should incest be legal?

[RetiredGySgt]

Dr. Gregg claims to be a scientist yet keeps making the ignorant statement that 1st Generation defects because of Incest are dangerous. The chance of a first generation defect are so small as to be meaningless. We allow women over 40 to give birth and we KNOW that carries a very high risk of defects. We allow people with known genetic defect traits to breed even though some of them have a 50 percent chance of occurring in any offspring.

And talking about the Genetic pool, allowing gays to wed REMOVES genes from the pool. A species is in more danger of elimination if the gay trait increases then from any perceived threat from defects of incest.

 

[Dr Gregg]

In other words, you want incest illegal as a part of your human breeding and eugenics campaign?

That's what you took out of it? Boy you aren't very bright

And not wanting deformed children with horrible genetic defects has what to do with eugenics? angry that you can't fuck your siblings?

Who the fuck would even argue for incest being legalized and be serious about it

You're the one arguing genetic fitness and controlling peoples' breeding practices. That's eugenics by definition.

That, my dear, breaks the rules on bringing family in to the flaming....

Care

 

[FireFly]

Here's why I voted no, incestual relationships can lead to deformed and defective children due to lack of genetic variability and increasing the recessive mutations that may be present in family members. So it can have a negative effect

Polygamy if the people consent, I don't think should be illegal, although if it was legal, don't think many people would do it. Hard enough to deal with one woman, let alone several. (guys perspective only)

That shoots holes in your progressive evolution theory now doesn't it. That is because we are devolving from perfect humans just like other animals. Diversity is the only way to slow the devolution. Dr. Gregg talks out of both sides of his ass depending on the subject.

 

[Dr Gregg]

That's what you took out of it? Boy you aren't very bright

And not wanting deformed children with horrible genetic defects has what to do with eugenics? angry that you can't fuck your siblings?

Who the fuck would even argue for incest being legalized and be serious about it

You're the one arguing genetic fitness and controlling peoples' breeding practices. That's eugenics by definition.

That, my dear, breaks the rules on bringing family in to the flaming....

Care

OK, very strange,I never posted this comment yet is shows up as me posting it. Anybody know what's up with this?

 

[blu]

You're the one arguing genetic fitness and controlling peoples' breeding practices. That's eugenics by definition.

That, my dear, breaks the rules on bringing family in to the flaming....

Care

OK, very strange,I never posted this comment yet is shows up as me posting it. Anybody know what's up with this?

I am thinking you did post, brought his or someone elses family into and then the admin Care edited your post since was a TOS violation

 

[Samson]

That, my dear, breaks the rules on bringing family in to the flaming....

Care

OK, very strange,I never posted this comment yet is shows up as me posting it. Anybody know what's up with this?

I am thinking you did post, brought his or someone elses family into and then the admin Care edited your post since was a TOS violation

Isn't it extraordinary you gotta 'splain that?

Now I'm even happier to have the moron on ignore.

 

[Dr Gregg]

OK, very strange,I never posted this comment yet is shows up as me posting it. Anybody know what's up with this?

I am thinking you did post, brought his or someone elses family into and then the admin Care edited your post since was a TOS violation

Isn't it extraordinary you gotta 'splain that?

Now I'm even happier to have the moron on ignore.

Sure, moron with a PhD. YOu just can't stand to be made a fool

 

[Dr Gregg]

That, my dear, breaks the rules on bringing family in to the flaming....

Care

OK, very strange,I never posted this comment yet is shows up as me posting it. Anybody know what's up with this?

I am thinking you did post, brought his or someone elses family into and then the admin Care edited your post since was a TOS violation

Except I don't remember ever bringing family into it, or even responding to that post.

 

[Charles Stucker]

I was hoping someone voting no would actually explain why they voted that way

Incest is illegal because there are too many recessive genes which cause devastating disabilities and deformities to progeny. Incest makes the chance of a child receiving two defective genes far higher. Continued close breeding, as seen in European Royalty during the Victorian age, has a similar result. The tragedy of such children can be greatly reduced if such incestuous relations are not allowed.

What more reason would you need?

 

[Samson]

I was hoping someone voting no would actually explain why they voted that way

Incest is illegal because there are too many recessive genes which cause devastating disabilities and deformities to progeny. Incest makes the chance of a child receiving two defective genes far higher. Continued close breeding, as seen in European Royalty during the Victorian age, has a similar result. The tragedy of such children can be greatly reduced if such incestuous relations are not allowed.

What more reason would you need?

blu, the Geneticist, Disagreed with this on page 3:

Not a good idea genetics-wise for one thing. Not really interested in arguing with your Oedipus complex.

it takes numerous generations for it to have a negative effect. women over 40 having kids are most at risk of birthing a kid with defects

I'm not a geneticist, so I have no way of confirming that one way or the other.

Frankly, if its untrue, then someone's started one helluva urban legend.

 

[George Costanza]

Saw this discussed somewhere else and I think its a good measure of how much you think the government should be able to control people's life. Of course we are talking about two consenting adults and this has nothing to do with marriage.

EDIT: I voted yes

Interesting issue. I voted no. Odd, because I am opposed to any laws which detract from a woman's right to have an abortion and I am not opposed to gay marriage, i.e., I really do not think the government has any reason to be dabbling around in the personal affairs of its citizens.

However, I believe there is a rational reason for making incest illegal. Accordingly, I voted No.

 

[Samson]

Saw this discussed somewhere else and I think its a good measure of how much you think the government should be able to control people's life. Of course we are talking about two consenting adults and this has nothing to do with marriage.

EDIT: I voted yes

Interesting issue. I voted no. Odd, because I am opposed to any laws which detract from a woman's right to have an abortion and I am not opposed to gay marriage, i.e., I really do not think the government has any reason to be dabbling around in the personal affairs of its citizens.

However, I believe there is a rational reason for making incest illegal. Accordingly, I voted No.

I'm proud of you George.

Frankly, I would have thought you'd only draw the line with sheep.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I am thinking you did post, brought his or someone elses family into and then the admin Care edited your post since was a TOS violation

Isn't it extraordinary you gotta 'splain that?

Now I'm even happier to have the moron on ignore.

Sure, moron with a PhD. YOu just can't stand to be made a fool

I'm skeptical of your claims.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If the rationale is that it produces children with genetic defects, then the same rationale argues for not allowing those with undesirable genetics to reproduce at all- with eachother for the exact same reason and with others less they spread such flaws, leading to greater prevalence and an increased risk of even greater numbers suffering the same fate.

One cannot argue against incest with the rationale that's been put forth without explicitly and implicitly arguing for negative eugenics

 

[Ame®icano]

Saw this discussed somewhere else and I think its a good measure of how much you think the government should be able to control people's life. Of course we are talking about two consenting adults and this has nothing to do with marriage.

EDIT: I voted yes

Interesting issue. I voted no. Odd, because I am opposed to any laws which detract from a woman's right to have an abortion and I am not opposed to gay marriage, i.e., I really do not think the government has any reason to be dabbling around in the personal affairs of its citizens.

However, I believe there is a rational reason for making incest illegal. Accordingly, I voted No.

I'm proud of you George.

Frankly, I would have thought you'd only draw the line with sheep.

Can't even imagine how his thanksgiving dinners looks like...

 

[Samson]

Isn't it extraordinary you gotta 'splain that?

Now I'm even happier to have the moron on ignore.

Sure, moron with a PhD. YOu just can't stand to be made a fool

I'm skeptical of your claims.

Why?

I believe he IS a Moron with a PhD.

 

[AllieBaba]

I love how the republicans are answering no.

Stay out of my life, but please tell someone else who they can have sex with.

I love how the dems have always said there's no "slippery slope". I think blu's stance..and apparently yours...proves there is.

Incest would clip around okay for a generation or so. Then you'd start having serious recessive genetic traits popping up. Which is why there are laws against it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Sure, moron with a PhD. YOu just can't stand to be made a fool

I'm skeptical of your claims.

Why?

I believe he IS a Moron with a PhD.

From an accredited school?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I love how the republicans are answering no.

Stay out of my life, but please tell someone else who they can have sex with.

I love how the dems have always said there's no "slippery slope". I think blu's stance..and apparently yours...proves there is.

Incest would clip around okay for a generation or so. Then you'd start having serious recessive genetic traits popping up. Which is why there are laws against it.

So people found to possess such genetic traits shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, or just not with other persons known to posses such traits?

I never knew you were into eugenics.

 

[tommywho70x]

the subject of incest is really all relative and best kept in the family.

my brother-in-law is a probation officer in a north central wisconsin county and when he first started he was shocked to discover what a huge portion of his case load involved incest.

we're not talking consenting adults here either --- most of it involved rape by an older male relative.

i can't really deny the right of two consenting adults to engage in recreational sex just because they happen to be closely related.

for people more closely related than first cousins, my experience with domestic animals, tells me that reproducing is risky and likely to produce children with serious defects that will be difficult and costly to raise. whether the government should prohibit such births or not is not a position i feel comfortable taking.

as an example, one of my neighbors here in the heart of texas, had 5 children by 4 fathers. her youngest son was sired by her father. the boy has mild cerebral palsy but is otherwise healthy and intelligent. i don't think he knows that grampy is really pappy and likely never will. on the whole, they're a pretty loving family and i see no reason to lock them up for incest.

on the other hand, they're a bunch of low-life thieving dope fiends and should get locked up for that but apparently the local law enforcement folks are well paid to leave that be.