https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/wha...essive-alleles
Scroll down to the bottom here and see the description of Haemophilia
If two people like these had babies:
XH XH = healthy female
XH Y = healthy male
The babies would be guaranteed to inherit the dominant big H since the parents do not possess the recessive small H.
Since the babies don't have it either, if they had babies with each other they would also only get the dominant big H.
and etc. So, outside of a genetic mutation, these people could have incest babies forever without developing haemophilia
Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?
the reason general incest would give a higher proportion of Haemophilia and similar genetic diseases:
If I happen to be XH Xh = carrier female, then it implies that at least 1 of my parents had at least one small h of their own. Therefore, there's a significantly higher chance my brother would have it too, versus if he was just some other random male.
And since at least 1 of my parents has at least 1 small h, it implies that at least 1 of my grandparents has at least 1 as well. Which increases the chance of all of my aunts, uncles, and cousins that share that grandparent having it too.
So basically just think of it as incest simply amplifies the chance of any recessive alleles you're carrying of expressing themselves in the offspring.
Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?
My spirit animal: https://youtu.be/fNugZU61EXI
This goes into a different topic altogether. A topic known as redefining marriage due to the gay part.
I hold no personal opinions on the subject, but I can give this relevant quote on the matter:
in response to movements in favor of same-sex marriage, Robert H. Knight wrote:
"Giving non-marital relationships the same status as marriage does not expand the definition of marriage; it destroys it. For example, if you declare that, because it has similar properties, grape juice must be labeled identically to wine, you have destroyed the definitions of both “grape juice” and “wine.” The term “marriage” refers specifically to the joining of two people of the opposite sex. When that is lost, the term “marriage” becomes meaningless."
My spirit animal: https://youtu.be/fNugZU61EXI
What needs are those btw?
I don't understand marriage, to me it's a silly thing, and I think SJ and Gray had expressed similar view.
For the sake of clarity - I wouldn't mind if there were different versions of the word, one for each combination of sexes.
A part of language is folly when you can say one thing but it can be interpreted in different ways and have to clarify.
My spirit animal: https://youtu.be/fNugZU61EXI
My spirit animal: https://youtu.be/fNugZU61EXI
Nowadays, marriage is effectively a legal declaration that two people are seriously commited to staying together, and will take the L with regards to paperwork and money if things don't work out. Married couples get various benefits that unmarried couples do not due to that. Gay couples were interested in making the same legal commitment, but had no identical means of doing so. For a while, for the sake of preserving words maybe as you say, gay couples could apply for the status of "civil partnerships". However, civil partnerships would sometimes miss legal benefits/responsibilities that marriage had, and these would have to be fought for separately. And, even if they became legally identical, it always remained possible some legislation would be given to marriage that wouldn't be given to civil partnership in the future. So, within the modern context of what marriage was, it made sense to allow people to enter the legal agreement irrespective of gender.
There was a strong social motive to it too. People have held same sex relationships in contempt for a long time, seeing them merely as a product of lustful indulgence. You would often hear people talk about how they don't understand why one would choose to enter such a relationship. So allowing them to reach the status of "married" elevated their social value. I think if marriage really is merely this silly thing, we may as well make this silly thing do something meaningful for us!
What about me?
Im really trying to avoid jumping into this conversation but there is a joke I like to tell. Read a study years ago that traced out genealogy's and found it takes a maximum of 32 steps to connect any 2 people in the world with an average of like 13 steps. So if we are all related its not 'if' its ok to bang your cousin but rather 'how close of a cousin is ok to bang'
Throw that at your friends who just got married or had a kid and their awkward looks are hilarious.
Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.
Wait that means the most recent common ancestor of the planet is some dude who lived 1,100 years ago. Wonder who that is.
Step 1 - let's all call each other brother and sister.
Step 2 - have technology that can detect bad gene matches.
Step 3 - have a away to avoid bad matches, even a dating app will do.
Step 4 - no more incest problems and everyone lives happily ever after.
My spirit animal: https://youtu.be/fNugZU61EXI