Gay Marriage and Married Cousins

[dyanaprajna2011]

This thread is aimed at those who believe that homosexuals should not have the right to be married.

Do you know:
18 states allow marriage between first cousins
the District of Columbia also allows marriage between first cousins
and 7 more states allow first cousins to marry under certain circumstances

Now, if I'm not mistaken, the Bible took a very firm stance against this type of marriage, just as much, if not moreso, than homosexuality, especially in the Old Testament. Why do you not have a problem with this, but you do with homosexual marriage?

 

[nnmartin]

I certainly have a problem with it.

Marrying your cousin is incest.

Incest creates imbeciles.

This really should be banned as not only does it have health risks but is quite clearly distasteful.

I would be interested in the Liberal trolls' take on this one.

 

[Madhuri]

I think that most people are against the marriage of first cousins. You don't hear much opposition to it because almost nobody actually wants to marry their first cousin.

 

[nnmartin]

Surely that is a double standard then.

If you want to do it then make a big fuss, if you don't (because you think it wrong) then keep quiet.

It's all about Me, Me , Me....!

The Liberal agenda takes what it wants and discredits the rest.

Tolerance only if it fits the agenda.

 

[Madhuri]

Surely that is a double standard then.

If you want to do it then make a big fuss, if you don't (because you think it wrong) then keep quiet.

It's all about Me, Me , Me....!

The Liberal agenda takes what it wants and discredits the rest.

Tolerance only if it fits the agenda.

Why would people strive to make a practice legal if nobody cares to do it? Social change occurs when there is a push from certain individuals to make the change.
So since there are so many homosexuals, there is a push to give them rights. But since nobody really wants to marry their cousin, there is nobody to make the push.

Where is the double standard? This is sociology.

 

[cablescavenger]

This thread is aimed at those who believe that homosexuals should not have the right to be married.

Do you know:
18 states allow marriage between first cousins
the District of Columbia also allows marriage between first cousins
and 7 more states allow first cousins to marry under certain circumstances

Now, if I'm not mistaken, the Bible took a very firm stance against this type of marriage, just as much, if not moreso, than homosexuality, especially in the Old Testament. Why do you not have a problem with this, but you do with homosexual marriage?

I think if it wasn't for the birth defect issue it would not be a problem, but it is something that should be addressed, given that we know genetically it increases the risk significantly.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Marrying your first cousin is not an abomination but it is dangerous to any potential children. Regulating the practice should be in the interest of safety, not religion. There is nothing dangerous about same sex marriages or adoptions by same sex couples so there should be no regulations.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I think that most people are against the marriage of first cousins. You don't hear much opposition to it because almost nobody actually wants to marry their first cousin.

I notice you're location says "Australasia". Here in the states, it's more common than you would think. I was looking up dumb laws in the state of Alabama (where I live), and it's where I first come across that it's still legal here. They had a chart showing Google searches relating to this topic, and, per month, it numbered in the thousands. I don't think everyone looking up marrying cousins was actually wanting to do it, but you have to think that a good bit of them were. It's not something your average person generally tends to look up information on. And to nnmartin, how does this have anything to do with liberalism?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Marrying your first cousin is not an abomination but it is dangerous to any potential children. Regulating the practice should be in the interest of safety, not religion. There is nothing dangerous about same sex marriages or adoptions by same sex couples so there should be no regulations.

My point was that the Bible speaks against both of them, so why no big outcry from conservatives over marrying cousins? Why choose to pick on homosexuals, and not marrying cousins? I have a theory, but I won't say what it is, as it's probably just as bigoted as those who hate homosexuals, so I'll keep it to myself.

 

[nnmartin]

I was expecting all the liberals to be pro cousin marriage, ie: if you want to do it then you can do it as according to laws of equality.

We'll wait and see though.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I was expecting all the liberals to be pro cousin marriage, ie: if you want to do it then you can do it as according to laws of equality.

We'll wait and see though.

I don't think liberals would allow this kind of thing. I know I don't. (<------me liberal)

 

[Vinayaka]

In India and elsewhere, first cousin marriage is incredibly common. I personally know several first cousin marriages. So its also a cultural thing re the taboo. A lot of myths associated with it.. here's a link.. http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I personally have no issue with marriage of first cousins. It's actually pretty common throughout the world, and is the preferred coupling in many cultures. And as far as genetics go, first cousins have the same chances of passing on beneficial and detrimental mutations as any other randomly coupled pair. The birth defect debate is very one-sided and does not take into account how genetic replications and reproduction really happens.
The Bible also makes it clear that eating shell fish is an abomination, but I don't see people protesting outside or politicians trying to pass laws making endless shrimp illegal.

 

[Madhuri]

I was expecting all the liberals to be pro cousin marriage, ie: if you want to do it then you can do it as according to laws of equality.

We'll wait and see though.

Being liberal does't mean being irrational.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Eh I dont think its a good idea (if there is a history of such activity in the family tree and offspring are desired), but I do not think it is unethical at all provided that those involved give their informed consent.

I only really have the one reservation: If the family has had a history of such unions, there is an increased chance of genetic problems in offspring - lack of diversity in the parentage may lead to certain problems... (though I would point out that those people who only marry into their own people such as certain religious/ethnic groups and racial supremacy groups seem to skip over this as an issue, which is humorous given that they are encouraging the same).

The likelihood of this can be reduced and its potential impacts mitigated; so its less of an issue than it once was - but it is still certainly an issue. I therefore see it as a case where those who engage in this sort of behaviour and intend to have offspring are making a choice (inexactly the same way as someone who knows they have a predisposition for some sort of illness, say cancer, having a child) which may result in their offspring having health complications.

Am I comparing the choice of a person with a genetic predisposition for cancer to have children, to that of incestuous union. Yes - for their impacts on the child which are the only ones I care about on this issue.



As for Gay Marriage? Just let em, who cares if they do? Only people who aren't involved and can therefore mind their own business.

 

[Father Heathen]

I was expecting all the liberals to be pro cousin marriage, ie: if you want to do it then you can do it as according to laws of equality.

We'll wait and see though.

Well, personally I find it to be disturbing and disgusting, but as long as they don't breed (and if they do, mandate abortion) I don't see a valid reason to care.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I think we can safely assume that the words 'mandate abortion' disqualify you as a true social liberal lol

By the same measure shouldn't we mandate abortion for all people with genetic dwarfism? Or for all women who are carriers of color-blindness? or for...

These individuals have a higher chance of their offspring having certain abnormalities, indeed in many cases their likelihood of passing on these abnormalities are in fact much higher than the chance of incest related genetic abnormalities.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Eh I dont think its a good idea (if there is a history of such activity in the family tree and offspring are desired), but I do not think it is unethical at all provided that those involved give their informed consent.

I only really have the one reservation: If the family has had a history of such unions, there is an increased chance of genetic problems in offspring - lack of diversity in the parentage may lead to certain problems... (though I would point out that those people who only marry into their own people such as certain religious/ethnic groups and racial supremacy groups seem to skip over this as an issue, which is humorous given that they are encouraging the same).

The likelihood of this can be reduced and its potential impacts mitigated; so its less of an issue than it once was - but it is still certainly an issue. I therefore see it as a case where those who engage in this sort of behaviour and intend to have offspring are making a choice (inexactly the same way as someone who knows they have a predisposition for some sort of illness, say cancer, having a child) which may result in their offspring having health complications.

Am I comparing the choice of a person with a genetic predisposition for cancer to have children, to that of incestuous union. Yes - for their impacts on the child which are the only ones I care about on this issue.



As for Gay Marriage? Just let em, who cares if they do? Only people who aren't involved and can therefore mind their own business.

But that is simply not the way genetics works. There is a chance that detrimental traits will be passed on, there is a chance beneficial traits will be passed on, there is a chance that traits are neither detrimental or beneficial will pass on. And with first cousins genetic differences tend to be great enough that the "genetic deformities" do not have any higher chance of any other couple that is complete exogamous. And not only that, it's only after multiple generations do such things start to take hold.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Absolutely correct (and indeed closer blood ties can also manage though with a higher chance of abnormalities)

That is why I stated that I only hold that position if there is a history of such unions within the family... I perhaps should have said a 'significant/sustained' history of such unions

 

[SCHIZO]

This thread is aimed at those who believe that homosexuals should not have the right to be married.

Do you know:
18 states allow marriage between first cousins
the District of Columbia also allows marriage between first cousins
and 7 more states allow first cousins to marry under certain circumstances

Now, if I'm not mistaken, the Bible took a very firm stance against this type of marriage, just as much, if not moreso, than homosexuality, especially in the Old Testament. Why do you not have a problem with this, but you do with homosexual marriage?

Actually the old testament did not have a problem with marriages between cousins. Adam and Eve were brother and sister. Abraham was married to Sarah, his half sister. Isaac took his cousin in marriage. Jacob took Leah and Rachel, both his cousins in marriage. And in the law of Moses it doesn't say anything about marriages between cousin as unlawful.