Anachronous Rex wrote:Uelvan wrote:
I can get over the risks of a person with a genetic disorder given a fair chance. It is more unethical to me, to deny someone rights based off of their genes, no matter what it makes you.
But that's exactly what you are doing. You're punishing two people who love each other on account of an accident of birth that causes them to have very similar genes.However, it is not unethical to tell two (probably) healthy consenting adults that their incestuous relationship will probably produce a child who will be disadvantaged, and find that grounds to deny them.
How is that different? Define "probably." And again, why would it? It is not axiomatic that marriage produces children.If you read my first post, I pretty much flat out said incest should be illegal.
And I will flat out say that you are wrong.
They should learn better, nature alone tells us that inbreeding is bad, and produces less fertile, and more complication prone children. As an act, it is self destructive, and vile.
"How is that different? Define "probably." And again, why would it? It is not axiomatic that marriage produces children."
To use an example; a Haemophiliac did not choose to be born with his condition, and probably will pass it on, but to deny him/her the rights to marry is a form of discrimination because they did not choose to be born with Haemophilia.
prob·a·bly
[ próbbəblee ]
as is likely: as is likely or to be expected
It is not axiomatic but it is highly common and quite encouraged for spouses to settle down and have a family together.