Should first cousins be allowed to marry?

[nclib]

Better question:

Should Brothers and Sisters be allowed to marry?

Or even Fathers and Daughters?

Or Mothers and sons?

I mean if they'll both over 16 and consent to it, of course.

If the arguments against your scenarios are that the risk for birth defects would be sky high, does that mean that (if gay marriage were legal) two brothers, two sisters, a mother and daughter, or a father and son should be allowed to marry?

[SPC]

Better question:

Should Brothers and Sisters be allowed to marry?

Or even Fathers and Daughters?

Or Mothers and sons?

I mean if they'll both over 16 and consent to it, of course.

I don't think so. I'm not saying they should be banned from having sex, but they shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's just too disgusting.

[Alcon]

I don't think so. I'm not saying they should be banned from having sex, but they shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's just too disgusting.

Wait...

You don't want to ban them from having sex?

But yes from marriage, because it's "disgusting"?

That doesn't make sense, and even if it did, decidedly not libertarian of you.

[SPC]

I don't think so. I'm not saying they should be banned from having sex, but they shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's just too disgusting.

Wait...

You don't want to ban them from having sex?

But yes from marriage, because it's "disgusting"?

That doesn't make sense, and even if it did, decidedly not libertarian of you.

I am a libertarian, I just deviate from the platform on marital issues. I believe that the legal term "marriage" refers to a heterosexual relationship with someone who's not a direct relative. Direct relative would only include siblings and parents, nothing else. Incests/Homosexuals could have a marital ceremony, have a legal contract, and call themselves married, but I don't think they should be legally "married". They should be able to have sex, though, no matter how gross it is.

[Mesu]

Yes they should be able to marry.

I concept that they would need my(or anyone else's) permission to get married is ridicious.

[Alcon]

I am a libertarian, I just deviate from the platform on marital issues. I believe that the legal term "marriage" refers to a heterosexual relationship with someone who's not a direct relative. Direct relative would only include siblings and parents, nothing else. Incests/Homosexuals could have a marital ceremony, have a legal contract, and call themselves married, but I don't think they should be legally "married". They should be able to have sex, though, no matter how gross it is.

Why, per se, do you believe that?

[7,052,770]

Mississippi does not allow cousin marriages.  Those who want to have to go to Tennessee.

[Verily]

I am a libertarian, I just deviate from the platform on marital issues. I believe that the legal term "marriage" refers to a heterosexual relationship with someone who's not a direct relative. Direct relative would only include siblings and parents, nothing else. Incests/Homosexuals could have a marital ceremony, have a legal contract, and call themselves married, but I don't think they should be legally "married". They should be able to have sex, though, no matter how gross it is.

Why, per se, do you believe that?

Because ewwwwwwwwwwww.

[SPC]

I am a libertarian, I just deviate from the platform on marital issues. I believe that the legal term "marriage" refers to a heterosexual relationship with someone who's not a direct relative. Direct relative would only include siblings and parents, nothing else. Incests/Homosexuals could have a marital ceremony, have a legal contract, and call themselves married, but I don't think they should be legally "married". They should be able to have sex, though, no matter how gross it is.

Why, per se, do you believe that?

Well, I don't believe the states should be involved in marriage, it is a religious thing, but I just find it disgusting. I know that I usually don't think strangers should be allowed to make decisions regarding other people's lives, but I think marriage with your immediate family crosses the line.

[angus]

It's doubling.  That's a two-fold increase!

Statistically speaking, a healthy person has double the risk of a heart attack when having sex.  So you should never have sex.

No.  I'm saying that it's a two-fold increase.  And that one shouldn't call a doubling of any factor "insignificant."  Doubling, whether you start with one or one million, is doubling.  Period.  But I'm not saying that the two-fold increase has anything to do with my own political views on this issue.  Or my own sexual views.  Of course you should have sex.  If you want to.  It's healthy and cathartic and it's a wonderful way to pass the time.  And you can even do your cousin if you want.  Albert Einstein married his first cousin, for example.  As did Charles Darwin, who had exceptionally intelligent children.  But the fact remains that on average children of first cousins are twice as likely to be weird as children from non-related couples. 

Still, with reference to the original question Dibble and I agree:  You should be able to marry your cousin if you want.  None of my business.  None of my concern.  Kind of like I also think cocaine is bad for your head, but that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.  Same for marijuana and alcohol.  And the right of refusal to wear motorcycle helmets and seat belts, for that matter.  We don't need a nanny state.  I may not recommend that someone marry his or her cousin, but I don't think such things should be forbidden by law.

[Gustaf]

Of course.

You don't think people with an age difference should marry but you approve of this? That's a little strange to me.

And, yeah, I think it should be allowed. But probably frowned upon.

[Ebowed]

You don't think people with an age difference should marry but you approve of this? That's a little strange to me.

No, I don't believe that anymore.

[Jaggerjack]

Sure, why not?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

In WV the answer is......you mean they can't?

[Likely Voter]

assuming there is some way to be sure that the children dont end up screwed up then I see no reason why not

[Friz]

Of course.  Personally, I have several cousins I wouldn't mind doing the nasty with.

[Person Man]

I voted "No", but if I had information that showed that their children, if any, would be healthy....I would vote "Yes". I would vote "Yes" for second cousins.

[MasterJedi]

I voted "No", but if I had information that showed that their children, if any, would be healthy....I would vote "Yes". I would vote "Yes" for second cousins.

If you actually looked at statistics there really is hardly any risk.

[Friz]

I voted "No", but if I had information that showed that their children, if any, would be healthy....I would vote "Yes". I would vote "Yes" for second cousins.

If you actually looked at statistics there really is hardly any risk.

Thank you.  It's really only 'verboten' in the United States, despite that it was socially acceptable until around the 1930s (IIRC).

[Democratic Hawk]

No

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No

Why not?