Text 1634, 74 rader
Skriven 2007-05-16 22:58:01 av Jeff Smith (1:14/0)
   Kommentar till text 1624 av Björn Felten (2:203/2)
Ärende: Shootings
=================
Hello Björn.

16 May 07 21:42, you wrote to me:

 JS>> "Whoever has sexual intercourse with another nearer of kin
 JS>> to the actor than first cousin, computed by rules of the civil
 JS>> law, whether of the half or the whole blood, with knowledge of
 JS>> the relationship, is guilty of incest and may be sentenced to
 JS>> imprisonment for not more than ten years"

 BF>    Isn't this a prime example of what happens when you try to drag
 BF> morality into law making?


     While I don't condone or approve of the act. I will say that
governments and law makers are often too eager to try to impose
their sense of morality on the people. While it is true that the
percentage of birth defects among offspring of first cousins is only
slightly higher than the general population, I would ask why anyone
would want to risk any increase at all?

    But to answer your question as to whether or not it is morally wrong
for cousins to have a relationship, I would say that varies with each
person's or their culture's definition of morality.

    Not many generations ago it was common for first cousins to marry. In
the U.S. 26 states allow it. No country in Europe that I am aware bans it,
and it is legal in Canada and Mexico.

    Personally it would not be for me, probably because of the way I was
brought up. I view my cousins as family, almost as siblings, and therefore
I could never see them as a sexual attraction.

    It is an individual choice you have to weigh against the views you will
encounter from society.

    From the standpoint of religion there are many differant flavors of
religion. Who is to say that the way that I choose to religiously express
myself is any better than someone elses? And I don't see governments having
any special abilities that would qualify them as being in a position to tell
me in what manner I am supposed to believe in a deity. *IF* I choose to to
believe in a god it should be left up to me to decide on what way I would
express that belief. Course, that just my opinion.


 BF>    A) It's moral/legal to do a second cousin but immoral/illegal to
 BF> do a first cousin. Why draw the line exactly there?

     I think that it was that a first cousins were considered to much
like immediate family as in one's own siblings.

 BF>    B) It's moral/legal if you don't know about the close relationship
 BF> but immoral/illegal if you do. Why?

     I would think that the reasoning is that the act isn't considered
moral in either case. But isn't considered an illegal act on the actors
part IF that person was not aware of the close relationship to the other
person. Course, claiming that one didn't know she was their sister might
not be too believable. <g>


 BF>    The fact of the matter is, that it's very much against nature to
 BF> inbreed. Every normal person therefore has a healthy aversion against
 BF> such acts. But in comes the religious fanatics and place their moral
 BF> values on matters, and we end up with stupid "definitions" like the
 BF> above.

 BF> ---
 BF>  * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)

Jeff

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - MN USA (1:14/0)