If there's anything we've learned from the gay marriage debate's its the fact that it is perfectly legal and morally inobjectable to be in love or be married without planning to procreate. If we're going to protect the well-being of the unborn, then instead perhaps it should simply be illegal for relatives to reproduce, if that would be possible to legislate. There are alternative ways for them to have children.
Of course, but how do we prevent them from having biological children?
The bigger issue in my eyes is that, particularly in close relations, one individual often holds considerable power over the other (the parent/child relationship is probably most like this, but often further apart as well). This often exists to the point that individuals wouldn't have a reasonable ability to resist if incestuous relationships were legal and acceptable.
This is a true concern that goes beyond the possibility of disabled children argument.
As for polgamy, I am all for it as long as something is done about the taxation issue. The bg problem right now is that groups that practice polygamy have a history of marginalizing and abuse of women. Most notably fundamentalist Mormon groups (such as Bountiful, BC).
These need to be addressed, yes. Polygamists should be able to claim only one partner, at least for now.
For instance, someone shouting for the execution of homosexuals, but is unable to get this to happen, might vote for the same person I'd vote for. They are still an idiot, but their vote isn't the problem, because its utilization is far more limited then what they'd like to do.
I still think we'd be better off without social authoritarians.
I wouldn't agree with that, though I do support tax breaks for having kids, since they are the future of society.
Non-romantic cohabitation is good for the budget. Why?
When two or more people stay in one location, they split the expenses between them. This lowers their chances of going into debt, which in turn leaves them as a) better consumers and b) less likely to require government aid.
You do know how ironic this is coming from you right?
It's only ironic if you interpret "family unit" as how most people who spout the term put it.
I don't consider it one man, one woman, and whatever number of biological spawn they have. I consider it (ideally) two parents - but one or possibly more than two if necessary - in a stable, loving relationship, with any children they may have(either biologically or via adoption).
A single parent is far better than being an orphan. We just benefit from putting emphasis on forming families.
I don't understand your meaning. Being illegal /=/ going to jail even now, and we overuse jail a lot currently...
What I meant was that there are people of the same thought - that incest requires psychological help - who'd use the force of law to mandate that same help. This shouldn't be the case.
What's next? The US doesn't veto a condemnation of Israel?
You'll jinx it!
