Poll of the Day > Is there any form of marriage you oppose?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
Unbridled9 09/28/17 12:00:04 AM #51:	adjl posted... fuzi11 posted... incestuous - nope. birth defects and what not. I'm playing the nature card now. Nature truly does not intend to create inbreeds. I'm inclined to disregard the nature angle against incest because there are just so many ways to work around it now. Genetic testing can confirm just what the risks are far better than any guess based on consanguinity estimates can, and even when the risks are confirmed to be high, marriage doesn't have to involve biological children anyway (either not having kids, surrogacy, or adoption). Yeah, nature doesn't like inbreeding, which is why most people have the Westermarck effect, but in cases where that's deficient, there doesn't have to be any actual harm. Just a couple extra hoops to jump through. That, and making it illegal on the basis of the child's genetic health is logically the same as restricting people with confirmed genetic disorders from reproducing, which is pretty shaky territory. There are certainly arguments to be made in favour of such restrictions, so that approach isn't completely invalid, but that is something you need to consider before taking this approach, if you want to be logically consistent. Also, let's be honest, it isn't too far a leap to go from 'preventing genetic defects' to 'gay is a genetic defect' or 'black is a genetic defect'. I'm not saying that they're in the same league but, well, that it's a complicated subject. Basically, the odds that a child gets two matching recessive genes is only like 25% or so for a 'close' pairing (like father/daughter) assuming it's the first instance. It grows drastically as it happens more but, assuming it's the first time, odds are your kid will be normal and healthy. Even getting two recessive genes isn't 'bad'. It's only once those things start piling up that it falls apart. --- I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:887424856] in Is there a... [t:75816433]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>fuzi11 posted...</cite> <quote>incestuous - nope. birth defects and what not. I'm playing the nature card now. Nature truly does not intend to create inbreeds.</quote> I'm inclined to disregard the nature angle against incest because there are just so many ways to work around it now. Genetic testing can confirm just what the risks are far better than any guess based on consanguinity estimates can, and even when the risks are confirmed to be high, marriage doesn't have to involve biological children anyway (either not having kids, surrogacy, or adoption). Yeah, nature doesn't like inbreeding, which is why most people have the Westermarck effect, but in cases where that's deficient, there doesn't have to be any actual harm. Just a couple extra hoops to jump through. That, and making it illegal on the basis of the child's genetic health is logically the same as restricting people with confirmed genetic disorders from reproducing, which is pretty shaky territory. There are certainly arguments to be made in favour of such restrictions, so that approach isn't completely invalid, but that is something you need to consider before taking this approach, if you want to be logically consistent.</quote> Also, let's be honest, it isn't too far a leap to go from 'preventing genetic defects' to 'gay is a genetic defect' or 'black is a genetic defect'. I'm not saying that they're in the same league but, well, that it's a complicated subject. Basically, the odds that a child gets two matching recessive genes is only like 25% or so for a 'close' pairing (like father/daughter) assuming it's the first instance. It grows drastically as it happens more but, assuming it's the first time, odds are your kid will be normal and healthy. Even getting two recessive genes isn't 'bad'. It's only once those things start piling up that it falls apart.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
fishy071 09/28/17 1:08:40 AM #52:	I oppose incestuous marriages, polyamourous marriages, marriages between a human and animal, and marriage of anyone under 18. --- "You don't need a reason to help people." (Zidane Tribal of FFIX) <cite>fishy071 posted [p:887427698] in Is there a... [t:75816433]...</cite> <quote>I oppose incestuous marriages, polyamourous marriages, marriages between a human and animal, and marriage of anyone under 18.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 09/28/17 1:09:46 AM #53:	fishy071 posted... I oppose incestuous marriages, polyamourous marriages, marriages between a human and animal, and marriage of anyone under 18. assuming nothing is forced and everyone involved is happy with the arrangement, why would you oppose it? --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:887427748] in Is there a... [t:75816433]...</cite> <quote><cite>fishy071 posted...</cite> <quote>I oppose incestuous marriages, polyamourous marriages, marriages between a human and animal, and marriage of anyone under 18.</quote> assuming nothing is forced and everyone involved is happy with the arrangement, why would you oppose it?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wwinterj25 09/28/17 1:11:44 AM #54:	green dragon posted... adjl posted... Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno. Exactly this for me --- One who knows nothing can understand nothing. http://psnprofiles.com/wwinterj - http://i.imgur.com/kDysIcd.gif <cite>wwinterj25 posted [p:887427822] in Is there a... [t:75816433]...</cite> <quote><cite>green dragon posted...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.</quote> Exactly this for me</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Alexandra_Trent 09/28/17 1:41:13 AM #55:	wwinterj25 posted... green dragon posted... adjl posted... Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno. Exactly this for me --- "Ladies don't start fights, but they can finish them." -Marie, Aristocats <cite>Alexandra_Trent posted [p:887428898] in Is there a... [t:75816433]...</cite> <quote><cite>wwinterj25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>green dragon posted...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.</quote> Exactly this for me</quote></quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kungfu Kenobi 09/28/17 4:19:45 AM #56:	All marriage should be replaced with civil unions, and civil unions of three or more people should be legal. --- This album is not available to the public. Even if it were, you wouldn't wanna listen to it! <cite>Kungfu Kenobi posted [p:887433543] in Is there a... [t:75816433]...</cite> <quote>All marriage should be replaced with civil unions, and civil unions of three or more people should be legal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JosefuJustice11 09/28/17 5:14:54 AM #57:	adjl posted... Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno. --- I felt like I was watching a dream I'd never wake up from... Before I knew it, the dream was all over. <cite>JosefuJustice11 posted [p:887434729] in Is there a... [t:75816433]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 09/28/17 9:16:14 AM #58:	Unbridled9 posted... Also, let's be honest, it isn't too far a leap to go from 'preventing genetic defects' to 'gay is a genetic defect' or 'black is a genetic defect'. Exactly. Forbidding incestuous unions because of the genetic risks is a very agreeable form of eugenics, but it is still eugenics. The slippery slope argument has no particular conclusive merit on its own, but I do think there's value in stepping back and realizing the slope you're on, making sure that there is something prevent you from slipping further. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:887440671] in Is there a... [t:75816433]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>Also, let's be honest, it isn't too far a leap to go from 'preventing genetic defects' to 'gay is a genetic defect' or 'black is a genetic defect'.</quote> Exactly. Forbidding incestuous unions because of the genetic risks is a very agreeable form of eugenics, but it is still eugenics. The slippery slope argument has no particular conclusive merit on its own, but I do think there's value in stepping back and realizing the slope you're on, making sure that there is something prevent you from slipping further.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 09/28/17 10:55:35 AM #59:	Unbridled9 posted... Also, let's be honest, it isn't too far a leap to go from 'preventing genetic defects' to 'gay is a genetic defect' or 'black is a genetic defect'. Actually what I'm about to link is far more accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355 <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:887444730] in Is there a... [t:75816433]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>Also, let's be honest, it isn't too far a leap to go from 'preventing genetic defects' to 'gay is a genetic defect' or 'black is a genetic defect'.</quote> Actually what I'm about to link is far more accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 09/29/17 10:57:07 AM #60:	Revelation34 posted... Unbridled9 posted... Also, let's be honest, it isn't too far a leap to go from 'preventing genetic defects' to 'gay is a genetic defect' or 'black is a genetic defect'. Actually what I'm about to link is far more accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Nah, it's not a strawman, it's a slippery slope argument. As I said, slippery slope arguments don't have much merit on their own, since they fallaciously rely on the unfounded assumption that the slope is in fact slippery, but they are still worth bringing up for the sake of discussing how slippery the slope is, and what's done to prevent us from sliding further down it. As it stands, I don't actually see any basis for distinguishing incestuous unions for genetics' sake, but not unions of people with confirmed genetic disorders, and I find it a bit concerning that the line is being drawn on such an arbitrary basis, and without any actual explanation. This doesn't mean that there's any chance that a law will be passed tomorrow forbidding black people from reproducing on the basis that incest is illegal, but I would like to see some sort of logic presented on the matter. There's a glaring lack of logical consistency as it stands now, which I'm not a fan of. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:887507300] in Is there a... [t:75816433]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>Also, let's be honest, it isn't too far a leap to go from 'preventing genetic defects' to 'gay is a genetic defect' or 'black is a genetic defect'.</quote> Actually what I'm about to link is far more accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man</quote> Nah, it's not a strawman, it's a slippery slope argument. As I said, slippery slope arguments don't have much merit on their own, since they fallaciously rely on the unfounded assumption that the slope is in fact slippery, but they are still worth bringing up for the sake of discussing how slippery the slope is, and what's done to prevent us from sliding further down it. As it stands, I don't actually see any basis for distinguishing incestuous unions for genetics' sake, but not unions of people with confirmed genetic disorders, and I find it a bit concerning that the line is being drawn on such an arbitrary basis, and without any actual explanation. This doesn't mean that there's any chance that a law will be passed tomorrow forbidding black people from reproducing on the basis that incest is illegal, but I would like to see some sort of logic presented on the matter. There's a glaring lack of logical consistency as it stands now, which I'm not a fan of.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sarcasthma 09/29/17 11:04:52 AM #61:	Revelation34 posted... Unbridled9 posted... Also, let's be honest, it isn't too far a leap to go from 'preventing genetic defects' to 'gay is a genetic defect' or 'black is a genetic defect'. Actually what I'm about to link is far more accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Sorry, but you're not allowed to use Wikipedia to support your argument. Revelation34's orders. --- What's the difference between a pickpocket and a peeping tom? A pickpocket snatches your watch. <cite>Sarcasthma posted [p:887507692] in Is there a... [t:75816433]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>Also, let's be honest, it isn't too far a leap to go from 'preventing genetic defects' to 'gay is a genetic defect' or 'black is a genetic defect'.</quote> Actually what I'm about to link is far more accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man</quote> Sorry, but you're not allowed to use Wikipedia to support your argument. Revelation34's orders.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > Is there any form of marriage you oppose? (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Is there any form of marriage you oppose?