Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wilbjammin
I wrote that <i><u><b>most people</i></b></u> believe that incest generates a much higher chance of genetically caused birth defects.
|
A hundred years ago most people believed masturbation was the cause of insanity. You can't make a claim based on what most people think. It's true that the children of consanguineous couples are more likely to inherit defects.
Stating it as fact because 'most people believe it to be the case' is intellectually dishonest.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wilbjammin
Simply put: I think that you'll have a lot of convincing to do to establish that incest doesn't contribute to the chances of genetic birth defects considering: a) logically, it makes a lot of sense that incest would cause birth defects, b) history has examples of incestuous family lines that have many genetic deformities in them, and c) nearly all cultures in the world have have anti-incest taboos.
|
So if most people believed homosexuality gave you brain tumours, you wouldn't be arguing for it, because it would require some effort to dispell people's assumptions?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wilbjammin
So, to summarize: You are making a claim that most people disagree with - it is upon you to prove that what you are saying (which goes against common wisdom and observations) has validity.
|
I challenge you to quote me saying that incestuous unions do not bear children that are more prone to defects than 'normal' couples. I haven't said that, and that is definitely not my point, you have the wrong end of the stick.
I'm saying that the increased risk of defects is not an issue. It should not dictate whether a couple can marry or not.
You would not bar a regular couple who were equally at risk, and as someone already said, having children is not an essential component of getting married, and as such should not be taken into account.