View Single Post
Old 2015-07-30, 07:46   #1526
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"π’‰Ίπ’ŒŒπ’‡·π’†·π’€­"
May 2003
Down not across

23×113 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux View Post
If I were to guess, I'd say your PM probably has to do with the fact that same-sex couples don't have nearly the same issues with respect to incest that opposite-sex couples do.
You guess correctly. Well done!

Here's the text of my PM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman
I just posted
Quote:
I can think of at least one specific example but I won't reveal it until you've had a good opportunity to present your position on this matter.

To establish priority and head-off any suggestion that I'm quite dogmatic on the issue of marriage, I'll PM Brian-E with my example. Either he or I can reveal it when the time is right in our independent judgement.
My example concerns the legal definition of incest. I could make an argument on the grounds of genetics that marriage be forbidden to a husband and wife of too close consanguinity --- those sharing at least 1/4 of a genome inherited within the last three generations for instance. I could also make an argument, on the same grounds, that civil partnerships could be permitted between siblings, between a parent and a child, and so forth.

This example nicely meets ZF's "accidental pregancy" condition. It's tough on post-menopausal women and their grandsons, I suppose, but as women of that age are already becoming pregnant perhaps it's a flaw with which we will have to live for some time.
Note that from your point of view of deleterious effects on accidentally conceived children there's no particularly good reason why genetically related but mutually infertile couples should not be married to each other.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote