Of These Three Couples, Who Should Be Permitted To Marry?

some may have but there are immoral folks in all walks of life

 

Couple #1.

 

Marriage policy isn't constructed based on individuals...but like all policy... is based on generalities. It should revolve around the fact that society is created, built up and maintained by hetersexuals through the children that are accidently and on purpose created through the union of a man and woman.

When you lose focus on that....society will suffer. Which presently... society does suffer....because straight people have lost focus on what marriage actually is and why it is important.

 

All three. I feel it is your right to marry who you want and nothing should play a FACTOR.

 

Proof of that?

Morals according to what standard? Not most religions. Not many governments.

And as to asking "who should be PERMITTED to marry" - none of anyones business. Definitely not the governments. Govt should not have any role in marriage, no tax benefits or penalties, no licensing, no defining marriage.

 

Who are you to decide whether or not they are allowed to have children? The fact is that it takes years of inbreeding for any deformities to arise. A first generation child born from incest has the same chances as any other children to have deformities.

 

Do you have something to back that up? Not saying I don't believe you, but I'd like to see the evidence.

 

Correct answer: all three.

 

All three.

 

All three should be free to marry and blow tons of money on a wedding. That money will go to the people who provide services for the wedding, which will then go to provide services for the service providers and the money will continue to trickle down to other people and will help bolster the economy! lol

 

All three. Assuming all parties in the examples provided are competent, uncoerced adults, I find no good reason to prevent them from marrying.

Couple #1: It's a case of "buyer beware". So long as the bride hasn't defrauded the groom by lying about her past marital history, we presume that he's capable of making an informed decision in choosing her as a spouse. And even if she had defrauded him, he could either choose not to marry her if he found out before going through with it, or we would grant an annulment or divorce if it only came to light after the fact.

Couple #2: I find no rational basis for preventing same-sex couples from agreeing to form a marital union.

Couple #3: Again, if they're competent, uncoerced adults, I find no good reason to prevent them marrying. Concerns about the health of any child produced are a separate matter from the parties agreeing to enter into a marital union. They may choose to take measures to prevent procreation. They may choose to undertake health screenings to ascertain if any offspring stand a significant risk of health issues related to their consanguinaity. Or not. Regardless, marriage is not required for procreation, procreation is not a requirement of marriage, an inability to procreate does not serve as a bar to marriage, and if the aim is to prevent risky procreation, the law would need to address that issue separate from marriage.

"The risk of first-cousin parents having a child with a recessively inherited disease appears
to be low (< 1%)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685116/pdf/ajhg00215-0092.pdf

 

Another slippery slope argument. If we allow gay men and women to marry does not mean that we have allow incestual marriages. Just like if pot is legalized does not mean that we have to make LSD legal.

 

Allow all three. I personally don't like the idea of cousins marrying, and I would argue against it, but as far as the law is concerned, all three should be allowed to marry whether I agree with it or not. That, or there is no legal marriage, and marriage is purely a social institution with definitions varying depending on religion and communities.