Well my brother (based on what I usually find attractive) isn't really attractive to me so I daresay I wouldn't even if we weren't related, but it is an assumption I've heard people make about gay brothers before (not just us)

I remember I knew this other guy, he had 2 brothers and all 3 of them were gay, and some people responded to that like "oh that's weird!". It's quite common actually, to have siblings who both are.

(May 22, 2015 at 6:47 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

SteelCurtain Wrote:So if there is an increased likelihood of having handicapped children, it should be outlawed.

Wouldn't a consistent application of that logic also preclude, say, handicapped people from having children, where that handicap is inheritable? Where do you draw the line, in terms of what's an acceptable likelihood of genetic defects?

For me there is a difference between potentially passing on a genetic defect that one or both parents have, and potentially creating one.

If two otherwise healthy adults who are directly related have a significant chance to create a child with mental retardation or other defect, I would say a line could be drawn.

Quote:

Quote:Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it OK for them to make love?

Most people who hear the above story immediately say that it was wrong for the siblings to make love, and they then begin searching for reasons (Haidt, Bjorklund, & Murphy, 2000). They point out the dangers of inbreeding, only to remember that Julie and Mark used two forms of birth control. They argue that Julie and Mark will be hurt, perhaps emotionally, even though the story makes it clear that no harm befell them. Eventually, many people say something like, "I don't know, I can't explain it, I just know it's wrong." But what model of moral judgment allows a person to know that something is wrong without knowing why?

The  Emotional  Dog  and Its  Rational  Tail:
A  Social  Intuitionist  Approach to Moral  Judgment

(May 22, 2015 at 7:00 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(May 22, 2015 at 6:47 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Wouldn't a consistent application of that logic also preclude, say, handicapped people from having children, where that handicap is inheritable? Where do you draw the line, in terms of what's an acceptable likelihood of genetic defects?

For me there is a difference between potentially passing on a genetic defect that one or both parents have, and potentially creating one.

If two otherwise healthy adults who are directly related have a significant chance to create a child with mental retardation or other defect, I would say a line could be drawn.

It doesn't create anything new. It increases the risk of inheriting recessive genes. It will hurt a society if done over generations. The increased risk in a single case of incest isn't nearly as high a risk as 2 people with a hereditary disease having a child.

(May 22, 2015 at 6:22 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: A partial list pf animals that engage in homosexuality:

American Bison - including anal penetration
Elephants - male elephants sometimes form long term homosexual relationships
Penguins - form long term lesbian relationships
Lions
Dolphins
Brown bear
Killer whales
Bonobo chimps


Show him this list and ask him if he still thinks homosexuality is not natural.

Yes, exactly.  I've seen dogs mount and lick each other in ways that, in humans, would count as homosexual.

The idea that homosexuality is not natural is just bullshit.  Many animals engage in homosexual behavior.

I think you have to be incredibly stupid and ignorant to think of homosexuality as a choice.

All the gay people historically who have been demonised by religion, harassed, burned at the stake, had acid thrown in their faces, been experimented on by the Nazis, disowned by their families, committed suicide, the list goes on. Yeah they all "chose" that life. Please. If homosexuality was a choice, who'd choose it?

Quote:Wouldn't a consistent application of that logic also preclude, say, handicapped people from having children, where that handicap is inheritable? Where do you draw the line, in terms of what's an acceptable likelihood of genetic defects?

I agree, just propose eugenics and be done with it

(May 22, 2015 at 6:26 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: So if there is an increased likelihood of having handicapped children, it should be outlawed.

So, anyone knowingly carrying genetics that could produce a handicapped child should be barred from procreating? If not, why not. Other than the ick factor, there really is no difference between brother/sister procreation and procreating when you know there's a likelihood of passing along something like Huntington's disease or Parkinson's disease. In fact, it's more likely for someone with early onset Parkinson's to pass on their genetic defect than it is for brother/sister lovin' to cause any problems in the first generation of offspring. Contrary to popular belief, incest doesn't start producing webbed feet or flippered appendages right away. It takes several successive generations of inbreeding to do that.

---

(May 22, 2015 at 7:00 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: For me there is a difference between potentially passing on a genetic defect that one or both parents have, and potentially creating one.

Have you got some evidence that incest actually creates new genetic defects?

(May 22, 2015 at 6:36 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: It's strange actually, because when I explain to a lot of people that me and my brother are both gay, they seem to jump to the conclusion that it means we've done stuff together (the thought of which actually makes me sick, personally). That's like asking a straight guy if he'd fuck his straight sister, same thing tbh.

...

It is due to the idiocy of bigots who are against homosexuality.

I guess I should state my point more clearly. I am not for outlawing incest, if the choice is freely made amongst consenting adults.

I will retract my statement about inbreeding, as I don't know enough about the genetics to have an informed opinion. I will admit my bias against inbreeding. My emotional reaction is that it should be illegal, but that's all I have. If there is not a real risk of harm to offspring, then really there isn't much of an argument to be made.

It's hard to kick that emotional reaction aside.