Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by gibbz, Jan 10, 2010.
Glad the issue with disallowing same-sex marriage comes down to traditional family values
To be fair, marrying your first cousin isn't the same as marrying your sibling. Even here in the UK first cousins are allowed to marry. Not sure how popular it is though.
Ha ha certainly, but it is still playing genetic roulette
Can't get more traditional than kissing (and procreating) cousins.
Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont appear to be the Libertarian states as far as marriage is concerned.
True, especially amongst some of our immigrant communities where arranged marriages are common. For instance, although Pakistani parents are responsible for only 3% of births in the UK over 30% of children born with genetic illnesses are born to Pakistani parents. It appears that when you get too many first cousin marriages within the same family, it doesn't take too many generations before problems arise.
Something the Royal Houses of Europe knew only too well in the last century.
Funnily enough it was through that story that I knew about the genetic issues I mention above, although the statistic quoted came from one of the broadsheets.
Not only the Royal Houses: think of all those "upper class twits". Centuries of inbreeding to avoid being tainted by the blood of commoners.
So all states which allow same-sex marriage, save Iowa and New Hampshire, also allow first cousins to wed. Is there an underlying meaning to it all?
What about the states that do not fall into that category. Allow first cousins but NOT same sex?
And what about the fact there are MANY more states that allow first cousin but not same sex? Not allowing first cousin marriage can be argued as a fact of genetic problems that occur when that happens. Same sex marriage does nothing to society as a whole.
Are first cousin marriages that occur in states that permit them recognized as legal in states that don't?
The Hutterites of North America, an Anabaptist sect similar to the Amish have very high rates of disability due to intermarriage. Since it's mostly a closed sect, very few women would willingly join, they're having big, big problems.
Genetic isolation is never a good thing.
Looks like there are some - what's the point, though?
Exactly - what about it?
Is the graphic celebrating something, or pointing out something funny, or what?
i dont get this thread
The graphic is pointing out the irony contained within the arguments against same-sex marriage (a lot of "traditional and moral" arguments as well as the "sanctity" of marriage) when a larger portion of states allow first cousin marriages.
It's pointing out the hypocrisy of our country. We're more for first cousins having sex and getting married than non related same sex people getting married.
where is the moral argument against first cousins? please cite
the only issue is "potential" increase in birth defects and this is more or less exxageerated
But where is this moral argument? more importantly, the moral argument used by those who are against same sex marriages?
i fail to see any irony
if anything, its a interesting fact but no irony
Sorry if this is confusing you. I'll try to explain better.
The arguments made against same-sex marriage often include the sanctity of marriage and traditional moral values. There is a huge movement against same-sex marriage on a national scale.
Alternatively, as the graphic shows, there are lots of states allowing first cousin marriage. This union [can be] genetically dangerous and certainly wouldn't fit the same-sex opponents' definition of sanctity. However, there isn't the same push to ban these people from forming unions as there is for homosexuals.
It is simply meant to highlight hypocrisy in our country. Especially with those who wish to selectively define what is or isn't moral for the rest of the country.
According to research it's not dangerous providing the bloodlines don't keep crossing. There is an increased risk of infant mortality in babies born to first-cousin parents, but this is slightly less than the risk presented when the mother is over 40.
It's also quite obvious from your graphic that a slight majority of states ban first-cousin marriages, so it doesn't really stand as an example of hypocrisy either. Sorry.
Well the Catholic Church for one discourages such marriages.
I edited the post to reflect the genetic issue.
It is also evident from the graphic that 25 states allow first cousin marriage. That is NOT a slight majority against, it is 50/50. Also, based on the graphic, 7 allow same sex marriage. That is almost 4 to 1. That is hypocritical. Sorry.
But how are these two issues even related (pun not intended)? If, as you postulate, people in a majority of states have voted or otherwise chosen not to allow same-sex marriage, how does that in any way correlate to the legality of marriage between first cousins?
I don't see any hypocrisy here; I see two completely unrelated issues being pointed out, and a feeble attempt to show some sort of relationship between them.
Apologies. I miscounted. 25 each way it is.
Its just an interesting observation with ZERO links between the two
I mean you could only make the argument sort of if all the states that allowed same sex, also allowed first cousins but they don't. Same with the vice versa case. Alot also don't allow either case
There is no relationship. There is no irony
You made me smile
This wasn't meant to be so serious. The point is that many reasons against same sex marriage revolve around personal morality rather than legal issues. I merely thought I would shine some humor on the subject by showing that 25 states allows first cousin marriage as opposed to 7 for same sex. Meanwhile, I would venture to guess that if you were to ask, a majority of those opposing same sex marriage would also say that first cousin marriage is weird or immoral, and might be shocked to find their state allows it. Yet, there has been no equal push against it.
I will concede that perhaps hypocrisy doesn't fit the bill, but I would argue it is ironic at the least.
Either way, it was just meant as a funny, interesting image to ponder.
Also, I am not necessarily against first cousin marriage. I couldn't care less who people want to spend their lives with. I think people should be able to love whomever they want.
There you go
Since we are correcting each other.