Of course the legislative body of New Zealand will not adopt this idea...just like, oh, two years ago
gay marriage was unheard of.
Sickening.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
To: Recovering_Democrat
All it takes is four unelected judges...
2 posted on
05/21/2004 11:55:27 AM PDT by
2banana
(They want to die for Islam and we want to kill them)
To: Recovering_Democrat; NYer
Insane.
Ping your lists for this one.
3 posted on
05/21/2004 11:56:37 AM PDT by
TheSpottedOwl
(Torrance Ca....land of the flying monkeys)
To: Spiff
4 posted on
05/21/2004 11:57:56 AM PDT by
AZBear
To: Recovering_Democrat
The professor, who said he used to lecture at Wellington's Victoria University, said that the risk of interbreeding causing genetically damaged children was no reason for a legal ban. "It has been shown that such genetic damage, being sporadic in the first place, will be eliminated after several generations."Guess he hasn't been to the Ozarks. (just kidding)
This is all based on junk science AND junk history. Brother/sister marriages were very common throughout history. The Egyptian royal families are a perfect example. Some of the offspring of those unions turned out VERY strange.
5 posted on
05/21/2004 11:58:41 AM PDT by
EggsAckley
("people who go to the Supreme Court ought to interpret the Constitution as it is interpreted...")
To: Recovering_Democrat
The die has been cast. There's no turning back....get over it.
As Cal Thomas said: It's time for the hetero whiners who have done all in their power to destroy the institution of marriage to get their own houses in order and lead by example.
6 posted on
05/21/2004 12:02:01 PM PDT by
zarf
(..where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base that has an attachment?)
To: Recovering_Democrat
---"In each tribe or society the woman must not be available for consumption, so to speak, at home. They must be kept and treasured as capital to be invested in fomenting relations with so-called foreigners," Prof Munz said.---
This guy should give serious thought to taking up some innocuous hobby in his retirement. It's best not to be talking this way around normal folks.
7 posted on
05/21/2004 12:02:34 PM PDT by
claudiustg
(Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
To: Recovering_Democrat
so thats why them hobbits is so small
8 posted on
05/21/2004 12:03:37 PM PDT by
SF Republican
(You know what I like about John Kerry? Nothing)
To: Recovering_Democrat
What is unthinkable today is tomorrow's "constitutional right."
9 posted on
05/21/2004 12:04:31 PM PDT by
Steve_Seattle
("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
To: Recovering_Democrat
"Modern Society"? Appears that "modern" civilization is in a state of retro not advancing.
15 posted on
05/21/2004 12:08:18 PM PDT by
lilylangtree
(Veni, Vidi, Vici)
To: Recovering_Democrat
"It has been shown that such genetic damage, being sporadic in the first place, will be eliminated after several generations." The ones who get the genetic damage of course will be comforted by the knowledge that it will be eliminated after several generations.
17 posted on
05/21/2004 12:11:32 PM PDT by
Agnes Heep
(Solus cum sola non cogitabuntur orare pater noster)
To: RhoTheta; Eb Wilson
And it begins...
18 posted on
05/21/2004 12:11:57 PM PDT by
Egon
(Yo, PETA: Salad = Food of my Food! Feel free to stumble into a pigpen, so I can eat you too!)
To: Recovering_Democrat
Wonder if this sister/brother team will move to NZ:

Angelina Jolie and her brother, James Haven
20 posted on
05/21/2004 12:14:29 PM PDT by
StrictTime
("I'm StrictTime and I'm a Chat-a-holic.......")
To: Recovering_Democrat
can I say "i told you so" too all the pro gay marriage people who said that this could never happen??
21 posted on
05/21/2004 12:18:45 PM PDT by
captaindude2
(Soon to be banned again!)
To: Recovering_Democrat
It is interesting to note, however, that US law doesn't prohibit prospective parents who both carry recessive genes for horrid and tragic diseases like Tay-Sachs from having children.
In such cases there is a 25% chance that the child born will have a hellish and brief life.
This compares to odds a full order of magnitude lower for cousins or siblings who are otherwise genetically normal to have a child with some sort of serious genetic problem.
The science behind close relatives having children has advanced well past the taboos.
And while there are still excellent reasons for maintaining such taboos, protecting genetic health of the prospective children is not one of them.
It is not even illegal in any US state for two 18 year olds with CF to have a child even though there is a 100% chance the child will have CF and a terrible quality of life. There is, at least, the chance that CF will be curable within 18 years.
But for Tay-Sachs, the recessive parent carriers who lose their 1 in 4 bet won't see their child make it to age 5 on average. Do we as a society prohibit these parents from trying to have children? Should we?
If not, then the rationale behind siblings or cousins having offspring also fails given that the odds of a resultant problem are so much lower.
The same is true for autosomal dominant disorders such as Achondroplasia (a type of dwarfism) in which one in four offspring will die at or shortly after birth. Two in four children will inherit their parents' dwarfism. And one in four will luck into the double recessive genes and be "right sized."
Familial relations my be morally wrong, an affront to decency, etc. But they should not be prohibited on the basis of genetics unless you are also willing to prohibit millions of other's who are far more likely to produce a child with serious genetic problems from having children.
I don't think anybody is willing to cross that line.
22 posted on
05/21/2004 12:25:30 PM PDT by
jas3
To: Recovering_Democrat
Just when you think they've finally hit bottom, they come up with something lower.
23 posted on
05/21/2004 12:27:48 PM PDT by
MontanaBeth
(Irritating a Democrat a day, since 1970)
To: Recovering_Democrat
"Prof Munz argued that the worldwide taboo was an inheritance from paleolithic society,.."
So are courage, honor, loyalty and love for your spouse.
Western Society is ripe for Islamic conquest because it has lost its moral compass. Unfortunately, Islam has its own problems also.
26 posted on
05/21/2004 12:48:25 PM PDT by
ZULU
To: Recovering_Democrat

I suppose those New Zealand judges will go on a "pickin and a grinnin!"
To: Recovering_Democrat
Hasn't New Zealand lots of sheep?
28 posted on
05/21/2004 1:23:49 PM PDT by
Uncle Miltie
(Islam: Nothing BEER couldn't cure.)
To: Recovering_Democrat; american colleen; sinkspur; Lady In Blue; Salvation; Polycarp IV; narses; ...
"Today, if siblings -- against all odds - should fall in love with each other, they should be welcome to it," Prof Munz said. He's nuts!
Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

32 posted on
05/21/2004 2:02:39 PM PDT by
NYer
(Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light! (2Cor 11:14))
To: scripter; little jeremiah
33 posted on
05/21/2004 2:03:44 PM PDT by
NYer
(Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light! (2Cor 11:14))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson