Opinions on sibling marriage/relationships

[DarkSun]

I'm in favor of sibling marriage. My husband and I are both siblings. My father isn't a sibling, but my mother is.

Wait, is your mother your sister and your father your brother? Then what does that make you? Their niece?

 

[Atomist]

Wait, is your mother your sister and your father your brother? Then what does that make you? Their niece?

no... he's using siblings marriage differently... as in I have a sibling and I'm married

 

[AxisMundi]

I saw ninerbuff's thread and decided to make a more interesting and way more controversial thread. I'm arguing that for the same reasons we should accept gay marriages/homosexuality we should allow sibling marriage/relationships.

By the gods, not this lameness again.

Did you really need to unbury this long past debunked garbage?

 

[Atomist]

By the gods, not this lameness again.

Did you really need to unbury this long past debunked garbage?

I don't get what you mean by that.

 

[ninerbuff]

I saw ninerbuff's thread and decided to make a more interesting and way more controversial thread. I'm arguing that for the same reasons we should accept gay marriages/homosexuality we should allow sibling marriage/relationships.

Can't agree with you here. Research does show that inbreeding results in many more complications of child birth defects.

 

[ChristineES]

I don't know. Nearly everyone I have spoken to and whatever are kind of disgusted by that sort of thing between their own siblings and/or parents. I don't think it is the same thing as gay relationships at all; mostly because if a brother and sister have children, there is a good chance that their offspring will be deformed in some way.

 

[Skwim]

I saw ninerbuff's thread and decided to make a more interesting and way more controversial thread. I'm arguing that for the same reasons we should accept gay marriages/homosexuality we should allow sibling marriage/relationships.

What do you have in mind by "relationships," going out to a movie, forming a business partnership, or having sex? I say let any mentally competent adult marry any other competent adult, and if there's a chance that an adversed pregnancy might result then adequate means of preventing it have to be taken.

 

[Venatoris]

Ultimately, this argument sounds very much like the arguments against gay marriage. Based on emotional appeals, personal experience, and lacking any real logical substance.

You're right. I'm just stating my feelings on the subject. The great thing about an opinion is, it doesn't need to be based on any logical reasoning.

Because you've define love between sibling as something no one would accept anymore than anyone would accept "I think real love between men doesn't allow for sexual relationships and thus gay sex is wrong". That's fallacious reasoning because not everyone accepts your definition of love and you shouldn't force anyone to even if you find it repulsing relative to your relationships with your siblings.

The only fallacious argument here, is your assumption that I want to impose my ideas on other people. I don't want to prevent people from having consensual incestuous relationships but I sure as hell don't have to approve of it.

 

[Atomist]

Can't agree with you here. Research does show that inbreeding results in many more complications of child birth defects.

What about gay sibling relationships

I don't know. Nearly everyone I have spoken to and whatever are kind of disgusted by that sort of thing between their own siblings and/or parents. I don't think it is the same thing as gay relationships at all; mostly because if a brother and sister have children, there is a good chance that their offspring will be deformed in some way.

... what about gay sibling relationships... not everyone thinks are disgusted by it... hence why there exist sibling relationships.

What do you have in mind by "relationships," going out to a movie, forming a business partnership, or having sex? I say let any mentally competent adult marry any other competent adult, and if there's a chance that an adversed pregnancy might result then adequate means of preventing it have to be taken.

Thank you... that was the exact point I was trying to make.

You're right. I'm just stating my feelings on the subject. The great thing about an opinion is, it doesn't need to be based on any logical reasoning.

The only fallacious argument here, is your assumption that I want to impose my ideas on other people. I don't want to prevent people from having consensual incestuous relationships but I sure as hell don't have to approve of it.

When when you want others to respect your opinion it should be based on logical reasoning.

Well then do you support their right to do it even if you disprove?

 

[Venatoris]

Well then do you support their right to do it even if you disprove?

I support a persons right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect the people around them. In this case, yes I do.

 

[Atomist]

I support a persons right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect the people around them. In this case, yes I do.

This makes me feel good since I got you to admit that you support the rights of people to have sibling marriages.

 

[Rakhel]

Me.
Marry my brother.
I just have one word for you.
NO MOTHER-******* WAY IN THIS HELL OR THE NEXT.
One of us would be dead and I would be in jail.

Sibling rivalry and all.

 

[Venatoris]

This makes me feel good since I got you to admit that you support the rights of people to have sibling marriages.

I wasn't hiding it, all you had to do was ask. I'm both confounded and intrigued by the way your mind operates Atomist.:sarcastic

 

[ninerbuff]

What about gay sibling relationships

Hmm, well since child bearing isn't possible, then I guess I have no problem with it.

 

[AxisMundi]

I don't get what you mean by that.

I was quite clear.

This "argument" was raised several years ago and amde the rounds of quite a few forums.

This non sequitur argument fallacy intended to disparage the fight for Equality of Marriage for the GLBT community.

It is merely a distraction from the simple fact that there is no valid reason to deny gays their Civil Right to marry any consenting adult they wish.

 

[Meow Mix]

I was quite clear.

This "argument" was raised several years ago and amde the rounds of quite a few forums.

This non sequitur argument fallacy intended to disparage the fight for Equality of Marriage for the GLBT community.

It is merely a distraction from the simple fact that there is no valid reason to deny gays their Civil Right to marry any consenting adult they wish.

The OP's point is that there is also no valid reason to deny incestual relationships a right to marry a consenting sibling/cousin/whatever, though.

It has nothing to do with homosexual marriage; it's an entirely different subject. The problem only arises when anti-gay activists liken homosexuality to incest because they see both as disgusting.

Maybe now we can all stop and know what it feels like to walk in their shoes when we think about how utterly revolting it is to most of us to think of siblings gettin' it on. But it's ultimately none of our business just the same (with the exception of fertile sibling relationships, which constitutes genetic malevolence).

 

[AxisMundi]

The OP's point is that there is also no valid reason to deny incestual relationships a right to marry a consenting sibling/cousin/whatever, though.

It has nothing to do with homosexual marriage; it's an entirely different subject. The problem only arises when anti-gay activists liken homosexuality to incest because they see both as disgusting.

Maybe now we can all stop and know what it feels like to walk in their shoes when we think about how utterly revolting it is to most of us to think of siblings gettin' it on. But it's ultimately none of our business just the same (with the exception of fertile sibling relationships, which constitutes genetic malevolence).

Ms. Meow, you'e a bright lass.

What, exactly, do you think this thread is about?

 

[Levite]

I saw ninerbuff's thread and decided to make a more interesting and way more controversial thread. I'm arguing that for the same reasons we should accept gay marriages/homosexuality we should allow sibling marriage/relationships.

Edit: I think the consensius is that sibling marriage is bad because of the potential problems with birth defects... then what about gay sibling marriage/relationships. If you allow that then your discriminating against sexual preference (and gender). And also what about the non-sibling couples that both have genetic traits are recessive that if the child gets both genes, it's detrimental to the child.

I have two answers to this.

As a Jew, I cannot conscience sibling relationships amongst Jews, because they are prohibited to us (Jews), and I know of no compelling reason to question that prohibition.

However, as an American-- and especially as an American living in an age of multiple and high-quality genetic testing and other similar medical advances-- I cannot think of any compelling reason not based in some sort of religious moral philosophy that should merit incest between consenting adults being prohibited.

Now, let me be clear: regardless of my theological opinions as a Jew, I don't approve of such relationships. I think they are personally reckless, psychologically unhealthy, and prone to create more personal problems than any issue they might resolve. However, IMO, that is not sufficient reason to make them illegal. There are plenty of things that are stupid and unhealthy that are legal as sea salt. If we spent time passing laws against doing everything that is rather stupid and likely unhealthy, we'd have no time to deal with real issues, and very little democracy left in which to deal with them.

What it boils down to is, at least for me, I would rather have police, lawyers, courts, and jails occupied with murderers, rapists, and other such violent scum than wasting time over every prize ******* who can convince his sister to dance the horizontal mambo. I mean, we have real issues in this country to deal with. This is just ridiculous.

 

[Meow Mix]

Ms. Meow, you'e a bright lass.

What, exactly, do you think this thread is about?

I think it's about incest; it's only due to slippery slope fallacies that people associate incest with homosexuality. Anti-gay activists employed slippery slope to say that "If you allow gay marriage then you must allow incest as well."

I'm a lesbian, and while I don't agree that allowing gay marriage entails allowing incest I do acknowledge that there is a logical and legal problem involved with denying incestual relationships the same rights accorded to others if homosexuality is legalized in terms of marriage.

It is a legitimate point. I would be lying to myself if I denied that. I may not like it, but I'm not in the business of hand-waving things away that I don't like.

 

[Atomist]

The OP's point is that there is also no valid reason to deny incestual relationships a right to marry a consenting sibling/cousin/whatever, though.

It has nothing to do with homosexual marriage; it's an entirely different subject. The problem only arises when anti-gay activists liken homosexuality to incest because they see both as disgusting.

Maybe now we can all stop and know what it feels like to walk in their shoes when we think about how utterly revolting it is to most of us to think of siblings gettin' it on. But it's ultimately none of our business just the same (with the exception of fertile sibling relationships, which constitutes genetic malevolence).

Thank you for understanding my argument... My argument is NOT an reductio ad absurdum.
I am all for gay marriage and if you are too you should also be for incestuous marriage. Which I am, even though it's taboo and I am repulsed by it.