Yeah, probably because of the biological risks involved.
But if you remove those, why should modern society care?
Real or fake? Prager: "There's no secular argument against adult incest.
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
But if you remove those, why should modern society care?
I'm pretty sure he's wrong about primary relatives. There is an extremely high incidence in birth defects and deformities in the children of primary relatives.
Now he could make that argument about it taking multiple generations when it comes to third degree relatives such as a first cousin. The bump in incidents of birth defects from first cousins is actually not that high and much of history marriage between first cousins was typical. But he didn't say that and there isn't really a religious argument against it either as I don't believe scripture prohibits cousins marrying.
That said I would still say the secular argument still exists as even if you are talking about first cousins. Because even if it takes multiple generations for them to show up, it makes more sense, especially in this modern world to simply nip it in the bud before it actually becomes multiple generations.
I don't care...I think it's creepy as f*** but, as long as they don't procreate, I'm not standing in their way. We already have multiple states that allow first-cousin marriages...some with restrictions.
Without incest, there would be no one to support trump.
The best argument for it is that it will lead to mental retardation. Just not immediately. Might want to rethink this line of thought.
Well not exactly, I've found a few loopholes in our state's laws. Maryland only prohibits vaginal intercourse, so BJs & PIITB still fair game. Rhode Island's law only prohibits marriage, so anything goes I guess as long as you don't tie the knot.
