If you believe the Bible, We are all the product of incestuous relationships. Just do the math. If you believe God placed Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before sending them forth to be fruitful and multiply and cover the Earth, just how did God think they were going to achieve this?
OK, UNLIKE WITH GAY PEOPLE.....incest has a huge mountain of data the indicates its caused by psych trama, sex abuse, & a whole array of other issues. Now having said that I am still willing to consider incest a valid sexual orientation. & if that is the case then I MUST INSIST on one of the two opposit sex couples having surgical birth control. I see no reason to put children at risk for all manner of birth defects. The rights of the incest parents end with the unborn child.
But should they be allowed to marry if they refuse to take birth control, and if they shouldn't be allowed to marry, why should a couple with any inheritable disease be allowed to marry/have children?
Another point to make is that we both know an argument against gay marriage on the grounds that you cannot conceive a child is poor because children have nothing to with marriage, so why should an incestuous couple have to deal with arguments based on babies?
@SuperAtheistBrothers I've already answered these questions in my 1st post. If you choose not to acknowledge the data as valid then thats your choice.But if you were an egg or sperm cell, who willing would you be to interface with you mother's egg or father's sperm? You speak in a naive cavalier way because your already born. But what about those who are not & can not speak for them self. Also some races like Jews take precaution to ensure their children are not born with defects.
How does incest cause those ills if all parties are consenting (also send me the sources please)? Why should we allow this data to affect how we police incestuous couples? What if this data existed for homosexuals, would you be consistent?
This is a question you didn't answer, why should babies affect whether or not we allow someone to be in a consenting relationship and get married? Marriage has nothing to do with whether or not a couple is or isn't going to conceive a baby.
So does that mean that if a person had an inheritable disease you would want them to have "surgical birth control?" Would that be a prerequisite to marriage, and/or would you want them policed every time they try and have sex with another individual without surgical birth control?
Not only does it seem like your convictions are virtually impossible to keep consistent, but it seems to me that there is no ethical way to police these policies either.
@SuperAtheistBrothers Here is what should be painfully obvious to all: "It is much more likely that both parents will carry the same recessive gene if the parents are related. The risk of a serious disease or malformation in a child of such a union is about 1 in 20. However, among married first cousins, the risk increases to about 1 in 11. If the couple are first-degree relatives, the risk is 1 in 2."
@SuperAtheistBrothers I was able to come across that quote from data I found by simply runing a search on inbred birth defect. Also gay marriage can not be compared to this situation for the simply fact 2 plp of the same sex can not impregnate the other, Thus requiring surgical birth control for them is illogical. I NEVER ONCE stated or implied that natural child birth is a staple of ANY kind of marriage. Again I'll say it. My genetic concern is valid & real one....not one of social debate.
@SuperAtheistBrothers haha you made a good point about the surgical birth control thing. I was born with a neurological disease, which I'm thankful has only affected me very little. It would be a huge violation of my rights to have someone tell me that I can't have kids, even if my wife and I agreed to have them. I don't see how it's cruel to the potential child.
I would rather have this disease then have never existed.
Voluntary incest is very rare. Not allowing marriages so related couples doesn't stop them from having sex. Polygamy between voluntary people is fine in my opinion, not that a law could stop it anyway. I don't think that there should be marriage licenses, everyone should write their own marriage contracts using the right to contract that is in the constitution.
Within the first years of your long life, you'll develop a disgust ( sexually ) for your family. This is a natural defense to prevent incest, cause the children from incest relationships are more prone to biological failure. However survival is your body's main goal. Meaning that incest is a possible way of reproduction when they're no other means. It happens with all animals, especially when stranded on an island. We are animals to.
btw a site called cousincouples has some interesting facts.
The government should mind their own business in some cases but these are people who deserve a social caning. HIV kills. Incest causes schizophrenia. If a retarded couple has a child, maybe a grandparent can assist, and that is accidental but cousins know the outcome..uncool. I think it depends on the age of a child. Under the age of 2 the child can be protected from knowing mom and dad are siblings. Mormons are weird but are harmless.
Our bodies, our minds. What about those religious people who knowingly and legally have babies with Down's Syndrome, et cetera, despite an option for first-trimester abortion. Future genetic testing will allow specific gene variants to be identified before that first trimester. Furthermore, sex without procreation is just sex, but might enhance a relationship between given couple.
Society shapes every person into what they become and if they make a choice that causes pain, everyone in the society is responsible. It is most efficient from a utalitarian perspective (i believe) to deal with these problems as early as possible, via restricted and controlled breeding and parenting, rather than wasting scarce resources on futile attempts much latterin life to rehabilitate people for doing what the kind of person society shaped them into would do in the situation it put'em in.
My question is how would a government go about enforcing such a law?
Would they take the child away? In which case, the child would be sent to foster parents, and this is going most likely going to be damaging to the child. How about punishing parents? Ultimately the child will be the one who suffers though...
I just cannot see how a government can possibly enforce such a law.
well I mean, what about aids for example? This isn't necessarily a lethal disease?
Also do you agree with this law? I can hardly see how this actually helps the child, and if it isn't about the child, then what good is this law? I just have a hard time understanding how that law could really do any good. It's one thing if the parents aren't fit to take care of a child, but if their only crime was conceiving the child, then what punishment could possibly better the situation?
If both parents have Aids, and they knowingly concieve a child, knowing that the change for this child will porbably catch the untreatable disease, yes I would agree these are unfit to be parents, simply because anyone being that selfish is probablky unfit as they would be borderline sociopathic.
Of cource one could argue that since the child is allready ill, it would not help to remove it from the parents, exept from that the parents, as I allready said, are by definition unfit as parents.
Thus, removing the child from the parents might very well be in the child's best interest. There is no natural law to the biological parents of a child automatically being best fit to take care of it.
Note that there is no law spesifically handling the situation you describe. The law i reffer to is generally about willingly exposing others to leathal deseases.
Also bear in mind that where I live, the child protective services are very good, and most children in their care are very well off.
I don't agree with you at all kid. Why do we need to tolerate it? I can make a case against the same principles along a different line of reasoning, mainly the interest of the collective as opposed to the individual. You happen to live in an individualistic society, but that doesn't mean that others must tolerate anything that you beleive or hold to be ethically true.
I think as we learn more about genetics, and genetic lines, it does become a kind of ethical question on the grounds of... do we want genetic trash floating around in the gene pool. Should we say, allow two mentally retarded people to procreate when there is a high chance that their children will have some of their bad genetic traits? There are people in this imperfect world that shouldn't procreate; we know this through scientific analysis. Your appeal is an emotional opinion.
I don't believe it is the governments place to restrict by law the sexual intercourse of two healthy consenting adults ever. However, there will come a time, perhaps in our own time, where genetic information will be readily available to all. It would be unwise to sow your seeds in salty fields. Just my opinion.
By consenting, do you mean over 18? the vast majority of incest crime is commited between a minor and an adult. I think that while the law may be a bit prejudice towards incest, it exists to properly punish adults who manipulate their children's or sibling's immature mind's. But that aside, if their are two consenting people out there who love each other, don't ever let anything get in your way. ALL is fair in love and war. Does anyone know of any countries where it is legal?
The Royal blood lines have been practicing incest for centuries. The Egyptians were the first as far as recorded history.
I personally hate law (as in not doing something due to only force) but I do believe in informed decisions and risk vs, reward. If a person understands the risk but the reward is still more valuable, well, it is on them.
As long as someone can leave a polygamous relationship freely then what is the problem. *****
If marriage is just for "having children" then for now on, once a man gets erectile dysfunction, he needs to get a divorce.
But I know why incest is illegal. Because incest breeds kids with brain damage. That is why it's illegal, but I don't think it should be just because it can fuck up your kid.
Does that mean that all children born with brain damage are the result of incest? Do 100% of the kids born out of incest end up with brain damage? I think that if two people love each other and want to be together, it should make no difference how they are related. Do you know exactly how likely it is that the kid will be born with defects? Maybe you should look it up and talk about it once you are better educated.
@PluralOfEverything the risk is very real, & its wrong to not give a child the same chances of a health birth just because two related people want to be together. I'm gay & fully support gay marriage. & the split second it can be proven that gay marriage has physical harm on the populas the was incest very well could, then I'll eat crow publicly & reverse my stand on it!
@SUPREMEQUEEN09 Putting the word very in front of real doesn't actually increase the strength of the word. Tell me where you got the information behind your vague claim that the risk is real. The risk of birth defects exists with any couple, so tell me how you know that the child of two cousins is significantly more at risk than the child of two more distantly related people.
Incest may cause harm to the child. The chances are 25% in the most severe cases. To contrast that though, aids has about a 25% chance to be inherited by a child without any drugs. So the argument would be, if a couple with untreated aids should be allowed to have children/get married/etc. then why not an incestuous couple?
I never responded to you, but at worst, incest of the most severe kind (Mother son, father daughter, brother sister) can result in about a 25% chance of causing some sort of mental damage to the child.
@PluralOfEverything Oh my god! WHAT the hell happend with marriage? LETS MARRY EVERYONE! 30 wives to one husband!!! Pedophiles should fuck kids!!LETS MARRY BABIES AND DOGS!
Where the HELL are your MORALS?? So you support a daughter fucking her mommy? WHATS WRONG WITH YOU OH MY GOD
@909Dwayne Humans marrying other humans isn't the same as humans marrying animals. But I say if 30 women want to marry one man and weren't tricked by religion into accepting the arrangement, they should be free to. But then again, I don't think the state should have anything to do with marriage, so it's really just a matter of letting people be with whoever they want as long as they are past puberty.
@909Dwayne You have severe temper problems, judging by your overreaction to ideas that are alien to you. Think this through: Cousins marrying cousins and siblings marrying each other: If it's consensual, how exactly is this wrong? If they love each other, are familiar with each other, etc, how could it be morally wrong? Ignoring procreation (an overrated ideal) and other things that come with marriage.
... Sorry, I had to say that. But saying it's wrong does not make it wrong. The reason murder is wrong is because the victim feels pain and wants to live. Animal abuse, child abuse, spousal abuse (from both genders) are all wrong for that reason. Excluding consensual sadomasochism, of course, as long as there's no serious injury. Emotional abuse is wrong because we all have emotions.and it hurts us. Now, what harm does incest cause ignoring the procreation part?
Dear fucker, the world came from adam, and eve.
coolnameize 8 months ago
Dude I really like this girl.. Like realllyyy like her. But she won't be with me because she's a Polygamist and I'm Agnostic... Fucking bull shit....
ChanVideos 1 year ago
If you believe the Bible, We are all the product of incestuous relationships. Just do the math. If you believe God placed Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before sending them forth to be fruitful and multiply and cover the Earth, just how did God think they were going to achieve this?
reddog694uk 1 year ago
OK, UNLIKE WITH GAY PEOPLE.....incest has a huge mountain of data the indicates its caused by psych trama, sex abuse, & a whole array of other issues. Now having said that I am still willing to consider incest a valid sexual orientation. & if that is the case then I MUST INSIST on one of the two opposit sex couples having surgical birth control. I see no reason to put children at risk for all manner of birth defects. The rights of the incest parents end with the unborn child.
SUPREMEQUEEN09 1 year ago
@SUPREMEQUEEN09
But should they be allowed to marry if they refuse to take birth control, and if they shouldn't be allowed to marry, why should a couple with any inheritable disease be allowed to marry/have children?
Another point to make is that we both know an argument against gay marriage on the grounds that you cannot conceive a child is poor because children have nothing to with marriage, so why should an incestuous couple have to deal with arguments based on babies?
SuperAtheistBrothers 1 year ago
@SuperAtheistBrothers I've already answered these questions in my 1st post. If you choose not to acknowledge the data as valid then thats your choice.But if you were an egg or sperm cell, who willing would you be to interface with you mother's egg or father's sperm? You speak in a naive cavalier way because your already born. But what about those who are not & can not speak for them self. Also some races like Jews take precaution to ensure their children are not born with defects.
SUPREMEQUEEN09 1 year ago
@SUPREMEQUEEN09
How does incest cause those ills if all parties are consenting (also send me the sources please)? Why should we allow this data to affect how we police incestuous couples? What if this data existed for homosexuals, would you be consistent?
This is a question you didn't answer, why should babies affect whether or not we allow someone to be in a consenting relationship and get married? Marriage has nothing to do with whether or not a couple is or isn't going to conceive a baby.
SuperAtheistBrothers 1 year ago
@SUPREMEQUEEN09 (continued... )
So does that mean that if a person had an inheritable disease you would want them to have "surgical birth control?" Would that be a prerequisite to marriage, and/or would you want them policed every time they try and have sex with another individual without surgical birth control?
Not only does it seem like your convictions are virtually impossible to keep consistent, but it seems to me that there is no ethical way to police these policies either.
SuperAtheistBrothers 1 year ago
@SuperAtheistBrothers Here is what should be painfully obvious to all: "It is much more likely that both parents will carry the same recessive gene if the parents are related. The risk of a serious disease or malformation in a child of such a union is about 1 in 20. However, among married first cousins, the risk increases to about 1 in 11. If the couple are first-degree relatives, the risk is 1 in 2."
SUPREMEQUEEN09 1 year ago
@SUPREMEQUEEN09
"If the couple are first-degree relative the risk is 1 in 2."
But...is that a good enough reason to stop an incestuous couple reproducing...???
If numbers are relevant then ask every person born with a genetic disease whether they would prefer to be alive with the disease or not at all...
The basic question is...is it wrong to produce genetically defected/diseased people? And if yes...then why? To ease your suffering or theirs?
Incest really has little to do with it.
tabula123456 1 year ago
@SuperAtheistBrothers I was able to come across that quote from data I found by simply runing a search on inbred birth defect. Also gay marriage can not be compared to this situation for the simply fact 2 plp of the same sex can not impregnate the other, Thus requiring surgical birth control for them is illogical. I NEVER ONCE stated or implied that natural child birth is a staple of ANY kind of marriage. Again I'll say it. My genetic concern is valid & real one....not one of social debate.
SUPREMEQUEEN09 1 year ago
@SuperAtheistBrothers haha you made a good point about the surgical birth control thing. I was born with a neurological disease, which I'm thankful has only affected me very little. It would be a huge violation of my rights to have someone tell me that I can't have kids, even if my wife and I agreed to have them. I don't see how it's cruel to the potential child.
I would rather have this disease then have never existed.
ncPsychosis 1 year ago
Voluntary incest is very rare. Not allowing marriages so related couples doesn't stop them from having sex. Polygamy between voluntary people is fine in my opinion, not that a law could stop it anyway. I don't think that there should be marriage licenses, everyone should write their own marriage contracts using the right to contract that is in the constitution.
shelly8510 1 year ago
I think you should have the right to love someone if they are of age and are human.
kefer123622 1 year ago
Within the first years of your long life, you'll develop a disgust ( sexually ) for your family. This is a natural defense to prevent incest, cause the children from incest relationships are more prone to biological failure. However survival is your body's main goal. Meaning that incest is a possible way of reproduction when they're no other means. It happens with all animals, especially when stranded on an island. We are animals to.
btw a site called cousincouples has some interesting facts.
Benardus22 1 year ago
There are plenty of fish in the sea.
The government should mind their own business in some cases but these are people who deserve a social caning. HIV kills. Incest causes schizophrenia. If a retarded couple has a child, maybe a grandparent can assist, and that is accidental but cousins know the outcome..uncool. I think it depends on the age of a child. Under the age of 2 the child can be protected from knowing mom and dad are siblings. Mormons are weird but are harmless.
riverlioness 2 years ago
Our bodies, our minds. What about those religious people who knowingly and legally have babies with Down's Syndrome, et cetera, despite an option for first-trimester abortion. Future genetic testing will allow specific gene variants to be identified before that first trimester. Furthermore, sex without procreation is just sex, but might enhance a relationship between given couple.
grubelsucht 2 years ago
Interesting take on the subject - I'll have to digest it before coming to a conclusion....
DefenderOfReason 2 years ago
Society shapes every person into what they become and if they make a choice that causes pain, everyone in the society is responsible. It is most efficient from a utalitarian perspective (i believe) to deal with these problems as early as possible, via restricted and controlled breeding and parenting, rather than wasting scarce resources on futile attempts much latterin life to rehabilitate people for doing what the kind of person society shaped them into would do in the situation it put'em in.
unassumption 2 years ago
Actually, where I live, knowingly exposing other people to lethal diseases is a criminal offence.
sp4zzer 2 years ago
My question is how would a government go about enforcing such a law?
Would they take the child away? In which case, the child would be sent to foster parents, and this is going most likely going to be damaging to the child. How about punishing parents? Ultimately the child will be the one who suffers though...
I just cannot see how a government can possibly enforce such a law.
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
If both parents are terminally ill and concieves a child they would definelty be found unfit parents, yes. The child would be taken away.
sp4zzer 2 years ago
well I mean, what about aids for example? This isn't necessarily a lethal disease?
Also do you agree with this law? I can hardly see how this actually helps the child, and if it isn't about the child, then what good is this law? I just have a hard time understanding how that law could really do any good. It's one thing if the parents aren't fit to take care of a child, but if their only crime was conceiving the child, then what punishment could possibly better the situation?
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
If both parents have Aids, and they knowingly concieve a child, knowing that the change for this child will porbably catch the untreatable disease, yes I would agree these are unfit to be parents, simply because anyone being that selfish is probablky unfit as they would be borderline sociopathic.
Of cource one could argue that since the child is allready ill, it would not help to remove it from the parents, exept from that the parents, as I allready said, are by definition unfit as parents.
sp4zzer 2 years ago
Thus, removing the child from the parents might very well be in the child's best interest. There is no natural law to the biological parents of a child automatically being best fit to take care of it.
Note that there is no law spesifically handling the situation you describe. The law i reffer to is generally about willingly exposing others to leathal deseases.
Also bear in mind that where I live, the child protective services are very good, and most children in their care are very well off.
sp4zzer 2 years ago
I don't agree with you at all kid. Why do we need to tolerate it? I can make a case against the same principles along a different line of reasoning, mainly the interest of the collective as opposed to the individual. You happen to live in an individualistic society, but that doesn't mean that others must tolerate anything that you beleive or hold to be ethically true.
RyRyVids 2 years ago
It's okay if you disagree with me, but do you honestly believe that people shouldn't be allowed to get married because they are closely related?
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
I think as we learn more about genetics, and genetic lines, it does become a kind of ethical question on the grounds of... do we want genetic trash floating around in the gene pool. Should we say, allow two mentally retarded people to procreate when there is a high chance that their children will have some of their bad genetic traits? There are people in this imperfect world that shouldn't procreate; we know this through scientific analysis. Your appeal is an emotional opinion.
RyRyVids 2 years ago
I don't believe it is the governments place to restrict by law the sexual intercourse of two healthy consenting adults ever. However, there will come a time, perhaps in our own time, where genetic information will be readily available to all. It would be unwise to sow your seeds in salty fields. Just my opinion.
RyRyVids 2 years ago
By consenting, do you mean over 18? the vast majority of incest crime is commited between a minor and an adult. I think that while the law may be a bit prejudice towards incest, it exists to properly punish adults who manipulate their children's or sibling's immature mind's. But that aside, if their are two consenting people out there who love each other, don't ever let anything get in your way. ALL is fair in love and war. Does anyone know of any countries where it is legal?
JustAnotherDeadPoet 2 years ago
Luigi looks sooooo fucking familiar! I swear I know you or someone who looks just like you.
Soundboy6 2 years ago
The Royal blood lines have been practicing incest for centuries. The Egyptians were the first as far as recorded history.
I personally hate law (as in not doing something due to only force) but I do believe in informed decisions and risk vs, reward. If a person understands the risk but the reward is still more valuable, well, it is on them.
As long as someone can leave a polygamous relationship freely then what is the problem. *****
TheBigHo111 2 years ago
Very bouncy at the end. xDD
Yeah, consent is all that matters.
ItsTavii 2 years ago
If marriage is just for "having children" then for now on, once a man gets erectile dysfunction, he needs to get a divorce.
But I know why incest is illegal. Because incest breeds kids with brain damage. That is why it's illegal, but I don't think it should be just because it can fuck up your kid.
ScrewLimbBizkit 2 years ago
Does that mean that all children born with brain damage are the result of incest? Do 100% of the kids born out of incest end up with brain damage? I think that if two people love each other and want to be together, it should make no difference how they are related. Do you know exactly how likely it is that the kid will be born with defects? Maybe you should look it up and talk about it once you are better educated.
PluralOfEverything 2 years ago 2
I think that if two people love each other and want to be together, it should make no difference how they are related.
--
I definitely agree.
lucidatheist 2 years ago 2
@lucidatheist Fucking pervert. We are a dead species. You are the hateful ones.
909Dwayne 1 year ago
@PluralOfEverything the risk is very real, & its wrong to not give a child the same chances of a health birth just because two related people want to be together. I'm gay & fully support gay marriage. & the split second it can be proven that gay marriage has physical harm on the populas the was incest very well could, then I'll eat crow publicly & reverse my stand on it!
SUPREMEQUEEN09 1 year ago
@SUPREMEQUEEN09 Putting the word very in front of real doesn't actually increase the strength of the word. Tell me where you got the information behind your vague claim that the risk is real. The risk of birth defects exists with any couple, so tell me how you know that the child of two cousins is significantly more at risk than the child of two more distantly related people.
PluralOfEverything 1 year ago
@SUPREMEQUEEN09
Incest may cause harm to the child. The chances are 25% in the most severe cases. To contrast that though, aids has about a 25% chance to be inherited by a child without any drugs. So the argument would be, if a couple with untreated aids should be allowed to have children/get married/etc. then why not an incestuous couple?
SuperAtheistBrothers 1 year ago
@PluralOfEverything
I never responded to you, but at worst, incest of the most severe kind (Mother son, father daughter, brother sister) can result in about a 25% chance of causing some sort of mental damage to the child.
SuperAtheistBrothers 1 year ago
@PluralOfEverything Oh my god! WHAT the hell happend with marriage? LETS MARRY EVERYONE! 30 wives to one husband!!! Pedophiles should fuck kids!!LETS MARRY BABIES AND DOGS!
Where the HELL are your MORALS?? So you support a daughter fucking her mommy? WHATS WRONG WITH YOU OH MY GOD
909Dwayne 1 year ago
@909Dwayne Humans marrying other humans isn't the same as humans marrying animals. But I say if 30 women want to marry one man and weren't tricked by religion into accepting the arrangement, they should be free to. But then again, I don't think the state should have anything to do with marriage, so it's really just a matter of letting people be with whoever they want as long as they are past puberty.
PluralOfEverything 1 year ago
@909Dwayne You have severe temper problems, judging by your overreaction to ideas that are alien to you. Think this through: Cousins marrying cousins and siblings marrying each other: If it's consensual, how exactly is this wrong? If they love each other, are familiar with each other, etc, how could it be morally wrong? Ignoring procreation (an overrated ideal) and other things that come with marriage.
vgman94 11 months ago
@vgman94 It's wrong because it's wrong and that is why it is wrong.
909Dwayne 11 months ago
@909Dwayne .... WRONG!
... Sorry, I had to say that. But saying it's wrong does not make it wrong. The reason murder is wrong is because the victim feels pain and wants to live. Animal abuse, child abuse, spousal abuse (from both genders) are all wrong for that reason. Excluding consensual sadomasochism, of course, as long as there's no serious injury. Emotional abuse is wrong because we all have emotions.and it hurts us. Now, what harm does incest cause ignoring the procreation part?
vgman94 11 months ago
@vgman94 It causes harm by causing harm!
909Dwayne 11 months ago
@909Dwayne ...My fellow YouTuber, you are beyond my means. You need more professional help then I can give. I am sorry...
vgman94 11 months ago