Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am really impressed how conservative here are against incest ... according to your legend, the brothers of Eve and Adam practiced incest to populate the land ... when did that stop being right to become a sin?
How can you even think that acceptance/non acceptance of incest falls along political lines ?
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,624 posts, read 12,543,921 times
Reputation: 10485
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
No. I'm circumventing the common argument against incest, which is that it creates children with birth defects.
The article did pointedly mention that this particular couple wasn't able to procreate, defeating the idea that birth defects would be an issue in this one case.
On the other hand, one-time incest pairings don't tend to increase birth defects. Those happen when you have generation after generation of inbreeding, as what happens with royal families or small island populations.
Incest is terribly distasteful to the great majority of us, including me.
On the other hand, I'm disinclined to tell other people what to do, if they aren't harming others and if my only objection is it's icky.
Actually it can and does happen with a first time/one time inbreeding. It simply happens more often after generations of interbreeding.
People have long been interbreeding animals, horses, cattle, dogs, cats, etc., to get the perfect animal. When they get a mutated offspring they usually either have it sterilized or destroyed to keep the defective mutation from the breeding pool. You cannot do that with human offspring.
Even though these particular people claim they cannot breed, whether sterile or same sex, this will only open the door for other parent child parings who will breed. The courts should rule against it for that very reason.
Not legally. Next of kin is generally the spouse if one exists. My mother was my fathers next of kin and they were not biologically related.
Spouses have A LOT of legal clout compared to other next of kin like children. It is a bright line, there is no comparison.
I totally understand cases in which someone would want someone they trust to have the designation of spouse even if they were not someone they really would want to marry in the traditional sense.
I always thought everyone should be able to have their plus 1 person THEY designate that would confer all the legal rights and responsibilities of a legal spouse. Powers of Attorney doesn't even come close to providing that security, sometimes they are not even accepted by institutions like banks.
Some people never meet their mate, and cannot get married in a traditional way we view marriage. It is cruel to deny these people legal protections that exist for spouses.
The Queens husband is her Cousin. Looks like the rest of the world seems to be ok with incest just fine...... Gross...
Once again conservative hypocrisy
We do allow cousins to marry in some US states.
But this is about parent/sibling, not cousins.
But you knew that already..right ? You didn't really mean "conservative hypocrisy" like we were ignorant of the fact that cousins could marry in the US..right ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
