24
LETTER I.
But I come to graver questions, and I venture to assert some positive propositions of my own:—
- I. The breaking of a law by a large number of persons is no ground for its repeal.
- II. The alleged fact that a law can be broken without the offenders losing caste (as it is termed), in such a delicate matter as that which is the subject of our inquiry, would not, if true, afford ground for its repeal.
- III. The fact that the prohibition of the given description of union has for centuries been part only of a series of prohibitions of other unions, such as that of father and daughter, brother and sister, uncle and niece, which last union at present no one is bold enough to advocate, affords in itself a chief ground for not tampering with the feelings that have sprung up as to what is or is not an incestuous union.
- IV. The desire for a relaxation of laws relating to intercourse between the sexes has occurred, historically, in times of general relaxation of the morals of the society where that desire is experienced.
- V. The relaxation once commenced must necessarily lead to increased appetency for unions still left out of reach.
- VI. The happiness of the many would by any
should peruse who wishes to give a serious thought to the subject before lie aids by his vote so mischievous an alteration of our social system.
