Should siblings be legally allowed to marry?

[Dakota_Lynn]

I am disgusted and repulsed by incest, but I also know that a lot of people are disgusted and repulsed by homosexuality. I don’t want people deciding what I can and can’t do in my bedroom, therefore I don’t feel it is my right to deny siblings the right to marry, regardless of how disgusting I feel that it is. I’m also for allowing group marriages and polygamy, and both situations strike me as repulsive. As long as the people who want to engage in these marriages are of sound mind, legally adult, and not hurting anybody, I see no point in stopping them. In the case of siblings, who is harmed in the situation if both parties are grown adults?

Regarding the issue of genetic defects I would say one of two things needs to happen; either the couple does extensive genetic testing before having kids or one or the other become sterilized. But even that strikes me as questionable. I know a couple where fragile x runs in the woman’s family and she is a carrier; they still want to have kids even though their odds of having a sick child are very, very high…far higher a risk than mating siblings. Should they be told no? What about women in their 40s who decide they want to start a family? Their risk of having children with defects is much, much higher yet we don’t tell them they can’t take that chance, do we? What about women who smoke during their pregnancy? Women who drink? We don’t tell them they can’t have babies. We may not approve, but nobody is going to come to your house and arrest you if you have a cigarette while pregnant even though we know that is bad for the baby. I’m just saying that there are many situations in which mental and physical birth defects are more likely to happen and we do not tell such people that they can’t have kids because of it. Sibling mating is no more risky than the situations I just named.

So….other than the concern about defective children, can anybody offer a valid reason why it shouldn’t be allowed other than “ewww, it’s gross?” Believe me; I’m there with all of you in that I find it repulsive. I have two brothers and the thought of it makes me want to projectile puke all over the place. But what I’m saying is that to many, many straight but gay-friendly women here on the DIS, the idea of kissing another woman makes them feel sick too. And no, I’m not comparing homosexuality with incest. Hell no. I am gay and believe me, I'm not attracted to anybody in my family! But I’m saying that a pair of siblings who have fallen in love for whatever reason are facing the same fight that I am fighting if I want to marry the woman I love. And I know that 20 years ago, the reaction people had to homosexuality was very similar to the way y’all are reacting to sibling marriage. You would have said it was gross, that homosexuals are sick, that we must have been abused to have such an inclination, and that kids born to such a relationship would have an unfair disadvantage. But today we know for a fact that kids raised in homosexual families turn out just fine. We know that homosexuality isn’t a sickness and we know it has nothing to do with the way we were raised. All that leaves is the “gross factor” and more and more people are realizing that just because it is gross to them doesn’t give them the right to tell other people they can't get married. All I’m saying is that the things I’m reading on this thread could have easily been said by the majority of you about me 20 years ago or even 10. And that is why I have to step back and ask the question, “Who is it hurting?” And the answer is “nobody.” So then why is it our business?

I can't believe I'm defending incest. I need to restate for the record that I am disgusted by the practice. I just don't think I can deny them the right to do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their homes. I wish I could just say "ewww, it's so gross....no way" and leave it at that. But I don't think my conscious would agree with me. I think I would be left with an uneasy feeling that in my lack of understanding, I'm causing people the same pain that homophobes are causing me. I just can't do that.

 

[MushyMushy]

I have no scientific proof to back this up, but I think there is something inate in us which makes us not be able to fall romantically in love with a sibling. We're just made that way, our brain psychology normally doesn't work that way. I'm not talking about siblings who didn't know they were siblings; in those cases they don't feel/see each other as brother and sister. But the ones who were raised together, well I don't think I've ever heard of a case where they fell into romantic love and wanted to get married/have kids together. Incest happens all the time in this world, where brothers/sisters/fathers impregnate each other, but that's not from love, it's from pure sex and lust.

There is. It's called the Westermarck Effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)#Westermarck_effect

 

[LindsayDunn228]

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

The thought of this makes me shudder..

Yes it did!!!!

 

[SandraVB79]

I'm watching ABC's "Outsiders". They had a couple on that are blood related brother and sister. They want to marry but I think it's illegal in all states. They also want to have children.

The man made an interesting point regarding the creation of man. Adam and Eve had children. Where did the grandchildren come from? And so on...

If you voted yes, please elaborate.

Yeah...and look how well Adam & Eve's first two kids turned out. One of them murdered the other one.

agnes!

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

Although it's another debate, I don't think one can take this story as a reason why it should be allowed.

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?

You are equating homosexuality to INCEST?! Ok......

It's insane to compare homosexuality with incest. JMO of course

What if a brother and sister who weren't in love with each other (they both had normal relationships with other people) wanted to get married JUST because of the legal benefits such as insurance?

I don't think marriage exists to have legal benefits, and I don't think it should be used for that reason. Just the same like it shouldn't be used to enable foreigners to acquire the nationality of a country by marrying someone of that country.

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

The thought of this makes me shudder..

Yes, in many of her books this subject is used.




There are not only the birth defects like the two heads someone mentioned, but also the problem with the blood. I don't know the proper Englis word for it, but if there is not enough diversity in one's blood (parents out of two different families), you can get blood diseases where you don't stop bleeding once you start bleeding.

 

[dimimi]

Personally, I can't imagine marrying my brother...thank goodness he's already married...so that's not a problem!

I thought I saw on one of the 20/20's that there really weren't any more birth defects with sibling marriages. I thought their point was that there wasn't any proof that this would hurt children.

 

[poohandwendy]

Absolutely NOT!!!

Oh good Lord, has it really come to this? Where any relationship roll of the dice now calls for legitimacy from the state by way of marriage? Oh come on.

"Government stay out of my bedroom"- Um, as far as I know, every single adult in this nation is free to have a consentual sexual/intimate/romantic relationship with pretty much any other adult they choose. The government doesn't stop it. So, have at it. Enjoy your brother, sister, aunt, mother, father, uncle. All day/night long for all I care. But, that isn't what is being proposed here. We are talking about state sanctioned marriage.

All of a sudden we should feel an obligation to sanction and legitimize every form of relationship with marriage? Why?

This is worlds apart from homosexual marriage, but that and the ewww factor tends to be what makes some people a wee bit leery to stamp a big fat NO on it. I guess it is the result of the slippery slope argument. As a society we do have the right to say "NO, this is deemed immoral and not beneficial to society in any way, shape or form to legitimize it with the benefit of marriage." We have the right, as a nation, to decide that some things are immoral...not for religious reasons (athiests have morals, right?)...but just flat out not morally beneficial to society. Are we really saying there is no moral line society is allowed to have in place? I mean, that really is the issue. Anything and everything must be legitimized and legally supported by society? I don't think so.

Homosexuals can make the argument that they were born gay and being unable to marry a same sex partner limits their rights. I know many disagree with that, but it cannot be proven either way, so it is a valid argument. How can you apply any of that to familial marriage? It really can't be. Homosexuals can say "I am not wired to have an intimate relationship with the opposite sex", but there is no evidence that anyone on this earth is only wired to marry within their immediate family.

"What valid reason beyond the ick factor is there to deny this type of marriage?" How about the fact that there is a reasonable amount of risk that family members could be influenced from infancy into this sort of relationship? Manipulation by an parent or older sibling during childhood could be an essential brainwashing that leads to this sort of relationship. And if you allow siblings, why not parent/child...as long as the child has reached adulthood? How can sibling marriages be allowed and not parent/child marriages?

Family members, whether it be parents or siblings can be considered an authority influence enough to skew the idea of real consent for me to think it is not beneficial to society to legalize and legitimize immediate familial marriages.

As far as the rights gained by marriage. Most of the rights are already pretty much there anyways. Making medical decisions, inheritance. Next of kin, how convenient is that? The only one I can think of is medical insurance. And honestly, I think medical insurance should get to the point where coverage is based on the amount of people you want to put on it in your household, where you would just pay accordingly by amount of people covered (whole other debate)

Sheesh, it blows me away that there are really people who think this sort of thing should be legitimized, that do not see the potential for abuse and coercion. Yes, this can all happen anyways, that cannot be stopped. But, I have no interest in seeing society stamp a big nod of approval on it by sanctioning it with marriage.

And if there are so few who would even want to do this (surely), then there really isn't a need for it anyways or a need to make it more beneficial to engage in such a relationship.

As always, JMHO. (btw, I know this is only a debate and not a law about to be written...just debating the idea of it)

Thank God children are still considered lacking the ability to consent. Is that next? I know NAMBLA is fighting it already.

 

[Charade]

Hey! Where's the AMEN!??!?

 

[poohandwendy]

Hey! Where's the AMEN!??!?

 

[snowwite]

By siblings you mean brother and sister, correct?
No. They should not marry.isnt that incest?

 

[mickeyfan2]

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.

Genetic defects were extremely common.

 

[mickeyfan2]

Absolutely NOT!!!

Oh good Lord, has it really come to this? Where any relationship roll of the dice now calls for legitimacy from the state by way of marriage? Oh come on.

"Government stay out of my bedroom"- Um, as far as I know, every single adult in this nation is free to have a consentual sexual/intimate/romantic relationship with pretty much any other adult they choose. The government doesn't stop it. So, have at it. Enjoy your brother, sister, aunt, mother, father, uncle. All day/night long for all I care. But, that isn't what is being proposed here. We are talking about state sanctioned marriage.

All of a sudden we should feel an obligation to sanction and legitimize every form of relationship with marriage? Why?

This is worlds apart from homosexual marriage, but that and the ewww factor tends to be what makes some people a wee bit leery to stamp a big fat NO on it. I guess it is the result of the slippery slope argument. As a society we do have the right to say "NO, this is deemed immoral and not beneficial to society in any way, shape or form to legitimize it with the benefit of marriage." We have the right, as a nation, to decide that some things are immoral...not for religious reasons (athiests have morals, right?)...but just flat out not morally beneficial to society. Are we really saying there is no moral line society is allowed to have in place? I mean, that really is the issue. Anything and everything must be legitimized and legally supported by society? I don't think so.

Homosexuals can make the argument that they were born gay and being unable to marry a same sex partner limits their rights. I know many disagree with that, but it cannot be proven either way, so it is a valid argument. How can you apply any of that to familial marriage? It really can't be. Homosexuals can say "I am not wired to have an intimate relationship with the opposite sex", but there is no evidence that anyone on this earth is only wired to marry within their immediate family.

"What valid reason beyond the ick factor is there to deny this type of marriage?" How about the fact that there is a reasonable amount of risk that family members could be influenced from infancy into this sort of relationship? Manipulation by an parent or older sibling during childhood could be an essential brainwashing that leads to this sort of relationship. And if you allow siblings, why not parent/child...as long as the child has reached adulthood? How can sibling marriages be allowed and not parent/child marriages?

Family members, whether it be parents or siblings can be considered an authority influence enough to skew the idea of real consent for me to think it is not beneficial to society to legalize and legitimize immediate familial marriages.

As far as the rights gained by marriage. Most of the rights are already pretty much there anyways. Making medical decisions, inheritance. Next of kin, how convenient is that? The only one I can think of is medical insurance. And honestly, I think medical insurance should get to the point where coverage is based on the amount of people you want to put on it in your household, where you would just pay accordingly by amount of people covered (whole other debate)

Sheesh, it blows me away that there are really people who think this sort of thing should be legitimized, that do not see the potential for abuse and coercion. Yes, this can all happen anyways, that cannot be stopped. But, I have no interest in seeing society stamp a big nod of approval on it by sanctioning it with marriage.

And if there are so few who would even want to do this (surely), then there really isn't a need for it anyways or a need to make it more beneficial to engage in such a relationship.

As always, JMHO. (btw, I know this is only a debate and not a law about to be written...just debating the idea of it)

Thank God children are still considered lacking the ability to consent. Is that next? I know NAMBLA is fighting it already.

Not to mention that your parents are now you in-laws.

 

[KAHNNA]

Question for those who are on the fence about this issue.

If it were your son and daughter wanting to marry one another, would you accept their choice?

 

[KristiKelly]

I voted no just because

 

[CapeCodTenor]

The man made an interesting point regarding the creation of man. Adam and Eve had children. Where did the grandchildren come from? And so on...

I've always woundered the samething. However, I voted no. First off, there's the eewww factor, but more importatantly there's the genetics thing.

 

[mrsltg]

There's lots of things in this world that make me say, "ewwwww." I don't get to decide that no one else can do them. If it's two consenting adults and they are not infringing on the rights of anyone else who am I (or anyone else) to say they can't?

 

[aquinas]

But didnt some people once think that whites and blacks getting married was "ewwww!!"

What about the rights of the consensual loving brother and sister that wants to get married? Isnt it discrimnation to stop them from marrying? Are they not provided the same rights as everyone else under the 14th Amendment?

I think the judicial branch should step in and remedy this situation because of all the "intolerance", "hate", and "bigotry" that exists against 2 loving people that want to get married and afforded the same rights as any other married couple in the US. The judicial system should save these brothers and sisters from the uneducated masses who are trying to impose their morals on others.

 

[VSL]

"The Oedipus complex".

The Oedipus complex is between a mother and her son, not a brother and his sister (and the opposite is the Elektra complex between father and daughter).

I'm an only child (although I'm pretty sure I probably have some half-siblings).
I'm not entirely decided on this issue (so shall vote 'undecided'). Egyptian royalty usually married their own family (including brothers marrying sisters) .

 

[Christopher Robin]

But what about gay siblings?

 

[meandtheguys2]

I've known too many children from family trees that didn't branch. A big old fat "no" from me.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

What about the rights of the consensual loving brother and sister that wants to get married? Isnt it discrimnation to stop them from marrying?

Alright, then what about that guy out in Utah (I think) who has multiple wives, or any of the other members of that breakaway group of Mormons? Shouldn't he be given a break? After all, what he does in his bedroom is his own business, right? Just playing devils advocate here.