West Virginia always gets the bad rap

[Francis]

That only apply towards having a baby...and can you show health problems in all incest babies?

So you are worried Same Sex couples will have a baby.. Someone needs to go back to school..

In Incest were you have a man and woman, don't you agree there is a very great chance they might have a baby ?

Worked for years for royalty...

Than why don't they do it any more ?

and still woks in Arkansas.
Again I am not supporting it..just arguing the point..with the two consenting adults argument.

I can't speak for Arkansas but they have their laws.. If they don't apply them they will suffer the health issues..

This may be of interest....incest is becoming legal in many nations again
Go through the list...looks like about half.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest

So there is a trend...What once was legal became illegal..now becoming legal again...Just like homosexuality.

Perhaps some laws may change but some have adjusted. Be careful at what you read into the law.. In Canada the laws say you would marry a cousin or second cousin but could not if you have a "parent" figure over them.. That would be considered a sexual predator.. So while laws have changed to ensure certain people who have lkarge families who moved apart do not get caught in a "law" that may get them in a 15 year sentence in jail, it doesn't mean cousins are marrying left right and centre either.. Also once you start to vary the blood by changing the bloodlines you change the odds. The mix is no longer direct bloodline is it ?

Incest between family members is simple as to the OP.

Now how does that relate to the original point you were trying to make about Homosexuals ?

 

[Francis]

homosexuality has no possibility to produce said outcomes
Largest risk of HIV transfer rob.

The most frequent mode of transmission of HIV is through sexual contact with an infected person. Worldwide, the majority of cases of transmission occur through heterosexual contacts (i.e. sexual contacts between people of the opposite sex). However, the pattern of transmission varies significantly between countries. In the United States, as of 2009, most sexual transmission occurred in men who have sex with men, with this population accounting for 64% of all new cases.

As regards unprotected heterosexual contacts, estimates of the risk of HIV transmission per sexual act appear to be four to ten times higher in low-income countries than in high-income countries. In low-income countries, the risk of female-to-male transmission is estimated as 0.38% per act, and of male-to-female transmission as 0.30% per act; the equivalent estimates for high-income countries are 0.04% per act for female-to-male transmission, and 0.08% per act for male-to-female transmission. The risk of transmission from anal intercourse is especially high, estimated as 1.4–1.7% per act in heterosexual as well as homosexual contacts. While the risk of transmission from oral sex is relatively low, it is still present. The risk from receiving oral sex has been described as "nearly nil" however a few cases have been reported. The per act risk is estimated at 0–0.04% for receptive oral intercourse.[38] In settings involving commercial sex worldwide, risk of female-to-male transmission has been estimated as 2.4% per act and male-to-female transmission as 0.08% per act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS

 

[Francis]

And again we are only talking about having a baby..why should it be illegal if a baby isnt involved.
Most incest babies are actually healthy...both parents have to carry a common genetic deficiency to pass it to the child.....In other words you can breed out a deficiency...but inbreeding doesn't cause one per say.

Nope, wrong... Causes NDA issues they could not put in words but knew years ago..

Analyzing children's DNA to diagnose developmental disabilities and congenital anomalies can inadvertently reveal that some were conceived through incest, raising ethical, social and legal issues that the institutions and scientists involved must deal with, said US researchers in a report published in The Lancet this week.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/216239.php

 

[robdawg1]

i am with Francis, TM that is an outdated mode of fear tactic that is not true! The chance is that a heterosexual coupling is now much more likely to produce a diagnosis of HIV than a homosexual relationship.

And your argument about mother/daughter and father/son relations are considered psychologically predatory thus illegal.
sister/sister and brother/brother are simply caught up in the umbrella....

 

[The Man]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS

Which proves my point..if men to men are responsible for 64 percent of new cases but make up a rather small part of the population...say 5 percent...then there is a 13x times risk for transfer of hiv by man to man.
Pretty detrimental ...compared to a baby that cant harm anyone.
Again not supporting just arguing from the liberal POV.

 

[robdawg1]

and TM you are not arguin the "liberal pov" you are arguing the same reasons for not legalizing gay marriages that "neo-conservatards" have been arguing for years...."if we let gays get married whats next" type attitude

 

[The Man]

i am with Francis, TM that is an outdated mode of fear tactic that is not true! The chance is that a heterosexual coupling is now much more likely to produce a diagnosis of HIV than a homosexual relationship.

And your argument about mother/daughter and father/son relations are considered psychologically predatory thus illegal.
sister/sister and brother/brother are simply caught up in the umbrella....

The chance is that a heterosexual coupling is now much more likely to produce a diagnosis of HIV than a homosexual

Francis provided a post to show otherwise.

And your argument about mother/daughter and father/son relations are considered psychologically predatory thus illegal.

How so..i am talking about adults here not children rob.
How would adults siblings be predatory?

Again not supporting just arguing from the open POV

 

[The Man]

and TM you are not arguin the "liberal pov" you are arguing the same reasons for not legalizing gay marriages that "neo-conservatards" have been arguing for years...."if we let gays get married whats next" type attitude

No rob I am argueing from a liberal POV {not my own by the way}
So rob what is wrong with say brother and brother both up in thier 30 ..having a relationship?
Legal in very many nations by the way.
Just taboo here rob....you know like homosexuality.
So why should something be illegal just because its taboo.
oh btw...its legal in NJ

 

[Catavenger]

I do think it's a slippery slope (no pun intended) what's next ? Why can't a woman have more than one husband or a man more than one wife? If a man is bisexual and can't decide which he likes better why can't he have both a husband and a wife?

 

[robdawg1]

I do think it's a slippery slope (no pun intended) what's next ? Why can't a woman have more than one husband or a man more than one wife? If a man is bisexual and can't decide which he likes better why can't he have both a husband and a wife?

i'll refer you to my post above

 

[The Man]

I do think it's a slippery slope (no pun intended) what's next ? Why can't a woman have more than one husband or a man more than one wife? If a man is bisexual and can't decide which he likes better why can't he have both a husband and a wife?

Sums it up right there Catavenger

 

[Catavenger]

So you think calling people idiotic names

"neo-conservatards"

changes things? Where doe's society draw the line?

 

[robdawg1]

it isnt a slope

"The issue with polygamy is and always will be an issue of property and taxation, thats why it isn't and won't be legal.
The issue with incest is the inherent capability to produce offspring that will be negatively affected by the union.
Homosexuality has none of those issues, and those that condemn it do so on a moral basis that they are trying to force on others."

 

[Catavenger]

Thanks - Rob that at least is an answer that makes some sense and I appreciate that.

 

[The Man]

Rob

"The issue with polygamy is and always will be an issue of property and taxation, thats why it isn't and won't be legal.

As I said bullshit.
Marriage was created for the reason of keeping the man from leaving and starting other families.
So it goes to stand why we dont allow polygamy...has nothing to do with taxation..

The issue with incest is the inherent capability to produce offspring that will be negatively affected by the union.

A sister cant knock up a sister/sister rob...you are against as it is taboo....not very liberal of you.

Homosexuality has none of those issues, and those that condemn it do so on a moral basis that they are trying to force on others."

But you want to condemn a sister/sister relationship which doesn't have those issues either...not very liberal of you rob

And again I am not supporting either but am only pointing out the hypocrisy involved

 

[robdawg1]

Marriage was created for the reason of keeping the man from leaving and starting other families.
So it goes to stand why we dont allow polygamy...has nothing to do with taxation..

You are very incorrect the institution of marriage in the european sense(as thats what we come from) is a legal document gauranteeing
ther rights to inheritance and property.
In the US we add the expectation of tax benefits from children and mutual property and income that are protected under the monogomous system. i dont know where you got your idea from, as in alot of cultures that aren't euro based polygamy is legal and people often start multiple families.

A sister cant knock up a sister/sister rob...you are against as it is taboo....not very liberal of you.

But you want to condemn a sister relationship which doesn't have those issues either...not very liberal of you rob

And again I am not supporting either but am only pointing out the hypocrisy involved

I have yet to condemn anything, I have yet to say if I think it should be legal or not....i have simply stated it falls under the umbrella with the rest of incest and thats why it isn't legal....keep up TM

 

[Francis]

Which proves my point..if men to men are responsible for 64 percent of new cases but make up a rather small part of the population...say 5 percent...then there is a 13x times risk for transfer of hiv by man to man.
Pretty detrimental ...compared to a baby that cant harm anyone.
Again not supporting just arguing from the liberal POV.

No, you can't only use what you want as information.. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

Yes US Homosexual American men are more subject to Aids but Globally its not the case.

 

[The Man]

You are very incorrect the institution of marriage in the european sense(as thats what we come from) is a legal document gauranteeing
ther rights to inheritance and property.
In the US we add the expectation of tax benefits from children and mutual property and income that are protected under the monogomous system. i dont know where you got your idea from, as in alot of cultures that aren't euro based polygamy is legal and people often start multiple families.





I have yet to condemn anything, I have yet to say if I think it should be legal or not....i have simply stated it falls under the umbrella with the rest of incest and thats why it isn't legal....keep up TM

You are very incorrect the institution of marriage in the european sense(as thats what we come from) is a legal document gauranteeing
ther rights to inheritance and property.

No rob thats the benefits of a widow...you dont marry someone to "get their shit" when they die unless you are a piece of shit.

In the US we add the expectation of tax benefits from children and mutual property and income that are protected under the monogomous system. i dont know where you got your idea from, as in alot of cultures that aren't euro based polygamy is legal and people often start multiple families.

Again..those are benefits of marriage...not motive.

I have yet to condemn anything, I have yet to say if I think it should be legal or not....i have simply stated it falls under the umbrella with the rest of incest and thats why it isn't legal....keep up TM

We know its illegal...just as gay marriage was at one time as well...hardly a basis for your argument.
And again..not that I am in support of incest..but am only presenting the argument with similar basis as same sex marriage.
Both are merely taboo and nothing more.
A sister cant knock up a sister so a risk child is non issue.

 

[robdawg1]

No rob thats the benefits of a widow...you dont marry someone to "get their shit" when they die unless you are a piece of shit..

you said the basis of marriage you didnt say motive....just fyi

We know its illegal...just as gay marriage was at one time as well...hardly a basis for your argument.
And again..not that I am in support of incest..but am only presenting the argument with similar basis as same sex marriage.
Both are merely taboo and nothing more.
A sister cant knock up a sister so a risk child is non issue.

I dont have an argument for or against incest, i am simply stating that it can't be used in comparison for gay marriage...it is a whole different chapter in the book....