PDA

View Full Version : Defining Deviancy Down in Germany



Odysseus
02-22-2013, 11:40 AM
In several threads, I argued that the redefinition of marriage would result in confusion over its nature, and end up leading to legal sanction of polygamy. I did not argue that it would lead to sanction of incest, but others did. We were derided as delusional paranoid bigots, and our arguments were not addressed on their merits. Now, a story coming out of Germany shows that the fight for gay marriage is leading to an advocacy of adoption rights for polygamous groupings, and the destigmatization of incest.

Any of those who were on the other side of that argument are now free to admit that they were wrong.

February 22, 2013
Defining Deviancy Down in GermanyAndrew E. Harrod

Germany's equivalent of the United States Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, ruled on Tuesday, February 19, 2013 (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-court-strengthens-gay-and-lesbian-adoption-rights-a-884278.html), that homosexuals in civil partnerships have a right to adopt children previously adopted by the other person in the partnership in the same manner as married husbands and wives. Previously homosexuals could only legally adopt a partner's biological child. This additional legal erosion of the distinctions between families resulting from a husband-wife marriage and homosexual living arrangements has all too predictably called forth yet more demands to break down the nuclear family unit.
The German Green Party youth organization (GrüneJugend or GJ) immediately commented upon the court's decision with a press release posted on the organization's website (http://www.gruene-jugend.de/node/17272#gothere). The alternative-leftwing GJ predictably welcomed the court decision with the comment that questions of adoption "should be determined through multiple sensible factors," to which "sexual orientation, however, certainly did not belong." While only secondary adoption was under consideration in the recent court decision, "it clarified nonetheless, that the disadvantaging of non-heterosexual persons will also not be sustainable in pure legal terms."

Yet GJ made clear that its demands went beyond legal equivalence between homosexual with heterosexual couples. The GJ "also demanded the possibility that a child can be adopted from more than two persons. For on the one hand the child profits legally. On the other hand the reality is taken into account that many children are already raised by not merely two persons."

GJ's call for multiple parents for a child would seem to entail ultimately the possibility of these multiple parents to also enter multiparty living arrangements. Thus the conservative German website Politically Incorrect (http://www.pi-news.net/2013/02/grune-fordern-adoptionsrecht-fur-polygamisten/)(PI) noted that GJ was preparing the way for social recognition of polygamy and other multiparty relationships such as polyamory. This development was particularly problematic for Germany with its large Islamic immigrant population originating in a culture still accepting of the ancient institution of polygamy. Once same-sex marriage (SSM) breaks the natural ties among husband, wife, and their children underlying the definition of marriage, there is no logical reason to reject other romantic relationships among adults. This trend already feared by conservative scholars like Robert George (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri)in the United States is coming likewise to fruition in Germany.

If acceptance of polygamy were not radical enough, voices from GJ and the Green Party itself have in the past extended their understanding of the sexual revolution to calls for legalized incest. The Augsburg chapter of GJ (GJA) condemned on its website (http://gjaugsburg.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/liebe-legalisieren-grune-jugend-augsburg-gegen-das-inzestverbot/) on July 12, 2012, a European Court of Human Rights (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17690997)decision of the preceding April 12 upholding a German ban on incest (Section 173 of the German Criminal Code (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html)) as an "extremely negative development." A spokesperson for GJA, Marie Rechthaler, bemoaned that the "state intervened massively into the private life and the right of self-determination of its citizens with the prohibition of incest. In the process the state completely contradicts the scientific facts!" "This prohibition," Rechthaler added, "is based solely upon obsolete societal taboos and is not rationally sustainable."

Another spokesperson for GJA, Katherina Stephan, added that "with this uncourageous decision we are thrown back by years." The abolition of Section 173 was "long overdue." Stephan demanded that "Germany must finally legalize love!"

GJA followed in the path of Green parliamentarian Hans-Christian Ströbele (http://www.bild.de/politik/inland/hans-christian-stroebele/meinen-sie-das-wirklich-ernst-herr-stroebele-23610914.bild.html)on April 13, 2012. The 72-year old Ströbele, a member of Bundestag's legal committee, declared that "two grown persons should be able to decide themselves whether they have sexual intercourse with one another -- provided, they love each other, it occurs voluntarily, and there is no dependency relationship." Ströbele argued that objections to incest due to its hereditary harm for children were not unique, as individuals suffering from hereditary diseases were free to engage in sex outside of incest. Ströbele also noted that cultures such as the Aztecs and ancient Egypt had prescribed incest.

Such is the result of the abandonment of Judeo-Christian, natural law-based norms of human sexuality. Societies such as Germany are risking going back to a future combining the historical novelty of SSM with relapses into sexual and lifestyle practices long considered abandoned in the distant past. The leftist vision of historical Progress thus ends in regression. Lost in this sexual and social anarchy will be the stability of the family unit, the incubator of human life for the next generation and basic building block of a stable society.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/defining_deviancy_down_in_germany.html at February 22, 2013 - 08:19:56 AM CST

Let us remember that the Green Party is a major political player in Germany, and has been part of several governing coalitions. Their influence is substantial and they are using it to further erode marriage.

noonwitch
02-22-2013, 11:58 AM
It's a bad ruling. There are ways to limit the number of legal parents a child has to two, and to require termination of a prior parent's rights to establish a new party as a parent.


As things stand in divorces and remarriages between heterosexual couples at this point in the US, for the new spouse to adopt the child, the rights of one of the legal parents must be terminated by the court or voluntarily released by that parent for the new spouse to adopt the children of that marriage. This could remain the law even if gay marriage were legal and gay married couples were allowed to adopt children.

DumbAss Tanker
02-22-2013, 01:48 PM
Germany is a strange place, many of their laws are unabashedly atavistic in ways that would be immediately attacked here for sexism and inequality (Generally in favor of women, especially mothers, but not exclusively). At the same time they put the most far-flung perversions and family-destroying lifestyles possible on an equal footing with traditional family life. Well, at least they aren't France.

FlaGator
02-22-2013, 02:13 PM
Germany is a strange place, many of their laws are unabashedly atavistic in ways that would be immediately attacked here for sexism and inequality (Generally in favor of women, especially mothers, but not exclusively). At the same time they put the most far-flung perversions and family-destroying lifestyles possible on an equal footing with traditional family life. Well, at least they aren't France.

There are already arguments being made (though on a small scale) here in the U.S. for the acceptance of polygamous and incestual relationships using the acceptance of same-sex marriage as they basis of their argument. Parts of Europe have abolished the penalties for bestiality.

Romania Eyes Legalizing Consensual Incest, Wouldn't Be First Country in Europe (http://http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510016,00.html#ixzz2LeI7HS7y)


Switzerland considers repealing incest laws - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html)

Hawkgirl
02-22-2013, 02:17 PM
And the moral decay of society is well on it's way.

Janice
02-22-2013, 02:18 PM
... Parts of Europe have abolished the penalties for bestiality.



Islamic regimes no doubt lead the parade on this one ... as they will here. (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?54682-Texas-Blasts-%E2%80%98Anti-American%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98Anti-Christian%E2%80%99-Curriculum)

Rockntractor
02-22-2013, 03:28 PM
There are already arguments being made (though on a small scale) here in the U.S. for the acceptance of polygamous and incestual relationships using the acceptance of same-sex marriage as they basis of their argument. Parts of Europe have abolished the penalties for bestiality.



http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/forums/talk_is_sheep_post_zps70c84c44.jpg

Elspeth
02-22-2013, 03:57 PM
All of this leads to the endangerment of children.

There's nothing to prevent adults from having whatever arrangements they want, but once you bring children into the mix, you must have order and safety. These redefinitions of marriage are really only to legitimize adults who make these destructive decisions. Not every form of sexual behavior needs to be legally sanctioned for the care of children.

FlaGator
02-22-2013, 04:15 PM
All of this leads to the endangerment of children.

There's nothing to prevent adults from having whatever arrangements they want, but once you bring children into the mix, you must have order and safety. These redefinitions of marriage are really only to legitimize adults who make these destructive decisions. Not every form of sexual behavior needs to be legally sanctioned for the care of children.

Children have already been dragged in to the fray. When immoral relationships are redefined as normal then the rearing of children that are either a product of the relationship or brought in via adoption will be the next logical step. Billy Bob and his wife-pet sheep Glenda will see nothing wrong with raising one of his cousin's off-spring as their own.

Bailey
02-22-2013, 04:29 PM
I don't know why anyone would be shocked by this ruling the moment you allowed gays to get married and or be out of the closet you end up with stupid shit like this.

JB
02-22-2013, 09:27 PM
Any of those who were on the other side of that argument are now free to admit that they were wrong.ATTN Liberals that were arguing on the other side. Ody is being rhetorical. He doesn't really expect you to come in and post. He wants you to but he knows you won't.

Same as that lack of doctors thread I started. I don't really expect you to go in and argue your point. Liberals post lies, get called on it, are shown the truth and then are never heard from again until it's time to tell another lie in another thread.

It's so tedious and predictable. Just like Barry.

Novaheart
02-22-2013, 11:21 PM
In several threads, I argued that the redefinition of marriage would result in confusion over its nature, and end up leading to legal sanction of polygamy. I did not argue that it would lead to sanction of incest, but others did. We were derided as delusional paranoid bigots, and our arguments were not addressed on their merits. Now, a story coming out of Germany shows that the fight for gay marriage is leading to an advocacy of adoption rights for polygamous groupings, and the destigmatization of incest.

Any of those who were on the other side of that argument are now free to admit that they were wrong.


They have Mormons in Germany?

Novaheart
02-22-2013, 11:33 PM
There are already arguments being made (though on a small scale) here in the U.S. for the acceptance of polygamous and incestual relationships using the acceptance of same-sex marriage as they basis of their argument. Parts of Europe have abolished the penalties for bestiality.

Romania Eyes Legalizing Consensual Incest, Wouldn't Be First Country in Europe (http://http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510016,00.html#ixzz2LeI7HS7y)


Switzerland considers repealing incest laws - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html)



It's interesting that when gay rights groups invoke Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage) they are told that the one has nothing to do with the other. But when some fringe group is attributed to have used gay rights as a supportive principle then the relationship is unquestioned.

The issue of legal incest and how it is defined has been in play for 2000 years. Egyptians married siblings and Romans didn't. By the 14th century the Pope (back when anyone cared) decreed that incest was marriage within the sixth degree. IN some states first cousin marriage is legal but double first cousin marriage is illegal. IN Utah first cousins can marry, but only if the female is past child bearing years.

I wonder how the offspring of serial single mothers know they aren't marrying a sibling. I have to wonder if it matters given the random rutting of those who went west in the 19th century.

Rockntractor
02-22-2013, 11:40 PM
They have Mormons in Germany?

In 1996 President Gordon B. Hinckley held a regional conference in Berlin as part of a five- nation European tour. At the beginning of the year 2000 Germany had 36,303 members living in 14 stakes and 188 wards and branches.

http://globalmormonism.byu.edu/?page_id=53

Odysseus
02-23-2013, 05:29 PM
It's interesting that when gay rights groups invoke Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage) they are told that the one has nothing to do with the other. But when some fringe group is attributed to have used gay rights as a supportive principle then the relationship is unquestioned.

As pointed out, the Greens are not a fringe group, they are one of the largest political parties in Germany, and have affiliates throughout the world. Second, The state of Virginia's arguments in Loving vs. VA were based on discredited theories of biological racial differences. When you have discredited the theories that there are significant biological differences between men and women, or that incestuous couplings produce all manner of genetic abnormalities, we will be more than happy to give those arguments a fair hearing.


The issue of legal incest and how it is defined has been in play for 2000 years. Egyptians married siblings and Romans didn't. By the 14th century the Pope (back when anyone cared) decreed that incest was marriage within the sixth degree. IN some states first cousin marriage is legal but double first cousin marriage is illegal. IN Utah first cousins can marry, but only if the female is past child bearing years.

I wonder how the offspring of serial single mothers know they aren't marrying a sibling. I have to wonder if it matters given the random rutting of those who went west in the 19th century.

So, you're okay with incest? Seriously?


They have Mormons in Germany?

They may, but it isn't Mormons who are lobbying for polygamous relationships, it's Muslims and leftists.

Rockntractor
02-23-2013, 05:42 PM
They may, but it isn't Mormons who are lobbying for polygamous relationships, it's Muslims and leftists.

It is easy to see how suicide bombing could be an option for a Muslim with multiple wives.

I have been alone all day with one.

NJCardFan
02-24-2013, 12:45 AM
So, you're okay with incest? Seriously?





Well, he is the one who says there is no difference between adults and children biologically hence what NAMBLA wants is normal so this really isn't much of a stretch.

Novaheart
02-24-2013, 01:38 AM
So, you're okay with incest? Seriously?

Merely pointing out that it has been legal at one time for siblings (and other close relations) to marry, and illegal at other times for fifth cousins to wed. By traditional definitions, you and I by virtue of living in Virginia and Florida are 'okay with incest'. My great great grandfather's first wife died in childbirth and he then married her sister. That's incest in Scotland.

Of course none of this has anything to do with gay people getting married, but that apparently doesn't matter.

Novaheart
02-24-2013, 01:40 AM
Well, he is the one who says there is no difference between adults and children biologically hence what NAMBLA wants is normal so this really isn't much of a stretch.

You're a liar. But that's ok. If Rock has his way you'll get stripped of your benefits and retirement and have your wages cut to $8/hr.

Odysseus
02-24-2013, 02:11 AM
Merely pointing out that it has been legal at one time for siblings (and other close relations) to marry, and illegal at other times for fifth cousins to wed. By traditional definitions, you and I by virtue of living in Virginia and Florida are 'okay with incest'. My great great grandfather's first wife died in childbirth and he then married her sister. That's incest in Scotland.

Of course none of this has anything to do with gay people getting married, but that apparently doesn't matter.

Nice straw men. First, pointing out that incest has been legal for siblings in some cultures in this context implies acceptance of the practice. Notice that you have not stated that you oppose it. Second, the issue, as I keep telling you, is that when you radically redefine marriage based on the whims of the moment, you open the floodgates to all manner of new definitions of "marriage", from gay marriage to polygamy to incest. If two men can marry, and adopt, or two women, why not a man and two women? Or three? Or four? Why not have communal adoptions? After all, the Mansons called themselves a family, too. You keep moving the goalposts to where you want them, but you aren't the only one who wants to move them, and the others have no compunctions about knocking them down entirely.

DumbAss Tanker
02-24-2013, 11:11 AM
There are already arguments being made (though on a small scale) here in the U.S. for the acceptance of polygamous and incestual relationships using the acceptance of same-sex marriage as they basis of their argument. Parts of Europe have abolished the penalties for bestiality.

Romania Eyes Legalizing Consensual Incest, Wouldn't Be First Country in Europe (http://http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510016,00.html#ixzz2LeI7HS7y)


Switzerland considers repealing incest laws - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html)



Little-known legal factoid, but when it's between consenting adults and does not involve minors, it actually isn't illegal in all of the US states.

Novaheart
02-24-2013, 01:24 PM
Nice straw men.

Thank you, unfortunately that's your way of saying "Don't confuse me with the facts."




First, pointing out that incest has been legal for siblings in some cultures in this context implies acceptance of the practice. Notice that you have not stated that you oppose it. .

You have neither defined incest nor stated that you opposed it. All you have done is pat yourself on the back in the false belief that same sex marriage is the foundation for polygamy and now apparently incest.

Define incest, it would be a good place to start.

Novaheart
02-24-2013, 01:35 PM
If two men can marry, and adopt, or two women, why not a man and two women? Or three? Or four? Why not have communal adoptions? After all, the Mansons called themselves a family, too. You keep moving the goalposts to where you want them, but you aren't the only one who wants to move them, and the others have no compunctions about knocking them down entirely.

Why is it that you claim to trust the free market with the health of the nation but even with a track record of practicality limiting the number of nontraditional relationships you still want to control it with the force of government.

As I understand it, there are siblings who have married in the US. They go live someplace anonymous like California and hold forth to the community as married and no one ever questions it because they are heterosexuals. Of course, given the gay male community's habit of cloning, very few people would even wonder if two almost identical men in a relationship were siblings, they would simply assume they were narcissists. In any event, my opinion of this handful of people is irrelevant. That doesn't mean that I don't think it's icky. It's the ick factor, and not the law, which prevents more of this.

As for polygamy, I simply don't care. Polygamy is a traditional form of marriage from Mesopotamia to China to the New World. The fact that the Europeans didn't openly practice it or practice it the same way that the Hebrews practiced it isn't really convincing as the engine of our success as a culture.

In fact, if polygamy were to take root in America and Europe right now, we might be able stem the tide of third world invaders.

ABC
02-24-2013, 02:04 PM
Define incest, it would be a good place to start.

Nova ...

I know this question was not meant for me, but just had to butt in here.

Incest to me means having sex or an unusual attraction to a member of your own blood in your immediate family.

I say that, which actually makes me recoil in horror ... because I think in some states long ago, or even still now ... allow you to marry first cousins or even (Mercy, if so inclined) to marry your own *grandfather, grand-daughter* or whatever!

NJCardFan
02-24-2013, 02:31 PM
You're a liar. But that's ok. If Rock has his way you'll get stripped of your benefits and retirement and have your wages cut to $8/hr.

So you didn't say that there is no difference between adults and children biologically? I bet there are several here that can dispute that.

Is that old thread still here somewhere?

Odysseus
02-24-2013, 03:54 PM
Thank you, unfortunately that's your way of saying "Don't confuse me with the facts."

No, it's pointing out that when you can't win on the facts, you try to change the argument.


You have neither defined incest nor stated that you opposed it. All you have done is pat yourself on the back in the false belief that same sex marriage is the foundation for polygamy and now apparently incest.

Define incest, it would be a good place to start.
For the purpose of this discussion, incest will refer to marriage or sexual behavior between persons who share grandparents, i.e., first cousins or closer. And if incest isn't a problem, why should abortion law require an exemption?

Why is it that you claim to trust the free market with the health of the nation but even with a track record of practicality limiting the number of nontraditional relationships you still want to control it with the force of government.
A political party using the courts to strike down laws that have majority support is not a function of free markets, but the opposite, coercive government overriding the free decisions made by the people. It is you who is demanding government manipulation of marriage laws in order to impose gay norms on the majority.

As I understand it, there are siblings who have married in the US. They go live someplace anonymous like California and hold forth to the community as married and no one ever questions it because they are heterosexuals. Of course, given the gay male community's habit of cloning, very few people would even wonder if two almost identical men in a relationship were siblings, they would simply assume they were narcissists. In any event, my opinion of this handful of people is irrelevant. That doesn't mean that I don't think it's icky. It's the ick factor, and not the law, which prevents more of this.
If it were the "ick" factor alone, that would make this a subjective matter, but you ignore the medical problems associated with inbreeding, and which have formed the basis for anti-incest laws in western culture. Laws against incest are based upon sound medical reasons.


As for polygamy, I simply don't care. Polygamy is a traditional form of marriage from Mesopotamia to China to the New World. The fact that the Europeans didn't openly practice it or practice it the same way that the Hebrews practiced it isn't really convincing as the engine of our success as a culture.
So, when you argued that gay marriage would not lead to polygamy, and that those who arguedthat it would were paranoid, because there were compelling reasons againstit, you were just blowing smoke in order to make the next incremental advance of your agenda? Nice to see that your honesty was feigned. However, let's revisit those arguments. Polygamy would have horrific consequences for our culture. The surplus males who have no marital prospects become fodder for high risk acts. Polygamous cultures are far more violent for that reason. And the effect on women, who become commodities, destroys their chances for advancement. The effect on children raised communally is equally negative, as the increase in non-parental adults decreases security (physically, emotionally and financially).


In fact, if polygamy were to take root in America and Europe right now, we might be able stem the tide of third world invaders.

If polygamy were to take root in the west, we wouldn't have to stem the tide of third world invaders. We'd be third worlders ourselves.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Novaheart
02-24-2013, 08:56 PM
So you didn't say that there is no difference between adults and children biologically? I bet there are several here that can dispute that.

Is that old thread still here somewhere?

I know exactly what I said without looking because I habitually tell the truth. I explained the meaning of the statement to you twice and that is sufficient. Obviously doing it again will not remedy anything, because you are either incapable of understanding a scientific statement or you are a liar because you think it's damning to me. I am give to believe the latter.

Novaheart
02-24-2013, 09:30 PM
For the purpose of this discussion, incest will refer to marriage or sexual behavior between persons who share grandparents, i.e., first cousins or closer. And if incest isn't a problem, why should abortion law require an exemption?

I've always understood the incest exception in abortion to be designed around father on daughter incest which is presumably rape as well. As for first cousin marriages, you're stepping on quite a few toes of the mainstream descendants of American colonial culture as well as ethnic-Europeans.




A political party using the courts to strike down laws that have majority support is not a function of free markets, but the opposite, coercive government overriding the free decisions made by the people. It is you who is demanding government manipulation of marriage laws in order to impose gay norms on the majority.


JUstice rarely emerges from consensus in a mob. It was not a popular vote which ended legal discrimination against blacks and jews, it was coercive government.





If it were the "ick" factor alone, that would make this a subjective matter, but you ignore the medical problems associated with inbreeding, and which have formed the basis for anti-incest laws in western culture. Laws against incest are based upon sound medical reasons.

I have never seen anything which supports what you are saying here. Everything I have read says that a rudimentary understanding of genetics by late 19th Century scientists was crafted to a support a changing attitude towards cousin marriage.


√In Paris in 1876 a 31-year-old banker named Albert took an 18-year-old named Bettina as his wife. Both were Rothschilds, and they were cousins. According to conventional notions about inbreeding, their marriage ought to have been a prescription for infertility and enfeeblement.
In fact, Albert and Bettina went on to produce seven children, and six of them lived to be adults. Moreover, for generations the Rothschildfamily had been inbreeding almost as intensively as European royalty, without apparent ill effect. Despite his own limited gene pool, Albert, for instance, was an outdoorsman and the seventh person ever to climb the Matterhorn. The American du Ponts practiced the same strategy of cousin marriage for a century. Charles Darwin, the grandchild of first cousins, married a first cousin. So did Albert Einstein.
In our lore, cousin marriages are unnatural, the province of hillbillies and swamp rats, not Rothschilds and Darwins. In the United States they are deemed such a threat to mental health that 31 states have outlawed first-cousin marriages. This phobia is distinctly American, a heritage of early evolutionists with misguided notions about the upward march of human societies. Their fear was that cousin marriages would cause us to breed our way back to frontier savagery—or worse. "You can't marry your first cousin," a character declares in the 1982 play Brighton Beach Memoirs. "You get babies with nine heads."
So when a team of scientists led by Robin L. Bennett, a genetic counselor at the University of Washington and the president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, announced that cousin marriages are not significantly riskier than any other marriage, it made the front page of The New York Times. The study, published in the Journal of Genetic Counseling last year, determined that children of first cousins face about a 2 to 3 percent higher risk of birth defects than the population at large. To put it another way, first-cousin marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of abnormality that a woman undertakes when she gives birth at 41 rather than at 30. Banning cousin marriages makes about as much sense, critics argue, as trying to ban childbearing by older women.
But the nature of cousin marriage is far more surprising than recent publicity has suggested. A closer look reveals that moderate inbreeding has always been the rule, not the exception, for humans. Inbreeding is also commonplace in the natural world, and contrary to our expectations, some biologists argue that this can be a very good thing. It depends in part on the degree of inbreeding.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss#.USqvrY45cUU

NJCardFan
02-24-2013, 09:53 PM
I know exactly what I said without looking because I habitually tell the truth. I explained the meaning of the statement to you twice and that is sufficient. Obviously doing it again will not remedy anything, because you are either incapable of understanding a scientific statement or you are a liar because you think it's damning to me. I am give to believe the latter.

Doing it again wouldn't remedy anything because it's ridiculous.

noonwitch
02-25-2013, 12:36 PM
I've always understood the incest exception in abortion to be designed around father on daughter incest which is presumably rape as well. As for first cousin marriages, you're stepping on quite a few toes of the mainstream descendants of American colonial culture as well as ethnic-Europeans.





JUstice rarely emerges from consensus in a mob. It was not a popular vote which ended legal discrimination against blacks and jews, it was coercive government.




I have never seen anything which supports what you are saying here. Everything I have read says that a rudimentary understanding of genetics by late 19th Century scientists was crafted to a support a changing attitude towards cousin marriage.


√In Paris in 1876 a 31-year-old banker named Albert took an 18-year-old named Bettina as his wife. Both were Rothschilds, and they were cousins. According to conventional notions about inbreeding, their marriage ought to have been a prescription for infertility and enfeeblement.
In fact, Albert and Bettina went on to produce seven children, and six of them lived to be adults. Moreover, for generations the Rothschildfamily had been inbreeding almost as intensively as European royalty, without apparent ill effect. Despite his own limited gene pool, Albert, for instance, was an outdoorsman and the seventh person ever to climb the Matterhorn. The American du Ponts practiced the same strategy of cousin marriage for a century. Charles Darwin, the grandchild of first cousins, married a first cousin. So did Albert Einstein.
In our lore, cousin marriages are unnatural, the province of hillbillies and swamp rats, not Rothschilds and Darwins. In the United States they are deemed such a threat to mental health that 31 states have outlawed first-cousin marriages. This phobia is distinctly American, a heritage of early evolutionists with misguided notions about the upward march of human societies. Their fear was that cousin marriages would cause us to breed our way back to frontier savagery—or worse. "You can't marry your first cousin," a character declares in the 1982 play Brighton Beach Memoirs. "You get babies with nine heads."
So when a team of scientists led by Robin L. Bennett, a genetic counselor at the University of Washington and the president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, announced that cousin marriages are not significantly riskier than any other marriage, it made the front page of The New York Times. The study, published in the Journal of Genetic Counseling last year, determined that children of first cousins face about a 2 to 3 percent higher risk of birth defects than the population at large. To put it another way, first-cousin marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of abnormality that a woman undertakes when she gives birth at 41 rather than at 30. Banning cousin marriages makes about as much sense, critics argue, as trying to ban childbearing by older women.
But the nature of cousin marriage is far more surprising than recent publicity has suggested. A closer look reveals that moderate inbreeding has always been the rule, not the exception, for humans. Inbreeding is also commonplace in the natural world, and contrary to our expectations, some biologists argue that this can be a very good thing. It depends in part on the degree of inbreeding.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss#.USqvrY45cUU


So they found a family that practices cousin incest and doesn't have birth defects. I can point to one large family that married their cousins and do have congenital deformities-European royal families. There are the Hapsburgs, with their missing chins, and the hemophilia that has resulted from the British royal family marrying their cousins in Germany and Russia, among a few examples.

txradioguy
02-25-2013, 02:51 PM
I don't know why anyone would be shocked by this ruling the moment you allowed gays to get married and or be out of the closet you end up with stupid shit like this.

QFT

txradioguy
02-25-2013, 02:53 PM
I know exactly what I said without looking because I habitually tell the truth.

That right there is a lie in itself.

I'm sure that if you know what you said...you'll have no problem finding and linking to the exact quote right?

FlaGator
02-25-2013, 04:17 PM
It's interesting that when gay rights groups invoke Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage) they are told that the one has nothing to do with the other. But when some fringe group is attributed to have used gay rights as a supportive principle then the relationship is unquestioned.

The issue of legal incest and how it is defined has been in play for 2000 years. Egyptians married siblings and Romans didn't. By the 14th century the Pope (back when anyone cared) decreed that incest was marriage within the sixth degree. IN some states first cousin marriage is legal but double first cousin marriage is illegal. IN Utah first cousins can marry, but only if the female is past child bearing years.

I wonder how the offspring of serial single mothers know they aren't marrying a sibling. I have to wonder if it matters given the random rutting of those who went west in the 19th century.

The issue of legal slavery and how it is defined has been in play since recorded history started. What does the legality of something that have to do wit its moral acceptability?

The issue at hand here is not so much the acceptability of incest and bestiality but the fact that they are mile markers on the slippery slope that was predicted at the begining of the debate on same sex marriage. The fact that these groups (and others) are now making their case for inclusion in the accepted behavior club confirms that validity of the slippery slope argument. They are clinging to the coat tails of the same sex marriage movement by using the same arguments.

Odysseus
02-26-2013, 12:56 PM
I've always understood the incest exception in abortion to be designed around father on daughter incest which is presumably rape as well. As for first cousin marriages, you're stepping on quite a few toes of the mainstream descendants of American colonial culture as well as ethnic-Europeans.

Yes, and you and I both know the reputations of those descenda


JUstice rarely emerges from consensus in a mob. It was not a popular vote which ended legal discrimination against blacks and jews, it was coercive government.

Justice rarely emerges from coercive government, which instituted the rules in the first place. And, once again, this isn't about discrimination. Gays are legally entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex, which is the definition of marriage. There is no legal hurdle against that. What gays are demanding is that we redefine marriage to suit their immediate gratification. This is the exact opposite of what blacks and Jews asked for in anti-discrimination law, namely that the rules be the same for everyone. Jackie Robinson didn't demand that the major leagues redefine the rules of the game to benefit him, he just asked that the rules be applied to him equally. Jesse Owens didn't demand a different clock at the 1936 Olympics, he just wanted to be allowed to run on the same track. Gays are not demanding the right to marry, they are demanding that marriage be changed to suit them.


I have never seen anything which supports what you are saying here. Everything I have read says that a rudimentary understanding of genetics by late 19th Century scientists was crafted to a support a changing attitude towards cousin marriage.


√In Paris in 1876 a 31-year-old banker named Albert took an 18-year-old named Bettina as his wife. Both were Rothschilds, and they were cousins. According to conventional notions about inbreeding, their marriage ought to have been a prescription for infertility and enfeeblement.
In fact, Albert and Bettina went on to produce seven children, and six of them lived to be adults. Moreover, for generations the Rothschildfamily had been inbreeding almost as intensively as European royalty, without apparent ill effect. Despite his own limited gene pool, Albert, for instance, was an outdoorsman and the seventh person ever to climb the Matterhorn. The American du Ponts practiced the same strategy of cousin marriage for a century. Charles Darwin, the grandchild of first cousins, married a first cousin. So did Albert Einstein.
In our lore, cousin marriages are unnatural, the province of hillbillies and swamp rats, not Rothschilds and Darwins. In the United States they are deemed such a threat to mental health that 31 states have outlawed first-cousin marriages. This phobia is distinctly American, a heritage of early evolutionists with misguided notions about the upward march of human societies. Their fear was that cousin marriages would cause us to breed our way back to frontier savagery—or worse. "You can't marry your first cousin," a character declares in the 1982 play Brighton Beach Memoirs. "You get babies with nine heads."
So when a team of scientists led by Robin L. Bennett, a genetic counselor at the University of Washington and the president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, announced that cousin marriages are not significantly riskier than any other marriage, it made the front page of The New York Times. The study, published in the Journal of Genetic Counseling last year, determined that children of first cousins face about a 2 to 3 percent higher risk of birth defects than the population at large. To put it another way, first-cousin marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of abnormality that a woman undertakes when she gives birth at 41 rather than at 30. Banning cousin marriages makes about as much sense, critics argue, as trying to ban childbearing by older women.
But the nature of cousin marriage is far more surprising than recent publicity has suggested. A closer look reveals that moderate inbreeding has always been the rule, not the exception, for humans. Inbreeding is also commonplace in the natural world, and contrary to our expectations, some biologists argue that this can be a very good thing. It depends in part on the degree of inbreeding.
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss#.USqvrY45cUU

That's one article, citing an outlier. The facts are otherwise:


http://www.consang.net/images/d/dd/01AHBWeb3.pdf
Consanguinity, morbidity, and mortality
The detrimental health effects associated with consanguinity are caused by the expression of rare, recessive genes inherited from a common ancestor(s). In populations where inbred unions are common, increased levels of morbidity and mortality caused by the action of detrimental recessive genes can be predicted. Generally, inbreeding is associated with loss of biological fitness. It is however appropriate to note that, even in the absence of preferential consanguinity, alleles which are rare in large populations can rapidly increase to high frequency in a breeding pool of restricted size, because of factors such as founder effect and random genetic drift.

Empirical studies on the progeny of first cousins indicate morbidity levels to be some 1% to 4% higher than in the offspring of unrelated couples (reviewed in Bittles and Makov 1988). The less common a disorder, the greater the influence of consanguinity on its prevalence, a generalization that applies to recessive multigene disorders as well as to single gene conditions. For this reason, many previously unrecognized genetic diseases have first been diagnosed in highly endogamous communities, and in a significant proportion of cases the underlying mutation may be unique to the community. At a practical level, this community-specific pattern of disease leads to major problems when attempting to estimate
the burden imposed by consanguinity-associated morbidity at national or even at regional and local levels.

In a study based on combined data from 38 populations in eastern and southern Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and South America, with average coefficient of inbreeding (α) values ranging from 0.0005 to 0.0370, mean excess mortality at the first cousin level was 4.4% (Bittles and Neel 1994). This estimate appears to be valid for all of the large human populations so far examined. However, consanguinity interacts with a range of sociodemographic variables in determining rates of mortality during infancy and early childhood. When these influences were simultaneously analyzed using data collected retrospectively as part of the 1990/91 Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey, the major determinants of early death were maternal illiteracy, maternal age at birth of less than 20 years, and a birth interval of less than 18 months. But, even after controlling for these factors, first cousin progeny had statistically significant odds ratios for neonatal, postneonatal, and infant mortality of 1.36, 1.28, and 1.32, respectively (Grant and Bittles 1997).

And, while the Rothchilds may have escaped the consequences of inbreeding (according to that one article), other European dynasts were not so lucky:


The Role of Inbreeding in the Extinction of a European Royal Dynasty
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005174
Abstract
The kings of the Spanish Habsburg dynasty (1516–1700) frequently married close relatives in such a way that uncle-niece, first cousins and other consanguineous unions were prevalent in that dynasty. In the historical literature, it has been suggested that inbreeding was a major cause responsible for the extinction of the dynasty when the king Charles II, physically and mentally disabled, died in 1700 and no children were born from his two marriages, but this hypothesis has not been examined from a genetic perspective. In this article, this hypothesis is checked by computing the inbreeding coefficient (F) of the Spanish Habsburg kings from an extended pedigree up to 16 generations in depth and involving more than 3,000 individuals. The inbreeding coefficient of the Spanish Habsburg kings increased strongly along generations from 0.025 for king Philip I, the founder of the dynasty, to 0.254 for Charles II and several members of the dynasty had inbreeding coefficients higher than 0.20. In addition to inbreeding due to unions between close relatives, ancestral inbreeding from multiple remote ancestors makes a substantial contribution to the inbreeding coefficient of most kings. A statistically significant inbreeding depression for survival to 10 years is detected in the progenies of the Spanish Habsburg kings. The results indicate that inbreeding at the level of first cousin (F = 0.0625) exerted an adverse effect on survival of 17.8%±12.3. It is speculated that the simultaneous occurrence in Charles II (F = 0.254) of two different genetic disorders: combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis, determined by recessive alleles at two unlinked loci, could explain most of the complex clinical profile of this king, including his impotence/infertility which in last instance led to the extinction of the dynasty.

In other words, there are numerous medical reasons for the incest taboos and laws.


The issue of legal slavery and how it is defined has been in play since recorded history started. What does the legality of something that have to do wit its moral acceptability?

Nova's argument is that the morality of incest, and therefore its legality, should be based on objective criteria, but when presented with evidence of that criteria, such as higher risks of genetic abnormalities, birth defects and other negative consequences, he attempts to downplay the facts and turn it back into an issue of civil rights.


The issue at hand here is not so much the acceptability of incest and bestiality but the fact that they are mile markers on the slippery slope that was predicted at the begining of the debate on same sex marriage. The fact that these groups (and others) are now making their case for inclusion in the accepted behavior club confirms that validity of the slippery slope argument. They are clinging to the coat tails of the same sex marriage movement by using the same arguments.

Exactly. And that is why Nova has to take two tacks with this, the first being that gay marriage, incest, polygamy and other abnormal (meant in the clinical sense, as in, outside of the norm) relations have nothing to do with each other, and the second being that even though they have nothing to do with each other, they don't hurt anyone, so why should we deny the same recognition that we give to marriage to these relationships? The fact that this is the same argument used to justify gay marriage doesn't register, or if it does, it must be denied, because it undermines the longterm goal of the eradication of stable familial ties which would act as a counter to the institutions that progressives seek to impose upon us. Families have specific functions, usually what we consider traditional roles of father and mother. Progressives, who seek to change our very natures, loathe the traditional sexual roles and functions, and seek to undermine them at every turn. Thus is just more of the same.