Marrying cousins.

Genetics don't compel an advanced animal, capable of deciding and thinking ahead in their actions and what they want to do, to kill for fun.

Choice + genetics = contradiction.

You must pay closer attention to the "kill for fun" part. It's a choice. Not genetics.

 

Again I state that animals do not kill for fun, it's mainly for survival.

 

Stealing, rape, assault and possibly murder for territorial control etc., physical and mental abuse, amongst other things. All these should be legal because it's natural, and therefore morally right?

If my neighbor's cat kills a mouse, only to leave it on the lawn to rot, is this not natural? Is the cat institutionalized to kill for the hell of it by living with humans, to the extent that it stops acting natural?

You seem to like clinging to my initial, and admittedly poorly explained, example. What about the other things I've listed?

 

You can't 'morally' say anything of the sort is right, because morals are subjective, and subjectivity isn't natural.

Right.

Naturally, there are mating sequences.
Wrong.

Right.

Society has it's way of running, well, it's society. If these actions make that society not run the way it wants to run, then it shouldn't be legal. No society forms wanting to be flawed.

Legal (Based on moral views) - Right (Natural=Objective)

Two different things.

Read above.

This is invalid. Though I've never seen a cat kill a mouse just for the hell of it, I can dispute. A dog may attack another dog in an instant. You may think that it's just because, but it's not. It has a reason. That reason may be small, insignificant, and stupid, but there's always a reason.

Therefore, your example is null and void.

 

My cat definitley kills for fun.

She drags birds into the kitchen, bats them around on the floor for awhile then just leave them there to die. It's disgusting.

 

I could easily call that territorial. Cats are very territorial, and do not like other animals anywhere near their territory. If they deem it theirs, there better not be another animal around.

So no, your cat does not kill for fun. You simply don't understand the reason as your brain is not developed to understand the nature of every species. Even if you studied them for a long time, your brain is indecisive towards their actions as you are not developed for such communication.

Watch this TED talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/henry_markram_supercomputing_the_brain_s_secrets.html

He touches on why we may not be able to understand animals, and such.


Someone previously said if two people love each other they should be able to create offspring. I disagree with this statement more than anything else. Love has nothing to do with mating, at all. As a child, you're taught that love is important, and you value it because (in most cases) your parents showed you love and brainwashed you to believing it was important.

A lot of you are arguing that cousins should not be allowed to marry based on the idea that they will have offspring, rather than the idea that they'll simply get a financial break. The thread didn't ask if you think cousins should be allowed to have sex, and have children, it asked if you think they should be able to marry.

On that, I say yes. There is no reason why marriage should be a sacred act, as the government has adapted it for tax purposes, and other such evil government things. So, if cousins wanna get involved in that, let them. If two men, or two women want to... let them. It's not our choice to deny their request.

On the topic of breeding, I'm sort of pro-life in the sense that I don't agree with parents choosing for future generations. I don't think just anyone should have the right to create a human being, as there's always a chance that the human they create lives a horrid, and painful life. Though, limiting the freedom of the two parents to do so is also, equally 'wrong'.

Note that genetic defects can happen in people whose parents aren't related by blood. Also note that our population was half of what it currently is merely 40 years ago. There's no way we aren't all related by now, in some way.

So, marrying cousins? Sure, go ahead.

 

I don't agree with marrying relatives, I believe it's morally wrong.

 

Why is it 'morally' wrong? Because society tells you it is? Because a massive number of people are sickened by the idea of someone being with their cousin?

It's all a question of your perception of what is disgusting, and what is not. It certainly is natural.

So, how would you call something that is natural, morally wrong?

Some animals will hump other males, they also don't respect the family construct in that sense... but yeah...

 

"I" believe it's morally wrong, not everyone will agree with me, but I think marrying somebody related to you is wrong, I'm entitled to my opinion. I didn't declare it morally wrong, that's my opinion.

 

To imply that it's morally wrong implies that no one should ever do it as morals are pretty common amongst our race =/. I know you said 'I believe', and I understand this, but I think your choice of words was a bit off .

You would have been better off saying:

Saying "Morally wrong" implies:

 

I vote no, since I believe family love should be platonic.

 

We're talking about marriage. Who said anything about love?

 

because marriage is sexual, if it wasn't then why can't you love your cousins without marrying them/ having sex and this conversation wouldn't be here.

 

yes. then tell me one couple that dont have sex. quit it with ur dumb questions already goddam

 

It wasn't a dumb question, it was perfectly valid. Married people are not legally obligated to fornicate. If the man tries to have sex with his wife and she doesn't want it, but he does it anyway, it would still be considered rape >.>.

Just because most people do it as they are married, does not make sex a stipulation in marriage, merely something that is done.

Marriage in the law provides several financial benefits in various circumstances. Also, sex has nothing to do with love, get that out of your head right now. Sex is mating. That's it.

Marriage has nothing to do with love either, they're all 3 different things, they just usually go together in most circumstances.

 

then , by that theory , you can also argue siblings should have the right to marriage and that you should also be able to bang your own parents. if you believe that , you win. i give up on this discussion

 

=/. Then I guess I win. I see no reason to prevent that? Unless you can provide good, valid proof that it will destroy the life of those not involved (and of children).

 

Married couples aren't required to have sex. Just because we can't name a specific couple who don't, that by no means implies all couples have sex.

That is as ridiculous as saying 'All people have two eyes, because you can't tell me anyone who doesn't.'

All it does is show your stupidity and ignorance.

 

There is conclusive scientific proof that reproduction between direct family members (parents, siblings) causes genetic malfunctions and mutations, and this is the primary reason why direct incestuous relationships are illegal in modern society.

 

um. this is just a discussion you don't have to attack me directly and call me stupid