Fucking stupid people shouldn't be in Parliament

[thushan]

That's an interesting and absolutely valid take on that point enwiabe. However, I'd like to raise the suggestion of incestuous relationships between brothers and sisters, where there would not be such a power imbalance?

I'd say an older brother is in a position of power. And like I said, it's murky. I don't doubt that some could be occurring abuse-free, but it's just impossible to legislate for it and it's better to protect the vulnerable in this instance.

Point taken.

[ninwa]

Well, my reason for being anti-incest is because of the whole having kids issue - that their chances of having a genetic disease is X times higher than non-incest. Something like that, I did it last semester in Molecular Biology/Genetics but I honestly don't remember the exact facts.

So are you also against two people with genetic diseases getting married? If not, why not?

But kids aside - there might be those who abuse the system. As a crude example, person A wants to benefit from family welfare (which pays two INDIVIDUALS differently to a COUPLE - couple gets more) but he can't exactly "fake" a marraige with an outsider because if they divorce, he would have to deal with issues such as splitting their assets. So person A decides to marry his sister, B, instead, so they both can benefit from the family welfare payment system and they both trust eachother enough that when they "divorce" they won't run into issues.

You realise this already happens? University students have resorted to this to get more Centrelink benefits.

[Thu Thu Train]

But kids aside - there might be those who abuse the system. As a crude example, person A wants to benefit from family welfare (which pays two INDIVIDUALS differently to a COUPLE - couple gets more) but he can't exactly "fake" a marraige with an outsider because if they divorce, he would have to deal with issues such as splitting their assets. So person A decides to marry his sister, B, instead, so they both can benefit from the family welfare payment system and they both trust eachother enough that when they "divorce" they won't run into issues.

You realise this already happens? University students have resorted to this to get more Centrelink benefits.

I predict a new series of "Underbelly"....

[paulsterio]

So are you also against two people with genetic diseases getting married? If not, why not?

No, I'm not, because by Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium, unless we make a change, we won't be increasing the likelihood of a particular allele in our society. Thus, since incest is currently illegal, if we suddenly legalise it, there will start to be a quick number of incestous marriages in succession and as a result, homozygous goes up, hetrozygous goes down. Thus, any genetic disease which is recessive will increase.

[ninwa]

Thus, since incest is currently illegal, if we suddenly legalise it, there will start to be a quick number of incestous marriages in succession

<citation needed>

[Russ]

Her point was that having people with genetic diseases marry and have kids will increase the frequency of disease in the population, which is functionally similar to an inbreeding effect increasing disease

[ninwa]

Also nice try with the medical jargon Paul but your argument is still illogical. Since when is marriage a precursor to having kids?

Most people don't let marriage get in the way of having a sex life. If people are going to have incestuous, unprotected sex, they're going to do it anyway regardless of whether incestuous marriage is legalised or not.

[paulsterio]

Her point was that having people with genetic diseases marry and have kids will increase the frequency of disease in the population, which is functionally similar to an inbreeding effect increasing disease

Yeah, but people with genetic diseases are already marrying and having kids, so if that stays as is, the allele frequencies won't change - unless somehow a massive increase of people with genetic illnesses having kids suddenly happens.

Anyways, I'm not sure about you, but I don't think it's good to be increasing the frequency of genetic illness, like, I know it's a touchy issue, but it's not just all about rights - there's issues of the welfare of society at stake as well, not to mention that healthcare is a limited resource, thus, there should be some measure to reduce the incidence of disease in the first place...etc.

I'm not saying that we should infringe on rights, but I'm just saying it's not a good idea to "just allow" the frequencies of genetic illnesses to increase. Like, there has to be some sort of balance there.

Also nice try with the medical jargon Paul but your argument is still illogical. Since when is marriage a precursor to having kids?

Most people don't let marriage get in the way of having a sex life. If people are going to have incestuous, unprotected sex, they're going to do it anyway regardless of whether incestuous marriage is legalised or not.

That is true, but I was specifically referring to having kids, if two siblings want to get married, I honestly wouldn't care, they can get married and live together - that's none of my business, but having kids is an issue, like I've outlined above.

But yeah, even though I'm for gay marriage, I'm uneasy on incestous marriages at the moment, purely because of what Dan's said about the issue of "power in the relationship" as well as kids.

[Water]

Yes, the line can be drawn at "consenting adults" but what happens when a brother wants to marry a sister and they both consent? Should that be allowed?

What was with this insinuation then?

if two siblings want to get married, I honestly wouldn't care, they can get married and live together - that's none of my business, but having kids is an issue