[.eXe]

(Original post by Gwilym101)
It's called Inbreeding depression. Any child born from closely related parents is going to be weaker, more prone to disease, increased risk of mutation, less likely to be able to have children themselves and any negative recessive traits, which most people DO have but, are more likely to be transcribed and activated.

That's why conservationists keep massive family trees of endangered species so when they selectively breed individuals in zoos they're not breeding closely related individuals.

It's why dogs such as pugs have massive crippling health problems as there's 10,000 pugs in england but about 50 distinct individuals, all the rest are related to those 50. Or why cheetahs are really vulnerable to disease and have a high proportion of bone deformity.

An organism needs genetic diversity, that is what sexual reproduction is for, incest stunts genetic diversity because the sources of genetic information, the parents DNA are too similar.

I understand all that and I am not denying it. If a family does have a genetic issue within their genetic tree, I know that inbreeding can result in negative consequences for their potential offspring.

However, that doesn't mean every single family has a recessive genetic condition to be worried about. The other person is making broad and general statements about inbreeding being immoral because it 100% leads to detriment in health and that's the point I am arguing because inbreeding doesn't always lead to mutations and deformities and all that.

[Coke1]

(Original post by .eXe)
I understand all that and I am not denying it. If a family does have a genetic issue within their genetic tree, I know that inbreeding can result in negative consequences for their potential offspring.

However, that doesn't mean every single family has a recessive genetic condition to be worried about. The other person is making broad and general statements about inbreeding being immoral because it 100% leads to detriment in health and that's the point I am arguing because inbreeding doesn't always lead to mutations and deformities and all that.

In most cases it does though.
Homosexuality in itself does not have health risks. Yes there is a greater risk of STDs but that all just depends on if the person engages in risky behaviour.

In terms of numbers MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WITH HIV ARE HETEROSEXUALS. Many people forget that.

[Spaz Man]

(Original post by glelin96)
When did he say he doesn't regard it as immoral? He said that the act of incest causes deformed children, that is immoral.

So morality does come into the decision making of "discrimination" against sexual preferences?

[glelin96]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
So morality does come into the decision making of "discrimination" against sexual preferences?

Sorry but aren't you the one arguing that homosexuality is immoral? Quite unsure of your point.

[Spaz Man]

(Original post by glelin96)
Sorry but aren't you the one arguing that homosexuality is immoral? Quite unsure of your point.

I'm arguing about how can Liberalism discriminate against different sexualities after celebrating homosexuality no matter how taboo they seem. In a response, you clearly said that immorality was part of that reasoning and so in that sense I'm wondering how Liberalism's opinion on these different matters can be seen as coherent or reliable.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Coke1)
In most cases it does though.
Homosexuality in itself does not have health risks. Yes there is a greater risk of STDs but that all just depends on if the person engages in risky behaviour.

In terms of numbers MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WITH HIV ARE HETEROSEXUALS. Many people forget that.

This is the worst usage of data I have ever seen.

You don't just look at the "numbers" of people with HIV. Obviously heterosexuals will have a higher number because there are MORE HETEROSEXUALS THAN HOMOSEXUALS IN THE WORLD!

You have to look at proportions.

Meaning: in a test sample of 100 homo- versus 100 hetero-sexuals, who has a greater likelihood of getting HIV.

i think you will find that all scientific literature unanimously agrees that homosexuals have greater instances and likelihoods of HIV.

You are 100% wrong.

[glelin96]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
I'm arguing about how can Liberalism discriminate against different sexualities after celebrating homosexuality no matter how taboo they seem. In a response, you clearly said that immorality was part of that reasoning and so in that sense I'm wondering how Liberalism's opinion on these different matters can be seen as coherent or reliable.

I must admit, this argument is getting rather tedious now.

Homosexuality causes no harm to anyone, provided that both parties give consent.

People that commit incest, are happy to be doing so but are doubling the chance that their offspring will have a birth defect. If they use contraception, condoms have a 10% failure rate. This means that even if they use contraception, the chances are 10% the Female party will become pregnant, and the chances of that offspring having a birth defect is double that of an offspring of a non-incestuous relationship.

[.eXe]

(Original post by glelin96)
I must admit, this argument is getting rather tedious now.

Homosexuality causes no harm to anyone, provided that both parties give consent.

People that commit incest, are happy to be doing so but are doubling the chance that their offspring will have a birth defect. If they use contraception, condoms have a 10% failure rate. This means that even if they use contraception, the chances are 10% the Female party will become pregnant, and the chances of that offspring having a birth defect is double that of an offspring of a non-incestuous relationship.

Where did you get this "double" statistic?

[glelin96]

(Original post by .eXe)
His definition of immorality is quite flawed so it is useless arguing with him tbh.

How so? Immorality is "The quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct." How is homosexuality against the standards of right or good conduct? Performing in an incestuous relationship is one that doubles the chance of an offspring being born with a birth defect, I would say that is against the standards of right or good conduct.

[.eXe]

(Original post by glelin96)
How so? Immorality is "The quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct." How is homosexuality against the standards of right or good conduct? Performing in an incestuous relationship is one that doubles the chance of an offspring being born with a birth defect, I would say that is against the standards of right or good conduct.

Um I haven't argued about homosexuality with you so I don't know why you are bringing that up. I do believe that incest is immoral, but not for the reasons you stated.

You are giving clinical reasons for incest to be immoral (because it leads to doubled changes of deformity, etc).

My reason for saying that incest is immoral is different. We are merely arguing reasons here. I do think incest is immoral but I don't see homosexuality as immoral.

[glelin96]

(Original post by .eXe)
Where did you get this "double" statistic?

From a book that my Father happens to own. I happened to also do a search on a well known search engine that provided me with a site that is saying about how inbreeding isn't as bad as people think it is. In first cousin relationships, the chance of an offspring having a birth defect is doubled.

[glelin96]

(Original post by .eXe)
Um I haven't argued about homosexuality with you so I don't know why you are bringing that up. I do believe that incest is immoral, but not for the reasons you stated.

You are giving clinical reasons for incest to be immoral (because it leads to doubled changes of deformity, etc).

My reason for saying that incest is immoral is different. We are merely arguing reasons here. I do think incest is immoral but I don't see homosexuality as immoral.

Sorry, I assumed you were a troop in the army of the good lord, taking in the opinions of others as being right, just because they believe it.

Ok, I understand I have given one reason, how about the fact that most incestuous relationships are not consensual?

[.eXe]

(Original post by glelin96)
Sorry, I assumed you were a troop in the army of the good lord, taking in the opinions of others as being right, just because they believe it.

Ok, I understand I have given one reason, how about the fact that most incestuous relationships are not consensual?

Um that is not a fact in any way.

If you want to make points, that's fine but you really discredit your arguments when you say stuff like this.

If it is a fact, please provide a source.

[glelin96]

(Original post by TrolleyHolley)
Stfu and go hump some cars.

Sorry, why should I. I will assume from your comment, you perform incest? I would like to say it is nice to see you're so open about it, but it isn't.

[glelin96]

(Original post by TrolleyHolley)
omg like...

Omg like omg...

Like omg like...

Omg like...

Like...

Like...

Like...

Shut ahp.

Grow up.

[FatCharlie]

(Original post by Hewitt)
Personally I don't think it is. What do you guys think - from a religious perspective?

Mmm, trolls. Tasty.

[glelin96]

(Original post by .eXe)
Um that is not a fact in any way.

If you want to make points, that's fine but you really discredit your arguments when you say stuff like this.

If it is a fact, please provide a source.

Sorry, it didn't I can't find an online source. This book has some particularly interesting arguments though.

[glelin96]

(Original post by TrolleyHolley)
People grow downwards?

Yes! It's called shrinking.

[Coke1]

(Original post by .eXe)
This is the worst usage of data I have ever seen.

You don't just look at the "numbers" of people with HIV. Obviously heterosexuals will have a higher number because there are MORE HETEROSEXUALS THAN HOMOSEXUALS IN THE WORLD!

You have to look at proportions.

Meaning: in a test sample of 100 homo- versus 100 hetero-sexuals, who has a greater likelihood of getting HIV.

i think you will find that all scientific literature unanimously agrees that homosexuals have greater instances and likelihoods of HIV.

You are 100% wrong.

Yes the proportion is higher I know that.
But statistics are very misleading, because to get the accurate picture of the proportion, you need to have an accurate number of the PERCENTAGE of men that engage in homosexual activity.

Anti-gay right wingers will look at the number of HIV cases, and then put a stupid percentage and say something along the line 'only 1-2% of men engage in homosexual activity yet they make up 50% of HIV cases in the UK, the rate being 50 times higher than heterosexuals.

Unbias, accurate studies show that around 7 or 8% of males engage in homosexual activity (not identify as gay) and that would make the rate not quite as high.

Yes, we know the rate is higher, but you can't believe how much higher from bias anti-gay reports.

Black women are 5 times more likely to be HIV positive than white women in big cities. So don't go there.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by glelin96)
Ok, let me reword it for you. Having sex with a person you have not seen their individual blood check to ensure they haven't got the condition. This could be interpreted as you not knowing the person well enough as you should, if this is the case, that is immoral.

AIDS as an individual thing may not be immoral, however, the attaining of the condition is.

Yet again, this is not the case. You've mischaracterized or misunderstand the metaphysics of ethics.

Getting AIDS is not voluntary, such that, I got out and do some action where the result is me getting AIDS such that the actions itself is producing my acquistion of HIV. Rather, it is through some other means, drug use, unprotected sex, coming into contact with infected blood, etc. Which leads to contraction.

If someone has HIV/AIDS and has sex with someone, you could potentially say that their action was immoral (they may have to know they were HIV positive) becuase they allowed for (did not cause) the transmission of infection.

The person who is being infected did not initiate the causal chain which led, ultimately to contraction, and again, their epistemological standards would need to be questioned.

Lastly, HIV is not harmful in and of itself, rather the effects of HIV are harmful as they lead to opporunistic infection. HIV, on its own, causes no harm to the indivdual in question, so HIV itself falls outside the realm of 'harmful consequence of action'.

HIV is not an action, only actions can immoral or moral. Since HIV is not, on its own merits, 'Bad' on what grounds are you claiming that HIV contraction is immoral?

And, of course, if you're rebuttal is something along the lines of "placing oneself at risk for contraction of HIV is immoral because HIV may have or lead to undesriable outcomes" then we can use a simple reductio ad absurdum on this principle. The principle youre relying on is that we should not place ourselves in harm, or potential harm's way. But we use cars (which may result in an accident and badly injure us). By your principle, we would have to claim that anyone involved in a car accident which caused harm to anyone was immoral (I.e. another car hits me and I Am harmed, by the principle youre attempting to put forward, would be immoral).

So no, your argument is easily dismissed with a simple understanding of metaphysics of morality and a simple reductio.