new_guy_64 wrote:
Pug wrote:
I don't oppose nor even disagree, if they're lovers, I don't see why not marry.
If they're really willing to have kids, unadopted, okay to me. It's not as if the chance to have disabled kids is that much bigger for them than for non-related couples.
Moreover, if you say it is bad for the kids anyway, go tell that to 40+ women willing to have a kid too. The chance they'll have a disabled kid is very big indeed.
Dude, there's a 50% chance that a child of siblings will have birth defects, whereas children of unrelated couples have a 3 to 4 percent chance of having birth defects. I don't think you fully grasp the statistics of birth defects for children born of consanguineous couples.
Oh but I do fully grasp the statistics. So, heir kids appear to have epilepsy (the boy) and 'stange lusts' (the girl). If those are supposed to be the disabilities...big deal. Epilepsy is very wide, and most epileptics won't even have serious problems with it, and strange lusts...okay. They're not missing a limb or so. Every person has some kind of disability.
Look, I don't support incest or so, but if they truly love each other, they should be told the consequences but no law nor judge should prevent it.