thesometimesaint Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 Genetics and capacity to consent. Marrying of close relatives was quite common though out history. Did it produce genetic abnormalities? Sometimes, but not always. Mostly it had to do with keeping dynastic power and money within the family. I've already excluded those without informed consent.
Stone holm Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 Marrying of close relatives was quite common though out history. Did it produce genetic abnormalities? Sometimes, but not always. Mostly it had to do with keeping dynastic power and money within the family. I've already excluded those without informed consent.I once discussed this with a history professor at Notre Dame in the context of the small band of Asiatics being the ancestors of the Amerindians, he pointed to the practice of exposing infants with deformities as the ancient solution. The Amish of lower Michigan, discourage marriages within the local colony because nearly every family has one disabled child and cleft palates are commonplace
seriously honestly Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 From Vermont aware of its rules, answer still stands. Informed consent is deemed impossible for incestuous situations even where there is no genetic issue if there is a parental role established. This of course is an irrelevant distraction. What's the legal argument against two first cousins over the age of 18 who want to get married in the state of Vermont?
Sleeper Cell Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 From Vermont aware of its rules, answer still stands. Informed consent is deemed impossible for incestuous situations even where there is no genetic issue if there is a parental role established. This of course is an irrelevant distraction. Doesn’t “deemed impossible by the state" mean that it is “impossible” because the state says it is? How is this any different than the state saying that it deems marriage between two adults of the same gender. ”impossible?”
Stone holm Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Doesn’t “deemed impossible by the state" mean that it is “impossible” because the state says it is? How is this any different than the state saying that it deems marriage between two adults of the same gender. ”impossible?”Why would you say that two unrelated adults of the same gender lack the capacity for informed consent. Parent child relationships are a type of fiduciary relationship, as are sibling relationships. State saying this interferes with capacity for informed consent has nothing to do with saying two gays or lesbians would lack the capacity.
Gray Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 In a culture that has become increasingly indifferent to marriage, it wouldn't be as shocking to me as you would hope. If there was county I moved to, or a religious organization that I joined that determined straight individuals weren't allowed to marry, then so be it. Their rules, their laws. Also, I have a gay uncle, gay cousin (female), and a gay brother in-law (albeit they're not LDS and have no intrest in marriage). I should also add that I'm not LDS, and don't believe some eternal requirement of marriage in order to reisde in the highest kingdom with God. My response to you was merely to point out that the LDS church doesn't have multiple standards for different groups of people. Just one that you can choose to abide by or not. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Gray Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I think it is a more serious question than "The usual tangents". If marriage is open to all with informed consent. What would be the legal argument against incest? I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about incest, but I suppose it could be argued that the state has a legitimate interest in restricting incest due to birth defects, iffy consent in regards to parent/child relationships, even among adults, etc I see no connection there to the gay marriage issue
Gray Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Since no one has the ability to know all of the relationships others have, it seems to me rather arrogant to assume anyone holds their position because they haven't been able to experience up close and personal tragedies, whether for someone with SSA or something else.It is is much easier to assume the only reason someone disagrees with one is because they are not as informed, not as experienced, not as compassionate, not as open minded, etc. as one is oneself....demonstrated of course by being a high level critical thinker with a remarkable level of insight and understanding for others. Yes, you're probably right there
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I once discussed this with a history professor at Notre Dame in the context of the small band of Asiatics being the ancestors of the Amerindians, he pointed to the practice of exposing infants with deformities as the ancient solution. The Amish of lower Michigan, discourage marriages within the local colony because nearly every family has one disabled child and cleft palates are commonplace I've seen estimates that as few as 40 genetically unrelated individuals could given enough time successfully repopulate the world.
Stone holm Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 What's the legal argument against two first cousins over the age of 18 who want to get married in the state of Vermont? I never asserted any.
Stone holm Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I've seen estimates that as few as 40 genetically unrelated individuals could given enough time successfully repopulate the world. Given there were less than that on the Ark, don't see any reason to disbelieve that. Pharoahs married their sisters.
Recommended Posts