Dating your dad.

[Chaochamp]

Wasn't merely pointing at the gene pool, just at the statement that it becomes a public affair once it starts involving tax payers money

And I agree with that. Why should someone who knowingly births a child with a high chance at disability be afforded taxpayer money to take care of that child? Obviously there would need to be some "percentage of disability" threshold established, but I don't agree with the idea that people who knowingly dig themselves into a massive hole should place the burden on everybody else to get them out.

Of course that is completely unfair to the child, so it's hard to work around that idea. The child is not at fault for the decisions of the parent, so the question is truly one that there is no good answer to.

[Tulune]

Creepy and gross. They are both messed up. No one is going to change my mind.

[Vanyali]

Carrying what already is in the gene pool does not equate to making it worse. I find the two questions to be unrelated.

Inbreeding doesn't make it worse.

A lot of people don't understand what inbreeding does.

It does NOT spontaneously mutate, create mutants, or otherwise have batshit insane children.

99% of any animal that's shown, raced, eaten, or otherwise use is inbred, but they're not a bunch of mutants (and father-daughter pairings aren't uncommon in race horses, nor is the result of that pairing being bred back to the father again).

The only thing inbreeding does is concentrate what's already there... so, in other words, exactly the same as the guy you quoted - two people with a recessive gene. Maybe. If both have it, if it gets inherited by the child twice, and most importantly if it's even something harmful.

A child of inbreeding will be no more or less unhealthy than a child of unrelated parents, given similar conditions. Even down the line it won't do much of a problem unless you have some problem already in the line. Even then it can be avoided by bringing in a generation or so of new blood to the group. Shit, you could use inbreeding to create a race of super-humans if you felt like it and had enough people genotyped to start it.

The health issue isn't as solid as people think, but it's more solid to hold onto than "yucky ick".

[Celista]

99% of any animal that's shown, raced, eaten, or otherwise use is inbred.

Can't speak about all animals but I know for a fact that genetic diversity is necessary for quality breeding in dogs. Even for rare breeds where the genetic pool is relatively small, it's not OK to breed your female dog with her father, etc.

I'd be very surprised if that was indeed acceptable for horse or cat breeding, maybe people who buy mice for 5 for a $1 because they're basically snake food are OK with it but not for quality animals.

[Seegtease]

It has no more to do with homosexuality than heterosexuality. The reason that it matters is due to birth defects occurring after generations of inbreeding.

What? Nobody has a problem with straight couples. Gays have been fighting a battle for some time to gain acceptance and get married under the argument that consenting adults should be able to choose who they want to love and marry. The same argument can be applied here. That's the similarities. It follows the exact same primary argument for supporting gay marriage. Why is it our business what other people do privately together?

If breeding is an issue, why not allow gay incest?

[xuros]

I wouldn't want to fuck my mom either, but not everyone is the same, and 2 consenting adults should be able to do as they please.

Social taboo's have no place in law and order, because social taboo's aren't the same everywhere.

If that was say in Alabama the people on this board would be going ape shit on with this. Hypocrites.

[Chaochamp]

What? Nobody has a problem with straight couples. Gays have been fighting a battle for some time to gain acceptance and get married under the argument that consenting adults should be able to choose who they want to love and marry. The same argument can be applied here. That's the similarities. It follows the exact same primary argument for supporting gay marriage. Why is it our business what other people do privately together?

If breeding is an issue, why not allow gay incest?

There are genetic issues behind inbreeding; homosexuals having sex aren't going to damage anything. The argument of equality has already been established by the Supreme Court, it isn't even a question anymore.

As far as gay incest is concerned, it is a grey area. Morally reprehensible, but still no legitimate concern other than the legal benefits afforded by a lawful marriage.

Apples and horribly misshaped oranges.

[Celista]

If that was say in Alabama the people on this board would be going ape shit on with this. Hypocrites.

I think incest is gross no matter the state it happens to be in.

[Deleted]

Nope.

Why not?

but when an individual has the option to outright avoid it by simply procreating with a different person

I didn't know people control their attraction, who they fall in love with and so on.

[Deleted]

There are genetic issues behind inbreeding; homosexuals having sex aren't going to damage anything. The argument of equality has already been established by the Supreme Court, it isn't even a question anymore.

As far as gay incest is concerned, it is a grey area. Morally reprehensible, but still no legitimate concern other than the legal benefits afforded by a lawful marriage.

Apples and horribly misshaped oranges.

you are aware that those same precedents, Lawrence and whatever that made procreation not a valid argument, is just as useful here?

[Vanyali]

Can't speak about all animals but I know for a fact that genetic diversity is necessary for quality breeding in dogs. Even for rare breeds where the genetic pool is relatively small, it's not OK to breed your female dog with her father, etc.

I'd be very surprised if that was indeed acceptable for horse or cat breeding, maybe people who buy mice for 5 for a $1 because they're basically snake food are OK with it but not for quality animals.

It's both necessary and not necessary; you don't go so deeply as father-daughter, then granddaughter-father except in very rare cases for horses (talking horses like Secretariat levels). More often it's father-daughter, then outbred for a generation, then that generation bred back in, and so on. It maintains specific qualities that you want, but keeps the diversity as well.

Also linebreeding, which is close to inbreeding and would apply for people's cousins, tends to be a big thing.

It's all about concentrating the good genes. Genetic diversity is nice, but most breeds can trace their ancestry to a very few number of foundation dogs, or one in specific that's very, very well thought of (or was well thought of) even in dogs.

[Fexus]

It has no more to do with homosexuality than heterosexuality.

But no one argues against heterosexuality. I used homosexuality because it is still a controversial topic in America.

The reason that it matters is due to birth defects occurring after generations of inbreeding.

You're not arguing against incest here. You're simply arguing in favor of state imposed eugenics.

[Seegtease]

As far as gay incest is concerned, it is a grey area. Morally reprehensible, but still no legitimate concern other than the legal benefits afforded by a lawful marriage

If gay incest is morally reprehensible, why isn't gay non-incest? Unless you believe both are, there's no way you can say this is consistent.