kissin cousins...

[Gan]

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (AP) -- It began as the kind of childhood crush that often becomes family lore shared at reunions years later.

Eventually, first cousins Donald W. Andrews Sr. and Eleanore Amrhein realized they had a deeper love and wanted to wed. It couldn't happen in their home state of Pennsylvania, though, or 23 other states that prohibit first cousins from marrying each other.

Instead, they tied the knot in Maryland last month.

Rest of the article...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/05/cousins.marriage.ap/index.html


What's interesting is the mini-poll on CNN show that over 60% of participants say they shouldnt... yet I remember the poll for gay marriages being quite the reverse.

Marrying within the family was once considered the only way to preserve the 'blood-line'... especially in English Royalty thus where the term 'blue blood' was coined if I remember my trivia correctly.

What do you think? How did you vote?

I voted yes by the way, we live in a fairly educated civilization and those that do marry know the risk of defects if a child were produced from that union. Although, the numbers given in this article show a significantly lower % than I remember reading before. I suppose this is where I differ from my Republican peers in that I do not think that the Govt should be dictating moral policy.

[Jolena]

I would have voted that it not be allowed. There is no way for a gay couple to produce a child. They can adopt yes, but no way to actually reproduce between the two. My issue would not be that the 1st cousins would be bad examples for their child, because I don't think that is the case. I do however have an objection to two people knowingly reproducing when the chances of said child being disabled is high.

[The Korean]

Hell, IMO, you better be beyond third cousins if you plan on doing anything together.

[xtc]

I read the article on CNN. It seems many first world nations allow cousins to marry. Outside the obvious problems i.e. of the child being an idiot or deformed I don't get the attraction. How does this happen? One day you are at a family picnic and suddenly you think to yourself, hey I would really like to shag my dad's brothers daughter. Are there not enough members of the opposite sex that you have to start picking through the family tree?

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by xtc]

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think it depends on how hot the 1st cousin is, before I can make a judgement.

Seriously though, I don't care one way or another. Love is love I guess. Hopefully they adopt rather than have their own.

[AnticorRifling]

I could care less one way or the other. I'm neither of those two people so I can't decide for them. I think it's gross but again I'm not them so they won't think like me.

[Parkbandit]

Like SHM.. all depends on if she's hot or not.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I would have voted that it not be allowed. There is no way for a gay couple to produce a child. They can adopt yes, but no way to actually reproduce between the two. My issue would not be that the 1st cousins would be bad examples for their child, because I don't think that is the case. I do however have an objection to two people knowingly reproducing when the chances of said child being disabled is high.>>

I don't get it. You support gay marriage so gays can have sex, but you're against the marriage of first cousins so they don't have sex. If you care at all about the reproductive aspect of marriage, you would not support gay marriage for the exact reason you stated. Cousins can adopt a child just as well as a gay couple can, btw.


Edit: I'm all for this marriage, and all against gay marriage, for clarification.

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by Bobmuhthol]

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<I would have voted that it not be allowed. There is no way for a gay couple to produce a child. They can adopt yes, but no way to actually reproduce between the two. My issue would not be that the 1st cousins would be bad examples for their child, because I don't think that is the case. I do however have an objection to two people knowingly reproducing when the chances of said child being disabled is high.>>

I don't get it. You support gay marriage so gays can have sex, but you're against the marriage of first cousins so they don't have sex. If you care at all about the reproductive aspect of marriage, you would not support gay marriage for the exact reason you stated. Cousins can adopt a child just as well as a gay couple can, btw.

pw3nd

[DeV]

I remember a client once telling me that she'd recently married her first cousin after they'd both been married/divorced and had older children from those first marriages. This was after both had been married for 25 and 30 years respectively so they were well into their upper 50s early 60s. She said they had loved each other since they were little children. I didn't know how to respond only because of it being so taboo.

Honestly, I don't know what to think of it but to each their own, I guess. It's weird but then again...

[Jolena]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<I would have voted that it not be allowed. There is no way for a gay couple to produce a child. They can adopt yes, but no way to actually reproduce between the two. My issue would not be that the 1st cousins would be bad examples for their child, because I don't think that is the case. I do however have an objection to two people knowingly reproducing when the chances of said child being disabled is high.>>

I don't get it. You support gay marriage so gays can have sex, but you're against the marriage of first cousins so they don't have sex. If you care at all about the reproductive aspect of marriage, you would not support gay marriage for the exact reason you stated. Cousins can adopt a child just as well as a gay couple can, btw.


Edit: I'm all for this marriage, and all against gay marriage, for clarification.

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by Bobmuhthol]

I'm not against adopting a child at all, Bob. I have no issue with the couples raising a child, only the fact that they could reproduce a child that has a high chance of deformities, both mental and physical.

[hectomaner]

man one of my cousins is hot as hell, i'd say in the top 98% of women i've seen before.

but thats not saying i'd marry her. or even slip it to her. she's my cousin period. but thats my family beliefs. i just wish she was some random non-family female.

so if those 2 are ok with marrying their cousin, then more power to them.

[Parkbandit]

Obviously, Bob has a hot cousin he's got his eye on.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Jolena
I'm not against adopting a child at all, Bob. I have no issue with the couples raising a child, only the fact that they could reproduce a child that has a high chance of deformities, both mental and physical.

Pretty much agree.

I don't care what consenting adults do, be it sex, marriage, suicide ... it doesn't matter.

The well being of children change the formula however. If brother and sister want to marry, who cares? When sis starts popping out kids with genetic defects that have negative impacts on each child’s life ... it becomes a problem.

If they want to marry, fine. If they want to bump uglies, fine. Children no ... one of them needs to be sterilized first.

[The Korean]

Tsa`ah wants to do his sister.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Jolena
I'm not against adopting a child at all, Bob. I have no issue with the couples raising a child, only the fact that they could reproduce a child that has a high chance of deformities, both mental and physical.

Higher chance. Not high chance. And there is a greater genetic difference between cousins than between siblings.

Not saying its right or wrong.

[Jolena]

alright then, higher chance. My opinion still stands. As Tsa'ah said, I have no issue with what the adults do with each other. When a child is brought into it through means of reproduction between the TWO (not adopting) then my concern begins. Not because marrrying your cousin or having sex with your cousin is wrong ( I have no thoughts on it, as to each their own applies here for me) but because a child is brought into it. Again, this is not in regards to the couples ability to raise said child. Only the *higher* risk of deformities.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I'm not against adopting a child at all, Bob.>>

If that's what you got out of what I said, anything you say on the matter has no weight.

<<I have no issue with the couples raising a child, only the fact that they could reproduce a child that has a high chance of deformities, both mental and physical.>>

You just said you don't want the marriage to be allowed.

<<Obviously, Bob has a hot cousin he's got his eye on.>>

There was this hot chick at this thing about a year ago, and I'm not sure if I'm related to her or not, but I would have done it.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<As Tsa'ah said, I have no issue with what the adults do with each other.>>


I would have voted that it not be allowed.
<<Not because marrrying your cousin or having sex with your cousin is wrong>>


I would have voted that it not be allowed.

[Jolena]

I stated the reason I don't want the marriage allowed as well. Since I know that there is NO way a couple like that would be regulated to have one sterile so as not to reproduce children, then yes, I would vote no. NOT because I don't agree with the marriage itself but because there is no way to regulate the reproduction of a child between the two.

Not that it matters, you would argue with me regardless.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Since I know that there is NO way a couple like that would be regulated to have one sterile so as not to reproduce children, then yes, I would vote no.>>

... what?

<<NOT because I don't agree with the marriage itself but because there is no way to regulate the reproduction of a child between the two.>>

It doesn't matter why you don't want them to be married.

I would have voted that it not be allowed [BUT BRING IN THE GAYS!].

<<Not that it matters, you would argue with me regardless.>>

What a terrible thing to say in any discussion. Either shut up or don't. Don't complain in the process of the latter.

[Brattt8525]

I want to know what the heck gay marriages/relationships have to do with this? Or is it just another way to throw protray your dislike for them as a whole?

My feeling is the same as others have stated, if you want to bang/marry your blood relative that is your choice, just don't bring a child into the world through that genetic mix.

[Jolena]

<<Bob's post etc.>>

Done responding to you as of this post. NEXT!

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by Jolena]

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I want to know what the heck gay marriages/relationships have to do with this? Or is it just another way to throw protray your dislike for them as a whole?>>

You've got to be fucking kidding.

[Jolena]

Originally posted by Brattt8525
I want to know what the heck gay marriages/relationships have to do with this?

It shouldn't have anything to do with it. A gay couple can not reproduce, only adopt. The issue myself and you among others have stated has only been with the ability for said cousins to reproduce. Not that a marriage would be the only way they could do such, but it's looked upon in general as a precursor. Not sure why that's such a hard thing for some posters to understand but apparently it is.

[Hulkein]

<< What's interesting is the mini-poll on CNN show that over 60% of participants say they shouldnt... yet I remember the poll for gay marriages being quite the reverse. >>

Nah, most national polls (CNN included, I believe) are against gay marriage as well.

[Hulkein]

As for the question at hand... whenever reproduction is brought up in the gay marriage discussions, people say marriage has nothing to do with having children, so I don't see how one can support gay marriage but not this.

Personally, I'm against both gay marriage and this.

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by Hulkein]

[Brattt8525]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<I want to know what the heck gay marriages/relationships have to do with this? Or is it just another way to throw protray your dislike for them as a whole?>>

You've got to be fucking kidding.

No Bob I am not "fucking kidding" What does kissing cousins have to do with gay couples? Seriously.

[Bobmuhthol]

Every female that has posted in this thread is a fucking idiot. I'll leave it at that.

[Jolena]

Originally posted by Hulkein
As for the question at hand... whenever reproduction is brought up in the gay marriage discussions, people say marriage has nothing to do with having children, so I don't see how one can support gay marriage but not this.

Personally, I'm against both.

Bringing up reproduction as a possibility for gays is moronic. SEX is not the issue at hand here. The ability to reproduce is. The only reason reproduction should be brought up in a discussion of gay relationships would be to state that it's not possible. So there is a huge difference for me and many others here in supporting gay couples and kissing cousins as it were. Its NOT the coupling we are against, it's the reproduction.

[Brattt8525]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Every female that has posted in this thread is a fucking idiot. I'll leave it at that.


No Bob, you are the loser when you resort to calling people fucking idiots. Nice try though.:lol:

[Bobmuhthol]

Okay I need to get one more post in.

<<SEX is not the issue at hand here. The ability to reproduce is.>>


I would have voted that it not be allowed.

Since I know that there is NO way a couple like that would be regulated to have one sterile so as not to reproduce children, then yes, I would vote no.

<<Bringing up reproduction as a possibility for gays is moronic.>>


The issue myself and you among others have stated has only been with the ability for said cousins to reproduce. Not that a marriage would be the only way they could do such, but it's looked upon in general as a precursor.

<<So there is a huge difference for me and many others here in supporting gay couples and kissing cousins as it were. Its NOT the coupling we are against, it's the reproduction.>>

I didn't have a kid when I kissed a chick. Please label the cousins accordingly.


AND YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF SO MUCH THAT YOU SHOULD BE STABBED.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<No Bob, you are the loser when you resort to calling people fucking idiots.>>

I didn't say you were the loser, you *fucking idiot*. I don't know what you expect me to call you, if not the truth.

[Jolena]

Has anyone else wondered when cousins having sex became the same as gays? :rolleyes:

[Brattt8525]

Oh and a side note, as I have already tried to make clear I wouldn't vote no I don't care if you bang your sister/brother.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Jolena
Has anyone else wondered when cousins having sex became the same as gays? :rolleyes:

But it's about love, they don't need to have sex... just like gays.

[Jolena]

if they did or didn't have sex, I would not care one bit. As I have stated way too many times for you and some others, this is NOT about their ability to have sex. This is about reproducing a child between cousins that has a higher chance of deformities. As long as that possibility was eliminated, I have no issues with it at all.

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by Jolena]

[Brattt8525]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<No Bob, you are the loser when you resort to calling people fucking idiots.>>

I didn't say you were the loser, you *fucking idiot*. I don't know what you expect me to call you, if not the truth.

I said you were the LOSER IE you lose this argument and any other when you have to resort to name calling instead of actually debating how you feel.

You are a highly intelligent young man, stop posting like a 10 year old.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<if they did or didn't have sex, I would not care one bit. As I have stated way too many times for you and some others, this is NOT about sex. This is about reproducing a child between cousins that has a higher chance of deformities.>>

THEY HAVE TO HAVE SEX FOR THAT TO FUCKING HAPPEN, AS I HAVE STATED WAY TOO MANY TIMES FOR YOU. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

I would have voted that it not be allowed.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<As long as that possibility was eliminated, I have no issues with it at all.>>

That's funny because
I would have voted that it not be allowed.

[Brattt8525]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Jolena
Has anyone else wondered when cousins having sex became the same as gays? :rolleyes:

But it's about love, they don't need to have sex... just like gays.

Bite your tongue!!!!!!!!! :D

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Jolena
if they did or didn't have sex, I would not care one bit. As I have stated way too many times for you and some others, this is NOT about sex. This is about reproducing a child between cousins that has a higher chance of deformities.

Ok, one last time for you, Jolena.

People say gays should wed because marriage is about love, not sex, not anything else, just love.

How is this any different?

What is stopping them from having kids while being UNWED? Is it impossible to have kids when you're not married? If so, a lot of people are wasting money on contraceptives...

The marriage is purely for their love, nothing else.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
The marriage is purely for their love, nothing else. False

[Bobmuhthol]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Hulkein
The marriage is purely for their love, nothing else. False

Wrong.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Hulkein
The marriage is purely for their love, nothing else. False

If you don't believe marriage is only about love then I hope you don't plan on lobbying for gay marriage anytime soon.

[Jolena]

I suppose that in all honesty, I have no problem with them being married and having reread the things YOU have said, Hulkein I would go ahead and vote yes. Even I stated earlier that marriage would not be the only way they could reproduce. That being said, I still have issues with them reproducing. You're right though, Hulkein, marriage wouldn't stop or start that process. So voting no is unreasonable. Too bad others can't be as reasonable as you are when responding to posts eh? Might have been a bit more effective in delivering their point intelligently.

[Bobmuhthol]

YOU are an idiot, Jolena. It's a shame I didn't have the luxury of not seeing your picture.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Hulkein
The marriage is purely for their love, nothing else. False

If you don't believe marriage is only about love then I hope you don't plan on lobbying for gay marriage anytime soon. Cool, I haven't lobbied(in the political sense of the word) and won't be lobbying any time soon. :grin:

I will say that as a lesbian, if I'm ever to marry any woman I'm with, it will be about more than just love.
Sadly, love is not enough to sustain a relationship let alone a marriage.

Not only would it need to be about love but it would need to encompass far more than just an emotional committment or ideology.

[Edaarin]

Gross...but whatever. Personal choice, right? As long as it doesn't affect me.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by DeV
Cool, I haven't lobbied(in the political sense of the word) and won't be lobbying any time soon. :grin:

I will say that as a lesbian, if I'm ever to marry any woman I'm with, it will be about more than just love.
Sadly, love is not enough to sustain a relationship let alone a marriage.

Not only would it need to be about love but it would need to encompass far more than just an emotional committment or ideology.

Well if you feel this way then I support your standpoint.

I was more or less playing devils advocate throughout this thread to prove a point to those who support gay marriage because they feel marriage is only about love, but are against this because of complications with kids (which marriage can't dictate anyway).

[Warriorbird]

Research has proved that degree of consanguinity isn't as much of a problem as they once made it out to be. Two second cousins in my family married each other, and they ended up fine (though, mind you, one of their kids is a bit of a delinquent, I think that's more the fault of bad parenting/the suburbs than anything else.) The idea never did it for me, but then again, none of my first cousins are even the remotest bit attractive to me.

[xtc]

So if gay marriages passes in any of the states does this mean that gay cousins will be able to marry?

Since reproduction isn't an issue in gay marriage does this mean that gay brothers could marry or for that matter a gay father and gay son get married?

Jerry Springer could have really interesting weddings on his show if the above is allowed.

[Hulkein]

How about a closet lesbian who was recently widowed and has one 25 year old lesbian daughter?

Can they marry? It's their right, is it not?

And yeah, Springer would have a field day with these, lol.

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by Hulkein]

[DeV]

Originally posted by xtc
Jerry Springer could have really interesting weddings on his show if the above is allowed. Doesn't he already...

And to add to all this, what's to stop a child molesting heterosexual father from marrying his ripe for the picking 18 year old daughter he's been shagging for the past 6 years?

[Hulkein]

Close-minded bigot conservatives, that's who! Assholes the lot of them.

[Gan]

Hulkein accurately portrayed why I compared this governmental involvement of marriage/cousins to marriage/gays. The fact that reproduction could or could not occur if they were or were not married. Marriage has not stopped the birth rate of unwed teenage mothers so I doubt it will stop those cousins who choose to FORNICATE LIKE WILD RABBITS from doing just that.

What I'm bothered with is the fact that its the Government mandating morality where it should be left up to us. Who cares if so and so is married to so and so. Yes it is an issue that if what happens if something accidental occurs that results in a third party (the child) from being the victim of a deformity that might have been avoided and how that accountability should be applied.

Other examples such as this could be viewed in the right for the mentally retarded to marry/reproduce. And I could go a step further by suggesting that all women and men who show a risk of being under the influence of drugs not be allowed to marry or have children because of the effects of drugs on babies born under their influence.

Where do we stop the intrusion of the majority over the rights of the individual (ie. goverment involvement)? Thats the big issue here, in my opinion.

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by Ganalon]

[Gan]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by xtc
Jerry Springer could have really interesting weddings on his show if the above is allowed. Doesn't he already...

And to add to all this, what's to stop a child molesting heterosexual father from marrying his ripe for the picking 18 year old daughter he's been shagging for the past 6 years?

Woody Allen???

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Hulkein
How about a closet lesbian who was recently widowed and has one 25 year old lesbian daughter?


If they're both hot I'm sure there's a market for that type of pr0n.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by xtc
Jerry Springer could have really interesting weddings on his show if the above is allowed. Doesn't he already...

And to add to all this, what's to stop a child molesting heterosexual father from marrying his ripe for the picking 18 year old daughter he's been shagging for the past 6 years?

Woody Allen??? Oh wait... BINGO! It's already legal.

Heh, good one.

[xtc]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by xtc
Jerry Springer could have really interesting weddings on his show if the above is allowed. Doesn't he already...

And to add to all this, what's to stop a child molesting heterosexual father from marrying his ripe for the picking 18 year old daughter he's been shagging for the past 6 years?

Currently the law.

[DeV]

See above.

[Gan]

<currently the law>

Only if said 18 year old daughter brings up the before 18 sex in court during a future divorce proceeding... or the ex-wife/mother in her divorce proceedings. :axe:

[Azul]

Kinda on topic. I have to ask if I'm related to a girl I like in my hometown. Major reason I moved away and haven't looked back

Edited for my horrible grammer

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by Azul]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Azul
Kinda on topic. I have to ask if I'm related to a girl I like is related to me back in my hometown. Major reason I moved away and haven't looked back

Hahaha ... man I feel ya.

In Jr High I asked this girl to the school dance, later that day my mother is explaining how we're third cousins once removed. It happened two other times.

I grilled my mom and dad for days concerning potential lines of relation before the wife and I officially announced our engagement.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Azul
Kinda on topic. I have to ask if I'm related to a girl I like is related to me back in my hometown. Major reason I moved away and haven't looked back

Hahaha ... man I feel ya.

In Jr High I asked this girl to the school dance, later that day my mother is explaining how we're third cousins once removed. It happened two other times.

I grilled my mom and dad for days concerning potential lines of relation before the wife and I officially announced our engagement.

You must live in a small town or you are a Jewish Mormon.....:lol:

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
You must live in a small town or you are a Jewish Mormon.....:lol:

Less than 4000 people within the village limits, less than 130 kids in the HS (consolidated with two other smaller towns).

But ya ... I thought belonging to 1 of 3 Jewish families in the entire county left the dating pool wide open for me; I was wrong.

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't think the government should mandate marriage. In fact, imo they have no business being involved in marraige -- they get their taxes. Marriage imo is an issue/non-issue between the spiritual leader and the couple, not Dub-ya.

-Melissa

I'm going to end this debate right now. This is why it should all be illegal.

[Gan]

:lol2: