Opinions on sibling marriage/relationships

[Atomist]

1. Having Huntington's isn't illegal.

So what? that's meaningless

2. No, I'm not simply becasue of the fact that said relationship may ahve been coerced.

Your obviously not listening to my rebuttal...

3. Why do you keep denying the increased chances of genetic abnormalities? Some sources state figures as LOW as a 40% chance of a genetic abnormalty in any offspring of incest.

I'm not denying that... you stop strawmanning me and PAY attention to my argument... your as bad as creationist. I'm saying that huntington's with a normal person is as low as 50%... so therefore... since 40% is obviously a threshold to being illegal, huntington's reproducing crosses that threshold and thus should be illegal.

4. At least I am not guilty of intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to uphold my position.

yes you are... and you're guilty of not listening to your opponent's position before attempting to refute them... and thus strawmanning the F out of them.

I have shown why, jsut from a genetic standpoint, sibling incest is undesirable.

I will let our fellow posters judge my position.

Yes... but that's irrelevant to whether it should be illegal or not. I've shown why from a genetic standpoint that huntington's with any normal relationship is MORE undesirable. So therefore any legal conclusion you draw from sibiling relationships should be drawn for people with huntington's and a normal relationship.

 

[Atomist]

Wow... your ad hominem attack is so stupid. Watch this

Who here is a product of incest?

Who here is a product of interracial marriage

Who here wants to marry their sister/brother?

Who here wants to marry someone with a different race

Who here is already married to their sister/brother, had children with them. and is desperately trying to rationalize what they done?

Who here is already married to a person of another race, has children with them and is desperately trying to rationalize what they done?

Why anyone would want to campaign for incest if not for those listed above,

Why anyone would want to campaign for interracial marriage if not for those listed above I have no idea.

I have no idea. Maybe next we'll hear about the possible benefits of coprophagia.

What? how is that relevant... I'm not saying that there is benefits to having sibling marriages... but I'm saying two consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Maybe not having children, but marrying.

Incidentally, this is an exercise in logic/debate... because it doesn't matter the answer to this question because.
1) siblings can just say they're "married" as they have all practical benefits that those who are married have and no one would know any better
2) siblings most often share the same last name which is very convenient to the "marriage"
3) I don't know what laws you can have to punish incestuous relationships

 

[AxisMundi]

but what I am arguing is that you do not have any reasons to keep same-sex sibling partnerships illegal. and the issue of consent is one that certainly applies to much more than just sibling relationships. .....

I have already explained why same-gendered sibling relationships are ilelgal, and will remain so.

Siblings are not, in and of themselves, a protected class, and the familial relationship comes first.

Your reply to this concept, I believe, was "it's not a legal matter".

 

[AxisMundi]

So what? that's meaningless

Your obviously not listening to my rebuttal...


I'm not denying that... you stop strawmanning me and PAY attention to my argument... your as bad as creationist. I'm saying that huntington's with a normal person is as low as 50%... so therefore... since 40% is obviously a threshold to being illegal, huntington's reproducing crosses that threshold and thus should be illegal.

yes you are... and you're guilty of not listening to your opponent's position before attempting to refute them... and thus strawmanning the F out of them.


Yes... but that's irrelevant to whether it should be illegal or not. I've shown why from a genetic standpoint that huntington's with any normal relationship is MORE undesirable. So therefore any legal conclusion you draw from sibiling relationships should be drawn for people with huntington's and a normal relationship.

Well, I see, since you cannot directly offer the rebuttle you cry for, that I have won this debate. Thank you.

 

[Atomist]

Well, I see, since you cannot directly offer the rebuttle you cry for, that I have won this debate. Thank you.

Your an idiot... I did address your point namely showing with reductio ad absurdum that you have to illegalize all relationships with anyone that has Huntington's since it's more dangerous than sibling marriage. If you accept that conclusion... well thats all I wanted to accomplish. But I'm not a huge ***hole like you. So... I don't get how you won.

 

[AxisMundi]

Your an idiot... I did address your point namely showing with reductio ad absurdum that you have to illegalize all relationships with anyone that has Huntington's since it's more dangerous than sibling marriage. If you accept that conclusion... well thats all I wanted to accomplish. But I'm not a huge ***hole like you. So... I don't get how you won.

Slippery slope fallacies, non sequitures, and circular arguments are all you have offered to date.

 

[Atomist]

Slippery slope fallacies, non sequitures, and circular arguments are all you have offered to date.

rotfl I'm beginning to think your a troll. Because that's EXACTLY what your guilty of.

 

[Zampano]

"I have already explained why same-gendered sibling relationships are ilelgal, and will remain so." That really doesn't matter. We aren't arguing that. We know this already, but legality in and of itself is not the issue. The issue is WHY it is illegal. That's the entire point of this thread which you seem to be missing. And actually slippery slope would be more along the lines of "First siblings can marry, NOW HUNTINGTON PEOPLE CAN MARRY?!" Had he said that, it would have been a slippery slope. But he didn't. He's drawing a parallel.

 

[Tiberius]

I saw ninerbuff's thread and decided to make a more interesting and way more controversial thread. I'm arguing that for the same reasons we should accept gay marriages/homosexuality we should allow sibling marriage/relationships.

Edit: I think the consensius is that sibling marriage is bad because of the potential problems with birth defects... then what about gay sibling marriage/relationships. If you allow that then your discriminating against sexual preference (and gender). And also what about the non-sibling couples that both have genetic traits are recessive that if the child gets both genes, it's detrimental to the child.

This is ridiculous. Geneticly close people are more likely to have offspring with genetic problems. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

 

[Atomist]

This is ridiculous. Geneticly close people are more likely to have offspring with genetic problems. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

Thanks for not reading any part of the thread before commenting... do you really think that argument hasn't been brought up like hundreds of times in this thread.

"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 increased chance of genetic defects]... namely Huntington's."

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

This is ridiculous. Geneticly close people are more likely to have offspring with genetic problems. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

sexual orientation has nothing to do with whether a couple can reproduce or not?

I have already explained why same-gendered sibling relationships are ilelgal, and will remain so.

Siblings are not, in and of themselves, a protected class, and the familial relationship comes first.

Your reply to this concept, I believe, was "it's not a legal matter".

"I have already explained why same-gendered sibling relationships are ilelgal, and will remain so." That really doesn't matter. We aren't arguing that. We know this already, but legality in and of itself is not the issue. The issue is WHY it is illegal. That's the entire point of this thread which you seem to be missing.

what zampano said.

 

[AxisMundi]

rotfl I'm beginning to think your a troll. Because that's EXACTLY what your guilty of.

When all else fails, break out the insults.

Why don't you just admit that you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[AxisMundi]

"I have already explained why same-gendered sibling relationships are ilelgal, and will remain so." That really doesn't matter. We aren't arguing that. We know this already, but legality in and of itself is not the issue. The issue is WHY it is illegal. That's the entire point of this thread which you seem to be missing. And actually slippery slope would be more along the lines of "First siblings can marry, NOW HUNTINGTON PEOPLE CAN MARRY?!" Had he said that, it would have been a slippery slope. But he didn't. He's drawing a parallel.

Firstly, it is certainly a slippery slope, not a parallel. As noted, a person with Huntington's has a fifty percent chance of passing on said disease to their offspring. Introduce siblings who have the same genetic background, and the chances of the offspring having the disease nearly double.

Secondly, it is illegal primarily because of social morality. But unlike the discrimination that gays (a Protected Class in most areas) face, there are legitimate reasons to keep it illegal, as I also noted above and will repeat and surmise.

1. It is very difficult to determine if said sibling relationsip is indeed concensual. Intimidation and/or an inherent need to protect family members may play a factor.

2. As has been shown ad nauseum, the chances of genetic diseases and abnormalties are simply too high.

3. Where same-gendered relationships go, besides number 1 above coming into play, same-gendered siblings are not a protected class and therefor there is no discrimination in keeping their relationships illegal.

 

[AxisMundi]

sexual orientation has nothing to do with whether a couple can reproduce or not?

No, it doesn't. A gay couple can still reproduce, through artificial insemination or sperm donation.

what zampano said.

What I said, see my reply to the other psoter.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

No, it doesn't. A gay couple can still reproduce, through artificial insemination or sperm donation.

so the threat of genetic defect is where then?

 

[Atomist]

When all else fails, break out the insults.

Why don't you just admit that you don't have a leg to stand on.

because you haven't addressed any of my arguments and are just reaching on every one of your arguments and repeating yourself and are guilty of the exact same thing your accusing others of (and the people your accusing aren't guilty of what your accusing them of). Which makes me think you don't ecen know what the fallacies. So... argument has no legs to stand on and you have no idea what my argument is... so I don't get what the point of this is? an exercise in circular arguments?

I don't think your smart enough to understand the debate that your trying to take apart of. All you've done is strawman my arguments, insert slippery slope arguments, special pleading.

I mean anyone that reads this thread will come out with the fact that your an idiot... I mean you can ask anyone... my argument IS convincing, I mean just read some of the earlier parts of this thread where people made the same argument you made and I refuted the same arguments and they accepted the logical conclusions and stated at the very least same sex siblings should be allowed to marry.

But again... you might just be too stupid... by repeating the same refuted arguments as if they're not refuted even though anyone with half a brain cell realizes they are refuted.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

I mean anyone that reads this thread will come out with the fact that your an idiot...

i havn't come to that conclusion at all. and i think when you find yourself arriving at a place where the only way you can go forward is belittling your opponent, the conversation is pretty much over. maybe, if it's getting you this riled, you should sit it out - since it's clear that you're not going anywhere.

your argument is sound, therefore you dont need to tell those who oppose it without reason that they are stupid or wrong, it will be self evident. and this kind of name-calling is not the sort of environment i signed up for when i joined RF.

 

[Atomist]

i havn't come to that conclusion at all. and i think when you find yourself arriving at a place where the only way you can go forward is belittling your opponent, the conversation is pretty much over. maybe, if it's getting you this riled, you should sit it out - since it's clear that you're not going anywhere.

your argument is sound, therefore you dont need to tell those who oppose it without reason that they are stupid or wrong, it will be self evident. and this kind of name-calling is not the sort of environment i signed up for when i joined RF.

Sorry... but I mean I started the name calling :-( but yeah... he's I'm not calling him an idiot overall, but he's acting like an idiot in this thread.

He keeps using the same refuted arguments for the whole duration of the thread then tells me I'm guilty of the logical fallacies he's guilty of. what am I suppose to do? Keep up with this exercise in circular debates? That's absurd... it's obvious he's not trying to understand my argument... and thinks that his argument refutes mine... so the best I can conclude from that is he's an idiot... atleast with respect to this thread.

Edit: being an idiot is not a bad thing... as long as you attempt to figure out why you're being an idiot. We're all idiots at different things. Like Axis is being an idiot here.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Sorry... but I mean I started the name calling :-( but yeah... he's I'm not calling him an idiot overall, but he's acting like an idiot in this thread.

He keeps using the same refuted arguments for the whole duration of the thread then tells me I'm guilty of the logical fallacies he's guilty of. what am I suppose to do?

my recommendation is to cruise over to one of mickiel's award winning threads and do some light reading. somehow that guy can put all the idiots of the world into perspective for me.
:beach:

 

[AxisMundi]

so the threat of genetic defect is where then?

As noted above, genetic abnormalities and diseases are only PART of the equation.