Should siblings be legally allowed to marry?

[DISUNC]

Just for reading this dark thread, I am going home & taking a very hot shower using a brillo pad!

 

[momrek06]

Just for reading this dark thread, I am going home & taking a very hot shower using a brillo pad!

...YIKES, isn't that going to hurt????

 

[LiLIrishChick63]

...YIKES, isn't that going to hurt????

well i, myself, have never bathed with a brillo pad......but i'm guessing it would be pretty painful.

 

[momrek06]

well i, myself, have never bathed with a brillo pad......but i'm guessing it would be pretty painful.

Extremely painful and a tad bit abusive as well....

 

[themarquis]

Extremely painful and a tad bit abusive as well....

but great for removing those stubborn calluses!

 

[kaler27]

Although I voted "no", I find it funny how 'icky' and 'wrong' everyone thinks it is for two consensual loving adults to marry because they are related; just replace the words "brother and sister" with 'same sex couple' and then we'd see how different the responses would be in this thread.

ITA. Since most of the responses seem to be along the lines of "Ewwww no" I'm guessing a lot of the people responding are just grossed out by it. Some people are just as grossed out at the thought of marrying someone of the same sex as someone they are biologically related to. It doesn't make sense to say that one couple can get married despite it grossing some people out and another couple cannot get married because it grosses some people out.

Ok, then I think I should be able to marry my cat. She's old and needs medical attention.

I hate to single anyone out but this is just one of many comments I noticed that would be getting flamed left and right if this were a discussion on homosexual marriage.

Some people are saying we are genetically programmed to not be sexually attracted to our blood relatives. This is true. Most of us are also genetically programmed to not be sexually attracted to members of the same sex, so I don't think that argument applies either.

Genetic disease is a legitimate concern but the risk isn't really high enough to warrant the banning of the marriage. Most of the concern comes about when a particular recessive allele is carried in the bloodline, raising the risk of giving birth to a child affected by the disease the allele carries. For this argument to be valid I think we would also have to say it should be illegal for people in certain populations that carry a high frequency of detrimental alleles to marry within that population (e.g. Tay-Sachs disease in Ashkenazi populations) because of the higher probability of passing on the disease. A recessive allele for a debilitating form of dwarfism runs in my family, so should I be banned from marrying anyone else with a family history of the condition, just in case I'm a carrier and my spouse is too? There are just too many double standards.

I've purposely left my personal opinion out of this and tried to look at the entire comparison objectively. I'm merely agreeing that some of those who oppose sibling marriage but support gay marriage seem to be encouraging a double standard.

 

[RayaniFoxmur]

I have to say first that I did vote no, just because I believe it to be morally wrong.

But enough about what I believe personally.

We discussed this in my sociology class... and the fact that this (much like beastiality and murder among other things) are social taboos. Many, if not all of us, have been taught that this is wrong. Taboos can change as years go on, but many years generally have to take place before a change will occur. Homosexuality and homosexual marriages are in the middle of this taboo change.

I truly think that this is a large reason as to many of the "Ewwwwwwwwww" responses this question is getting, and that won't change, if at all, for a good many MANY years. Sure, homosexuality went through the same kind of reaction many a moon ago... but that doesn't make incest right NOW something that's right, in my opinion anyway.

 

[Mysteria]

I'm surprised this thread got this far. I can't say "insert expletive here" but we can discuss sibling sexuality?

Myst

 

[Fitswimmer]

ITA. Since most of the responses seem to be along the lines of "Ewwww no" I'm guessing a lot of the people responding are just grossed out by it. Some people are just as grossed out at the thought of marrying someone of the same sex as someone they are biologically related to. It doesn't make sense to say that one couple can get married despite it grossing some people out and another couple cannot get married because it grosses some people out.



I hate to single anyone out but this is just one of many comments I noticed that would be getting flamed left and right if this were a discussion on homosexual marriage.

Some people are saying we are genetically programmed to not be sexually attracted to our blood relatives. This is true. Most of us are also genetically programmed to not be sexually attracted to members of the same sex, so I don't think that argument applies either.

Genetic disease is a legitimate concern but the risk isn't really high enough to warrant the banning of the marriage. Most of the concern comes about when a particular recessive allele is carried in the bloodline, raising the risk of giving birth to a child affected by the disease the allele carries. For this argument to be valid I think we would also have to say it should be illegal for people in certain populations that carry a high frequency of detrimental alleles to marry within that population (e.g. Tay-Sachs disease in Ashkenazi populations) because of the higher probability of passing on the disease. A recessive allele for a debilitating form of dwarfism runs in my family, so should I be banned from marrying anyone else with a family history of the condition, just in case I'm a carrier and my spouse is too? There are just too many double standards.

I've purposely left my personal opinion out of this and tried to look at the entire comparison objectively. I'm merely agreeing that some of those who oppose sibling marriage but support gay marriage seem to be encouraging a double standard.

You make a good point. I didn't see the inconsistency in my own position.

 

[*RJC*]

:
What I would really prefer, however, is that we just opened up the legal benefits in a way that doesn't imply that people who make that contract with one another are romantically in love with one another or have sex with one another. Take a case where two sister's husbands die young and the sisters decide to move in together to raise their children together. They live together for 15 years while they raise their kids, but they enjoy none of the benefits of the legal contract they had with their husbands. Why shouldn't the state be giving people in those situations legal benefits that protect them and make it easier to raise their children together?

Wow. I think this is a spectacular idea. Great point. Of course a lot of ppl arent going to be able to crawl out of thier box to think about it.

 

[kimluvswdw]

I think I will go with no on this one.

 

[DisneyfeverTN]

I voted yes because I think all people over the age of 18 should be allowed to marry whoever they want to. I also read somewhere that if people are very closely related the odds are very, very low that they would have genetic problems with their children. I could be wrong on that, but I thought I remember reading it somewhere.

I don't think the government should be able to dictate when two adults want to marry each other. What if they were raised in different houses and didn't even know they were related? I just don't care when one adult wants to marry another, whether it be same sex, different sexes, or blood relative. If two adults are in love, they should be free to marry.

 

[binny]

wow how far back did you have to go for this one?

 

[ducklite]

No. Genetic defects.

That's my thought.

 

[goofygirl]

NO siblings shouldn't be allowed to marry. I don't care how "in love" they are.

Cousins shouldn't marry either. I watched a documentary called Family That Walks on All Fours. It was about 4 siblings who couldn't walk upright due to a genetic defect. Their parents were cousins who married.

 

[maelstrom]

I think that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whoever they want.

 

[DisneyfeverTN]

The genetics thing just doesn't do it for me. There are plenty of people that have diseases that are genetic and can be passed on to their children. Should we make it a law that they never have children? People with strong family histories of certain genetic diseases may choose to adopt. Who knows? But who am I to say that two people can't be together because of my personal feelings? I'm not God and I don't think our government needs to be either.

I know my opinion is not the popular one, but oh well.

 

[mickeyfan2]

No

A single generation of siblings marrying may not increase genetic abnormalities, but generation after generation after generation and you end up with the abnormalities being the norm.

 

[CEDmom]

Wow. I think this is a spectacular idea. Great point. Of course a lot of ppl arent going to be able to crawl out of thier box to think about it.

Wow, it's pretty odd that a brand new poster would stumble upon a thread from almost a full year ago and bump it up . Me thinks you might be patting yourself on the back there giving cudos to Smartest .

 

[catsrule]

No, ewww and gross!