Should siblings be legally allowed to marry?

[LiLIrishChick63]

eeweerrrrrr nope...

my brother is cute but not my type.... he is also a man ho lol

 

[monsterkitty]

Does this thread remind anyone else of the VC Andrews Flowers in the Attic series?

The thought of this makes me shudder..

 

[tiggersmom2]

Does this thread remind anyone else of the VC Andrews Flowers in the Attic series?

The thought of this makes me shudder..

Yes, that did cross my mind. I want to know who these people are that voted yes. I see no one has the balls to admit it......I can't imagine anyone thinking it was Ok....

 

[KristinBelle]

eww, yuck, no way.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

The state interest in prohibiting marriage between close blood relations is because of the risk of genetic defects. Of course, this never stopped royal families.

Many states allow for a marriage between close blood relations as long as there is no possibility for procreation.

Of course, I come from a family where aunts and uncles married their step brothers and sisters. I don't really have a family tree, more like a family shrub: short and sprawly.

 

[tiggersmom2]

The state interest in prohibiting marriage between close blood relations is because of the risk of genetic defects. Of course, this never stopped royal families.

Many states allow for a marriage between close blood relations as long as there is no possibility for procreation.

Of course, I come from a family where aunts and uncles married their step brothers and sisters. I don't really have a family tree, more like a family shrub: short and sprawly.

As long as it forks....that is all that matters....

 

[MUFFYCAT]

That is so gross!

 

[fabshelly]

Ancient Hawaiians didn't seem to have a problem with it, and even though James Michener thought otherwise, genetic problems were apparently few and far between.

 

[Pixie Tales]

I'd say No if there were Birth Defects involved..
Or If they do get married.. No Children.. until proven by science that it is OK

 

[azgal81]

What people want to do is their business. I don't think it should be illegal for anyone who wants to marry to marry. Who are we to tell others how to live there lives.

I can't imagine marrying my brother though ewwwwwwwwwwww.

 

[themarquis]

Yes, that did cross my mind. I want to know who these people are that voted yes. I see no one has the balls to admit it......I can't imagine anyone thinking it was Ok....

haha ... well I'll tell ya ... I voted yes.

Let me explain. By voting yes, I wouldn't say I would condone it and nor would I want to do it myself. But there are plenty of things I don't personally want to have anything to do with that I don't think the government should make decisions about for people. I'm particularly adamant that the government should not make decisions for people when it concerns activities that are not dangerous, problematic to the society as a whole, or damaging in any way.

I would generally place incest in this category -- that is, a lot of people don't like it or are disgusted by it, but that doesn't make it something that should be illegal. In fact, I don't see any particular reasons why the government shouldn't extend the same benefits it gives to "regular" married folk to consaguinous(incestuous) couples.

Now .. that being said ... one point needs to be clarified. There is an elevated risk for genetic abnormalities with incest. That doesn't mean, as some people seem to think, that it is guaranteed that a brother and sister will produce a kid with two heads or something. It just means that the risk all of us face in producing children are greater for incestuous couples(and actually not as much greater as many people would think -- although repeated consaguinity through a lineage is much more dangerous -- i.e., brother & sister produce two children, who go on to produce a child together, and so on. This was the thing that was happening a lot in some doomed royal lineages, like a particular period of time in ancient egypt. In this sort of case, yeah, you start to see a lot of miscarriages and babies with hideous birth defects).

Okay ... now ...we know these risks are higher for incestuous couples ... does that mean it should be illegal for them to be married? Not necessarily. I say that because there are tons of couples who have high risks who are allowed to get married. For example, two people with sickle cell trait are allowed to marry. They are healthy, but when they have kids together, they have ... oh I don't know ... maybe it is a 25 or 50 percent chance of having a kid with sickle cell disease, which is a debilitating and painful genetic condition that usually leads to early death. Then there is tay sach's disease, which has the same story genetically, except that kids usually die before adolescence after becoming deaf, blind, and profoundly mentally disabled. These are awful stories, but do we really want to make the stories more awful by not allowing people with these kinds of genetic markers to marry?

How bout this ... what about women who are in their forties who want to marry and maybe to have children? We know that the risk of downs syndrome and other genetic problems are higher for these women. in fact, their risks (and the risks of the genetic disease carriers I discussed above) might be *higher* than the risks are for a genetically normal incestuous brother-sister couple!!! Should older women be barred from marriage?

You know, I just think that the decision to have a child, as difficult a deciison as it is for people who have elevated risks, is just not the government's business. And given that marriage licenses are not, have never been, and should never be granted on the basis of genetic compatibility or the risk of fetal abnormality, yes, incestuous couples should go ahead and get married if that is what they want. Finally, I don't think that making it legal would increase the number of incestuous couples out there (small as I'm sure it is) since there is such a high degree of social stigma against incest.

 

[disykat]

I didn't vote yes, because I believe marriage should remain between an unrelated man and woman. I'm very surprised that so many people here are against it since many don't feel that way.

I can't imagine sleeping with my brother, but it's no more unimaginable to me than sleeping with another woman. Just because something isn't attractive to me doesn't mean other people aren't programmed differently.

While I'm against it, I do think that if we are going to redefine marriage then we really need to redefine it. I don't think you can exclude people who want to marry just because of a gross factor. Do we take a majority vote and go by the percentage of people grossed out?

This is actually a huge argument that is used in the argument against redefining marriage.

 

[Darth Cupcake]

No

 

[dreamcometrue]

that is just so wrong in so many ways! Even step-siblings that are not blood related...it would just be weird!

 

[Disneyland1084]

 

[LiLIrishChick63]

haha ... well I'll tell ya ... I voted yes.

Let me explain. By voting yes, I wouldn't say I would condone it and nor would I want to do it myself. But there are plenty of things I don't personally want to have anything to do with that I don't think the government should make decisions about for people. I'm particularly adamant that the government should not make decisions for people when it concerns activities that are not dangerous, problematic to the society as a whole, or damaging in any way.

I would generally place incest in this category -- that is, a lot of people don't like it or are disgusted by it, but that doesn't make it something that should be illegal. In fact, I don't see any particular reasons why the government shouldn't extend the same benefits it gives to "regular" married folk to consaguinous(incestuous) couples.

Now .. that being said ... one point needs to be clarified. There is an elevated risk for genetic abnormalities with incest. That doesn't mean, as some people seem to think, that it is guaranteed that a brother and sister will produce a kid with two heads or something. It just means that the risk all of us face in producing children are greater for incestuous couples(and actually not as much greater as many people would think -- although repeated consaguinity through a lineage is much more dangerous -- i.e., brother & sister produce two children, who go on to produce a child together, and so on. This was the thing that was happening a lot in some doomed royal lineages, like a particular period of time in ancient egypt. In this sort of case, yeah, you start to see a lot of miscarriages and babies with hideous birth defects).

Okay ... now ...we know these risks are higher for incestuous couples ... does that mean it should be illegal for them to be married? Not necessarily. I say that because there are tons of couples who have high risks who are allowed to get married. For example, two people with sickle cell trait are allowed to marry. They are healthy, but when they have kids together, they have ... oh I don't know ... maybe it is a 25 or 50 percent chance of having a kid with sickle cell disease, which is a debilitating and painful genetic condition that usually leads to early death. Then there is tay sach's disease, which has the same story genetically, except that kids usually die before adolescence after becoming deaf, blind, and profoundly mentally disabled. These are awful stories, but do we really want to make the stories more awful by not allowing people with these kinds of genetic markers to marry?

How bout this ... what about women who are in their forties who want to marry and maybe to have children? We know that the risk of downs syndrome and other genetic problems are higher for these women. in fact, their risks (and the risks of the genetic disease carriers I discussed above) might be *higher* than the risks are for a genetically normal incestuous brother-sister couple!!! Should older women be barred from marriage?

You know, I just think that the decision to have a child, as difficult a deciison as it is for people who have elevated risks, is just not the government's business. And given that marriage licenses are not, have never been, and should never be granted on the basis of genetic compatibility or the risk of fetal abnormality, yes, incestuous couples should go ahead and get married if that is what they want. Finally, I don't think that making it legal would increase the number of incestuous couples out there (small as I'm sure it is) since there is such a high degree of social stigma against incest.

i was actually just thinking the same thing, about the royal blood lines. funny you mentioned that. people used to marry into their families ALL the time in those cases. no one thought it was "weird" then, but of course, these are the same people who killed for fun and sport.

and yeah, i think they have actually proven that it's not 100% guarateed that there WILL be genetic abnormalaties, just a higher risk.

and i still stick by with what i said. i'm not all gung-ho for it, but i don't think anyone has the right to say who can and can't get married. it's none of my business.

 

[MassJester]

didn't they have two boys, too? Cain and Able, right?? how the heck did they have kids if they had two boys?

Someone pulled another creation two towns over.

And what about Noah and the kids? Who got things started again after that? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

 

[LiLIrishChick63]

Someone pulled another creation two towns over.

And what about Noah and the kids? Who got things started again after that? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

....this is why i am not an avid fan of the bible.

 

[parrothead365]

Marry your sister???

 

[hellokitty86]

I would hope anybody who think Gay Marriage should be legal would vote for this as well. While one is a main stream lifestyle (not a choice), the other is a much more rare lifestyle. Who are we to legislate anybody's lifestyle?

Wow. Just...Wow.

I'm actually speechless.