What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Dilution of the gene pool. There’s a reason sperm banks don’t allow you to become the father of too many children.

That’s why I said loosely. Related in the sense that it can damage the diversity of overall pool.
 
Last edited:
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The real government interest in banning incest isn't because of genetics. Genetic effects take generations to show up. It isn't even because it's yucky, or sex with Southerners would be illegal. It's power relations. Cross-generation incestuous pairings are pretty much by definition non-consensual.

But if twins want to f-ck I say let em.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The science disagrees with you about it taking generations. It is made worse over time, but there immediate and and potentially severe consequences starting basically at conception.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
The science disagrees with you about it taking generations. It is made worse over time, but there immediate and and potentially severe consequences starting basically at conception.
Click to expand...

But would this apply to same sex "incestuous" marriages as the gene pool can't mix?
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

joecct said:
But would this apply to same sex "incestuous" marriages as the gene pool can't mix?
Click to expand...

If states didn't ban both hetero- and homosexual incest, then the ban would likely fail under equal protection. So make it easy, keep the language vague, and you ban all the incest, regardless if it's parent-child or siblings, and regardless of the gender pairiings.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

dxmnkd316 said:
The science disagrees with you about it taking generations. It is made worse over time, but there immediate and and potentially severe consequences starting basically at conception.
Click to expand...

My understanding, which is probably bunk, is that the probabilities are in the noise until you get several generations of inbreeding deep. Then they get high.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

St. Clown said:
If states didn't ban both hetero- and homosexual incest, then the ban would likely fail under equal protection. So make it easy, keep the language vague, and you ban all the incest, regardless if it's parent-child or siblings, and regardless of the gender pairiings.
Click to expand...

Even though joe is being disingenuous he does, accidentally, raise an interesting point. If you ban incest because of f-cked up babies then gay incestuous couples ought to be able to challenge their inclusion under the law. So you ban it because it's morally suspect for reasons not having to do with what some superstitious and/or tripping balls f-ckwits wrote about in magic books 2000 years ago.

Evidently, the place to make it with your sister is RI or NJ.
 
Last edited:
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Kepler said:
My understanding, which is probably bunk, is that the probabilities are in the noise until you get several generations of inbreeding deep. Then they get high.
Click to expand...

Depends on the relationship and their genetics. I don’t understand all of the biology, but If two siblings have a recessive gene for a genetic disorder, the odds can start at 25%. It’s why a diverse gene pool is incredibly important. It helps reduce the number of people in successive generations that carry these timebombs.

There are issues that tend to come up after several generations but a quick read of Wikipedia also has journal articles that show inbreeding carries higher risk of miscarriage, premature birth, and other issues that can occur during gestation.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

dxmnkd316 said:
Depends on the relationship and their genetics. I don’t understand all of the biology, but If two siblings have a recessive gene for a genetic disorder, the odds can start at 25%. It’s why a diverse gene pool is incredibly important. It helps reduce the number of people in successive generations that carry these timebombs.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I've always wondered by so many Minnesotans have tremendous slap shots but, well . . . that other stuff.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

burd said:
Interesting. I've always wondered by so many Minnesotans have tremendous slap shots but, well . . . that other stuff.
Click to expand...

Never thought about it like that. Predilection to sheep must be genetic considering, you know, the Dakotas.







:D
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Kepler said:
My understanding, which is probably bunk, is that the probabilities are in the noise until you get several generations of inbreeding deep. Then they get high.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, your understanding is bunk. :)

My significant other who is a genetic counselor has clinics full of people who are not the result of several generations of inbreeding yet have significant genetic abnormalities and/or risk after only a single consanguineous relationship.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

WisconsinWildcard said:
Respectfully, your understanding is bunk. :)

My significant other who is a genetic counselor has clinics full of people who are not the result of several generations of inbreeding yet have significant genetic abnormalities and/or risk after only a single consanguineous relationship.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that's not just Wisconsin?
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

joecct said:
So if one of your daughters married a Harvard man......?
Click to expand...

I would be so happy. That settlement check would be huge.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Kepler said:
Are you sure that's not just Wisconsin?
Click to expand...

Yes :p We do not live or work in Wisconsin.

But seriously, when you hang out in the genetics community you hear stories that would make even the most ridiculous Soap Opera jealous. People can lie...but their genes do not.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

WisconsinWildcard said:
Yes :p We do not live or work in Wisconsin.

But seriously, when you hang out in the genetics community you hear stories that would make even the most ridiculous Soap Opera jealous. People can lie...but their genes do not.
Click to expand...

I can imagine. We lived 7 miles from WV for 13 years. That howling at night wasn't mountain lions, and the local paper police blotter read like Leopold von Sacher-Masoch.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Another Dumpy treasure.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Kepler said:
Another Dumpy treasure.
Click to expand...

Slow night and I spent some time reading up on the Oath Keepers. As wiki says ' The group describes itself as a non-partisan association of current and former military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath that all military and police take in order to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic".'

If the Constitution was actually the thing...you'd assume they'd be quite angry with Trump.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top