It is eugenics. No question about that. If you were to advocate people with genetic disabilities not being allowed to marry because of the "greater good" how long would it be before someone invoked Godwin?
Yuckiness is why brothers and sisters can't marry. You may not like to admit it, but it's the truth.
I have given the reasons why siblings are not able to get married and it was nothing to do with "Yuckiness". The whole concept may be yucky to some but as I said any argument that is based on "yuckiness" can be dismissed with a wave of the hand.
Logic and reason is what is needed. If a law is not based on that then it should be reconsidered, and no regard given to religious or "yucky" arguments.,
Trust the right-wing regressives and right-wing Tories to make more of a fuss about same-sex marriage which consists of two consenting adults than the Jimmy Savile sex abuse :rolleyes:
Makes you wonder doesn`t it sometimes.
I sometimes wonder if the right-wing would have preferred his victims to at least be mostly young boys. They would then be comparing same-sex couples who wish to marry with Jimmy Savile every time they pop on the telly or radio. Peter Hitchens would probably even be writing about it in his column as a reason why David Cameron should drop the plans.
Alas, by raping young girls Sir Jimmy didn't follow their narrative. He was, from their perspective, a useless paedophile :rolleyes:
I have given the reasons why siblings are not able to get married and it was nothing to do with "Yuckiness". The whole concept may be yucky to some but as I said any argument that is based on "yuckiness" can be dismissed with a wave of the hand.
Logic and reason is what is needed. If a law is not based on that then it should be reconsidered, and no regard given to religious or "yucky" arguments.,
So I take it you advocate eugenics in other areas as well, the disabled for example. Or is your brand of eugenics reserved purely for close relatives, regardless of the relative risks for the "greater good". That doesn't sound much like logic and reason to me, it sounds like a nonsense rationalisation no different than the nonsense rationalisations we here from opponents of same sex marraige
So I take it you advocate eugenics in other areas as well, the disabled for example. Or is your brand of eugenics reserved purely for close relatives, regardless of the relative risks for the "greater good". That doesn't sound much like logic and reason to me, it sounds like a nonsense rationalisation no different than the nonsense rationalisations we here from opponents of same sex marraige
Yes, the taboos are a bit more complex than just genetic concerns - bear in mind it's not only people related by blood who are prohibited from marrying e.g. people who are siblings through adoption - and of course couple who can't have (genetic) children (such as same sex couples!) are also prohibited from marrying/civilly partnering.
So I take it you advocate eugenics in other areas as well, the disabled for example. Or is your brand of eugenics reserved purely for close relatives, regardless of the relative risks for the "greater good". That doesn't sound much like logic and reason to me, it sounds like a nonsense rationalisation no different than the nonsense rationalisations we here from opponents of same sex marraige
Where the greater good can be legislated for, then it should be. Subject to debate with people giving logical and reasoned arguments.
The problem is that the opponents of SSM have yet to put forward any logical or reasoned arguments.
Where the greater good can be legislated for, then it should be. Subject to debate with people giving logical and reasoned arguments.
The problem is that the opponents of SSM have yet to put forward any logical or rational arguments.
So, you do advocate the state prohibiting couples with genetic weakenesses from reproducing if that weakness can be shown to be equal or greater than the risk from siiblings reproducing?
It is eugenics. No question about that. If you were to advocate people with genetic disabilities not being allowed to marry because of the "greater good" how long would it be before someone invoked Godwin?
Yuckiness is why brothers and sisters can't marry. You may not like to admit it, but it's the truth.
It's not really disabilities that are the concern, but rather herd immunity to diseases, which is better enforced by wider genetic diversification. Of course, in some cultures, marrying you first cousin isn't seen as "yucky" at all, but there is good scientific evidence to suggest that this does cause immunity problems in such societies.
Not sure why you've compared it to Eugenics, which is the complete opposite of genetic diversification (Eugenics is about identifying the features we see as admirable, and trying to filter out the rest of the spectrum, which is just as bad).
Homosexuals getting married is, of course, not going to cause any such problems, therefore I see no reason to outlaw it.
We must not feed the bigots by allowing them to think homosexuality is a moral or controversial area. It is not more moral or controversial than skin colour.
We must not feed the bigots by allowing them to think homosexuality is a moral or controversial area. It is not more moral or controversial than skin colour.
Well said. I'm fed up of repeating myself.
We either have equality or we don't. It's as simple as that.
So, you do advocate the state prohibiting couples with genetic weakenesses from reproducing if that weakness can be shown to be equal or greater than the risk from siiblings reproducing?
I would say the greater good would not be served by making disabled people to pass genetic tests in order to marry.
We either have equality or we don't. It's as simple as that.
It makes me sick to see the softly spoken apologists, excuse the bigots by "allowing" them to think that equal rights is a "matter of conscience". Call them what they are!
I would say the greater good would not be served by making disabled people to pass genetic tests in order to marry.
Furthermore, genetic disabilities almost never rely on both parents having the same genetic abnormality, so its a moot point. A much better way of reducing genetic abnormalities is to prevent close relatives procreating, which is why we outlaw it.
It's not really disabilities that are the concern, but rather herd immunity to diseases, which is better enforced by wider genetic diversification. Of course, in some cultures, marrying you first cousin isn't seen as "yucky" at all, but there is good scientific evidence to suggest that this does cause immunity problems in such societies.
Not sure why you've compared it to Eugenics, which is the complete opposite of genetic diversification (Eugenics is about identifying the features we see as admirable, and trying to filter out the rest of the spectrum, which is just as bad).
Homosexuals getting married is, of course, not going to cause any such problems, therefore I see no reason to outlaw it.
First, most people who when asked to explain why they oppose clsoe relatives getting married will give the risk of disabilities as the reason, if you are saying that this is not a valid reason, you are supporting my view that this it's a mere rationalisation, rather than a reason.
Eugenics is the deliberate manipulation of reproduction to acheive some form of genetic aim.
In regards to immunity, that doesn't really change the argument. If anyone advocated the state regulating marriage with the aim of maximising herd immunity people would vociferously object.
Furthermore, genetic disabilities almost never rely on both parents having the same genetic abnormality, so its a moot point. A much better way of reducing genetic abnormalities is to prevent close relatives procreating, which is why we outlaw it.
Thanks for the information, all adds to the logic and reason.
Furthermore, genetic disabilities almost never rely on both parents having the same genetic abnormality, so its a moot point. A much better way of reducing genetic abnormalities is to prevent close relatives procreating, which is why we outlaw it.
But you would advocate the banning of procreation amongst those who did share the same abnormality?
Of course you wouldn't, that would be applying the same logic and reason you applied to brothers and sisters, and that just isn't on
Why not just face it, no matter how much we like to pretend our laws, morals, and views are based on reason and logic the truth is the opposite.
You've not read my posts.
Outlawing people with close genetic makeup marrying is done for the same reason that we outlaw Eugenics - both narrow the genetic pool, which we know to be bad for the continuing health of the human race. Outlawing disabled people from marrying or indeed homosexuals from marrying doesn't carry this (or any other) problems. Therefore, logic dictates that it is fine to allow it.
But you would advocate the banning of procreation amongst those who did share the same abnormality?
No. Because as I've said, genetic science doesn't work the way you are thinking. You might as well ban people with recessive abnormalities (which is a large number of people) from marrying at all. The problem is that abnormalities appear anyway in the course of reproduction, so you might as well ban anyone from marrying.
As we don't ban everyone from marrying and procreating, we may as well not bother discriminating against cases where it's not going to make any difference anyway.
First, most people who when asked to explain why they oppose clsoe relatives getting married will give the risk of disabilities as the reason, if you are saying that this is not a valid reason, you are supporting my view that this it's a mere rationalisation, rather than a reason..
The above is only partially true, 'incest' law is also aimed at lowering the risk of abuse of children by other adults within the immediate family but who are not related by blood. In many people's eyes, that would be more important than the genetic risks.
Well put. Marriage,of course, should be between a man and a woman. Simple.
Humans made up "marriage" and humans made up laws. So marriage is not "supposed" to be between a man and a woman at all. It's just what humans decided upon many, many years ago. So why should marriage be between a man and a woman?
If two people love each other and wish to marry, what difference should their gender and sexuality make?
I'm completely against marriage but all for allowing same sex marriages. Equal rights and opportunities for everyone.
Of course you wouldn't, that would be applying the same logic and reason you applied to brothers and sisters, and that just isn't on
Why not just face it, no matter how much we like to pretend our laws, morals, and views are based on reason and logic the truth is the opposite.
The two groups are entirely different. A "for the greater good" may apply to one and not the other.
Our laws may not be based on logic and reason, but that's for historical reasons. When considering legislation we should dismiss all arguments based on religion and yukiness with a wave of the hand.
Religion has played a part in the formation of our laws, but as we are now above that sort of thing.
In recent years we have had a good old mucking out of laws based on religious arguments. Divorce, blasphemy. sexuality. So we are getting there (it may take some time before we get rid, but rest assured we are getting rid).
No. Because as I've said, genetic science doesn't work the way you are thinking. You might as well ban people with recessive abnormalities (which is a large number of people) from marrying at all. The problem is that abnormalities appear anyway in the course of reproduction, so you might as well ban anyone from marrying.
As we don't ban everyone from marrying and procreating, we may as well not bother discriminating against cases where it's not going to make any difference anyway.
The fact that we shouldn't discriminate in cases where it doesn't make a difference doesn't mean we shouldn't in cases where it does. In certain cases we can identify a clear risk, just as great as with close relatives, so why ban one and not the other? There's no logic and reason behind it
The above is only partially true, 'incest' law is also aimed at lowering the risk of abuse of children by other adults within the immediate family but who are not related by blood. In many people's eyes, that would be more important than the genetic risks.
Which doesn't explain why an adult brother can't marry an adult sister.
The two groups are entirely different. A "for the greater good" may apply to one and not the other.
Our laws may not be based on logic and reason, but that's for historical reasons. When considering legislation we should dismiss all arguments based on religion and yukiness with a wave of the hand.
Religion has played a part in the formation of our laws, but as we are now above that sort of thing.
In recent years we have had a good old mucking out of laws based on religious arguments. Divorce, blasphemy. sexuality. So we are getting there (it may take some time before we get rid, but rest assured we are getting rid).
Yet you haven't provided one good reason why the "for the greater good" should apply to one and not the other. You've just said it doesn't. That doesn't sound much like logic and reason to me
Comments
I have given the reasons why siblings are not able to get married and it was nothing to do with "Yuckiness". The whole concept may be yucky to some but as I said any argument that is based on "yuckiness" can be dismissed with a wave of the hand.
Logic and reason is what is needed. If a law is not based on that then it should be reconsidered, and no regard given to religious or "yucky" arguments.,
Indeed. Nice observation
Alas, by raping young girls Sir Jimmy didn't follow their narrative. He was, from their perspective, a useless paedophile :rolleyes:
Adding this comment to the thread title made me chuckle
So I take it you advocate eugenics in other areas as well, the disabled for example. Or is your brand of eugenics reserved purely for close relatives, regardless of the relative risks for the "greater good". That doesn't sound much like logic and reason to me, it sounds like a nonsense rationalisation no different than the nonsense rationalisations we here from opponents of same sex marraige
Yes, the taboos are a bit more complex than just genetic concerns - bear in mind it's not only people related by blood who are prohibited from marrying e.g. people who are siblings through adoption - and of course couple who can't have (genetic) children (such as same sex couples!) are also prohibited from marrying/civilly partnering.
The problem is that the opponents of SSM have yet to put forward any logical or reasoned arguments.
So, you do advocate the state prohibiting couples with genetic weakenesses from reproducing if that weakness can be shown to be equal or greater than the risk from siiblings reproducing?
It's not really disabilities that are the concern, but rather herd immunity to diseases, which is better enforced by wider genetic diversification. Of course, in some cultures, marrying you first cousin isn't seen as "yucky" at all, but there is good scientific evidence to suggest that this does cause immunity problems in such societies.
Not sure why you've compared it to Eugenics, which is the complete opposite of genetic diversification (Eugenics is about identifying the features we see as admirable, and trying to filter out the rest of the spectrum, which is just as bad).
Homosexuals getting married is, of course, not going to cause any such problems, therefore I see no reason to outlaw it.
Well said. I'm fed up of repeating myself.
We either have equality or we don't. It's as simple as that.
I would say the greater good would not be served by making disabled people to pass genetic tests in order to marry.
Furthermore, genetic disabilities almost never rely on both parents having the same genetic abnormality, so its a moot point. A much better way of reducing genetic abnormalities is to prevent close relatives procreating, which is why we outlaw it.
First, most people who when asked to explain why they oppose clsoe relatives getting married will give the risk of disabilities as the reason, if you are saying that this is not a valid reason, you are supporting my view that this it's a mere rationalisation, rather than a reason.
Eugenics is the deliberate manipulation of reproduction to acheive some form of genetic aim.
In regards to immunity, that doesn't really change the argument. If anyone advocated the state regulating marriage with the aim of maximising herd immunity people would vociferously object.
.
.
Of course you wouldn't, that would be applying the same logic and reason you applied to brothers and sisters, and that just isn't on
Why not just face it, no matter how much we like to pretend our laws, morals, and views are based on reason and logic the truth is the opposite.
But you would advocate the banning of procreation amongst those who did share the same abnormality?
You've not read my posts.
Outlawing people with close genetic makeup marrying is done for the same reason that we outlaw Eugenics - both narrow the genetic pool, which we know to be bad for the continuing health of the human race. Outlawing disabled people from marrying or indeed homosexuals from marrying doesn't carry this (or any other) problems. Therefore, logic dictates that it is fine to allow it.
No. Because as I've said, genetic science doesn't work the way you are thinking. You might as well ban people with recessive abnormalities (which is a large number of people) from marrying at all. The problem is that abnormalities appear anyway in the course of reproduction, so you might as well ban anyone from marrying.
As we don't ban everyone from marrying and procreating, we may as well not bother discriminating against cases where it's not going to make any difference anyway.
Humans made up "marriage" and humans made up laws. So marriage is not "supposed" to be between a man and a woman at all. It's just what humans decided upon many, many years ago. So why should marriage be between a man and a woman?
If two people love each other and wish to marry, what difference should their gender and sexuality make?
I'm completely against marriage but all for allowing same sex marriages. Equal rights and opportunities for everyone.
The two groups are entirely different. A "for the greater good" may apply to one and not the other.
Our laws may not be based on logic and reason, but that's for historical reasons. When considering legislation we should dismiss all arguments based on religion and yukiness with a wave of the hand.
Religion has played a part in the formation of our laws, but as we are now above that sort of thing.
In recent years we have had a good old mucking out of laws based on religious arguments. Divorce, blasphemy. sexuality. So we are getting there (it may take some time before we get rid, but rest assured we are getting rid).
The fact that we shouldn't discriminate in cases where it doesn't make a difference doesn't mean we shouldn't in cases where it does. In certain cases we can identify a clear risk, just as great as with close relatives, so why ban one and not the other? There's no logic and reason behind it
Which doesn't explain why an adult brother can't marry an adult sister.
Yet you haven't provided one good reason why the "for the greater good" should apply to one and not the other. You've just said it doesn't. That doesn't sound much like logic and reason to me