Re:Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
by pgeorgi on Friday June 26, 2015 @12:29PM
(#9785784)
The risk to offspring is definitely higher with certain genetic diseases than with relatives.
The case against incest can be made on that base when eugenics are re-established and codified into law. As-is the only argument that holds water is "yuck" - one that same sex marriage proponents should be vaguely familiar with.
Re:Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
by matt-attack on Friday June 26, 2015 @11:50AM
(#9785395)
> There's a clear harm involved there
You conflation of marriage with breeding should be rethought. I suppose infertile couples should be allowed to marry since they cannot bear children?
Re:Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
by raisedbyninjas on Friday June 26, 2015 @12:27PM
(#9785765)
Also brothers, sisters, mom and daughter, nephew and uncle
Re:Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
by anonz_ on Friday June 26, 2015 @01:07PM
(#9786138)
> Historically it's been used in a way that's profoundly imbalanced towards women (i.e. almost exclusively polygyny)
Any biologists care to chime in on this? It cuts both ways, and is more complicated than that.
I don't understand how polygamy is imbalanced toward woman. They get a stake of the alpha's attention and him providing for them. In the current system, it's AFBB. The beta male foots the bill for alpha seed.
Polygamy - We probably will revisit our stance on polygamy in decades to come. Historically it's been used in a way that's profoundly imbalanced towards women (i.e. almost exclusively polygyny), but it's not hard to imagine a future where that's not the case.