quote:Do you think a 13 year old girl is mature enough to make a decision to marry an older man? I don't! People a few hundred years ago sure thought so though.
Like hell they did. You think a child bride was going to be consulted in the matter?
It's not that simple. A number of my grandmothers (1 great, 2 great, etc.) were married at ages 14/15, and maybe some as early as 13, (this was the norm in the rural South 80-100 years ago and more) and I'm pretty sure they weren't forced into it.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, you were the one that compared homosexuality in a less than specific way to pedophilia. You haven't caught out anyone doing anything wrong, you made a flawed and incomplete comparison and people criticized you for it.
Gotcha attempt: failed
quote: Do you think a 13 year old girl is mature enough to make a decision to marry an older man? I don't! People a few hundred years ago sure thought so though.
Mature enough to be raped and beaten if they were too upset about it? Or maybe just beaten if they got upset before the marriage? Sure, folks thought that hundreds of years ago.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My argument is that socially unacceptable behavior in the past has become more accepted over time, while other behavior that used to be socially acceptable is no longer so.
Um....In what way is that an argument against same-sex marriage?
I don't think it's an argument for or against. It's just an observation on the fluidity of socially acceptable behavior. I think you could use the argument either way. If you say that people used to be okay with child marriages in a way that we find morally repugnant today, then you're essentially arguing that mankind fixed a previous moral error. Likewise, allowing gay marriage would be to make a similar mistake all over again.
I don't think it's a particularly good argument against gay marriage, just like I don't think it's a really good argument for it. It's just how we are.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: A number of my grandmothers (1 great, 2 great, etc.) were married at ages 14/15, and maybe some as early as 13, (this was the norm in the rural South 80-100 years ago and more) and I'm pretty sure they weren't forced into it.
So, they weren't culturally conditioned from birth to be obedient, submissive, and to expect and accept such young marriages?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before arguing with steven on those grounds, I think I'd check the actual facts. The original post was "marry an older man", not "marry"; and anyway, family legend can blow these things up a bit. There's a lot of difference between 13 and 15.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's true, though steven was responding to a question about girls that age marrying older men, with the implication being not just a little older like a year or two.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
No, there are women alive today around here, in nursing homes, mostly, who were married at age 14/15. They're generally in their 90s, but they definitely got married at that age, willingly. Mostly their husbands were in their late teens or early 20s, from what I understand.
Family legend...LOL. No, actual living fact, KoM. I guarantee you that there have been some 13-year-olds in my recent* ancestry who were married. I could look it up, if I really wanted. However, I guarantee that there are plenty of Mormons here who are WAAAAY better versed and skilled and experienced at genealogy, and some of those Mormons can probably chapter and verse you on their great-great grandmama, or whatever, who married at age 13 and had 6 kids by age 30, or something. It was pretty common all over this country, in the more rural areas, up until the 1900s.
For that matter, Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old first cousin, and that was in 1957. Granted, it destroyed his career, but it was certainly legal, in that place and time.
*last 150-200 years.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now even though some scientists say that it is "natural" for homosexuality to occur, the same argument could be made to people that are attracted to young children. Yet this is a socially unacceptable behavior that is not tolerated. (On a side note, everyone knows that scientists are always correct, always objective, and always agree with each other. Especially psychologists! Am I right?)
I know most of you will disagree with me and say that it is completely different, but I want to know how? I really want to read a good reason why one is acceptable and the other isn't.
I feel you will have just as difficult time explaining this that those that oppose SSM do.
Actually, as you have probably noted by now, it's actually remarkably easy. :/
Ask nearly all of the people who are pro gay marriage and they are anti gay marriage and in varying degrees they can tell you in varying degrees of completeness about the critical variable of the issue of demonstrable harm and issues of consent.
It's pretty straightforward. Did it come off well for you? Do you have any more questions?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For Pete's sake, Edgar Allen Poe married his 13-year-old cousin as well, when he was 26. Come on, do your research, KoM. Family legend, indeed...Poe is famous.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: And you turned him down!?!
He wasn't offering it to me. That is the point. I was goods in this situation. It was not up to me to decide. Fortunately, the man who was offered the cows recognized that I did not belong to him and declined to make the deal.
ETA: My father (who was not there) still claims that he should have been consulted. It was a lot of cows.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Clive, like Darth said, it is a lost cause. No matter what you post, people here will rip it down. We have had numerous topics regarding SSM, and none of them really end well for those opposing it.
The responses Clive Candy got back are a reasonable response to the shallowness of his logic. He is relying on very dated and very easily contradicted arguments that people still use only if they can not figure out why they are bogus.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marrying a girl at 13 is not only our history, its current in places all over the world. From Afghanistan to Chad, where ever an agricultural economy equate prosperity with the number of cheap farm hands a family has, then they will start producing those farm hands, and turning relatively non-productive females into farm hand producers, as soon as biologically possible.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband's first cousin, who is now 34, married a 13-year-old when he was 18. That was just 16 years ago. They did get a divorce, but still...
But just out of curiosity, is there much of a point to this thread when 95% of the comments are from pro-SSM people? We seem to be agreeing with one another in circles.
I understand that we've scared off the anti-SSM people. I hope that means we've also shot so many holes in their logic that sooner or later they'll come around but that for the moment their pride is too wounded to admit they were wrong.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] [QUOTE]OK, I'm done taking you seriously, and barring some very untroll-like behavior, well, you're derogated to the troll category. Being born missing body parts has an obvious, easily tested and easily observed negative impact on a human being completely divorced from society. Less coordination being the most obvious example. You can't say the same about homosexuality. Hell, not only have you not proven the same about homosexuality, you haven't even made any arguments that, if you substantiated them, would prove or even provide evidence for your conclusion.
And I would argue that being gay is just as disadvantageous to a community just as a person with missing body parts would be. Consider: people contribute and invest in their communities because of their families/children. Families and children are connected most importantly by biology. A gay person wouldn't be as connected to his community -- wouldn't have as much of an investment in it -- as a heterosexual who has sired children. Sure, we can compare the gay person to people who's defective biology renders them incapable of reproduction, however, since such people are so few, society can carry them. It may not be able to carry people who can't reproduce because they choose to misuse their sexual organs.
quote: This is a profoundly stupid argument as well, and seals the troll status. We allow completely promiscuous men and women to get married all the time. We're going to continue to allow it. The government has no business intervening.
Heterosexual couples who break their vows are failing to live up to their obligations. Homosexual men, on the other hand, overwhelmingly tend to have relationships that are "open." They by nature disregard the expectation of fidelity that we expect from heterosexual unions. If we allow gays to marry, this aspect of homosexuality will impact the overall meaning of "marriage" and weaken the institution.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Clive, does it have to be laid out in extremely unerring wording?
Throughout nature, there are male animals that have sex with other male animals. It is male animals sticking their male penises into the male anuses of other males. They are copulating. Sometimes you have female analogues but they are understandably much harder to interpret as being so blatantly gay as what you get when there is documented penis-in-butt action. It has been documented in many species that there is homosexual attractions between like-gendered individuals of certain species.
Stupid male animals confusing anuses with vaginas doesn't justify homosexuality. Offer many a male mammal a hole to poke and he will take it gladly. That doesn't mean he's gay.
quote:Ah, you believe this only because you're confused and sick. </worthless-subjective-caveat-judgment>
People have to be programmed not to find homosexuality repulsive. This suggests that our revulsion to it is innate.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Stupid male animals confusing anuses with vaginas doesn't justify homosexuality. Offer many a male mammal a hole to poke and he will take it gladly. That doesn't mean he's gay.
No, Clive. There are gay animals. This isn't just a case of "well, it looked like a vagina." There are gay animals. There are even animals which all exhibit a tendency towards homosexual rape (bedbugs, etc).
besides, I don't need to justify homosexuality. I just need to point out that when you say "Homosexuality is unnatural!" you're saying something which is strictly false.
You don't want to admit its false, so you'll try to contort around the evidence against it or come up with new meanings and reinvent the word 'natural' using a self-selective revisionary definition in order to inure yourself from having to admit that the statement 'homosexuality is unnatural' is untrue.
quote:People have to be programmed not to find homosexuality repulsive. This suggests that our revulsion to it is innate.
Wanna know something cool? Human beings have to be programmed not to steal or use physical force to take what they want. Our more primitive tendencies towards immoral behavior are still somewhat innately hardcoded into us. It doesn't mean that it's right, or that it's wrong to extinguish it through early life acculturation.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Stupid male animals confusing anuses with vaginas doesn't justify homosexuality. Offer many a male mammal a hole to poke and he will take it gladly. That doesn't mean he's gay.
No, Clive. There are gay animals. This isn't just a case of "well, it looked like a vagina." There are gay animals. There are even animals which all exhibit a tendency towards homosexual rape (bedbugs, etc).
besides, I don't need to justify homosexuality. I just need to point out that when you say "Homosexuality is unnatural!" you're saying something which is strictly false.
You don't want to admit its false, so you'll try to contort around the evidence against it or come up with new meanings and reinvent the word 'natural' using a self-selective revisionary definition in order to inure yourself from having to admit that the statement 'homosexuality is unnatural' is untrue.
Look, many men who end up in prison end up engaging in gay sex. That doesn't mean they're gay. It just means they're using other men as an imperfect substitute for women. So too with these so called "gay" animals.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't steal because I wouldn't want to live in a society where stealing was okay. On the other hand, I can live in a society where homosexuality is discouraged.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Sure, we can compare the gay person to people who's defective biology renders them incapable of reproduction, however, since such people are so few, society can carry them. It may not be able to carry people who can't reproduce because they choose to misuse their sexual organs.
In the U.S., an estimated 5.2% of the population is infertile. 7.2% of women are infertile.
The percentage of the population which is gay is significantly lower.
The percentage of Americans who are heterosexual and simply choose not to have children is phenomenally higher than either category.
If America can't "carry" the people who 'misuse their sexual organs' (by being gay) then that's you asserting that America is critically imperiled by those who 'misuse their sexual organs' by choosing not to have kids.
Heavens to betsy, Clive. We'd better go use the state to enforce procreation before it's too late. I bravely volunteer for the babymakin' gestapo.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, consider: Some are saying that homosexuality is okay because it occurs in nature. Do you people also then hold that polygyny should be legalized because it occurs in nature?
In many primate species, one male monopolizes several females. And in countless human cultures, polygyny was acceptable and still is. Also, from an evolutionary point of view, women would be perfectly willing to go along with a polygynous arrangement. Does this mean that we should legalize polygyny?
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Look, many men who end up in prison end up engaging in gay sex. That doesn't mean they're gay. It just means they're using other men as an imperfect substitute for women. So too with these so called "gay" animals.
No. There are animals who engage in homosexual sex with other males out of a personal tendency regardless as to the availability and willingness of the local female population of the same species. These are animals that have easy methods of broadcasting their sex unmistakably (pheremones, etc) and some animals are still gay.
There has been homosexual activity and behavior observed in over five hundred animal species so far.
I am watching your inability to accept information that would contradict your position, not because it's not compelling, but because it would contradict your position. It is pervasive. It is defining you right now.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Also, consider: Some are saying that homosexuality is okay because it occurs in nature. Do you people also then hold that polygyny should be legalized because it occurs in nature?
Clive, I am going to start repeating myself.
Here's the relevant quotation.
quote:I don't need to justify homosexuality. I just need to point out that when you say "Homosexuality is unnatural!" you're saying something which is strictly false.
Here, I'll say it again, in bold.
quote:I don't need to justify homosexuality. I just need to point out that when you say "Homosexuality is unnatural!" you're saying something which is strictly false.
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Sure, we can compare the gay person to people who's defective biology renders them incapable of reproduction, however, since such people are so few, society can carry them. It may not be able to carry people who can't reproduce because they choose to misuse their sexual organs.
In the U.S., an estimated 5.2% of the population is infertile. 7.2% of women are infertile.
The percentage of the population which is gay is significantly lower.
The percentage of Americans who are heterosexual and simply choose not to have children is phenomenally higher than either category.
If America can't "carry" the people who 'misuse their sexual organs' (by being gay) then that's you asserting that America is critically imperiled by those who 'misuse their sexual organs' by choosing not to have kids.
Heavens to betsy, Clive. We'd better go use the state to enforce procreation before it's too late. I bravely volunteer for the babymakin' gestapo.
People who choose not to have children often change their mind. And I maintain we can carry them so long as they're merely abstaining from having children. As it stands, the end goal of marriage -- in addition to love/partnership -- is to bring children into this world. Those who are of a sexual orientation that makes reproduction impossible should not be able to get "married."
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, consider: Some are saying that homosexuality is okay because it occurs in nature. Do you people also then hold that polygyny should be legalized because it occurs in nature?
You're being obtuse. Is it intentional?
Nobody in this thread is saying "homosexuality is okay because it occurs in nature".
1) You say homosexual is bad, in part, because it is unnatural. 2) People point out that it is, in fact, natural. 3) You then claim people are saying it is okay because it is natural.
Do you see the mistake you made there? You are the one who tried to tie the "wrongness" of homosexuality to whether or not it is natural.
Just because some people have taken the time to refute your premise (that homosexuality is unnatural) doesn't mean they agree with the next part of your logic (that being natural determines whether or not it is "ok").
[Edit: this is Xavier on Niki's laptop]
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: People who choose not to have children often change their mind. And I maintain we can carry them so long as they're merely abstaining from having children.
So? That doesn't contradict anything I've said. The percentage of people who opt not to have children in their life still tremendously exceeds the number of people who won't have children because they are gay.
In your schema, if we can't "carry" the impact of homosexuality on our reproductive rates, then we absolutely cannot "carry" the overwhelming quantity of willingly non-reproductive heterosexuals. It implies drastic peril!
There is, however, no drastic peril. Because no such need to "carry" these people exists. If anything, gay people give us a little breathing room, seeing as the world has about peaked its maximum sustainable population anyway. You could double the number of gay people in the country — heck, you could octuple them — and there would be no inability to "carry." It's simply something you've invented in order to try to theorycraft a reason why gay people threaten you and your way of life to the extent that they must be kept away from the institution of marriage.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am watching your inability to accept information that would contradict your position, not because it's not compelling, but because it would contradict your position. It is pervasive. It is defining you right now.
There's a word for that.
Good for you charging into the gap repeatedly, but I saw this coming once the 'nine-fingers' stuff came out.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh my, this blew up in a few short minutes!
All right, here's what I have to say, in no particular order:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: And I would argue that being gay is just as disadvantageous to a community just as a person with missing body parts would be.
Well, let's outlaw having the wrong number of body parts!
quote: Consider: people contribute and invest in their communities because of their families/children.
They dO? News to me. I thought there were a number of ways to contribute/invest in society including, but not limited to, holding a job, being a consumer, volunteering, donating money, helping a friend in need, being an all-around nice person....
In fact, I'd say that actually procreating, in a society that is not short of people, is the least of how a person can contribute and could arguably be a drain on society. Note -- I'm not saying this is true, just that it could be seen this way. People often have children to promote themselves, not society. It is a biological imperative that we pass on our own genes.
quote: Families and children are connected most importantly by biology. A gay person wouldn't be as connected to his community -- wouldn't have as much of an investment in it -- as a heterosexual who has sired children.
I think a few of the adoptive parents in this forum are about to lay siege to this one, so I'll leave it alone and let them.
quote:Sure, we can compare the gay person to people who's defective biology renders them incapable of reproduction, however, since such people are so few, society can carry them. It may not be able to carry people who can't reproduce because they choose to misuse their sexual organs.
I'm still not clear on what it means to "misuse sexual organs."
Additionally...
I'll just echo those who have told you that nobody is saying homosexuality is ok because it is natural. It simply isn't not ok because it's unnatural. (double negative doesn't make a positive...we're just refuting your argument)
Homosexuality is ok because it's none of your business what two consenting adults do with and to one another.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Christine, are you for legalizing polygamy, then?
I can't speak for Christine, but as I agree with nearly all of her points, I can say that I am in favor of legalizing polygamy.
Provided it involves consenting adults and all parties have opportunities for removing themselves from potentially negative environments, why not?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Clive, are you for making marriage between infertile couples illegal?
Presumably not, as this is in his logic apparently a 'burden' that can be 'carried' by the proper couples. But gay couples can not be carried, and therefore should not exist.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway on the subject of how gays would destabilize the sacrosanct tradition of marriage, I think th
quote:Recent studies reveal that 45-55% of married women and 50-60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship (Atwood & Schwartz, 2002 - Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy)
uh, I think that, uh
quote:About 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an affair at some point in some marriage
uhhhh
quote:Younger people are more likely candidates; in fact, younger women are as likely as younger men to be unfaithful.
oh man, that sucks. we need to ban heterosexual marriage immediately. they're ruining this sacred practice.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As it stands, the end goal of marriage -- in addition to love/partnership -- is to bring children into this world.
Let me just point out that my wife and I did not marry to bring children into this world. This was manifestly not the purpose of our marriage. We happened to have children, but that's not why we got married.
Moreover, I have several friends who have married despite a) being unable to have children; and b) being so sure that they don't want children that they had surgical procedures done to ensure this. And yet they still married.
Why, Clive, do you think they did this?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: And I would argue that being gay is just as disadvantageous to a community just as a person with missing body parts would be. Consider: people contribute and invest in their communities because of their families/children. Families and children are connected most importantly by biology. A gay person wouldn't be as connected to his community -- wouldn't have as much of an investment in it -- as a heterosexual who has sired children. Sure, we can compare the gay person to people who's defective biology renders them incapable of reproduction, however, since such people are so few, society can carry them. It may not be able to carry people who can't reproduce because they choose to misuse their sexual organs.
If this were true (and that's a big "if"), it would be true for gay people whether they're married to each other or not. How is this an argument against SSM?
posted
The 'threat to marriage' argument has always at times either baffled, or amused, or seriously irritated me.
Because if you're coming at marriage from the 'marriage should be sacred' angle - and most opponents of SSM do come at it from that angle - marriage as an institution in the United States is like a damn three-alarm fire. But doing something that might - according to us, anyway - raise the temperature of the fire a few more degrees, well, that absolutely should not be tolerated.
But we're not really going to take legislative action towards putting out the original fire, though. Only for this much smaller, secondary fire that's cropped up lately. That one needs to get mentioned in constitutions, apparently. But not the other fires of divorce, premarital sex, adultery, children out of wedlock, etc.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am watching your inability to accept information that would contradict your position, not because it's not compelling, but because it would contradict your position. It is pervasive. It is defining you right now.
There's a word for that.
Good for you charging into the gap repeatedly, but I saw this coming once the 'nine-fingers' stuff came out.
I don't think he's a troll. I suspect it's biological: his brain simply has trouble coming up with or accepting alternate models of how the world works. I'd love to see what would happen if he reread this thread after squirting cold water into his left ear.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Christine, are you for legalizing polygamy, then?
Yes.
Note: As long as minors are not involved as they cannot give consent.
And sibling incest as I recall from our last discussion. Or maybe I'm misremembering and that was someone else.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Christine, are you for legalizing polygamy, then?
Yes.
Note: As long as minors are not involved as they cannot give consent.
And sibling incest as I recall from our last discussion. Or maybe I'm misremembering and that was someone else.
I don't think I said that, but it's a good and reasonable point.
(Although I did just finish read VC Andrew's entire Dollanganger series which has a unique perspective on the issue.)
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good and reasonable in the sense that you feel we should expand the legal definition of marriage to encompass close relatives, or good and reasonable in that it gives you pause in your unqualified support for uncritical social approbation of any sexual union between consenting adults?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's ok to restrict sexual coupling of close relatives since it has the potential to cause real, physical harm to their potential offspring.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it's ok to restrict sexual coupling of close relatives since it has the potential to cause real, physical harm to their potential offspring.
Restricting sexual coupling of close relatives is much different than allowing close relatives to marry.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: (Although I did just finish read VC Andrew's entire Dollanganger series which has a unique perspective on the issue.)
Seriously? You read the whole thing? I did that in high school.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the first two in high school, then I found out there were two more so I re-read the whole thing. Actually, should have stopped at the first two. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it's ok to restrict sexual coupling of close relatives since it has the potential to cause real, physical harm to their potential offspring.
Restricting sexual coupling of close relatives is much different than allowing close relatives to marry.
There's also the fact that we don't require proof of genetic compatibility prior to marriage. Should we make a genetic test mandatory for marriage, in the interest of preventing real, physical harm to potential offspring?
We also don't sterilize women in their mid-40s, even though conception at that age runs a significantly increased risk of real, physical harm to their offspring. Older men are also more likely to produce genetically defective offspring. Should the government restrict the sexual coupling of middle-aged heterosexuals?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I think it's ok to restrict sexual coupling of close relatives since it has the potential to cause real, physical harm to their potential offspring.
Actually, it's only the sexual *reproduction* part of the coupling that's dangerous. What if siblings wanted to marry but consented to never have children? Or artificially inseminate from an outside donor? Or years from now when we can go in and genetically alter either the egg or the sperm to prevent harm to the offspring?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I think it's ok to restrict sexual coupling of close relatives since it has the potential to cause real, physical harm to their potential offspring.
Actually, it's only the sexual *reproduction* part of the coupling that's dangerous. What if siblings wanted to marry but consented to never have children? Or artificially inseminate from an outside donor? Or years from now when we can go in and genetically alter either the egg or the sperm to prevent harm to the offspring?
Well then, that would be a restriction, wouldn't it?
I don't remember making any particularly strong assertions about this issue. It's not something I've really thought that hard about, to be honest. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
