What Next? Incest?

[lawtonfogle]

Marriage isn't about making babies, so I'm going to avoid the arguments that involve genetic defects. They're perfectly good reasons not to have children with your siblings, but using that argument presumes that the point of marriage is to make babies. I doubt sterile couples consider their marriages pointless.

What rights, if any, do married couples posses that siblings lack?

While they do have a number, like hospital visitation, they do not have the right in most states (last I checked, being these rules are not well known) to even become intimate with each other without also becoming sex offenders, even though both siblings are over 18. They also lack social status, as in saying that if they made their union known they would be targeted by wide spread discrimination. They also are not able to adopt children as a family, it would be one or the others, but not both's.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I'd say there'd be a huge number. Especially with regard to financial issues and issues of health and wellbeing.

The question in complicated. Obviously (as discussed by people with big words) there are increased risks to do with pro-creation by siblings, which is why it is not accepted in society I'd say. But as we point out - marriage isn't all about making babies, and I'm not sure that incest itself is illegal, so that's not really a reason.

Incest being illegal is a really weird one, but I have read a news report that says 40ish years ago in at least one state, it was but being the brother and sister didn't know until after they got married, the judge only divorced them and threatened them with being labeled a sex offender if they decided to challenge his ruling. Aka, he showed mercy to keep them quite.

As to why it is not allowed, there is the 'eww' factor when most people think about sex with their siblings, and basically it isn't accepted because of the 'eww' factor. Genetics is just a false front to justify their feelings, my reason being that two people with dwarfism or cystic fibrosis are seen as courageous for trying to start a family, and for attempting to get past the fact that their children aren't even viable 1/4 the time.

Rationally I can't really see a reason it shouldn't be allowed, but then again, there's no obvious demand for it either. Most incestuous relationships probably don't reach the level of potential marriage I'd expect.

Most of them probably don't, but think about what happens when people find out about the relationship. It has to be kept hidden, or else there is a good chance it will be ripped apart, either that or they will be disowned by most friend and family.

Unlike gay marriage, there aren't thousands of devoted and committed sibling-couples wanting to wed.

While this may be reason not to have a demonstration in Washington D.C., it is not a good reason to not attempt to change discrimination. Otherwise, one would only think minorities that have reached a certain size should be fairly treated.

 

[quatona]

You know, if we allow homosexuals to get married, then next we will be allowing brothers and sisters to get married!!!

You know, if we allow slippery slope fallacies like this one, then next we will be allowing circular reasoning, as well.

Question: Is that (incestuous marriages becoming legal) a bad thing?

I don´t know. First of all, I tend to think it´s a neglectible issue, since siblings rarely want to marry each other.

Please avoid the 'That's just sick' argument.

Ok.

 

[Rajni]

You know, if we allow homosexuals to get married, then next we will be allowing brothers and sisters to get married!!!

<tongue planted firmly in cheek as the following is being typed>

If we are going to apply a slippery slope argument to the gay marriage thing, why don't we try looking up the slope once in awhile? We're always looking down at what will happen next. No one asks what happened prior.

Therefore, using the same argument, perhaps it's the whole marriage concept itself that got us into trouble in the first place. Looking up the slope, we see heterosexual marriage is what happened first. Perhaps if there had been no heterosexual marriage to begin with, we wouldn't be having to deal with homosexual marriage now.

<this concludes Chaela's tongue in cheek commentary>



.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I don´t know. First of all, I tend to think it´s a neglectible issue, since siblings rarely want to marry each other.

So if the few homosexual posters here on this board were the only ones wanted to get married, then their size being so small allows us to say "Nah, sorry, your too small a group for us to pay any attention to discrimination,"?

Really, while it may not make it an issue if you HAD to pick just one, it is still an issue that should be dealt with unless you can only pick one issue to work on.

 

[quatona]

So if the few homosexual posters here on this board were the only ones wanted to get married, then their size being so small allows us to say "Nah, sorry, your too small a group for us to pay any attention to discrimination,"?

That´s not what I meant to say. More like the opposite. "You are too small a group for your preferences to be a threat to our society. Go ahead and marry."

Really, while it may not make it an issue if you HAD to pick just one, it is still an issue that should be dealt with unless you can only pick one issue to work on.

Even if incestuous marriage came with demonstrable problems I wouldn´t concern myself much with them. Let those few who want to marry their siblings marry them. It won´t become a societal problem - seeing that hardly anyone will want to marry their siblings, anyways.

 

[feral]

You know, if we allow homosexuals to get married, then next we will be allowing brothers and sisters to get married!!!

Question: Is that (incestuous marriages becoming legal) a bad thing?

Firstly, I'd wonder why you would make the leap from homosexuality to incest. What does one have to do with the other? In fact, the OP phrasing, referring to brothers and sisters getting married, makes it sound more tied in to the already-legal marriage of heterosexual couples.

Anyway, to answer the question, if adult siblings or adults in other familial relationships wanted to marry and were judged legally sane enough to enter into an official marital contract, than I don't see any legal reasons for opposing this. Personally, I find the concept distasteful, but it's not my personal preferences that determine the validity of other people's marriages. The legality of such a couple bearing children would still be in dispute, but as far as simply entering into a marriage contract, why not?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Firstly, I'd wonder why you would make the leap from homosexuality to incest. What does one have to do with the other? In fact, the OP phrasing, referring to brothers and sisters getting married, makes it sound more tied in to the already-legal marriage of heterosexual couples.

Hmm... Why would I make that leap...

REALLY GUYS! Do I HAVE to put the [/sarcasm] there for you to see it?

Anyway, to answer the question, if adult siblings or adults in other familial relationships wanted to marry and were judged legally sane enough to enter into an official marital contract, than I don't see any legal reasons for opposing this. Personally, I find the concept distasteful, but it's not my personal preferences that determine the validity of other people's marriages. The legality of such a couple bearing children would still be in dispute, but as far as simply entering into a marriage contract, why not?

No one has seem to be able to come up with a why not, yet it is still illegal, and one is rejected for even suggesting the questioning of this standard in public.

 

[FrederickM]

So what if homosexuals want to get married, EVEN IF homosexuality was as evil as it is said to be:
1st: Us Christians must not impose our religion like a divine mandate upon non-believers.
2nd: Why can't someone choose to go to hell? God gave the right, who gave you the right to say they can't be 'sinful' and burn for eternity?

Homosexuality and Abortion shows Christian fundamentalism and self righteousness at its best.

 

[cantata]

In the UK it at least pretends to be about biology - as far as I know, same-sex incest is legal, and while it is illegal for a grandfather to have sex with his granddaughter, it is legal for a grandmother to have sex with her grandson, presumably because it's assumed that she can't get pregnant.

Of course, as a recent documentary pointed out, the recent proliferation of women becoming grandmothers in their 30s means that by the time their grandsons are 16 they might only be in their late 40s, making pregnancy a possibility. So the law is possibly outdated.

This is not to say I agree with the prohibition. I actually think it's rather silly, given that we don't prevent people with genetic diseases from breeding. The only thing that worries me is the potential for abuse and long-term grooming for sex, but then, I think that can happen outside families as well, and perhaps the legality of incest doesn't really affect whether or not someone will abuse their family member anyway.

Perhaps a higher age of consent would be in order.

 

[Sycophant]

I think there are people who believe that standing idly by while this happens risks them being struck down by the righteous hand of god (you know, like how god made 9/11 happen because America is full of gays and abortion).

 

[FrederickM]

I think there are people who believe that standing idly by while this happens risks them being struck down by the righteous hand of god (you know, like how god made 9/11 happen because America is full of gays and abortion).

So you are saying God used an Islamic jihadist group to carry out a malevolent wish? Allahu akbar?

 

[Sycophant]

No, not me. Jerry Falwell.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

No, not me. Jerry Falwell.

He is nuttier than a fruitcake.

 

[Sycophant]

Indeed, but I reckon that's what drives a lot of the fear and condemnation of gay marriage and abortion...

"Look god, I'm trying to stop them... Really, I am."