Let me restate: laws regarding incest have no impact on marriage, since incestuous relationships can -- and do -- take place without regard for that institution. They are neither constrained nor promoted by the presence or absence of marriage. Any "social" benefit that derives from those laws stems from the fact that preventing incest lessesn the transmission of undesirable genetic defects across generations.
Obviously laws forbidding adultery go to promote marriage. I admitted as much in my original post.
While I've never been rejected from MENSA, it's obvious you flunked your Dale Carnegie course. On the other hand, you could franchise your unique ability to be a jerk.
Still tapdancing around the main point I see.
Completing the above paragraph (as well as quoting the original in its entirety; an innocent ommission, I'm sure) would highlight the nonsensical nature of what prompted my original response.
It is obvious to everyone that the most likely means of transmitting those genetic defects is through marriage, a reality you attempted to dismiss out of hand.
Let me restate: laws regarding incest have no impact on marriage, since incestuous relationships can -- and do -- take place without regard for that institution. They are neither constrained nor promoted by the presence or absence of marriage.
Well, most states place restriction of marriage of new relations; such laws are probably based on the general correlation between marriage and procreation. It's interesting to note, though, that Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry iff the woman is over 50 years old.