Opinions on sibling marriage/relationships

[Meow Mix]

It isn't a negative discrimination to have a blanket injunction against producing genetically defective offspring regardless of sexuality or relation.

You don't have to ban brother and sister from wedding, but if anyone with high possibility of genetic defects has to go through a more rigorous process to have children (such as testing for defects, removing defects with genetic science if possible, etc.) then I don't see any problem aside from subjective revulsion and cultural norms.

 

[Atomist]

It isn't a negative discrimination to have a blanket injunction against producing genetically defective offspring regardless of sexuality or relation.

You don't have to ban brother and sister from wedding, but if anyone with high possibility of genetic defects has to go through a more rigorous process to have children (such as testing for defects, removing defects with genetic science if possible, etc.) then I don't see any problem aside from subjective revulsion and cultural norms.

The problem I find with the "genetic defect" argument is that it presupposes there is something it's defected from... which presupposes there is an optimal human which seems absurd in it's face.

Not only that the screening for genetic defects seems to be a violation of privacy by definition and there is no way to stop someone to bypass the screening processes and just have a child absent of it... I mean what control can a government possibly have to stop people from having a child and what are you going to do if you find out someone wrongfully is pregnant? you abort their fetus? That's an obvious violation of human rights.

 

[DarkSun]

Now that same-sexs marriage is on the books, lobbying for sibling marriages would be a demonstration of the Slippery Slope in action. After sibling marriages, what's next?

Did you read about the lady who married the Effeil Tower?

'I married the Eiffel Tower' - Living, The New Review - The Independent

Where does it stop?

I don't see why it would need to stop tbh... this is too amusing.

 

[DarkSun]

Do either of you guys believe in de-evolution?

There is no such thing.

 

[AxisMundi]

you obviously didn't understand what I said... Let me try again:
1) one mutation occurred for the fusion of chromosome 23
2) that ape had 47 chromosomes
3) that ape breed with other apes with 48 chromosomes
4) some apes had 47 chromosomes
5) some 47 chromosomes breed with each other to have 46 chromosomes
6) 46 chromosome apes breed with each other
7) those with 46 chromosomes ARE our ancestors...

Explain to me how that's not inbreeding.

Edit: that IS the accepted scientific consensus on how humans diverged from the other great apes as far as i know.

Edit: when I referred to ancestor chimp I mean the decedents of humans and chimps... which in a sense could be categorized as such...

And I never once said "all genetic changes "must" be mutations, and that said mutations only occur through incest." not once... I said in this case there was a mutation and that mutation propagated through incest and that mutation/incest led to human beings... Maybe you should try to understand a person's argument before critiquing it.

Youa re most certainly stating, quite clearly, that the fusion of C1 and C2 is a mutation brought on by inbreeding.

Inbreeding brings sterility, not "viable mutations".

Inbreeding, ie breeding among a gene pool to small to provide enough genetic variance, such as in the topic of this post between siblings, will lead to sterility and extinction of that particular group and/or species.

The Minimal Population Viability Theory simply proves you wrong.

 

[AxisMundi]

i really dont know that you're understanding what i meant. it is indeed discrimination to disallow hetero-partnerships between siblings. it is also discrimination to disallow same-sex marriage between siblings. removing one of these discriminatory limitations does not instantly make it discrimination, because it's already discrimination. allowing only white men to vote is discrimination. allowing only men (regardless of race) is still discrimination. it didn't become discrimination simply because it didn't include women - it was simply a step closer to ending discrimination in the vote. i feel like i'm being redundant, but i dont really know any other way to describe what i'm trying to say to make it more clear to you.

You have been most clear.

We merely do not agree, and I doubt we will.

There are many degrees of discrimiantion, from your example on voting to discrimianting by keeping people out of the public restrooms of the opposite gender.

The latter is a case of justifyable discrimination, it is a health and especially a safety concern.

Disallowing siblings, key word here, siblings, from marriage is due to the inherent hazards of inbreeding of genetically close relatives.

You are not concentrating on the "sibling" part, I am.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Sibling marriage is possible in denmark, with Royal dispensation.

Incest is not at all unusual anywhere in the world. Mostly people either don't know or turn a blind eye.

 

[Atomist]

Yingoua re most certainly stat, quite clearly, that the fusion of C1 and C2 is a mutation brought on by inbreeding.

No... try reading... I'm saying the mutation was random... the propagation was via inbreeding.

Inbreeding brings sterility, not "viable mutations".

Okay then how did the fusion of the chromosomes propagate then, if not inbreeding. If the ape has the mutation which means they're related somehow to another ape with the same mutation in a non-trivial sense (be it cousins x removed or step siblings or direct siblings)

Inbreeding, ie breeding among a gene pool to small to provide enough genetic variance, such as in the topic of this post between siblings, will lead to sterility and extinction of that particular group and/or species.

... okay so your arguing if individuals in a population inbreeds then the population as a whole will be sterile and subsequently extinct? Nobody is arguing that EVERYONE should inbreed though... and those that would would make up a trivial amount in the population. Nobody is saying that siblings should inbreed then the subsequent generation have the same siblings inbreed and on ad infinitum, but individuals should have that right to marry their siblings.

The Minimal Population Viability Theory simply proves you wrong.

awww cute... another red herring/Strawman... a population could have MPV and still be inbreeding... IE lets say a population's MPV is 500 they have to breed with each other to reproduce... at some point they are all related in a non-trivial way..

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

The latter is a case of justifyable discrimination, it is a health and especially a safety concern.

Disallowing siblings, key word here, siblings, from marriage is due to the inherent hazards of inbreeding of genetically close relatives.

You are not concentrating on the "sibling" part, I am.

are sisters siblings?

 

[gnostic]

If you look at Moses' parents, you see that his father had married his aunt. Although they weren't siblings, but the law in the Bible is a bit hypocritical about incest, considering his parents relationship to one another.

 

[AxisMundi]

No... try reading... I'm saying the mutation was random... the propagation was via inbreeding.


Okay then how did the fusion of the chromosomes propagate then, if not inbreeding. If the ape has the mutation which means they're related somehow to another ape with the same mutation in a non-trivial sense (be it cousins x removed or step siblings or direct siblings)


... okay so your arguing if individuals in a population inbreeds then the population as a whole will be sterile and subsequently extinct? Nobody is arguing that EVERYONE should inbreed though... and those that would would make up a trivial amount in the population. Nobody is saying that siblings should inbreed then the subsequent generation have the same siblings inbreed and on ad infinitum, but individuals should have that right to marry their siblings.

awww cute... another red herring/Strawman... a population could have MPV and still be inbreeding... IE lets say a population's MPV is 500 they have to breed with each other to reproduce... at some point they are all related in a non-trivial way..

1. Mutations are not part of Evolution, not in teh sense you are trying to state.
2. If by inbreeding you mean "same species, no amtter how alrge the gene pool", that is the only time you make sence.
3. I am unaware of any specific criteria for what constitutes "inbreeding", but 150 mating couples doesn;t sound like "inbreeding". BTW, for msot species the MPV is 50 mating couples.

 

[AxisMundi]

are sisters siblings?

What determines discrimination in this country is the concept of Protected Classes.

At the federal level these include race, religion, gender, age, and handicap among others. Sexual Orientation is not on that federal list (yet), but can be found in select State and local laws.

Familial relationships take priority in many legal areas, however, including, I believe, this one.

Two sisters (who are related to one another, duh) fall under the familial relationship first and foremost, and are therefor unable to classify themselves as the Sexual Orientation Protected Class in those areas where it is a recognized Class to attain marriage in those areas where same-gendered marriage is legally recognized.

 

[Atomist]

1. Mutations are not part of Evolution, not in teh sense you are trying to state.
2. If by inbreeding you mean "same species, no amtter how alrge the gene pool", that is the only time you make sence.
3. I am unaware of any specific criteria for what constitutes "inbreeding", but 150 mating couples doesn;t sound like "inbreeding". BTW, for msot species the MPV is 50 mating couples.

... trying to explain to you why it's inbreeding is pointless since your obviously not capable of understanding it as I've tried explaining it 3 different times and all 3 times you completely ignored what I said and came up with a strawman rebuttal to my argument.

Until you demonstrate how chromosome 2 fusion can occur without it being incestual in nature... ie cousins reproducing or half siblings such that we all share a fused chromosome... your whole argument is moot.

I never said anything about mutations being a part of evolution... I was simply pointing out that we share ancestors with the great apes... and we have 23 pairs and they have 24 pairs and there has to be a way where the chromosome fused... and how we all have 23 pairs instead of some having 24 and some having 23 and how we came to arise at 23 chromosomes (through incest, some of which is sibling breeding, which is common in the animal kingdom)... but you don't care... so as far as I'm concerned there is no reasoning with you.

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=12678
maybe that is a good enough explanation... but I suppose your argument is that it's not "incest"

In a small population (less than 50 breeding pairs), it's possible for pure chance survival and reproduction to fix a particular genome. I can give you the equations for the probability of this happening if you would like to see them.

Iono how a population of less than 50 breeding pairs can realistically NOT have any incest.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

What determines discrimination in this country is the concept of Protected Classes.

At the federal level these include race, religion, gender, age, and handicap among others. Sexual Orientation is not on that federal list (yet), but can be found in select State and local laws.

Familial relationships take priority in many legal areas, however, including, I believe, this one.

Two sisters (who are related to one another, duh) fall under the familial relationship first and foremost, and are therefor unable to classify themselves as the Sexual Orientation Protected Class in those areas where it is a recognized Class to attain marriage in those areas where same-gendered marriage is legally recognized.

i think that the thread is less about the law and more about logical oppositions to sibling relations.

 

[Atomist]

i think that the thread is less about the law and more about logical oppositions to sibling relations.

Yep... the law doesn't matter... it's all about how logical the arguments for either side are... I suppose the slippery slope fallacy is pretty logical (nevermind the name) or the "marriage is about not reproducing genetic defected children" because reproduction out of wedlock never happens... and that people are infertile when they're not married... and that love doesn't matter with respect to marriage. It's almost as if they're taking the anti-gay marriage handbook and using the reverse arguments.

 

[AxisMundi]

... trying to explain to you why it's inbreeding is pointless since your obviously not capable of understanding it as I've tried explaining it 3 different times and all 3 times you completely ignored what I said and came up with a strawman rebuttal to my argument.

Until you demonstrate how chromosome 2 fusion can occur without it being incestual in nature... ie cousins reproducing or half siblings such that we all share a fused chromosome... your whole argument is moot.

I never said anything about mutations being a part of evolution... I was simply pointing out that we share ancestors with the great apes... and we have 23 pairs and they have 24 pairs and there has to be a way where the chromosome fused... and how we all have 23 pairs instead of some having 24 and some having 23 and how we came to arise at 23 chromosomes (through incest, some of which is sibling breeding, which is common in the animal kingdom)... but you don't care... so as far as I'm concerned there is no reasoning with you.

Question about man/ape chromosomes
maybe that is a good enough explanation... but I suppose your argument is that it's not "incest"


Iono how a population of less than 50 breeding pairs can realistically NOT have any incest.

1. You have yet to prove any idea of inbreeding.

2. Because by the time a decendant of mating pair one, lets say, get together, thay are so far apart as to be essentially unrelated.

 

[AxisMundi]

i think that the thread is less about the law and more about logical oppositions to sibling relations.

Marriage is a legal institution.

Incest is illegal.

How is this NOT a legal question?

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Marriage is a legal institution.

Incest is illegal.

How is this NOT a legal question?

because it's a question of arguments besides the legal ones. the OP made it clear that it was a challenge to the current legal system, not a question about what's currently legal.

 

[Atomist]

1. You have yet to prove any idea of inbreeding.

2. Because by the time a decendant of mating pair one, lets say, get together, thay are so far apart as to be essentially unrelated.

Yeah... okay I suppose a group of 46 chromosome apes were "essentially" unrelated that we're all decedents of because if they were related it would be inbreeding and since inbreeding can only destroy the group inbreed necessarily did not occur in any process of our evolution. Totally not circular.

Marriage is a legal institution.

Incest is illegal.

How is this NOT a legal question?

Okay... because I'm asking why it should be illegal. And your saying because it would be bad for the children of incestuous relationships... good argument because people have sex for children and all people are fertile and all sex between siblings/cousins/etc are of the heterosexual nature. I'm convinced.

EDIT:Besides it's trivial demonstrate that not all children of incest have genetic diseases AND are sterile... and from that I can trivially demonstrate that EVERYONE using probability, if you go back enough generations, has had sibling that reproduced with each other ancestors.

But I won't even do that and instead explain through your own reasoning that people with Huntington's disease shouldn't be able to have sex much less marry with ANYONE. As any children they have would automatically have an increase chance of getting a genetic disease... namely Huntington's.

 

[AxisMundi]

because it's a question of arguments besides the legal ones. the OP made it clear that it was a challenge to the current legal system, not a question about what's currently legal.

Didn't you just say it wasn't a legal question?

And how does that challenge my response?