Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gilda
Hmm. A couple of generations ago, it was generally accepted that first cousins marrying was immoral and that their children had a greatly increased chance of birth defects. We know better now, but many states still prohibit cousin marriage outright, and others permit it only when both are past child-bearing age. Gilda
|
I know of one man who's parents were 1st cousins, they had a latent gene for hemophelia in their family. Their son has practically NO clotting ability at all. It APPEARS to me that it does increase the risk.
BUT at the same time we have so many people every day who marry and have children even though they have genetic defects that are likely to be passed on to their children. Or even diseases that they children end up being born with. If we were to ban familial marriage or sexual relationship on this point alone then we'd have to ban ALL marriages and sexual relationships that could potentially produce genetic problems. That would not be tolerable.
As much as the idea is not something I am used to. I cannot see anything warrenting imprisonment for this couple. Besides, I see the law as protecting siblings from being intimidated into sexual intercourse by another sibling. In this case they were both grown, had not grown up together so intimidation was not a part of the picture, and they both CHOSE to be together. I could not condemn either of them for that. This is an overreaction by a group of people biased by standards set decades ago that are outdated and most likely religiously based opinions.
__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.
