EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

As sick as it is to me it doesn't matter what they do. If they want to get married that's fine. It's two adults that can do what they want with their lives. Just because I wouldn't do it doesn't mean they can't.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

[QUOTE=subaruguru]There's no scientific or physical health justificaiton for not allowing it. The "inbreeding" idea is mostly junk science. It would take generations upon generations of inbreeding to potentially create a problem.[QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure I've read reputible journal articles that would argue with this. The inbreeding process starts messing up mice/rats in only 2-3 generations, and humans are actually not very much more complicated than mice genetically. There are also human communities that inbreed consistantly and show very obvious physical traits of it. All it takes is a recesive trait that is detrimental, and even in one generation the effects could be so huge that a child would die before birth.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/lin...600201.x/full/

deyes

That was the philosophical equivalent of a dog chasing his tail around, and a terrible way to argue a point. That said, do it again!

subaruguru

[QUOTE=MVWRX][QUOTE=subaruguru]There's no scientific or physical health justificaiton for not allowing it. The "inbreeding" idea is mostly junk science. It would take generations upon generations of inbreeding to potentially create a problem.I'm equally certain that no reputable journal article will argue with my point. Your own post has the key: a recessive trait that is detrimental. If there isn't a serious problem in the family gene pool, things will generally be fine. As it is, genetic defects transfer without incest, so I fail to see how that's an argument against it. Should we prohibit huntington's genes carriers from marrying too?


Edited to add:

Here's a post by a scientist that explains it. Inbreeding by itself does not cause any problems. It only increases the odds of offspring having more of the harmful recessive genes carried by one of the parents.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7873.Cb.r.html

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

I agree. But check out the link I added to my post. They have problems with recesive genetic diseases in many communities that traditional endorse consanguinese breeding.

EDIT: I like my source better...(PubMed Search for legit jounal > madsci.org)

deyes

Thats not what I said. What I said was that its a matter of legal rights. By definition a civil union is a marriage. Marriage. We're voting on the government calling it something, I think that the government should leave marriage up to churches and worry about the rights of families no matter what they are constituted of. I'd be happier if the government called it something other than marriage for all involved. That way it won't be an issue of religion.

subaruguru

Yeah, you might like your source even more if you could read it. It says the same thing as mine, it talks about genetic problems within communities. The question stands: If amish can marry other amish, why not fathers and daughters? Especially if the father has a genetic screening that finds no recessive genes....why not?

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

First of all, there's no way you read that entire article in that amount of time. Second, it doesn't agree with you; there's no way to screen people for every recesive and detrimental genetic trait. Hell, there's genetic diseases that we don't even know how they work or how they're triggered yet. The reason inbreeding is not good is because of the uncertainty in predicting when something real bad could come up. That's a 'laymens' summary of the article I posted.
I agree with you on the legal issue though. If some idiot wants to take a chance and marry his daughter (once she's 18, of course), then I don't care. I think suicide should be legal too. And hard drugs. Because, and I'm sure you agree, the government should not control what we do to ourselves as long as we don't negatively impact the people around us.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Arogant bastard. Where did you study molecular genetics? OH you DIDN'T. That's funny...

"This was evidenced by a survey conducted among medical geneticists and genetic counsellors in the USA, with estimated risk rates for birth defects and mental retardation in first cousin progeny ranging from 0.25 to 20%"

That's pretty obvious for you. Inbreeding causes problems even between cousins. By the way genes work, it's much worse between father/daughter.

subaruguru

I didn't need to read the whole article. The first three paragraphs and the "Conclusion" section pretty much make it obvious that you didn't read the article, and that it says nothing to contradict the post I put up.

Alright, so you're going back to "inbreeding is dangerous" without answering the point. What if a dad and daughter get a genetic screen? And, should huntington's carriers be allowed to marry? The evidence your posting does nothing for your point.

Now, you did answer the question: Fathers and daughters should be allowed to marry. Let's take it a step further: Do you think there's a constitutional right for fathers to marry their daughters? I'm hoping you'll say no. Why not?

What I don't agree with is your apparent assumption that nothing you do to yourself could hurt someone else. If you get addicted to drugs, and quit working, and start stealing to support your habit...that hurts other people. Just like some people's deeply held traditions are crushed by homosexual relationships in public. I'd like to see how you would draw the line between a permissible harm on someone else and an impermissible one.

I'd also like for you to read the pubmed article you posted.

subaruguru

Again, read the article. Inbreeding does not "Cause a problem". It only compounds a pre-existing problem. So would genetic screening for genes make it permisslbe? And, should we ban huntington's carriers from marrying? Why or why not?

I never claimed to study molecular genetics. What I claimed, and what's obvious from reading your article and mine, is that there is no conflict between the two.

Edit:

Although I don't like to get off the point, I would like to point out...if you're going to call someone Arrogant, you should probably learn how to spell Arrogant first.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

If you read my post, I addressed the genetic screen. There are too many diseases that are too unpredictable to accuratly screen to the point that the threat of inherited diseases would be eliminated. The second question, about the carriers of disease, is a good question that is highly debated by many people that are a lot more qualified than both of us. My stance on that one is the same as my stance on inbreeding; if the people know they're getting into something that could end up bad, I don't care and it shouldn't be illegal, it's their choice to risk it.

Of course I don't think there is a constitutional right for fathers to marry their daughters. Unless you take a very liberal reading of the 'right to persue happyness,' but that's for the courts to decide, not the actuall constitution.

I see very clearly your point about the drugs and hurting people other than yourself. It's true, usually drug use does hurt people other than the user. But if drugs were legal, this impact would be lessened considerably. But comparing getting mugged for drug cash to being diswrought because you saw some lesbians making out is hardly a good comparison. Where would I draw the line? I'd have to go case by case in terms of what specific thing you had in mind. For the two examples we have going: drugs-legalize them to ensure quality and lower price (and taxes for the gov't), and designate places where they can and can't be done. So if you don't like it, go somewhere they're not allowed. Gays in public- if you don't want to see someone making out with their mate (regardless of if they're straight or gay) you should leave or look away. Otherwise your imposing your values on them, and that's exactly what America is not about.


Edit: thanks for being level headed and civil...for a second there I thought we we're gonna end up in another pointless argument, but somehow we saved it...

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Hahahaha, point taken...if you couldn't tell, I was a science+math guy and didn't pay much attention to spelling...

subaruguru

Alright, so there's no constitutional right to marry your daughter. So now at least we know it's legal to ban it. Is the same true for homosexuality? FYI-There is no constitutional right to "happiness."

Now with drugs, yes there's the policy issue...I brought the example up only to point out how something you do to yourself might impact someone else. As for gays in public, would you extend that to say a community has no right to define standards of decency? What can people prohibit from public, and what can't they?

I'm with you on the policy question of homosexual unions, obviously as I said that in my first post on this thread. But the fact that you and I agree with a certain policy doesn't make it illegal for a city or state to enact a law that goes against it.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Well...I suppose that a very conservative reading of the constitution would allow the banning of just about everything. Except alcohol, guns, speach, etc... So I suppose it is LEGAL to ban homosexuality. But by that logic, it's also LEGAL to ban all sexual relations even between straight couples.

Good point about the standards of decency. Clearly we have laws to uphold those. I guess I would just hope that everyone that has the ability to make these laws would look at gay PDAs the same way as straight PDAs. Same thing for 'civil unions'. Like you said, our opinions don't make it illegal to make them illegal. But if enough like-minded people did get into office...you see where I'm going with that...I just have a problem when people say that they are 'personally hurt' or 'offended' by seeing gay people. To those people: are you personally hurt when you see an argument that uses bad launguage? Or a fist fight? Or adultary? If so...man up, mind your own business, and don't be so easily hurt/offended. If not, how does homosexuality affect your morals any more than those examples?