There are people who are not in incestuous relationships who have an increased risk of having children with birth defects, such as older women & men. Other people with birth defects, such as dwarfs, are allowed to marry, despite the chance that their children will be dwarfs.You blatantly attempt to trivialize my position by accusing me of “underestimating” what you believe to be “the stupidity and immorality of the people on [my] side.” Which side would that be? Should we refuse birth control to minors who would be afraid to get their parents’ prior permission? It’s a legitimate and complex issue for debate among reasonable people, which probably requires compromise to reach a decision.[QUOTE]
Unless a child is being physically abused, the parent should be the ultimate authority. This is the United States, not Nazi Germany.
The republican platform states that marriage is between one man and one woman. So, the push for the legalization of marriages of any other combination isn't coming from the republican party, although I'm sure there are individuals within the party (we like to call them RHINOS) who believe otherwise.
[QUOTE]...I personally believe marriage should also be defined at the federal level to legally include any combination of two or more adult men and women, excluding blood-related opposite sex pairings due to their strong potential for occurrence of birth defects.
Incestuous couples are already having sex. Will they become fertile only if they get a marriage license? Besides, marriage isn't about having children, it's about being with the one you love. Isn't that's what we hear from the proponents of gay marriage? But now it's all about having kids?