![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gawd bless the media, and the cousins too!
was anyone else amused by the fact that the 'story' that martha stewart's interview replaced was about cousins who marry?
and while such a topic on a "news" show is amusing, the timing is a bit odious. gee, all them homosexuals are marrying, why not bust out a cousins marrying story, too? i
i'm sure once they do air it again, it'll be nice and strategic. i already know at least one of the cousins is going to make the argument that if the gays can marry, why not the cousins, too? and in all likelihood, this cousin will not be the brightest crayon in the box. and it will give idiots even more justificaion to themselves for why two people, who aren't of apparently opposite genders, should be forbidden from marrying. this is just the way our lovely media works.
but quite frankly, i say let the cousins marry, too.
no, wait, hear me out. . .
there isn't that much evidence saying that first cousins whose families have no history of inbreeding are all that at risk for bringing forth into the world genetically mutated spawn. sure, if both have risks for some genetic disorder the risk will rise. but guess what? news flash! procreation is not the point of marriage anymore! sorry. it's just not. furthermore you do not need to be married to procreate. scandalous. i know.
which is all to say that if cousins are going to make (possibly, but in all probability not, genetically malformed) babies, they're going to do so whether or not they have rings on their fingers.
if they are consenting adults, what the hell is the problem?
and while such a topic on a "news" show is amusing, the timing is a bit odious. gee, all them homosexuals are marrying, why not bust out a cousins marrying story, too? i
i'm sure once they do air it again, it'll be nice and strategic. i already know at least one of the cousins is going to make the argument that if the gays can marry, why not the cousins, too? and in all likelihood, this cousin will not be the brightest crayon in the box. and it will give idiots even more justificaion to themselves for why two people, who aren't of apparently opposite genders, should be forbidden from marrying. this is just the way our lovely media works.
but quite frankly, i say let the cousins marry, too.
no, wait, hear me out. . .
there isn't that much evidence saying that first cousins whose families have no history of inbreeding are all that at risk for bringing forth into the world genetically mutated spawn. sure, if both have risks for some genetic disorder the risk will rise. but guess what? news flash! procreation is not the point of marriage anymore! sorry. it's just not. furthermore you do not need to be married to procreate. scandalous. i know.
which is all to say that if cousins are going to make (possibly, but in all probability not, genetically malformed) babies, they're going to do so whether or not they have rings on their fingers.
if they are consenting adults, what the hell is the problem?
no subject
no subject
no subject
later on, when i'm not at this work, and am making a billion other posts, i do intend to comment regarding my post from here on 2/27.
i have no idea where these people come from.
(i mean, i do. their parents had sex and, well, yeah. but how they end up in such a fucked up idealogical state, i have no clue.)
ps
Re: ps