> IMHO: No way!
>
> Marriage is a contract between clans. In-marrying is totally useless. if
> they must, let them just share a hearth, the way other sexual minorities
> do. What fool would let his daughter marry a humakti?
Hey, I agree it's a bad idea. What I meant was: would one of the couple being a humakti void the prohibition against incest.
Of course, if Humakti don't marry in your Glorantha then the question is meaningless.
It was partly a question about how far does the cutting of kin of being a humakti go? And partly a screwy idea for working around the incest problem in the Skullpint scenario in Sartar Rising pt3. Of course, sidestepping problems in that sort of smart-aleck way usually gets you a big magical whack in the back of the head at some point.
By the way, that scenario implies that incest is not something you should just let go by letting them share a hearth. My impression was not that the fate of the misquided love birds in that scenario was specific to them, but an example of what happens to all those who practie incest. So I'm not sure turning a blind eye would be all that smart.
The skullpointers did allow intra-clan marriage - but see where it got them (sort of proves one of your points).
But anyway, it was more a question of the nature of the kin-severing. If it would allow what previoulsy would have been incest then it is pretty total. Of course, there's still the point that marriage to someone from another clan is better for the clan, and personal choices are really secondary amongst the Orlanthi when it comes to marriage, but it was the most extreme exmaple I could think of to test the meaning of Humakti kin-severing.
Michael
Powered by hypermail