please show me a poll that proves "Most Everyone, including members of most churches" believe Adam and Eve is metaphorical.

I've got a feeling you're just talking out your ass

In the end dude....everything is a story. Your day is a story.

@Nibroc420: I'm no longer going to engage in an argument about the legitimacy of the Adam and Eve story. It's a waste of my time.

"Today, I woke up and had breakfast"
"No way dude. That was just a story it obviously didn't happen"

I wonder if he responds to his grandfather's wartime stories with
"It's merely a story"

I see you've dropped the discussion as soon as I asked you to prove your assertions.
At least now I know I was right about you simply talking out your ass.

Believe what you want, I just don't care enough to bother getting into a full blown argument about creationism on a video game forum. I have better things to do, you should too.

There's about 2 feet of snow outside.

I've really got nothing better to do.

Against it. Incest is barbaric and can result in genetically deformities. There is no place for it in the 21st century.

Also I would argue some form of abuse would have to happen prior to their son/daughters 18th in order to start this incestuous relationship.

If a dad suddenly started flirting with his daughter after she turned 18 in the hopes of suddenly starting a relationship I imagine 99.9% of the time this would end in failure due to 18 years of normal daddy daughter relationship. Most daughters would be repulsed by the idea of their father flirting with them let alone....other stuff.

If a dad raises a daughter in a totally different manner whereby she has been exposed to flirting, touching, incestuous behaviours it makes this relationship far more likely to occur. I cant contemplate a genuine incestuous relationship were some form of manipulation hasn't taken place. With exception of perhaps brother/sister.

Either way its sexy.

I've got no interest in sleeping with my family. Blood family.... urk.

i've never once looked at my sister and thought 'hmmmmm' so no i dont think it should be legal. its not fair on any child conceived when its born with genetic deformaties/defficiences.

People who oppose it on the basis of hypothetical children being born with a hypothetical deformity are funny. Every child ever born has a chance of being born with some kind of disease or disability. Black children are far more likely than white children to be born with sickle-cell anemia--do we criminalize consensual black relationships because children they may or may not have may or may not develop a disease? If a person with HIV has a child, that child will most likely have HIV themselves--are they no longer allowed to be in a consensual relationship?

Yes, children of incestuous relationships are more likely to be born with disorders like Down Syndrome and mental retardation--if they have kids at all. This isn't in itself a reason to make consenting relationships amongst adults illegal. There's also the issue of homosexual incest--since they can't produce children amongst themselves, are we saying gay incest is fine but straight incest isn't?

What consenting adults do with eachother sexually is the business of those two adults and nobody else.

See though, here's the thing...there's nothing to stop the manipulation from taking place and then incest NOT occuring. The idea that such incest wouldn't occur without previous abuse or manipulation taking place is a cause for concern, but it seems to me that the real problem is the abuse/manipulation. And that'll happen whether incest occurs or not.

Couldnt agree more. An impossible task unfortunately.

Don't really see myself voting on this one, but they're not bothering me, so why would I vote against?