I think he means in other cultures/countries it's acceptable.

BTW, Is there actual scientific proof that inbreeding brings about birth defects? I had heard that it was just an old wives tale used to discourage that practice.

Well first you must prove that it is a fact! ;)

From this page: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266

Alabama
Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia

...a few other states allow it if the cousins in question are over 65, unable to have children, or if genetic counseling is completed.

Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina*, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia,

First cousin marriage is allowed in these states under the following circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

*NC does not allow "Double cousin marriage," but doesn't care about single first cousin marriage.

1st cousin marriage is encouraged in some cultures.

Speaking of....MD is working on banning 1st cousin marriages.

And from that article
It's not really a genetic issue unless it's popular in the population.

hey Drole...do you feel like being my 2nd wife? I can afford it.

oh wow.

LOL.

but yea, while i disagree with the lifestyle and find it disgusting, it's not something that affects me in anyway.

gays should have the same rights to experience nagging about taking out the trash like straight people do.

i wonder if this ruling will resound around the country.

Watch you say now! :p

Sorry no, I have needs. ;)

You may say no now...but some day...

Touche' - cuts both ways. So you won't disagree with a decision if it is something you don't agree with? What if I am of the minority and you are the majority and a judge finds for the minority? Will you exercise your right to disagree as well or will you just bend over and take it?:eek:

My example of NAMBLA was extreme to make a point. To my knowledge NAMBLA has not asked for marriage privleges. That does not mean that it is out of the realm of possibility (incremental creep has started) for them to attempt to have it legalized. It was somewhat "tongue in check" but I guess that was lost on everyone.

There is a "slippery slope", however and we are on it.

I can disagree with a decision and agree that it was the right one based on the law. I can also disagree and think it was the wrong one. I don't act like a well respected judge acted on a whim.



You neither made a point nor were particularly funny. There is no incremental creep to legalizing marriage contracts with minors who cannot consent to sex much less marriage. That's like saying a leash law means you can lock children in cages like animals.

I don't and you based on what you quoted from me you know that as well.

I hate to inform you of this but "tongue in cheek" does not necessarily mean funny.

If the legal age for marriage is less than 18 with parental or guardian consent and a man wants to marry a 16 year old boy and the parents/guardian approve does that make it acceptable to you? It certainly would be legal.

No. We understood what you were trying to do and that you intended it to be tongue in chEEk, but the very fact that you made that particular parallel is reflective of your presuppositions. You seem to be blind to your bias.

Yes.