|
|
Post by The_L on Aug 10, 2011 14:04:33 GMT -5
One generation does fuck all. You are clearly not listening. And here's a citation for the claim that a generation of incest is not genetically damaging. What both articles ignore is that first-cousin incest is still very different from sibling-sibling or parent-child incest in terms of the amount of similar or identical genetic material being passed on. I accept that first-cousin incest won't cause problems unless it's repeated for generations, but I'd like to see a citation for cases in teh immediate family, please. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 10, 2011 14:45:11 GMT -5
The article I cited talks about the "inbreeding coefficient" which increases as one's parents become closer in relation to each other. The greater the inbreeding coefficient, the greater the chances that genetic problems will be inherited. The children of parent/offspring and sibling/sibling unions have a much greater inbreeding coefficient than the offspring of first cousin unions (which itself is still also higher than the general population). For more information about the inbreeding coefficient, you can consult these articles: bowlingsite.mcf.com/genetics/inbreeding.htmlcal.vet.upenn.edu/index.php?page=coefficient-of-inbreeding |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 10, 2011 16:09:51 GMT -5
One generation does fuck all. You are clearly not listening. And here's a citation for the claim that a generation of incest is not genetically damaging. What both articles ignore is that first-cousin incest is still very different from sibling-sibling or parent-child incest in terms of the amount of similar or identical genetic material being passed on. I accept that first-cousin incest won't cause problems unless it's repeated for generations, but I'd like to see a citation for cases in teh immediate family, please. My primary source of information is my former genetics professor and it is kind of hard to cite university lectures. A search through the literature finds a lot of information on first cousin incest as well as long term, but not really anything else. I can give you an estimate based on extrapolating the data. Page 9 gives a baseline risk of genetic disorders in the general population of 4.4% and with cousin sex it increases it between 1.7% and 2.8%. The mean is 2.25% If we assume a linear progression an estimate can be made. Coefficient of relationship provides the x-axis. This gives us a y-intercept of 4.4 with a slope of 0.18 (I am expressing the coefficient as a percent). For parent-child or sibling-sibling incest the coefficient is 50%. I'm sure you can solve .18(50)+4.4, but I will do it anyway. This grants us a risk of 13.4% which is 9% greater than the baseline risk. For comparison, the risk of a 49 year old woman having a baby with trisomy 21 is about 10% (link), and since this is but one disorder I have a hard time envisioning the overall risk of a defect being significantly less than the 13.4%. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 10, 2011 16:29:15 GMT -5
I said that if you are so depraved as to have a child with a close relative, you are not a fit parent if there is nothing in your brain stopping you from seeing your own close relatives (your offspring also being a close relative who will someday become an adult) as valid sex partners. Children should not be reared by parents who could potentially see him or her as a valid sex partner once s/he is an adult. You also used as "evidence" your notion that it would be viewed as permissible by raising children in that environment. Don't make me dig through your 500 horribly formatted posts to find that, for the love of Bachmann. Also, I'm not reading the rest of that post. Shorten it. Ask a meaningful question. I have a bad eye and reading long blocks of text gives me a headache. If you're going to deliberately obfuscate your questions, then don't complain when I don't answer them. Your "explanation" was nearly 3 pages (manuscript style) long and I can assure you, from the beginning of your rant, it has nothing to do with me. If you did bury something pertinent to my argument in there somewhere, it is just that: Buried. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 10, 2011 16:34:57 GMT -5
What both articles ignore is that first-cousin incest is still very different from sibling-sibling or parent-child incest in terms of the amount of similar or identical genetic material being passed on. I accept that first-cousin incest won't cause problems unless it's repeated for generations, but I'd like to see a citation for cases in teh immediate family, please. Keep in mind too, that it's not just whether it does fuck all. It's whether the risks are "substantially" higher that in issue here. Nobody's saying there's no risk to first cousin inbreeding. Nobody's saying there's no risk to inbreeding period. I don't think, outside of celeste's strawman, anyone's saying that incest is a good thing. The question is, is it significantly more risky than other factors? The answer is, evidently, no. Which is the "rational basis" for a house of cards, but that's not aimed at you. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 10, 2011 16:50:57 GMT -5
Okay here we go:
1. I firmly believe society has the right to set boundaries as to what is and isn't acceptable behavior. This is accepted in United States law within certain degrees.
2. These boundaries are valid so long as they do not interfere with the Constitution.
3. Incest is commonly held to be unacceptable behavior and is criminalized in certain contexts.
4. These laws do not violate the Constitution because they do not burden a suspect class, therefore they are acceptable boundaries.
And an important caveat: I personally do not approve of laws criminalizing private incest, but these laws are probably still valid. I do very much approve of laws denying marriage licenses to incestuous couples, and these laws are definitely constitutional.
So to simplify my question: What makes a law criminalizing incest, or a law denying legal recognition of incestuous marriages, a boundary that society does not have the right to impose because it violates the Constitution?
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 10, 2011 17:46:05 GMT -5
So to simplify my question: What makes a law criminalizing incest, or a law denying legal recognition of incestuous marriages, a boundary that society does not have the right to impose because it violates the Constitution? Can't answer. I'm not sure I could answer that on any other grounds, though. Further, it seems that you are demonstrating a failure to understand my argument, a willingness to contradict your own, or both. What I find most interesting at this point is you cannot provide a rational (and truthful) affirmative argument for it. You are merely trying to argue a lack of any negative reason to not. So does that mean you've conceded any legitimate grounds for banning it and are now relying on "because we can?" |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 10, 2011 18:04:10 GMT -5
I have provided you with several rational bases for these laws. The fact that you personally do not accept them isn't my concern. In order to show that my argument is untenable, you must demonstrate that either these laws do not advance these bases, or that laws burdening incest practicers demand a higher level of judicial scrutiny, and thus a more rigorous argument on my part. You have done neither.
If you think incest and incestuous marriages should be legal, you are perfectly entitled to that opinion and you have the right to fight to change the law. However, society has the right (at least in the United States) to criminalize this behavior if they so wish. You have shown yourself to be entirely unable to prove that these laws are unconstitutional and therefore outside the powers of society to control.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 10, 2011 18:11:21 GMT -5
I have provided you with several rational bases for these laws. No you haven't. At least, not if you include the word "truthful" in there. I mean, for all your copy-pasting-homophobic-arguments with the serial numbers filed off, you haven't made an argument that is honest and rational. Except that there's no reason not to ban something, which isn't any reason to do it. By that logic, however, I cannot provide a constitutional argument not to outlaw gay sex. Yet you argue "that's different." So all you've demonstrated is you will selectively dismiss based on poor premise. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 10, 2011 18:28:08 GMT -5
But you can totally just declare incest to be icky.
You know what? This is just more proof that you're trolling. You're right, the Constitution doesn't say anything about sexual freedom. GUESS THAT MEANS SEX IS ILLEGAL HUR DUR. Because anything that isn't expressly in the constitution can be made illegal. Computers? Illegal. Cars? Illegal. Water? Illegal.
There is no such thing as implied freedoms.
Your claim is that the US government backs you up, which is a ridiculous claim because no one has challenged this ruling in recent times. This is why you get called illiterate. Because you say one thing, then when someone disputes it, you try to knock down something completely different from what they said.
Well, for starters, here you are being a fucking hypocrite. You've repeatedly belittled people on the basis that they support adults having the right to incest, in contrast to what you get belittled for, which is your arguments generally being shit.
And that's another thing that leads people to suspect you of trolling. There is an obvious fucking difference between your opinion & the arguments you use to support them. In spite of this difference, & distinctions like it being described literally dozens of times to you, you continue to ignore them & spout off this idiotic claim of "Help, I'm being oppressed!"
Which is an obvious red herring.
Then I guess all of your harping about the dangers of successive inbreeding are invalid. Admit one or the other. Stop trying to play both sides of the field.
Here's your traditionalist mindset popping up once again to completely obscure your vision of the facts, as I said it would. Training your kid to be a future sex partner can't be done because of laws against child abuse. No, a person like this shouldn't be a parent, but guess what? Adult Incest Laws have nothing to do with this. A person who wants to have sex with his kid is going to do it regardless.
This is, once again, quite similar to an anti-gay argument, namely that dudesex and pedophelia are both male-on-male, so therefore pedophelia and homosexuality go hand-in-hand. Note that the original thread is about estranged relatives, a wildly different case than from what you're describing. So please stop trying to shoehorn everything as to imply that we're supporting child rape. It's getting rather annoying.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 10, 2011 18:38:40 GMT -5
My rational basis was that these laws preserve the commonly held demarcation between familial and romantic relationships and decrease the frequency of genetic abnormalities by keeping the average inbreeding index low in the population. The burden is on you to prove that either 1. incest laws don't accomplish this. or 2. laws burdening incest practicers demand a higher level of scrutiny.
You can read the decision in Lawrence v. Texas if you want an argument as to why banning gay sex is unconstitutional. And if you want an argument as to why laws burdening gay people merit a higher level of judicial scrutiny, I told you you can read the DOJ's brief in Golinksi v. OPM. It is incredibly well written.
Any power not granted to Congress is granted to the states. So if a state wanted to ban the sale of any of those things within its borders, the states do have full control over intrastate commerce. Of course, the politicians voting in favor of that would probably be voted out very quickly. (Although banning the sale of water would kill people, and the government cannot take away your life without due process of law, so this would be forbidden).
Successive inbreeding compounds genetic abnormalities by increasing the inbreeding index. I never said that a child of incest will be more inclined to participate in incest.
I'm not saying the parents will abuse the child or molest him or her: I'm just asking that is it healthy for a child to be reared by parents who could see him or her as a future potential sex partner?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 10, 2011 18:49:08 GMT -5
Nope. The Constitution only says the government can't kill you. It doesn't say anything about a right to water.
If you want to be obsessively literal to the point of blocking out all reality, well, fuck you, I'll give it right back.
Then your "rational basis" is a non sequitur.
In your fantasy world, where the 2 are not mutually inclusive, yes. You can offer no indication that it will harm the child, and therefore, there is nothing wrong with it, except that you don't like the idea.
In the real world, however, someone who sets out to have sex with his kid from the outset is going to abuse him or her, probably not wait the full 18 years, take no for an answer, or not coerce them into it.
So decide whether you're arguing in Candy Land or on Earth.
Oh, also, you're once again ignoring estranged relatives, & assuming all incest works the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 10, 2011 18:57:47 GMT -5
Then perhaps you can use this argument to defend a state law banning the sale of water. It has no bearing on the constitutionality of a law banning incest or incestuous marriages.
Why is it a non-sequiteur? Engaging in an incestuous relationship is chosen behavior. A child of incest may or may not be conditioned to thinking that incest is acceptable behavior, but regardless, if the child also chooses to engage in incest, then the inbreeding index in the next generation will be compounded.
The mere fact that this is seen as undesirable is sufficient to pass the rational basis test. Again, this test does not require rigorous scientific or academic proof. You will need to prove that people who engage in incest merit a higher level of judicial scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 10, 2011 19:47:32 GMT -5
Just because you can't see when something is parodying your own ridiculous arguments, it doesn't mean it's not relevent.
A better question would be why are you asking? You're not going to accept the answer anyway.
But fine, to explain the obvious YET AGAIN, your "rational basis" for banning incest is that the risk of birth defects increases through generations of practice, which you now admit is NOT A CONSEQUENCE of an incest relationship.
It's like banning water because of water intoxication. Which is to say, stupid.
Yes, yes, we're all familiar with your circular reasoning by now.
I'm sorry, but since you specifically chose the argument which DOES NOT apply to the real world, as opposed to doing the non-retarded thing & trying to refute the one that actually does, you cannot apply law to it, because law exists in the real world.
Here's a tip: Instead of remaining committed to your constant stream of bullshit, take the time to make better arguments, especially when one is freaking PROVIDED FOR YOU.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 10, 2011 19:54:19 GMT -5
If the government does in fact have the power to ban the sale of water, what do you want me to tell you? Don't vote in politicians who will ban water.
I never said this! I said that perhaps a child of incest will not be conditioned to wanting to engage in incest himself. However, if the child does engage in incest, his child will have a greater inbreeding coefficient. It is not impossible for a child of incest to also engage in incest.
This is how United States law works. Unless a law affects a special type of minority, then the courts will be highly deferential to the desires of society as expressed through their democratically elected representatives.
Just answer this one incredibly simple question: Do laws burdening incest practicers demand a higher level of judicial scrutiny than rational basis?
|
|
