Romantically involved adult mother-son couple facing jailtime in NM

[Rex Kwon Do]

I wouldn't hold it against the mods if they deleted this thread and gave us all dubs

Hey

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

So make procreation for incestuous couples illegal? How does that work? Forced sterilization? Forced abortion? Fines/imprisonment if you give birth?

If your only justification for that is a certain probability of birth defects, you're going to have to forcing non-incestuous couples to get genetic testing prior to procreating and if they show themselves to be at a high risk for genetic disorders punish them the same way you punish incestuous couples. You can't treat two groups differently in the 21st century.

You could give the "collective good" of the community argument.

I could certainly see a Bernie Sanders esque utopia similar to the USSR allowing incest because "freedom" but having the state intervene to prevent procreation from incestuous relationships. And the argument as is the case in many socialists places is about the common 'collective good'. Is it good for society and for humans to be born with genetic defects and disabilities, especially if we can prevent that? Also, such disabled people won't make good workers (as Chairman Mao might of put it).

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Hey

 

[Scrody]

I wouldn't hold it against the mods if they deleted this thread and gave us all dubs

I think they should sticky it as a "how to pwn m3trog into Bolivia".

Not suprised you wouldn't want your slappin to be public

 

[M3t4tr0n]

I think they should sticky it as a "how to pwn m3trog into Bolivia".

Not suprised you wouldn't want your slappin to be public

Weak

 

[Scrody]

M3t4tr0ns on life support. I'm diggin this space in his head.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

M3t4tr0ns on life support. I'm diggin this space in his head.

Your posts were full of anger and emotion while mine were full of intellectual dialogue and witty banter. I already have enough voices in my head not enough room for you too, bro. Here's a like for your efforts tho

 

[Scrody]

 

[TemujinKhan]

Disgusting peoples and culture.

 

[LiLoMMA]

There's a picture of them kissing and it is as disgusting as you would imagine.

Instead of sarcasm, give us your real opinion, @Fawlty.

I scrolled up and clicked your gross link and didn't see a picture. I've never blocked anyone ever, but you deserve it for not delivering.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

I scrolled up and clicked your gross link and didn't see a picture. I've never blocked anyone ever, but you deserve it for not delivering.

Tbf I said there's a picture--meaning a picture exists--not that it was specifically in that link.

 

[Space]

Ashkenazi Jews are genetically very insular and they're about as smart as they come.

They have a single-digit rate of first-cousin marriage, though.

On the flip side, take Pakistan, where the rate is about 70%. They don't even publish figures for the rate of first-cousin marriage in the Middle East, which means it's probably just as bad.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

 

[voxom]

just wait until muslims make up the majority of the west. this will be common place



"here in bradford...75% of pakistani marry their first cousins"

"anywhere in 4-10% are born with genetic diseases."


the burden on the national health care systems should be fun to deal with.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I refuse to judge these people, and you all should do the same



















at least until we see pics

 

[Culombo]

dems: everyone should be allowed to be with who they love and be with whoever they want to be with .. that is as long as they're on our list of who they can love and be with

 

[Culombo]

 

[Culombo]

incest mom:I'd give up my other kids for my lover


ok she's taking it too far now ... get a grip lady

 

[Madmick]

What makes you claim that cultural notions, as you put it, can grossly supersede one of the most primal urges among sexually reproducing organisms? That's a pretty astonishing claim, don't you think?

It's a claim I didn't make, but there are a large number of people who don't procreate, by choice, and aren't sexually active. That's a rather astonishing truth you've ignored, isn't it?

Nevertheless, to refocus you in the absence of accurate comprehension, my claim extended to matters of mate selection, not mate deprivation.

To put it in context, when gays were persecuted, did any of that oppression ever turn them into legitimate heterosexuals?

As in, they lost their drive for the same sex? Or was it just the case that they were repressing the urge to satisfy social pressures? Consider that was in many societies that all but condemned them to death if they acted on their sex drive.

In order for your concerns over incest to be realized I don't think you're fully acknowledging the amount of pressure society would have to place on people to get them to go along with incestual mating. The bar is far higher than just allowing it to happen.

Terrible example. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are mutually exclusive concepts of mate selection whereas incest is just a cultural redirection of the same normative heterosexuality, but what's more, yes! Countless homosexuals in past centuries chose to lead heterosexual lives, and the most strictly homosexual of those-- people strictly homosexual on the "spectrum"-- suffered great psychological distress for believing there was something "wrong" with them.

Another reason this example is terrible is that homosexuals cannot reproduce...at all. They can only reproduce if they abandon that form of copulation. Meanwhile, incestuous couples can reproduce, and depending on their closeness it may take generations for genetic defects to manifest themselves. Cousins, for example, may be safe for one generation, but if you inbreed cousins repeatedly over time you will witness major genetic weaknesses. Culture works much faster than biological evolution, here.

This is all before we visit sociocultural arguments (such as I see Brampton forwarding) that this violated the interior space of the nuclear family: those who live among each other. The overwhelming majority of incest cases, in fact, are abuse cases, almost exclusively involving older male family members preying on younger female family members where the latter have no means of escape, and no means of discovery for protection. There is no such violation with homosexuality. Homosexuals will naturally result because humans are able to reproduce at far higher rates than required for special sustenance; in fact, our problem is the opposite-- overpopulation.

This biological argument isn't about the species failing to sustain itself. It's about genetic corruption weakening and worsening our quality of life. Epigenetics is the great elephant in the room, here, and one that the Millenial's children will likely torment them with. That thought brings me comfort.

Underpopulation isn't a concern to our species, so your argument manages to achieve of trifecta of misguided logic, because what you're saying just makes no evolutionary sense as you repeatedly refer to humans in your arguments as if we behaved predictably and uniformly according to instinct like animals. It's the same cancerous thinking that throws off economic models that assume an individual will always make the self-interested choice, and not only that, but that he will make the correct/perfect choice in service of this self-interest. It's beyond repair from the outset. Man demonstrates free will in spite of his nature.

 

[BJ@LW&WW]

So make procreation for incestuous couples illegal? How does that work? Forced sterilization? Forced abortion? Fines/imprisonment if you give birth?

If your only justification for that is a certain probability of birth defects, you're going to have to forcing non-incestuous couples to get genetic testing prior to procreating and if they show themselves to be at a high risk for genetic disorders punish them the same way you punish incestuous couples. You can't treat two groups differently in the 21st century.

Yes, forced abortion/imprisonment.

no you wont have to force non-incestuous people to get genetic testing to justify this..

you can absolutely treat two groups of people differently.