[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Scientist

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Another theory is that the observance of the taboo would lower the incidence of congenital birth defects caused by inbreeding. Anthropologists reject this explanation for two reasons. First, inbreeding does not lead to congenital birth defects per se; it leads to an increase in the frequency of homozygotes. A homozygote encoding a congenital birth defect will produce children with birth defects, but homozygotes that do not encode for congenital birth defects will decrease the number of carriers in a population. If children born with this type of heritable birth defect die (or are killed) before they reproduce, the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population. Second, anthropologists have pointed out that in the Trobriand case a man and the daughter of his father's sister, and a man and the daughter of his mother's sister, are equally distant genetically. Therefore, the prohibition against relations is not based on or motivated by concerns over biological closeness.

This paragraph is deeply flawed (at least taken out of context). It is true that the gene pool would be improved if close relatives mated. What it ignores is...

I dispute even this much. Increasing homozygote number isn't good. The whole advantage of sexual reproduction is that allows for more genetic diversity in individuals without interfering with phenotype. Increase in the number of homozygotes eliminates this advantage.

[Scientist]

I was considering the effects of a generation or two of inbreeding, not a permanent shift to a new system.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

It's just biology telling us it's wrong. It's also manifested in our psyche.

Of course, the same can be said of the average person's aversion to homosexuality.

I'll restate what I posted before, - incest poses various different "problems" to society and human beings beyond the (potential) detrimental effects on the (would be) offspring's genes and health. It is therefor clearly different from homo- or bisexuality.

Different? Sure. No one's been able to explain though how it should logically be different from incest in regards to this debate though. You can debate potential detrimental effects for society in reference to homosexuality using the same logic. The truth is that apparntly are some people who are pro-homosexuality that refuse to maintain a consistent logical mind-frame in regards to sex among consenting partners. I think that they know that if they where consistent it would simply further erode whatever tolerance people have of homosexuality in the mainstream of America. If

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Scientist

I was considering the effects of a generation or two of inbreeding, not a permanent shift to a new system.

But in just a generation or two you wouldn't see the alleged benefit. That's the period in which you'd see the undesirable traits surfacing (only later to be identified and culled into oblivion). It's only after that initial dip that the proposed improvement would arise.

Either way, I can't think of any advantage to genetic homogeneity for its own sake, in the short run or the long run. Diversity is better as a rule (contrary to what is claimed in that wiki piece).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Different? Sure. No one's been able to explain though how it should logically be different from incest in regards to this debate though.

Yes, they have, and I'll reiterate:

It's a matter of degree. Society corrects injustices one at a time, as they are recognized and confronted. Religious and racial persecution were once the standard in Western civilization, and over the centuries they've been overcome (for the most part). Sexual persecution is simply next on the continuum of injustices that have gone unchecked until now.

Incest is not qualitatively more objectionable than homosexuality, but it is quantitatively so because of its causative relationship with birth defects. It doesn't hurt you or anyone else if your neighbors privately pursue a homosexual relationship, but if your neighbors privately pursue an incestuous relationship that leads to the birth of a deformed child, it hurts that child. That is the difference.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

But in just a generation or two you wouldn't see the alleged benefit. That's the period in which you'd see the undesirable traits surfacing (only later to be identified and culled into oblivion). It's only after that initial dip that the proposed improvement would arise.

Either way, I can't think of any advantage to genetic homogeneity for its own sake, in the short run or the long run. Diversity is better as a rule (contrary to what is claimed in that wiki piece).

I agree that there the individual sees no advantage from genetic homogeneity in either the long or short run. What a short period of inbreeding will do is eliminate a few potentially harmful alleles from the gene pool by exposing them to selective pressure. Most of these harmful recessive alleles are so rare that eliminating them won't make a sliver of difference in the short term and likely little difference in the long term as well. What inbreeding does do is dramatically reduce the fitness of the individuals doing it. As you know, this is why many animals and plants have evolved mechanisms to avoid inbreeding.

[Chuckit]

So, basically, inbreeding is good for the gene pool the same way jumping off a cliff is good for the gene pool — it eliminates those predisposed to do it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Incest is not qualitatively more objectionable than homosexuality, but it is quantitatively so because of its causative relationship with birth defects.

It's already been pointed out that it's HIGHLY unlikely that there is any causative relationship with birth defects among first generation interbreeding or among non related step-family members. It's only after successive generations of interbreeding that mutations occur. It's essentially a myth that if a brother and sister have offspring (assuming their parents or prior generations aren't also brother and sister) that there is really any higher probability of birth defects. It's also a myth that all homosexuals have anal sex and limp wrists or that if you are gay it will mean you aren't going to be good at any sports besides figure skating and gymnastics.

NEXT....

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Of course, the same can be said of the average person's aversion to homosexuality.

No, because the "average person" isn't a judeo christian American. There is absolutely NO data which reflects that humans in general have an aversion to homosexuality.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

No one's been able to explain though how it should logically be different from incest in regards to this debate though.

Yes, I have.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

You can debate potential detrimental effects for society in reference to homosexuality using the same logic.

No. If homosexuality isn't a taboo issue, and homosexuals don't have to suffer from discrimination and predjudice there is absolutely ZERO detrimental effect on society (or individuals). Quite the contraray.

Incestious relationships almost always have negative effects on the psyche (or are a result thereof), and in some cases can lead to serious genetical and health related problems.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The truth is that apparntly are some people who are pro-homosexuality that refuse to maintain a consistent logical mind-frame in regards to sex among consenting partners.

No, the premise for the argument is completely flawed, since the only ties between the two are that they have (recently) been looked down upon in some cultures.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I think that they know that if they where consistent it would simply further erode whatever tolerance people have of homosexuality in the mainstream of America.

Who gives a fu<k about mainstream America.

Next...

[qnxde]

What about step-siblings or adopted? (therefore negating the genetic issue) - how does everybody feel about that?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

No, because the "average person" isn't a judeo christian American. There is absolutely NO data which reflects that humans in general have an aversion to homosexuality.

Let's just narrow it down to people in America (and I'd guess worldwide that the average would hold true, as there are some countries more permissive, and some less), to which there is verifiable data which shows that the majority believes that homosexuality is either wrong or immoral regardless as to whether they believe it should be tolerated or not.

It would seem that the "average person", in the majority has an adversion towards homosexuality.

Incestious relationships almost always have negative effects on the psyche (or are a result thereof), and in some cases can lead to serious genetical and health related problems.

A. Your claims regarding genetics have been debunked, UNLESS you're talking about multi-generational interbreeding. I'm talking about an adult brother and sister whose parents aren't related having sex. There is only a minimal additional probability for genetic or health related problems as compared to non-related sex partners. This argument has the same logical basis as opposing homosexuality because you're more likely to get AIDS with from homosexuals than heterosexuals.

B. There's lots of evidence that homosexual also suffer from negative effects on their psyche.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that in order to explain your irrational double standard.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Let's just narrow it down to people in America...

Why? So you feel justified in your views?

Originally Posted by stupendousman

It would seem that the "average person", in the majority has an adversion towards homosexuality.

Not true. If you take the "nurture" part out alltogether (since homophobia is also prevelant in most islamic societies), it becomes even less of an issue.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

...There is only a minimal additional probability for genetic or health related problems as compared to non-related sex partners.

Yes, but it's still there. There are no such issues with homosexuality.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

This argument has the same logical basis as opposing homosexuality because you're more likely to get AIDS with from homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Wrong again. The transmission of the HIV virus has NOTHING to do with homosexuality per-se, while the genetic defects can be directly linked to inbreeding.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

B. There's lots of evidence that homosexual also suffer from negative effects on their psyche.

Again, not directly related to homosexuality, but to the bigotry, unacceptance and discrimination directed towards gays and lesbians.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Try again.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Yes, they have, and I'll reiterate:

It's a matter of degree. Society corrects injustices one at a time, as they are recognized and confronted. Religious and racial persecution were once the standard in Western civilization, and over the centuries they've been overcome (for the most part). Sexual persecution is simply next on the continuum of injustices that have gone unchecked until now.

Incest is not qualitatively more objectionable than homosexuality, but it is quantitatively so because of its causative relationship with birth defects. It doesn't hurt you or anyone else if your neighbors privately pursue a homosexual relationship, but if your neighbors privately pursue an incestuous relationship that leads to the birth of a deformed child, it hurts that child. That is the difference.

and introduces new genetic problems into the general population. That kid with his defects, which could be very minor makes babies, and those defects get passed along, next thing you know a few generations down we have new types of Genetic problems affecting people

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by qnxde

What about step-siblings or adopted? (therefore negating the genetic issue) - how does everybody feel about that?

To understand human nature is to recognize this would be frowned upon by most and perhaps without any substantive reason.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens

and introduces new genetic problems into the general population. That kid with his defects, which could be very minor makes babies, and those defects get passed along, next thing you know a few generations down we have new types of Genetic problems affecting people

This does not introduce new genetic problems to the general population. A. It has already been established that more than one generation of inbreeding is required before problems become evident and B. This is so because my sister and I share the same genetic problems (crudely) which manifest in our offspring to an increasing degree. Not because of any new problems.

[BRussell]

It doesn't take more than one generation of inbreeding if we're talking about genetic diseases. If a brother and sister both have a recessive gene that they inherited from their parents, their offspring could have the disease, like Cystic Fibrosis.

In that respect, genetic diversity is valuable because it increases one's chances of avoiding those situations.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This does not introduce new genetic problems to the general population. A. It has already been established that more than one generation of inbreeding is required before problems become evident and B. This is so because my sister and I share the same genetic problems (crudely) which manifest in our offspring to an increasing degree. Not because of any new problems.

you keep saying this as if you did the study, can you please present some evidence to back up your claim.

[Scientist]

One generation of inbreeding can cause major problems! Numerous studies have shown that the children of first cousins have higher mortality rates than the children of unrelated parents. Here's a study showing the incidence rates of various recessive autosomal genetic disorders in children of first cousins.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Those numbers are MUCH higher than you see in the general population. Cousins share only 1/4 of their genes. Siblings share 1/2! This means that sibling matings are considerably more dangerous than cousin matings. Similar results are seen in tests with laboratory animals. The phenomenon is know as "inbreeding depression" and has been observed in wild populations as well. It is part of the reason that animals with low genetic diversity like Cheetah's are almost certain to go extinct. They lack genetic diversity and are highly inbred. As a result they have all sorts of problems including low fertility.

If inbreeding was OK phenomena such as the Westermarck Effect wouldn't have evolved to prevent it.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Athens

you keep saying this as if you did the study, can you please present some evidence to back up your claim.

If it makes you feel any better, you are both wrong.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

It's already been pointed out that it's HIGHLY unlikely that there is any causative relationship with birth defects among first generation interbreeding or among non related step-family members. It's only after successive generations of interbreeding that mutations occur.

That's probably why I didn't say anything about the innate objection to inbreeding being limited to first generation effects. Just because the birth defects caused by inbreeding don't (usually) show up until later generations doesn't mean they weren't caused by inbreeding.

Furthermore:

Originally Posted by stupendousman

There is only a minimal additional probability for genetic or health related problems as compared to non-related sex partners.

This is exactly what I said above. There is a small but real (quantitative) fundamental risk caused by inbreeding (even talking about the first generation). The small risks associated with homosexuality on the other hand are incidental, not fundamental. Homosexuality doesn't cause AIDS, for example.

Finally, the intolerance of inbreeding is instinctual. Things like AIDS haven't even existed for long enough for there to be instincts about it. I'm not saying that intolerance of inbreeding or incest is valid, only proposing an explanation for the OP's question. After all, it's also instinctual to kill your neighbor when you catch him in bed with your wife, and to make yourself feel more secure in life by persecuting other groups just because they are different from you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Scientist

One generation of inbreeding can cause major problems! Numerous studies have shown that the children of first cousins have higher mortality rates than the children of unrelated parents. Here's a study showing the incidence rates of various recessive autosomal genetic disorders in children of first cousins.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Those numbers are MUCH higher than you see in the general population. Cousins share only 1/4 of their genes. Siblings share 1/2! This means that sibling matings are considerably more dangerous than cousin matings. Similar results are seen in tests with laboratory animals. The phenomenon is know as "inbreeding depression" and has been observed in wild populations as well. It is part of the reason that animals with low genetic diversity like Cheetah's are almost certain to go extinct. They lack genetic diversity and are highly inbred. As a result they have all sorts of problems including low fertility.

If inbreeding was OK phenomena such as the Westermarck Effect wouldn't have evolved to prevent it.

I don't disagree with this, but it was becoming assumed that inbreeding necessarily caused new genetic problems. You're saying it can and I agree. The original rebuttal to the OP was that inbreeding does not contribute to the gene pool. I argued that it can, not that it's optimal. I mean, unless we're talking strictly about champion-breeding under very tightly managed circumstances.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Scientist

One generation of inbreeding can cause major problems! Numerous studies have shown that the children of first cousins have higher mortality rates than the children of unrelated parents.

How do they control for the possibility that first cousins who breed are coming from a subpopulation where breeding between first cousins is more common, therefore the observed effect would be the result of multi-generational inbreeding?

If inbreeding was OK phenomena such as the Westermarck Effect wouldn't have evolved to prevent it.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that evolution is a moral authority. Besides many terrifying implications I won't go into, the logical conclusion of that line of reasoning is that we don't need any laws at all, because the innate behavior provided to us by evolution will prevent us from doing anything wrong.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

How do they control for the possibility that first cousins who breed are coming from a subpopulation where breeding between first cousins is more common, therefore the observed effect would be the result of multi-generational inbreeding?

As I understand it, there have been a number of studies on the subject. I can't claim to be an expert, though.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that evolution is a moral authority. Besides many terrifying implications I won't go into, the logical conclusion of that line of reasoning is that we don't need any laws at all, because the innate behavior provided to us by evolution will prevent us from doing anything wrong.

Oh, I would never use evolution as a moral authority! All I meant is that the observation that we evolved adaptations to prevent inbreeding is evidence in favor of the idea that inbreeding lowers the fitness of the inbreeder. I can see why you thought I was making a moral claim.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Finally, the intolerance of inbreeding is instinctual. Things like AIDS haven't even existed for long enough for there to be instincts about it. I'm not saying that intolerance of inbreeding or incest is valid, only proposing an explanation for the OP's question. After all, it's also instinctual to kill your neighbor when you catch him in bed with your wife, and to make yourself feel more secure in life by persecuting other groups just because they are different from you.

I agree that it is fairly clear that the Westermarck Effect is a result of an instinctual mechanism that prevents us from inbreeding. What isn't so clear to me is how you see this as evidence of an instinctual intolerance towards those who inbreed.

[BRussell]

I haven't seen anyone else say this, but, to me, the key difference between homosexuality and incest is that homosexuality is a relatively stable orientation. I haven't ever seen anyone argue that incest is anything more than a behavior - no one would argue that some people are sexually attracted to relatives as a class of people in the same way that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex.

But that gets me thinking: What homosexuality and incest have in common is that they both involve sexual relations with a similar partner.

It seems that one of the basic motivations in sex is to be attracted to those who are different from ourselves - that's part of what makes sex exciting.

But on the other hand, there's a lot of evidence that people are attracted to others who are similar - same race, same attitudes about things, same social class, etc. Hmm.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I haven't seen anyone else say this, but, to me, the key difference between homosexuality and incest is that homosexuality is a relatively stable orientation. I haven't ever seen anyone argue that incest is anything more than a behavior - no one would argue that some people are sexually attracted to relatives as a class of people in the same way that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex.

Why couldn't they be?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why couldn't they be?

I guess in theory they could be, but does that seem plausible to you?

[Kevin]

Sure.. why not?

How do pedophiles form their attraction to kids?

[BRussell]

I do think that pedophilia is a kind of sexual orientation to children. But that seems quite a bit different than incest. Has anyone ever been known to actually prefer family members over non-family members? Not that I'm aware.

True pedophiles don't usually have relations with adults, they only seek relations with children (e.g. Michael Jackson). Straights are usually only attracted to the opposite sex, gays to the same sex. But I'm not aware of incest ever occurring in that fashion. Usually it's a father or uncle molesting a child, while having other relations with adults. Or it might be a brother-sister thing, but then they go on to have relations with others outside of their family.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Scientist

What isn't so clear to me is how you see this as evidence of an instinctual intolerance towards those who inbreed.

Intolerance towards inbreeding is universal across all cultures, to varying degrees

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Why? So you feel justified in your views?

No. Because I can back up my claims in that regards with qualitative data instead of just an opinion.

Wrong again. The transmission of the HIV virus has NOTHING to do with homosexuality per-se, while the genetic defects can be directly linked to inbreeding.

Not a single instance. I know that there was a cite posted above, but as it was explained it doesn't appear they've accounted for possible multi-generational instances in the sample. I've spoken to more than one geneticist who have told me that the idea that a normal man and women who are brother and sister, having sex and reproducing, having a baby with genetic malformations is mostly a myth. This sort of thing doesn't come into play until you've engaged in multi-generational incest, and only then if there's a specific type of recessive gene.

Of course, two people NOT RELATED who have the gene in question pose the same risk. Yet, even if WE KNOW they have this risk they are still allowed to legally marry and reproduce.

Also, here's the deal.....

The difference in the probability of genetic defects in taking 2 random people and have them reproduce, and 2 people who are related (but whose parents are not related) is LESS than the increased probability produced by taking 2 random people in a randomly picked city in the United States and have one of them have unprotected sex with a someone who is not a homosexual, and the other with one that is and getting HIV. There's simply a greater chance you're going to get HIV having unprotected sex with a homosexual than there is that a brother and sister (assuming their parents aren't related) will end up with a child with birth defects.

Again...the increased statistical probability of brother/sister reproductive genetic malformation is very small...yet the increased statistical probably of getting HIV from an unprotected homosexual is a bit larger.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Getting HIV is a risk you take upon yourself. Conceiving a child with genetic defects is a risk you put on the child. There is a big difference.

As for the rest, probabilities aside, inbreeding causes birth defects. Homosexuality isn't the cause of HIV, they're simply correlated (and decreasingly so as time goes on). It could even be argued that the correlation is the result of the stigma against homosexuality, not by the practice itself.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

and 2 people who are related (but whose parents are not related)

How can 2 people be related but their parents aren't?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

No. Because I can back up my claims in that regards with qualitative data instead of just an opinion.



Not a single instance. I know that there was a cite posted above, but as it was explained it doesn't appear they've accounted for possible multi-generational instances in the sample. I've spoken to more than one geneticist who have told me that the idea that a normal man and women who are brother and sister, having sex and reproducing, having a baby with genetic malformations is mostly a myth. This sort of thing doesn't come into play until you've engaged in multi-generational incest, and only then if there's a specific type of recessive gene.

Of course, two people NOT RELATED who have the gene in question pose the same risk. Yet, even if WE KNOW they have this risk they are still allowed to legally marry and reproduce.

Also, here's the deal.....

The difference in the probability of genetic defects in taking 2 random people and have them reproduce, and 2 people who are related (but whose parents are not related) is LESS than the increased probability produced by taking 2 random people in a randomly picked city in the United States and have one of them have unprotected sex with a someone who is not a homosexual, and the other with one that is and getting HIV. There's simply a greater chance you're going to get HIV having unprotected sex with a homosexual than there is that a brother and sister (assuming their parents aren't related) will end up with a child with birth defects.

Again...the increased statistical probability of brother/sister reproductive genetic malformation is very small...yet the increased statistical probably of getting HIV from an unprotected homosexual is a bit larger.

I think we need a moron award

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

How can 2 people be related but their parents aren't?

Person A meets unrelated person B, they have sex, resulting persons C and D are siblings.

[red rocket]

About that step-incest part that keeps coming up:
I really don't see how anyone could possibly have justifiable objections to biologically unrelated (i.e. pretend) relatives having sexual intercourse with one another.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

How can 2 people be related but their parents aren't?

Actually, I was referring to "blood relatives". Though, a man and a woman who do not marry are not considered "related", yet if they produce a male and female offspring then those children are considered "brother" and "sister" and are related.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens

I think we need a moron award

Are you volunteering to be the first recipient?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Are you volunteering to be the first recipient?

I thought you already did with your silly post, but I would like to be the first to give you it

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Getting HIV is a risk you take upon yourself. Conceiving a child with genetic defects is a risk you put on the child. There is a big difference.

Wow. Getting a deadly communicable disease only effects those with the disease. I'll be sure to tell all the people asking for money, time and effort in AIDS related causes that they've got it all wrong. I'll also be sure to tell all the AIDS babies not to worry about it...it just effected the people who chose to take a chance.

I'll wager that there is a greater chance of people who engage in legal sexual relations with those with high risk factors such as male homosexual intercourse, in having a child with serious health problems than those who would engage in single generational inbreeding.

As for the rest, probabilities aside, inbreeding causes birth defects.

SOME inbreeding CAN result in birth defects, just as some homosexual intercourse can result in an HIV infection. There are other ways to get birth defects and HIV, but of the two senarios mentioned, the latter has the greatest chance of risk when compared to those who choose to engage in single generational inbreeding.

Homosexuality isn't the cause of HIV, they're simply correlated (and decreasingly so as time goes on).

Having sex with you sister isn't cause of birth defects either. Genetics is. You can have sex with your sister and never have a baby with birth defects.

It could even be argued that the correlation is the result of the stigma against homosexuality, not by the practice itself.

Statistically, homosexuals get HIV more than than any other single group as a percentage of their population. That has nothing to do with stigma.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Having sex with you sister isn't cause of birth defects either. Genetics is.

On the same token, homosexuality doesn't have anything to do with contracting the HIV virus, having sex does.

Try again.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Wow. Getting a deadly communicable disease only effects those with the disease. I'll be sure to tell all the people asking for money, time and effort in AIDS related causes that they've got it all wrong. I'll also be sure to tell all the AIDS babies not to worry about it...it just effected the people who chose to take a chance.

Asking for voluntarily charity is not the same as giving a child a higher risk of birth defects. Not even close.

And exactly how many AIDS babies were produced from homosexual pairings?

SOME inbreeding CAN result in birth defects, just as some homosexual intercourse can result in an HIV infection. There are other ways to get birth defects and HIV, but of the two senarios mentioned, the latter has the greatest chance of risk when compared to those who choose to engage in single generational inbreeding.

Results are different from causes. The birth defects that result from inbreeding (whatever rate at which they occur) are caused by the inbreeding itself, by the very nature of inbreeding. The HIV that is contracted as a result of homosexual intercourse is not caused by the nature of homosexuality, as is obvious by the fact that homosexuality has gone on for 10s of thousands of years, and only in the last 40 years or so have homosexuals had a higher incindence of any particular STD.

Having sex with you sister isn't cause of birth defects either. Genetics is. You can have sex with your sister and never have a baby with birth defects.

No. It's the having sex with your sister that's the cause. That's like saying smoking doesn't cause cancer because some people smoke and don't get cancer.

Statistically, homosexuals get HIV more than than any other single group as a percentage of their population. That has nothing to do with stigma.

That statistic may simply be because homosexuals were stigmatized which forced them to practice homosexuality in secret and not get medical advice about safe sex, or in some cases know anything about their partners. Similar to drug users, another group of high HIV rates. Correlation alone does not show causality.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Statistically, homosexuals get HIV more than than any other single group as a percentage of their population. That has nothing to do with stigma.

That's true in the US, but not in other parts of the world such as Africa. It's really more accurate to say that HIV is usually transmitted from men, whoever the recipient is. You're much more like to get HIV from sex with an HIV-positive male than an HIV-positive female, regardless of your gender. The problem is men, or perhaps semen, rather than sexual orientation.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

On the same token, homosexuality doesn't have anything to do with contracting the HIV virus, having sex does.

Try again.

Um..yeah. That was my point. Both claims are based on the same logic. If you accept one, you are inconsistent in refusing the other.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell

That's true in the US, but not in other parts of the world such as Africa.

I don't think so. While a greater number of heterosexuals do get AIDS in Africa as compared to America, I STILL DOUBT the percentage as a sampling of the population as a whole is greater.

For instance...let's say there are 1 million people in Africa. 97% are straight and 3% are gay (I think a reasonable average given the findings of most research). If there were 200,000 people with HIV and 193,999 of them where straight and 6001 of them where gay, there would still be a greater percentage of the population who are gay getting the disease then the straight people, despite the majority of the HIV infected being straight. You'd STILL be more likely to get a HIV from someone who was engaging in homosexual intercourse than heterosexual intercourse. Now..if you can find me a study that shows that a lower percentage of the homosexual population of Africa (as a percentage of their total population) getting AIDS as compared to heterosexuals not engaged in sex with those who have engaged in homosexual intercourse, I'd love to see it.

Otherwise, you're still more likely to get HIV via homosexual intercourse than heterosexual statistically.

It's really more accurate to say that HIV is usually transmitted from men, whoever the recipient is. You're much more like to get HIV from sex with an HIV-positive male than an HIV-positive female, regardless of your gender. The problem is men, or perhaps semen, rather than sexual orientation.

Or possibly anal sex. Why doesn't anyone do an authoritative study on the percentage of people getting HIV who have engaged in anal sex? AIDS amongst lesbians not having relations with bisexuals or IV drug users is quite rare. That might answer why there is such differences in transmission between cultures.

Regardless...male homosexual intercourse STILL statistically has a greater probability of life-or-death health problems than brother/sister intercourse (assuming first generational incest).

You can't really logically argue for bias based on health concerns for one and not the other.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

And exactly how many AIDS babies were produced from homosexual pairings?

I don't have the statistics as to how many AIDS babies ended up that way because one of their parents engaged in homosexual intercourse. I'd suspect quite a few.

The HIV that is contracted as a result of homosexual intercourse is not caused by the nature of homosexuality, as is obvious by the fact that homosexuality has gone on for 10s of thousands of years, and only in the last 40 years or so have homosexuals had a higher incindence of any particular STD.

...and yet NOW, they do. Birth defects happen. They may happen more often with parents who are multi-generational relatives. HIV happens. It does occur statistically more often with homosexuals than heterosexuals. Why isn't the important issue IF the concern is health. Either the attraction in question will lead to an statistical increase in health concerns or not. Both yield such a concern, but homosexual intercourse to a greater extent statisically.

No. It's the having sex with your sister that's the cause. That's like saying smoking doesn't cause cancer because some people smoke and don't get cancer.

..or that having sex with a homosexual doesn't cause HIV, because some people have sex with homosexuals and don't get HIV. The truth is that both actions results in increased health concerns. You can try and have it both ways, but logically that won't wash.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens

I thought you already did with your silly post, but I would like to be the first to give you it

Thanks for adding substantive dialog to the debate. You really burned me with that one!

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Um..yeah. That was my point. Both claims are based on the same logic. If you accept one, you are inconsistent in refusing the other.

Errr...no, actually that was my point since I wasn't the one who was inferring a causal relationship between homosexuality and the transmission of the virus.

So no, both claims aren't based on the same logic, since there is a causal relationship between incestous behaviour and genetic "problems". The probability of this happening has no bearing on the discussion, the "causality" does.

[thunderous_funker]

Well, its time to finally admit it. The fact that a lingering social taboo has no real knockdown scientific rationalization clearly means that we should not only reject he softening of other traditional social taboos, but refrain from ever questioning prevailing mores or behaviors.

This thread has really opened my eyes. I want to thank the OP for sponsering such a life-shattering revelation.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Wow. Getting a deadly communicable disease only effects those with the disease. I'll be sure to tell all the people asking for money, time and effort in AIDS related causes that they've got it all wrong. I'll also be sure to tell all the AIDS babies not to worry about it...it just effected the people who chose to take a chance.

I'll wager that there is a greater chance of people who engage in legal sexual relations with those with high risk factors such as male homosexual intercourse, in having a child with serious health problems than those who would engage in single generational inbreeding.



SOME inbreeding CAN result in birth defects, just as some homosexual intercourse can result in an HIV infection. There are other ways to get birth defects and HIV, but of the two senarios mentioned, the latter has the greatest chance of risk when compared to those who choose to engage in single generational inbreeding.



Having sex with you sister isn't cause of birth defects either. Genetics is. You can have sex with your sister and never have a baby with birth defects.



Statistically, homosexuals get HIV more than than any other single group as a percentage of their population. That has nothing to do with stigma.

Hehe HIV Babies come from Hetro Sexual couples, not gay couples

[Athens]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Thanks for adding substantive dialog to the debate. You really burned me with that one!

your very welcome