Would you like to marry your first cousin? Perhaps a brother or sister (1 Viewer)

[NCCommish]

There is no real scientific evidence to suggest marriage of cousins is banned for any reason other than it's icky. Obviously certain families carry certain genes that when mixed together are bad for babies. But this isn't the norm it's the exception and most of the bloodlines that have these abnormalities are well aware. As long as they are consenting adults I don't see the problem with it and prosecuting it seems like a waste of time and money.

The parent child thing is very tricky though. I mean basically you are setting a child up for a lifetime of grooming and it's hard to say a real decision was made there by said child upon reaching the age of consent. I agree with the theory that the child is always the child in that relationship. But should we prosecute it if there was no overt sexual act before the minor turned 18 or whatever the age is?

Not sure what's so funny. he reality is we are all cousins. We are all related. Everyone on this forum who is married is married to a cousin. Maybe not first or second but 12th or 40th or whatever.

 

[popsecret]

There is no real scientific evidence to suggest marriage of cousins is banned for any reason other than it's icky. Obviously certain families carry certain genes that when mixed together are bad for babies. But this isn't the norm it's the exception and most of the bloodlines that have these abnormalities are well aware. As long as they are consenting adults I don't see the problem with it and prosecuting it seems like a waste of time and money.

The parent child thing is very tricky though. I mean basically you are setting a child up for a lifetime of grooming and it's hard to say a real decision was made there by said child upon reaching the age of consent. I agree with the theory that the child is always the child in that relationship. But should we prosecute it if there was no overt sexual act before the minor turned 18 or whatever the age is?

Not sure what's so funny. he reality is we are all cousins. We are all related. Everyone on this forum who is married is married to a cousin. Maybe not first or second but 12th or 40th or whatever.

 

[NCCommish]

There is no real scientific evidence to suggest marriage of cousins is banned for any reason other than it's icky. Obviously certain families carry certain genes that when mixed together are bad for babies. But this isn't the norm it's the exception and most of the bloodlines that have these abnormalities are well aware. As long as they are consenting adults I don't see the problem with it and prosecuting it seems like a waste of time and money.

The parent child thing is very tricky though. I mean basically you are setting a child up for a lifetime of grooming and it's hard to say a real decision was made there by said child upon reaching the age of consent. I agree with the theory that the child is always the child in that relationship. But should we prosecute it if there was no overt sexual act before the minor turned 18 or whatever the age is?

Like the Habsburgs?

Sure the Spanish Hapsburg line was wiped out by genetic disease. They kept reproducing from an ever smaller genetic pool and the diseases got magnified. But that was interbreeding taken to an insane level and really affected the entire European aristocracy. That's not what we are talking about here. It takes generation of close interbreeding for that to become the case.

 

[JaxBill]

There is no real scientific evidence to suggest marriage of cousins is banned for any reason other than it's icky. Obviously certain families carry certain genes that when mixed together are bad for babies. But this isn't the norm it's the exception and most of the bloodlines that have these abnormalities are well aware. As long as they are consenting adults I don't see the problem with it and prosecuting it seems like a waste of time and money.

The parent child thing is very tricky though. I mean basically you are setting a child up for a lifetime of grooming and it's hard to say a real decision was made there by said child upon reaching the age of consent. I agree with the theory that the child is always the child in that relationship. But should we prosecute it if there was no overt sexual act before the minor turned 18 or whatever the age is?

Like the Habsburgs?

Sure the Spanish Hapsburg line was wiped out by genetic disease. They kept reproducing from an ever smaller genetic pool and the diseases got magnified. But that was interbreeding taken to an insane level and really affected the entire European aristocracy. That's not what we are talking about here. It takes generation of close interbreeding for that to become the case.

You have more confidence than I that a family that starts inbreeding would be smart enough to stop before it reached a critical level.

 

[DaVinci]

Incest is banned for the same reason homosexual marriage is banned: it's icky. That is not solid legal reasoning.

If you are going to argue that incest should be banned because of the potential for health problems in children, then you should be in favor of performing genetic testing on every couple to determine potential health problems before they are allowed to procreate. And what if one of the siblings/cousins can't have children? Do they get a green light? Brother's got a vasectomy? Grandma's gone through menopause?

Yes it is

No it isn't.

 

[peaces]

Sex yes, marriage no....you're already family so what's the point?