GL l don't even want to click the link...l'm so disgusted already. All l can think is... now imagine the even worse horror if one party was not a party to it...that is what we call family sexual abuse, which happens A LOT, so your header is actually rampant under a different name. We have just become immune to it because we see/read/hear it so often.
Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. I don't agree with it at all. what I feel is sexually amoral they might be ok with. So basically, it's none of the laws business who is fucking who. That's my opinion I feel I have explained it enough. I'm done with this sick shit.
They might have children that may have defects and it greatly increases this risk. Generally, when a man and a woman get together they usually have kids. Though, I know I don't have to tell some of you. The kid will bear the brunt of the problems.
If they don't have kids in this hypothertical world of yours, then yes I agree. In the real world, sex is to make people. Humanity has found a way around it but it is not 100% secure. It is unlikely that all of the relationships will not have a child.
Agreed. Even the possibility of being with a third cousin and not knowing it fucked with me a little. Women in my home town were never taken seriously.
What's interesting is how in the past, first and second cousins often married to keep blood lines going. Especially in Royal circles and l think in Ancient Egypt..would have to look it up.
I cannot believe I actually agree with Paniro The issue of them possibly creating children together and their risk for disabilities in those children is truly irrelevant. Disabled children are born every day to non-related parents. Majority of people don't get screened to determine their potential for passing on generic abnormalities prior to reproducing anyways. Even couples who lose a pregnancy/child and through subsequent genetic testing realize there's significant risk to future pregnancies, still have the right to continue trying to have a child, disabled or not. I personally don't agree with this couples relationship, but it's NOBODY'S business, imo, what two consenting adults do.
Trying to reduce the chances of it happening... not increase it. With so many people on the planet, you could certainly pick someone who doesn't increase the chance. They recently had a mother and daughter doing it. Fine with me. If they were pretty, I'd ask to join. No I'm totally kidding .... No I'm not:smile:
Lol you're a dork I get your point about trying to decrease the chance of disabilities but in all actuality, there are couples (non related) who knowingly take similar risks with the health of their child. Women are having children much later in life nowadays, increasing the chances of fetal abnormalities. Should they not be permitted to reproduce because of the known increased risk? Or maybe women >35 just shouldnt be permitted to marry since we know "most couples have kids" and we wouldn't want to risk it? I hear your point, but it's just as silly as the other examples I just detailed. Ultimately I think it comes down to people trying to force others to live by the morals that guide their own lives. No different than those who fight to keep women from having abortions or keep gay people from marrying, etc.