Editorial: The 'Same Love' Act
So, the 'Same Love' Act. Proof that conspiracy theories about the fluoridation of water are entirely correct. Where to begin. Basically, this act seeks to legalise the 'unions' of two persons of close kin. In other words, incestuous marriages. The reasoning behind this; #samelove. Oh and let's not forget the argument put forward by the former Governor in favour of this; 'unless the dick is in you shut the f*** up'. Really, I mean really? No potential risks can be seen by this legitimisation of incestuous relationships. Surely it is well known that the children from these relationships have a considerably higher chance of developing severe disabilities than those who are the product of relationships between those who are not closely related. This is not the child's fault of course; rather, it is the fault of their irreponsible parents, the actions of which the Northeast seeks to legitimise. And the only arguments being put forward in favour of it are internet catchphrases. Dear lord, this may pass in the Northeast, but I hope to God that no such changes are considered elsewhere.
iight sick life man
Short-form version: Yes, I believe that
UTDINYSTFU is a good motto to live by, as coined by the venerable Maddox.
Long-form version: OK. It seems intuitive to think that we ought to criminalize and/or not recognize incestuous relations as legitimate because of the disadvantages that their progeny might face. However, what is the alternative - that we criminalize it? Current legal statutes in the real life equivalents of Northeast states levy criminal penalties of up to twenty years in jail for incest. To call this reactionary would be flattery.
The data on incestuous relations is murky at best. Per wikipedia:
AKA: Given shoddy reporting methods and no data for fifty years, we don't really know.
Touching back on the progeny of said unions - this is the Twenty-First Century. Contraceptives and abortion are readily available, and we may know more about the dangers of inbreeding than we did one or two hundred years ago. Furthermore, companionship and procreation are not mutually inclusive, elsewise we wouldn't recognize same-sex marriages.
And lastly, unless I've committed some sort of oversight, this law would allow for more than just two relatives to enter a union.
