9/13/2006

Speaking of Your Inner Hillbilly





















Here's a Story you won't hear parroted on OTBL.
Junk Journalist John (Jethro ) Stossel promotes 1st cousin marriage. Where's (send me to congress to defend marriage ) Paul R. Nelson when you really need him?

From Jethro:
"I'd always thought marrying a blood relative as close as a cousin was immoral, and certainly risky if you plan to have kids. Conventional wisdom says only primitive people who live in isolated places marry cousins. It leads to stupid children. But that's a myth.

It's the sort of myth that leads to stupid laws. Half the states in America have banned cousin marriage, but there's no good reason for it. "
See full story














.

17 comments:

Andy Rand said...

I don't know about you, but I guess I wouldn't want my uncle to turn into my father-in-law.

Andy Rand said...

It think the point here isn't so much that Stossel is wrong, it's that OTBL won't be promoting this report of Stossel's like they did with his one on the evils of public education.
I think most still find marrying a cousin disconcerting dispite the scientific evidence.

Andy Rand said...

CATO:
I don't think you realized how much you've distracted this blog from it's true mission of mocking OTBL with all your serious discussion and debate.
You're not their covert agent to distract us from our mission are you?
;-)

Anonymous said...

Tongue-in-cheek, tongue-in-cheek.

Anonymous said...

Would you marry you cousin, if she was Lena Horne?

Anonymous said...

Brewer baseball fans will recognize those feet as the ones belonging to Sixtoes LaSkown...of something like that.

Anonymous said...

I thought they belonged to John Stossel's offspring?

Anonymous said...

Sorry Otis, but you are wrong. Stossel is a product of immaculate deception. There are only five toes on each foot. Socio-anthropological researchers funded by Exxon and the Environmental Poison Producers of Louisiana did a study and determined there are only five toes. The picture is wrong and obvious something being pushed by the environ-foot fetish front.

Anonymous said...

A little know fact:
John Stossel has invested heavily in a
Malayasian Nike Sweatshop where they hold the patent on, and have an overstock of EEEEEE Athletic
shoes. He want's to alter the American
Gene Pool to sell more product. (It's a long term investment.)

Andy Rand said...

Roadkill,

Why stop at cousins? Let's make incest legal too! Would that be "progressive" enough for you?

Anonymous said...

I believe the Stossel worshipers live at www.ontheborderline.net. Stossel does make some good points, but he has a one-side agenda.

Andy Rand said...

Roadkill,

Maybe I was a little thin skinned about being less progressive than Stossel and over reacted slightly.

After reading your comments on another post I see that you deserve to be taken more seriously. You may not be aware of the level of spoofing and chicanery that has become a part of ATBL blog culture here so there's a certain defensiveness and suspicion about new posters being authentic.

I'm curious how you reconcile your view about cousin marriage with a comment you made on the other post:

"You are also correct regarding the Wisconsin marriage amendment, although you should be careful about describing it as an effort to reign in civil liberties. There is currently no such liberty, nor has there ever been. Same sex marriage is a radical departure from historical social norms. There is a difference between civil liberty and civil license; if you go too far down that road you may find yourself defending as “civil liberties” prostitution, polygamy, and adult-child sex."

Isn't consanguinity ( an admittedly new word to my vocabulary ) a "radical departure from historical social norms." and wouldn't that too become a precedent for defending some of the "civil liberties" you've listed? That is exactly why I brought up the "slippery slope" of consanguinity leading to legal incest.

Andy Rand said...

Roadkill,

I'll be a little more concise.
I think we are in agreement.

Anonymous said...

Roadkill:

Concerning:

"If, as the gay-marriage proponents assert, any two consenting adults should be able to marry, and if there are no consanguinity prohibitions preventing such marriages, what is to stop brother and sister from tying the knot? Or mother and son? Or father and daughter? Nothing, really. So the question is, do we want to go there? I don’t think so."

The smart ass in me wants to say "hey what if I love my dog, can I marry her?" That is an argument that I've heard repeated by the anti-civil union crowd. Do you seriously think anyone is advocating mothers marrying sons in this debate?

The wording of the amendment Wisconsin voters will vote on in November states:

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

If you are reading the mother marrying a son argument from this, it looks like the band doesn't cover it, because it says "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."

This mother/son argument is a red herring designed to confuse the uninformed masses who will vote on this issue based on mainly religious indoctrination.

What is your feeling on the issue of two women who love and care for each other signing a legal contract that entitles them to the same benefits of a man and a woman who love and care for each other? Obviously we are dealing with an issue that has been a suppressed taboo in our society since day one.

If the purpose of marriage is to protect the property rights and put legal entanglements on the couple in regards to their offspring, i.e. they are doing it for the children, then we shouldn't allow elderly or infertile opposite sex couples to marry. If it is for the children, then we should at least allow lesbian couples to marry, because modern medicine allows for these women to have children.

Same sex marriages definitely shouldn't be denied for religious reasons, because of separation of church and state. If fact, a church marriage is only a religious ceremony. They minister is vested with the power of the government under law to carry out the ceremony and must sign the marriage license or face fines or imprisonment. The minister or priest doing the ceremony is acting as the justice of the peace, since you can just go to the court house to get married.

Anonymous said...

I agree with "Road Kill" what should be considered socially moral? Much of the foundation of our culture/morality is religiously based (from a majority perspective). Though there most certainly were adjustments that were made (Slavery/Sufferage), they were not outside of that base, but in support of it. The term "Slippery Sloap" has been used, and seem to be fitting.
Look at world history, the decay of any base cultural morality ultimatly has led to the disintegration of many civilizations.

Anonymous said...

I would think that total implementatio of the libertarian perspective discussed on this blog by Cato would eventually lead to the bottom of the slippery slope. Cato may argue otherwise and point to the horizon of higher ideals. But to do so would be to ignore the gutter of reality.

Andy Rand said...

- cato


"Oh -- and I've never heard of extramarital relations ever happening either, so clearly making a law against incestious marriage will stop incestous relationships from occuring even between consenting adults."

Just because incestious relationships occur is no reason to extend rights that say the state condones such relationships.

Beside, your position plays right into the Paul R. Nelson position that someone has to go to Washington to "defend" marriage.