Sasheron wrote:
Astaroth wrote:
It's also a violation if you ban a woman to marry her little Fido, even though Fido was the first to engange in a relationship.. booo-hooo
it's not fair!!!!
I can't wear a diaper around my head either while walking down the street nude - it's a violation of my personal freedom - and i'm not hurting anyone!! booh000
Eh, actually, those two are very bad analogies. Did you read anything I said? Dogs are not human adults who can give consent. Cousins are. I stressed this several times. You are going down the same slippery slope as the anti-gay marriage advocates. If you can remember, I shot down that slippery slope in the first post I made in this thread.
You cannot walk down the street naked while wearing a diaper on your head because actually, it is considered hurting people by law. I think you should be able to do it, but prissy miss lawmakers don't.
You are definitely splitting hair as far as genetic control goes. You forget one important factor - genes from the mother work together with the genes from the father. Two perfectly normal people can create monster children even if they are not related. You are thinking of old-fashioned single-person focused control. I'm thinking anything that has to do anything with prohibiting anyone from breeding on the basis of genes, combinations of genes, phenotypes (the phenotype-genotype relationship is not always regular y'know). It's still genetic control, just not the kind that was practiced in Hitler's Germany. You seem to oppose one kind of genetic control and side with another. I do not see a relevant difference between the two in terms of violations of rights to self-determination.
You see, there is a roughly 2% chance of passing on genetic disorders when the parents of a child are not related (as in, 4th cousins removed or further). This is an average. Say, a couple goes in to seek genetic counseling. They are unrelated. It just happens that through an accident of genetics they have a 7% chance of passing on genetic disorders to their child. This is higher than it would be in the first incident of first cousin marriage. Would you ban them from having a child together? Should they just break up then and find other partners?
Incest is banned for two reasons. One is social stigma to children, which is a circular argument along the lines of 'this causes social stigma, let's stigmatise it further!' and the other is the genetic argument. There is no fair reason to ban incest. It is a formalization of a taboo. However, it is a practical law. You do not need to provide people with genetic counseling to find out that they are related most of the time and the masses (you included) love it. It's the kind of eugenics the public loves and accepts and doesn't really think much about.
yes, they are the worst analogies I could think of - but I agree with you considering the whole thing about being able to walk down the street naked without getting thrown into jail.
Though, it may seem extremely stupid, but why shouldn't we allow a woman to marry her dog without it's consent - the dog is not a human being, and it really don't care - elsewise we wouldn't have pets in the first place, cuz that would mean that our pets should give their consent when we buy them, and they can't.
Maybe you're right that counsins should be able to marry each other, I don't consider it incest anyway - but incest relationships between parents and offspring should be illegal, just as it is now, I really don't care whether or not you think that's unfair or a violating ppl's self-determination. That you can't see the difference between a basic law and genetic control on a grand scale that violates self-determination and privacy is not my problem either.
as for your example - that's up to the parents...
and by the way, genetic disorders that a child can inherit differs from couple to couple. 40-years-old women doesn't give birth to children with the same genetic disorders as a young couple or incestious couples would do.
anyway, this will be my last response to you in this thread, cuz I might as well just talk to my doormat
. But I can definitely see your points, you argue well. Absolute relativism is dumb, I think we agree on that...I guess I just believe that there IS a right answer to every question, whether I know it or not. 
