Two people want to get married. They are both adults.

[Boojatta]

If they are brother and sister, then should it be legal for them to get married?

If they are sister and sister, then should it be legal for them to get married?

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. No

[Midlodemocrat]

2. Here we go again.

C'mon, dude. Stop equating gay marriage with all the social mores and norms that we follow.

Incest and gay marriage are completely different issues.

:eyes:

[ComerPerro]

3. Is that you, Rick Santorum?

[Emit]

26. lol! n/t

[ComerPerro]

4. If we campaign on making incest legal, we could get a lot of FReeper votes

[Dhalgren]

5. !!!

:rofl:

[MazeRat7]

6. Well most of it anyway...

There will always be those that go to a family reunion to "pick-up" chicks....

MZr7

[Boojatta]

8. Plus some Libertarian votes. e.o.m.

[ComerPerro]

14. only if we promise to do away with all taxes

[Inland]

7. Only if their religiously wacked dad basically forces them too.

That's pretty much where I see it coming up. Otherwise, find some sisters who want to get married, and I'll let you know.

[johnnie]

9. As it stands now?

No. Mainly because they haven't allowed same sex marriages yet.

If a brother and sister or sister and sister want to get married after that, then yes. Not that I would marry my sister, but really... who am I to say two adults shouldn't get married?

[FreeState]

16. BS

No. Mainly because they haven't allowed same sex marriages yet.

This is the same argument that people used against blacks marrying white. Its complete and utter BS. It did not happen when marriage laws were equalized for blacks in past and it will not happen when GLBT people are treaded as the equals that they are.

[johnnie]

27. I don't get what you are saying

But what I meant was that if they make it legal for brothers and sisters to get married they better damn well make it legal for same sex marriages too.

I didn't quite understand what you are calling BS in my post and what argument am I making in my post?

[W_HAMILTON]

20. It doesn't have anything to do with same-sex marriage, though

If same-sex is made illegal, incest is still illegal, so you can't marry your siblings.

If same-sex is made legal, incest is still illegal, so you can't marry your siblings.

Unless the incest laws are repealed, the outcome of the same-sex marriage debate will have zero effect on whether two family members can marry each other.

[johnnie]

29. I guess if you equate marriage with sex

I know that is a bit of a stretch, but when I think of marriage between two people I think of it more as a partnership for life. I'm not naive enough to think that not everyone would have sex if they are married, but I don't look at a legal marriage and having sex as one in the same.

That is why the whole same sex marriage thing pisses me off so much. Two people want to have the same legal rights as a partnership that opposite sexes get, but yet everyone who is against it think of them having sex instead of having a legal partnership. I hate to be the one to break it to the people who are against same sex marriages, but they can have sex even without the legal paperwork.

[Warpy]

10. Why the hell not?

They're gonna do what they're gonna do, whether or not some preacher mumbles over it. We might as well give them legal protection, although I'd encourage genetic testing in the case of hetero siblings who want to conceive.

Incestuous marriage like this is ickydoodle to the vast majority of us, which is why it would be so extremely rare as to be statistically negligible. Most people will sensibly avoid it. A miniscule minority will seek it voluntarily. They exist now and people around them assume they are married, since their names are the same. They are, however, very rare.

I see absolutely no reason in the world to prevent any adult from consenting to do anything with his life he wants to, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I am not anyone's nanny, and nobody is my nanny. I outgrew the need for nannies many years ago.

I find lesbian sex icky. My lesbian friends find hetero sex icky. I learned a very long time ago that we are wired very differently and that none of us has a right to tell another what is legally acceptable among consenting adults.

There is no such thing as a victimless crime. If there is no victim, there is no crime.

[lastliberalintexas]

40. Ah Warpy, I love your libertarian attitude!

Small l, of course! :)


And yes, just because it's super duper uper icky to me, doesn't mean that I should try to prevent consenting adults from doing what they're gonna do. :shrug:

[johnaries]

11. I'd be more inclined to let the 2 sisters marry than the bro/sis.

Since no offspring can come from the union and therefore there is no worries about the health issues usually associated wht children who are the products of incest.

[Boojatta]

13. Would you have one set of rules for mixed gender marriages and a different

set of rules for same-sex marriages?

[FreeState]

15. Traditional

Same sex marriages are traditional.

[johnaries]

18. Personally, I think marriage is in the heart and not on a piece of

paper. However, as far as rights and privileges afforded to spouses, I think anyone should be able to marry anyone else they want to as long as both are of age and of sound mind. Period.

[EminenceFront]

12. I don't see a problem with it.

Who am I to tell two adults who they can and can't have as a spouse? Even if more than two want to marry each other then they should be free to do so.

[W_HAMILTON]

17. Incest is illegal...

...at least here in the United States.

Being homosexual is not illegal. Most of the laws aimed at preventing homosexual activity were basically invalidated with the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas. That ruling (in particular) is what sparked the same-sex marriage debate.

So, as things stand: if you are brother and brother, sister and sister, or brother and sister...no, you can't get married. No matter what the ruling is on same-sex marriage, unless the incest laws are repealed, they will not be able to get married.

[northzax]

22. ahh, but why should incest between consenting adults

be illegal? distasteful, certainly, but what business of the State is it who I, as a consenting adult, do with other consenting adults?

[W_HAMILTON]

31. The main reason...

doesn't have to do with it being distasteful at all.

From what I understand, one of the main reasons was because recessive trait diseases can run in families. If you start marrying family members, and they have kids, those recessive trait diseases can come out more readily than if you just had picked a random person (not in your family) to marry and have kids with.

So that was at least one of the original reasons. Whether you agree with it or not, it's up to the, uh, pro-incest crowd (I guess) to fight the laws and have them repealed.

[northzax]

36. I understand the reason

but it's still not an acceptable reason to ban an activity. You are much more likely to have a child with difficulties if you smoke or drink during pregnancy, and no one is talking about making that illegal.

and with genetic testing and birth control, this isn't a problem anymore, is it?

[W_HAMILTON]

38. Shrug

Whether the law is right or wrong is an entirely different discussion. As it remains, anti-gay sodomy laws were repealed, so homosexuals were made "legal" in that regard.

Incest is still illegal in most (all?) places here in the USA. Until that changes, incestuous marriages are most likely not going to be allowed.

[northzax]

19. sure, why the heck not?

if they are consenting adults, that's their issue. If you want to marry your mother and run a motel? that's your problem, Norman. Hell, you want to practice polygamy? go on with your bad self. not my problem (as long as everyone is a consenting adult, Mr. Jeffs)

two or more consenting human adults. that's where I draw the line.

[W_HAMILTON]

21. Again, incest is illegal...

I assume the original poster tried to use this analogy as an argument against same-sex marriage, but incest is illegal.

Homosexual activity is no longer illegal (per the 2003 Supreme Court decision).

That's why these two issues have nothing to do with each other.

[Nickster]

25. Yup, typical right wing talking points. Conflating two issues.

"Well, if they can do it, then you think it's ok for men to marry goats, and for men to marry their daughters, and then families marrying each other, it will be CRRRRAZZZZZY I tell ya."

OP obviously has issues with gay marriage.

[northzax]

35. I don't think it is, in most places

it is illegal for people vioating the second rule of cousinguenity to marry, but can you find a single instance of someone being prosecuted for incest when both parties are over the age of consent?

[W_HAMILTON]

37. Who knows...

...it's probably not much different than them prosecuting homosexual activity in the years just preceding the 2003 court ruling. It's one of those things that they don't actively seem to go after.

However, if you tried to get married as a gay person before the 2003 court ruling, the states that had sodomy laws in place could have said, "well, you're technically breaking the law as it is, so of course we're not going to marry you."

It's not like gays were being thrown in jail all across the USA, even though in some states they could have been. It's the same way with incest. Chances are, if you commit incest, no one is going to know about it. But if you try and get married and they find out, well, then you've run into the same sort of problem that gays had BEFORE the Supreme Court ruling.

[TrogL]

23. Slippery Slope is still a logical fallacy

Unless you're driving on ice. Literally.

[Boojatta]

30. Where do you see a slippery slope? The OP consists of a short intro and

two questions.

[W_HAMILTON]

33. I answered the difference between the two...

...so you can respond to me if you'd like.

Laws making homosexual activities illegal were repealed with the 2003 Supreme Court decision. Hence, for most intents and purposes, gay people are "legal."

Incest is still illegal. There are laws against it. Whether same-sex marriages are made legal or not, it has no effect on incestuous relationships as long as incest is illegal in our country.

[Boojatta]

41. An attempt to respond

Laws making homosexual activities illegal were repealed with the 2003 Supreme Court decision.

The only activity considered in the OP is getting married.

Incest is still illegal. There are laws against it.

The OP asks what should be the law. The OP doesn't ask what is the law.

[FreeState]

42. Are you the OP?

Why are you talking in third person? You sound an awful lot like this guy that posts on a different board I post on...

[Boojatta]

43. One of the meanings of "OP" is "Original Post." I'm not a post. e.o.m.

[W_HAMILTON]

44. Well, it stands to reason...

The law currently states that incestuous relationships are illegal, so no, I don't believe that two family members should be allowed to marry one another.

Even though same-sex people would be able to get around one of the main issues of incestuous relationships (not being able to have kids between the two), again, I'm a stickler for laws for the most part. Much the same way I believe that same-sex marriage should be allowed because heterosexuals are allowed to get married, I think that same-sex incestuous marriage should NOT be allowed, because heterosexual incestuous marriage is not allowed.

[TrogL]

45. I've been down this road before (pun intended)

Here's how it works.

I served on a condominium board that successfully reached the conclusion that no children were allowed to play with toy balloons within the complex. The reason - because it might lead to football playing.

OK, that's over-simplfied - actually it was because they couldn't come up with a definition of "children's ball" that didn't include footballs, hence they banned everything just to be on the safe side but the result was pretty much the same. If we don't ban balloon, we can't ban footballs. Hysterically, one of the board members actually said, "if we don't ban all balls, including balloons, we will be on the slippery slope to having teenagers throwing footballs at cars in the parking lots."

Generally the argument against gay marriage goes something like, if we allow gays to use certain arguments in favour of gay marriage, we will have to allow people to use those same arguments in favour of polygamy or (in this case) incest, which is a blatant logical fallacy (undivided middle, among other things).

Canadians have universal health care.
Communism supports universal health care.
Therefore Canadians are communists.

What posters will do is jump the gun and go straight to proposing incest or polygamy and when everyone objects, point out that the logic they're using is the same one used by gay marriage advocates.

(exercise for the reader - what logical fallacy am I engaging in?)

[TrogL]

47. ...and lo and behold...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1170556#1170672

[theHandpuppet]

24. Flamebait

Another thread to put on ignore.

[slackmaster]

28. Obviously not, but THREE adult siblings should be allowed to marry

:dunce:

[wuushew]

32. Yes

unnecessary restrictions on personal freedom should not be tolerated.

[Boojatta]

34. Yes to both questions? e.o.m.

[wuushew]

39. I have no problem with incestuous lesbian marriage

the usefulness of the marriage contract still holds in tax, medical, familial and inheritance matters. Benefits to some should extend to all in the eyes of the law.

[SmokingJacket]

46. I think so.

Here's what I think: churches can go ahead and consecrate whatever unions they want. However, the state should allow two people -- or maybe even three -- to form legal partnerships. I don't care what you call it, but the state should not discriminate by sex or relationship.

Traditional people would do the church thing and the legal thing, just as now. Other non-traditional partnerships -- gay couples, or an elderly person and a young relative, or non-religious people such as myself -- would be allowed to become legally connected, with tax benefits and insurance benefits just like those that married people get now.

Why should heterosexual couples get legal protections that other unions don't have? And don't give me crap about tradition. It's traditional to discriminate, but that doesn't make it right.

[The empressof all]

48. Locking

Please don't post flamebait