Anonymous
08/03/2012 18:17
Subject: Is there any reason close relatives should not be able to marry?
I think there are many pairs of adult siblings who have lived together. What happened in their bedroom(s) is open to conjecture, just as with same sex housemates (like Felix and Oscar, for example). Since siblings have many of the rights of spouses, such as hospital visitation, marriage may not be as much of an issue as for gay couples.
If there were a pregnancy, I suppose the public stance would be that the sister had an affair, and the brother was just exercising his avuncular duties. Remember that the threat of genetic abnormality is a probability, not a certainty. I would be surprised if there were not quite a few such births each year, despite the Ew-factor. Just to be clear, I am speaking purely from conjecture, with no actual births that I know of.
If there were a pregnancy, I suppose the public stance would be that the sister had an affair, and the brother was just exercising his avuncular duties. Remember that the threat of genetic abnormality is a probability, not a certainty. I would be surprised if there were not quite a few such births each year, despite the Ew-factor. Just to be clear, I am speaking purely from conjecture, with no actual births that I know of.
Anonymous
08/02/2012 22:09
Subject: Is there any reason close relatives should not be able to marry?
Anonymous wrote:Because children should be able to grow up in an environment where there is no threat of having to deal with sexual advances from their grandparents, uncles, cousins, etc.
What does this have to do with adult siblings marrying?
Anonymous
08/02/2012 22:04
Subject: Is there any reason close relatives should not be able to marry?
Because children should be able to grow up in an environment where there is no threat of having to deal with sexual advances from their grandparents, uncles, cousins, etc.
Anonymous
08/02/2012 21:52
Subject: Re:Is there any reason close relatives should not be able to marry?
Anonymous wrote:[b]Because it is icky. Also, depending on the age difference I'd think there was some sort of molestation going on. Also, it makes the "So, how did you two meet?" small talk really uncomfortable.
You might find it icky, but that does not give you the right to forbid it for those who don't. I personally see no reason relatives shouldn't marry. Yes, I find it distasteful, but to each their own.
Anonymous
08/02/2012 21:34
Subject: Is there any reason close relatives should not be able to marry?
In the bible, I think Abraham, the Patriarch of the Jewish people, married his half sister.
Also, Lot impregnated his daughters, although in his defense he was drunk and his daughters were trying to do him a favor by bearing him children.
I am pretty sure that Isaac and Jacob both married cousins, and I think Jacob married two separate cousins. Apparently there is no bibilical prohibition on marrying cousins.
Also, Lot impregnated his daughters, although in his defense he was drunk and his daughters were trying to do him a favor by bearing him children.
I am pretty sure that Isaac and Jacob both married cousins, and I think Jacob married two separate cousins. Apparently there is no bibilical prohibition on marrying cousins.
Anonymous
08/02/2012 21:29
Subject: Re:Is there any reason close relatives should not be able to marry?
Anonymous wrote:The state could not legally compel the couple to use birth control or abort if the birth control failed.
Marriage, as in the issue of gay marriage, is about the legal construct of marriage (ie no one is compelling religion institutions to perform religous marriage ceremonies), and the ability to be recognized as married under the law ato receive all legal protections or burdens (tax penalties) of individuals carrying this definition. The legal aspect of marriage also involves terms where the marriage can be dissolved (divorce). As failure to consumate a marriage is grounds for annullment and failure to have sex is grounds for divorce, the act of sex is assumed to present. Sex between two closely related heterosexuals would or could result in the serious genetic defects. Again, the state could not compel birth control or abortion.
Now arguable, two same sex partners who are closely related could have an argument. However, you would need enough of these individuals to amend the law and this is highly unlikely so I don't think you have anything to worry about when gay marriage passes.
PP here, well if you are talking about a gay sibling marriage that makes it okay *kidding* (would this count as "married to our first wives" for the CFA's Cathy?)
Anonymous
08/02/2012 21:28
Subject: Is there any reason close relatives should not be able to marry?
go talk to the I hate killing babies loonies. They're as stupid as this thread
Anonymous
08/02/2012 21:15
Subject: Re:Is there any reason close relatives should not be able to marry?
The state could not legally compel the couple to use birth control or abort if the birth control failed.
Marriage, as in the issue of gay marriage, is about the legal construct of marriage (ie no one is compelling religion institutions to perform religous marriage ceremonies), and the ability to be recognized as married under the law ato receive all legal protections or burdens (tax penalties) of individuals carrying this definition. The legal aspect of marriage also involves terms where the marriage can be dissolved (divorce). As failure to consumate a marriage is grounds for annullment and failure to have sex is grounds for divorce, the act of sex is assumed to present. Sex between two closely related heterosexuals would or could result in the serious genetic defects. Again, the state could not compel birth control or abortion.
Now arguable, two same sex partners who are closely related could have an argument. However, you would need enough of these individuals to amend the law and this is highly unlikely so I don't think you have anything to worry about when gay marriage passes.
Marriage, as in the issue of gay marriage, is about the legal construct of marriage (ie no one is compelling religion institutions to perform religous marriage ceremonies), and the ability to be recognized as married under the law ato receive all legal protections or burdens (tax penalties) of individuals carrying this definition. The legal aspect of marriage also involves terms where the marriage can be dissolved (divorce). As failure to consumate a marriage is grounds for annullment and failure to have sex is grounds for divorce, the act of sex is assumed to present. Sex between two closely related heterosexuals would or could result in the serious genetic defects. Again, the state could not compel birth control or abortion.
Now arguable, two same sex partners who are closely related could have an argument. However, you would need enough of these individuals to amend the law and this is highly unlikely so I don't think you have anything to worry about when gay marriage passes.
Anonymous
08/02/2012 21:13
Subject: Is there any reason close relatives should not be able to marry?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The only argument against it would be genetic risks to the offspring, but if a couple took precautions to not conceive, why not?
Define close. Cousin marriage (cosanguinity) is very common in some parts, especially the Muslim Middle East. I have read that the conventional wisdom regarding genetic defects is somewhat overstated. Still a risk though. It would seem that consanguinity leads to tribalism and allegiance to family, with a corresponding reduced commitment to government and society in general.
siblings
Again, EW!
Anonymous
08/02/2012 21:10
Subject: Is there any reason close relatives should not be able to marry?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The only argument against it would be genetic risks to the offspring, but if a couple took precautions to not conceive, why not?
Define close. Cousin marriage (cosanguinity) is very common in some parts, especially the Muslim Middle East. I have read that the conventional wisdom regarding genetic defects is somewhat overstated. Still a risk though. It would seem that consanguinity leads to tribalism and allegiance to family, with a corresponding reduced commitment to government and society in general.
siblings
Anonymous
08/02/2012 21:08
Subject: Is there any reason close relatives should not be able to marry?
Anonymous wrote:The only argument against it would be genetic risks to the offspring, but if a couple took precautions to not conceive, why not?
No kids though means I can't use my favorite incest line, "They breed their own stock."
Anonymous
08/02/2012 21:06
Subject: Is there any reason close relatives should not be able to marry?
Ew.
Anonymous
08/02/2012 21:05
Subject: Is there any reason close relatives should not be able to marry?
Anonymous wrote:The only argument against it would be genetic risks to the offspring, but if a couple took precautions to not conceive, why not?
Define close. Cousin marriage (cosanguinity) is very common in some parts, especially the Muslim Middle East. I have read that the conventional wisdom regarding genetic defects is somewhat overstated. Still a risk though. It would seem that consanguinity leads to tribalism and allegiance to family, with a corresponding reduced commitment to government and society in general.
Anonymous
08/02/2012 21:04
Subject: Re:Is there any reason close relatives should not be able to marry?
Because it is icky. Also, depending on the age difference I'd think there was some sort of molestation going on. Also, it makes the "So, how did you two meet?" small talk really uncomfortable.
Anonymous
08/02/2012 20:43
Subject: Is there any reason close relatives should not be able to marry?
The only argument against it would be genetic risks to the offspring, but if a couple took precautions to not conceive, why not?