Yup. Exactly.

Simple really!

lmao
I love when people other than me make tags from me

yeah, well don't misrepresent the explicitly stated beliefs of the Founding Fathers with regards to religion

first of what will hopefully be many correct SCOTUS rulings. next, repeal Citizens United and I'll start to be hopeful about humanity again.

btw, hilarious to see the same people worried about gay marriage destroying humankind are often the same people who deny climate change exists.

Bible-thumpers: Jesus said pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Obey the law. JC wouldn't be crusading against gay marriage if he was around today. Biblical fact. He was never a political activist, he just loved all people. Do the same, por favor.

lol wut>? Wrong.

oats you sure bro?

pretty sure he was killed because he was creating an uprising against the roman rule of ancient israel/judea whatever they called it.

it was twisted into him being a peace loving hippy when converted to a religion, but there is a reason he was crucified with INRI on his cross inbetween 2 "thieves" (which is actually directly translated as "bandits") after being scourged through the city.

jesus disagreed with the jews in power who were in the pockets of the romans, gathering a following with his speeches about how the church was corrupted and etc.

not saying he truly existed, but the characters he is based off of sound alot like a rebel leader trying to overthrow the rule of an invading nation supressing people

but i mean i guess he could have said that in the bible i dunno

incest couples could adopt or have sperm/eggs donated, just like gay couples.

Alternatively, are you saying that couples who are genetically predisposed to having unhealthy children shouldn't be allowed to have children? Where do you draw the line? Maybe people with cancer or heart disease running rampant in their family shouldn't be allowed to marry?

This world is in a big hurry to "change" unfortunately for us no one thought of the after effects of it.

Yes but they would have the ability to reproduce, unlike gays, so what is to stop them? And the likelihood is VERY high that the children will be deformed in some way, mentally or physically. There is no guarantee heart disease or cancer will be passed on, it is a lottery, whether it runs in a family or not. There is pretty much a guarantee an incestual couple will have children with deformities. They would be doing so knowing it will happen, someone with a history of heart disease in their family can not be said to have knowingly brought a sick child in to the world. That's the difference I see there.

Jesus was a revolutionary.

He would not get along with the Christians of today.

That kind of dogma was precisely what he sought to destroy.

Agree with Witty. What passes for Christianity today is softer than tater water

its unlikely for a child to be born with cancer or heart disease, even to parents who have genetic predispositions to them. unlikely enough not to cause much concern over the reproductive qualities in these parents. if there was evidence to suggest otherwise, there would be more literature on the subject condemning these people for throwing their genetic dice to bring life into the world. it's a numbers game. sometimes. sometimes it's random. should none of us have kids because there's a chance they'll be born fucked up?

no. the issue with incest is the overwhelming incidence of childhood mortality and genetic maladaptation. coincidentally, the likelihood of both of these illnesses spike in children born of incest. along with many others. it's statistically incomparable.

i understand you're playing devil's advocate here, but we draw the line where it becomes dangerous enough a circumstance that it warrants litigation condemning the action.

2 people who are HIV positive (and not undergoing treatment) probably should not reproduce imo.

2 people who are siblings should not either. the odds are not in their favor, and more importantly, are not their child's.

your move.

THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID BRAH!!!

lol I'm glad we are in agreement.

So if an incestual couple is unable to have children is it OK? A son with a post menopausal mother for example? Or a mother with a daughter, can they marry and have sperm donated? What about two brothers? Etc.

Goddammit dominate!

Lol

Incest is bad mmkay

I do not think that is inherently immoral.

And in fact was not unheard of in days gone by.


Disgusting, yes...but not immoral, if nobody is getting hurt.

That is a very specific case tho, and thus the legal restrictions must remain in place because you can not pick and choose, it is either legal or it is illegal...it being legal would be very dangerous, and as such must remain illegal despite the fact there may be a few cases like your hypothetical.

Ew. Lol.

I don't agree with your reasoning though. "Cases where it's ok are uncommon so we'll just disallow it generally". There's a bunch of other situations where that logic could apply.


Back to the disease/genetics thing, I just picked cancer & heart disease as two illnesses I know genes are a factor in. I know very little about this so I'm gonna abstract the hell out of it for the argument's sake.

Say we have some way of knowing that if a particular person makes a child with another person from some subset of the population, that child has a high risk of having some serious illness. Should there then be laws prohibiting that person from marrying or fornicating with people from that subset? What if the person is only attracted to people from that subset, and/or loves a particular person from that subset? Should their union be denied?

Interesting question w/ the predisposition to disease n such

But it would be impossible to determine wouldn't it? Coz sum traits aren't guaranteed to pass to offspring

Or just really really difficult. That sounds like 300 yrs in the future

Purge the weakness type shit. I know I'm being simplistic but yeah.

Well I think if there is such a terrible risk to take to allow some people to do it, it simply isn't worth it.

Sometimes you have to weigh things up and do what is right for society as a whole. You can't please all of the people all of the time, unfortunately.

And for the same reason my answer is yes to your second question.

Like Muff said, it would be very difficult to determine.

But if there were a way to know for sure then yes it probably should be illegal.

That would piss me off, I want everyone to be happy if possible, but if your happiness brings pain and suffering to an innocent life then fuck your happiness tbh.