Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/new-york-s ... cle-niece/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The state’s highest court has toppled a cultural taboo — legalizing a degree of incest, at least between an uncle and niece — in a unanimous ruling.

While the laws against “parent-child and brother-sister marriages . . . are grounded in the almost universal horror with which such marriages are viewed . . . there is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages,” Tuesday’s ruling reads.

Judge Robert Smith of the Court of Appeals wrote that such unions were lawful in New York until 1893 and Rhode Island allows them.

I can see JSO buying a plane ticket as we speak...

Shouldn't marriage be allowed between ANY consenting adults?

89Hen wrote:Shouldn't marriage be allowed between ANY consenting adults?

Yes, JSO, it should.

AZGrizFan wrote:

89Hen wrote:Shouldn't marriage be allowed between ANY consenting adults?

Yes, JSO, it should.

Isn't that what the marriage equality acts are for?

Except incestuous births have a high probability of birth defects.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Except incestuous births have a high probability of birth defects.

Poor people have a higher incidence of birth defects so what are you saying?

GannonFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Except incestuous births have a high probability of birth defects.

Poor people have a higher incidence of birth defects so what are you saying?

Compared to incest? Not even remotely close.

89Hen wrote:Shouldn't marriage be allowed between ANY consenting adultS?

Yeah. 3, 4, or more...

Skjellyfetti wrote:Except incestuous births have a high probability of birth defects.

I know tons of people who are married that don't have kids, and plenty of people who aren't married that do. Next.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Except incestuous births have a high probability of birth defects.

Oh godammit. Here we go again. So now the taxpayer has to foot the bill for the birth defects of incestuous childbearing because of the ACA.

89Hen wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Except incestuous births have a high probability of birth defects.

I know tons of people who are married that don't have kids, and plenty of people who aren't married that do. Next.

Yes, but how many of them have tattooed faces?

89Hen wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Except incestuous births have a high probability of birth defects.

I know tons of people who are married that don't have kids, and plenty of people who aren't married that do. Next.

But, I don't know many married people who have never had sex with each other. There are quite a few accidental pregnancies... even among married couples.

As I've said in these threads before: I'm fine with incestuous marriages as long as it's between consenting adults and one or both of them are sterile.

Also still allowed, marriage ceremonies performed by pedophile priests, so we still have that going for us all..

Skjellyfetti wrote:

89Hen wrote: I know tons of people who are married that don't have kids, and plenty of people who aren't married that do. Next.

But, I don't know many married people who have never had sex with each other. There are quite a few accidental pregnancies... even among married couples.

As I've said in these threads before: I'm fine with incestuous marriages as long as it's between consenting adults and one or both of them are sterile.

How do you feel about two down syndrome adults marrying and having kids? The odds of THEIR children being handicapped are high, no?

AZGrizFan wrote: How do you feel about two down syndrome adults marrying and having kids? The odds of THEIR children being handicapped are high, no?

No. Down syndrome is RARELY hereditary. It's a random mutation. Down syndrome parents have very close to same chance of giving birth to a healthy child as anyone else.

1% of down syndrome parents have a gene they can pass on to a child.

Incestuous parents have a MUCH higher risk of producing birth defects.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: How do you feel about two down syndrome adults marrying and having kids? The odds of THEIR children being handicapped are high, no?

No. Down syndrome is RARELY hereditary. It's a random mutation. Down syndrome parents have very close to same chance of giving birth to a healthy child as anyone else.

1% of down syndrome parents have a gene they can pass on to a child.

Incestuous parents have a MUCH higher risk of producing birth defects.

Plenty of other genetic defects can be passed on to children.

Since you are making policy based on genetic predispositions, perhaps you should join up with your local Nazi party.

SkHeilFetti!

89Hen wrote:Shouldn't marriage be allowed between ANY consenting adults?

Depends on what the culture wants to do. As I've said before, marriage is just a recognition. Nobody has a legitimate "right" to have others recognize their relationship as having a particular status.

The deeper question is whether or not ANY consenting adults should be allowed to have sex with each other. And the answer to that question is "Yes." Two consenting adults should be allowed to have sex with each other whether they are uncle and niece, brother and sister, mother and son, two guys, two girls, whatever. None of government's business.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

89Hen wrote: I know tons of people who are married that don't have kids, and plenty of people who aren't married that do. Next.

But, I don't know many married people who have never had sex with each other. There are quite a few accidental pregnancies... even among married couples.

As I've said in these threads before: I'm fine with incestuous marriages as long as it's between consenting adults and one or both of them are sterile.

Since you're hanging your hat on birth defects, this would mean you inevitably want genetic screening as a condition of marriage. Unless they consent to sterilization.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: How do you feel about two down syndrome adults marrying and having kids? The odds of THEIR children being handicapped are high, no?

No. Down syndrome is RARELY hereditary. It's a random mutation. Down syndrome parents have very close to same chance of giving birth to a healthy child as anyone else.

1% of down syndrome parents have a gene they can pass on to a child.

Really?

Then just think of the odds that all those EWU students........

BTW, on the genetic disease front: People who represent unions carrying a high risk of genetic disease marry all the time. If you're going to say you're going to limit marriage based on the potential for genetic disease under any circumstances you're going to have to require genetic testing prior to marriage.

I have a cousin who had two kids that suffered cystic fibrosis. That means he carried the cystic fibrosis gene and so did his wife. Now he and his wife are divorced. Suppose he met another woman who had also had children with cystic fibrosis. We'd know that both carried the gene. But it'd be perfectly legal for them to marry.

Fact is, we do not prohibit people who are known to carry genetic anomalies to marry. I personally do not think the thing about not allowing closely related individuals to marry is some objective thing about trying to minimize genetic disease. I think it's just a cultural taboo.

Skjellyfetti wrote: There are quite a few accidental pregnancies... even among married couples. .

Yeah...I know this one first hand.

Ibanez wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote: There are quite a few accidental pregnancies... even among married couples. .

Yeah...I know this one first hand.

Well if you used your hand first.......

travelinman67 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
But, I don't know many married people who have never had sex with each other. There are quite a few accidental pregnancies... even among married couples.

As I've said in these threads before: I'm fine with incestuous marriages as long as it's between consenting adults and one or both of them are sterile.

Since you're hanging your hat on birth defects, this would mean you inevitably want genetic screening as a condition of marriage. Unless they consent to sterilization.

Liberal tolerance and understanding.

travelinman67 wrote:
Since you're hanging your hat on birth defects, this would mean you inevitably want genetic screening as a condition of marriage. Unless they consent to sterilization.

Red herring again. What is it that you would be screening for that has both the seriousness and frequency of birth defects as incest?



edit to say: I really shouldn't be surprised that the Conks are out in swarms to defend incest.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Since you're hanging your hat on birth defects, this would mean you inevitably want genetic screening as a condition of marriage. Unless they consent to sterilization.

Red herring again. What is it that you would be screening for that has both the seriousness and frequency of birth defects as incest?



edit to say: I really shouldn't be surprised that the Conks are out in swarms to defend incest.

The birth defects don't start showing up at a significantly higher rate until the second or third generation of incestuous relationships. The probability of the uncle and niece producing a child with birth defects is pretty low. Now, if they have a boy and girl who produce offspring together, it's probable that they'll produce some Appalachian-looking abomination.