Angelina Jolie and her brother, James Haven
Posted on 5/21/2004, 6:53:46 PM by Recovering_Democrat
MPs have been asked to repeal the ban on incest between consenting adults.
Retired history professor Peter Munz told MPs who were considering the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) that the age-old ban was not needed in modern society.
"Today, if siblings -- against all odds - should fall in love with each other, they should be welcome to it," Prof Munz said.
A quick straw poll of MPs showed no support for the proposal.
Prof Munz argued that the worldwide taboo was an inheritance from paleolithic society,
"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.
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."
There was evidence that sexual desire among siblings was minimal.
"It is therefore superfluous to make indulgence in incest between consenting adults, a criminal offence...(as) there are now better ways of winning friends and influencing them than to prohibit incest."
Sickening.
All it takes is four unelected judges...
Insane.
Ping your lists for this one.
Ping
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.
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.
---"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.
so thats why them hobbits is so small
What is unthinkable today is tomorrow's "constitutional right."
Yeah, the odds of some bad genetic mixing happening is slightly higher than for the general population, but still FAR lower than most people believe. Many unrelated couples will represent a greater risk. It doesn't become a problem until inbreeding been done for several generations (e.g. some royal lines).
Which isn't to say that it is a swell idea, only that the genetic consequences are greatly overplayed.
heh, I smell mischief -
Some enterprising reporter should sandbag F'ing Kerry and ask if he supports the repeal of the ban on incest!!!
LOL
These folks (like many ancients and even some moderns) thought that their royalty were descended from "gods," so when the most directly descended people married each other, the "divine" blood did not get diluted as much as it would if they had to follow modern rules against incest (which in some states even prohibit marriage between cousins).
georgebushrules
Since May 21, 2004
I smell a rat...
"Modern Society"? Appears that "modern" civilization is in a state of retro not advancing.
The ones who get the genetic damage of course will be comforted by the knowledge that it will be eliminated after several generations.
My my haven't we been a busy little troll.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.