Opinions on sibling marriage/relationships

[DarkSun]

... no it isn't because if your reason to deny someone's rights (gay sibling marriage) because it would lead to other people (same sex sibling marriage) getting rights that shouldn't get rights, then it's the slippery slope fallacy.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not a slippery slope fallacy, it's a logical corollary.

 

[McBell]

It's not a slippery slope fallacy, it's a logical corollary.

so it is merely a matter of time before it is completely legal for a man to marry a male dog...

I mean, it only logically follows, right?

 

[Atomist]

I'm not saying that any particular decision on rights is right or wrong, only that no right has a fundamental nature that can't be abridged or enjoined, a nature you seemed to feel should be inviolate. Truth is, "fundamental" rights disappear all the time, and in all kinds of civilized societies no less.

Your statement of fact doesn't address my point that it's a fundamental right now, and if you want to change the "fundamental" rights such that it is possible to stop people from reproducing because of their "genetics defects" then how does one non-arbitrarily define a genetic defect. I mean a lethal trait, rr could have beneficial traits. Rr traits.

If you want to name me a methodology such that there is a way where you can pick out "genetic defects" I want to hear it... but I don't even know if such a term is coherent.

Traits that are detrimental now may for some unforeseen reason be beneficial.

 

[Madhuri]

... no it isn't because if your reason to deny someone's rights (gay sibling marriage) because it would lead to other people (same sex sibling marriage) getting rights that shouldn't get rights, then it's the slippery slope fallacy.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't really care. I believe that I am correct in my assumption and am sticking to my opinion.

But let's look at it this way:

Heterosexual sibling relations = hazardous to society
Only homosexual sibling relations = highly discriminatory

 

[McBell]

I don't really care. I believe that I am correct in my assumption and am sticking to my opinion.

But let's look at it this way:

Heterosexual sibling relations = hazardous to society
Only homosexual sibling relations = highly discriminatory

I can't wait for your argument concerning the age limits imposed on marriage.
I mean they are highly discriminatory as well.

But back to the thread topic...
Is your argument against same sex sibling marriage that it would be discriminatory?

 

[Atomist]

I don't really care. I believe that I am correct in my assumption and am sticking to my opinion.

But let's look at it this way:

Heterosexual sibling relations = hazardous to society
Only homosexual sibling relations = highly discriminatory

sucks that we don't get to make up our own logic or your opinion would be way more convincing to get other people to agree with your reasoning.

 

[Madhuri]

But back to the thread topic...
Is your argument against same sex sibling marriage that it would be discriminatory?

It would certainly seem that way to the heterosexual siblings.

 

[Madhuri]

sucks that we don't get to make up our own logic or your opinion would be way more convincing to get other people to agree with your reasoning.

I don't have the intellectual argument at ready for this debate, obviously. But in this moment I don't care. From what I have seen happen in other cases throughout history, I think it probable that if you allow some people to have a right, others will want it too. Because of the problems associated with reproduction in a sibling context, I think it better to continue a society that considers incest to be unacceptable. And no Atomist, I don't think that abortion is the solution.

You can agree or disagree with me. I'm not going to get highly philosophical with this one.

 

[Skwim]

Your statement of fact doesn't address my point that it's a fundamental right now, and if you want to change the "fundamental" rights such that it is possible to stop people from reproducing because of their "genetics defects" then how does one non-arbitrarily define a genetic defect. I mean a lethal trait, rr could have beneficial traits. Rr traits.

I would imagine it would be up to the science of genetics and its findings, and then whatever the relevant ruling body made of those findings.

If you want to name me a methodology such that there is a way where you can pick out "genetic defects" I want to hear it... but I don't even know if such a term is coherent.

No. And my ignorance of genetics has no bearing on its utility. I would guess that the various genetic defects would be weighed, sorted, and assigned go--no go positions.

 

[Atomist]

I don't have the intellectual argument at ready for this debate, obviously. But in this moment I don't care. From what I have seen happen in other cases throughout history, I think it probable that if you allow some people to have a right, others will want it too. Because of the problems associated with reproduction in a sibling context, I think it better to continue a society that considers incest to be unacceptable. And no Atomist, I don't think that abortion is the solution.

You can agree or disagree with me. I'm not going to get highly philosophical with this one.

Well what if the same straight sibling couple wants to get married and the requirement is that one of them gets "fixed" so that they can't reproduce. If you don't want to have an intellectual argument and just state your opinion, then don't be surprised if someone critiques your position showing how flawed it is.

 

[Atomist]

I would imagine it would be up to the science of genetics and its findings, and then whatever the relevant ruling body made of those findings.


No. And my ignorance of genetics has no bearing on its utility. I would guess that the various genetic defects would be weighed, sorted, and assigned go--no go positions.

The thing is that something could be a genetic defect and detrimental in one environment, but very beneficial in another environment. I'm thinking pale skin is a genetic defect that was detrimental in africa and the tropics but very beneficial in places with not much sunlight and long winters.

 

[Madhuri]

Well what if the same straight sibling couple wants to get married and the requirement is that one of them gets "fixed" so that they can't reproduce. If you don't want to have an intellectual argument and just state your opinion, then don't be surprised if someone critiques your position showing how flawed it is.

Don't you see how messy this starts to get? Why should we introduce law to force people to be 'fixed'?

 

[Atomist]

Don't you see how messy this starts to get? Why should we introduce law to force people to be 'fixed'?

How is it any different than forcing someone to not get married because they can have children with increased "genetic defects"

 

[Madhuri]

How is it any different than forcing someone to not get married because they can have children with increased "genetic defects"

There is a difference between making someone do something and preventing them from doing something.

In the first case you are dealing with an issue of forcing body mutilation. In the second instance, you are preventing a cultural shift that would have high economic and social costs. It's an obvious difference to me.

 

[Atomist]

There is a difference between making someone do something and preventing them from doing something.

In the first case you are dealing with an issue of forcing body mutilation. In the second instance, you are preventing a cultural shift that would have high economic and social costs. It's an obvious difference to me.

No... because your giving them the option
1) you can't get married or
2) you can get married but you have to sterilize yourself

 

[Madhuri]

No... because your giving them the option
1) you can't get married or
2) you can get married but you have to sterilize yourself

Yeh, it's cruel and twisted.

So anyway, I'd like to know your personal opinion on this subject.

 

[Atomist]

Yeh, it's cruel and twisted.

So anyway, I'd like to know your personal opinion on this subject.

Let me find it... it's very early in this thread...

Personally, I find incest revolting, but I don't have any logical reason why I would think that and have plenty of reason why it should be allowed, it's a societal thing and indoctrination into the culture we all are born in (hence the emotional reaction)... so I support people's right to incest, even if I think it's revolting... just like I do with male-male relationships (even though I think it's revolting), female-female relationships is niiice though.

What one feel should have no bearing on the logistics and reason behind arguments which was the point of this thread.

 

[Madhuri]

Let me find it... it's very early in this thread...

What is your opinion on the matter of incestuous reproduction?
Would you allow a government to force people to be 'fixed' if they enter an incestuous marriage?
Would you think a system could work harmoniously if only homosexual siblings were allowed to enter formal relationships?

 

[Atomist]

What is your opinion on the matter of incestuous reproduction?
Would you allow a government to force people to be 'fixed' if they enter an incestuous marriage?
Would you think a system could work harmoniously if only homosexual siblings were allowed to enter formal relationships?

They should be allowed to reproduce... since we can't force people to not reproduce, they should have that right, especially if they understand the problems that arise from incestuous babies and are willing to risk it. I think that answers question 2 since a government shouldn't have any power to affect our reproduction.

No because it is discriminatory against gender (and sexual orientation) but disallowing both is not a logically valid solution since there is no reason to dis-allow gay sibling marriage, except that it allows for same sex sibilings to get married and the consequence behind that is bad (which I disagree with... I think it's a good thing... more rights for the individuals).

I mean saying that you shouldn't reproduce because it could lead to genetic defects is like saying people with genetic defects are somehow inferior and have less rights compaired to those without genetic defects.

 

[Madhuri]

They should be allowed to reproduce... since we can't force people to not reproduce, they should have that right, especially if they understand the problems that arise from incestuous babies and are willing to risk it. I think that answers question 2 since a government shouldn't have any power to affect our reproduction.

No because it is discriminatory against gender (and sexual orientation) but disallowing both is not a logically valid solution since there is no reason to dis-allow gay sibling marriage, except that it allows for same sex sibilings to get married and the consequence behind that is bad (which I disagree with... I think it's a good thing... more rights for the individuals).

I mean saying that you shouldn't reproduce because it could lead to genetic defects is like saying people with genetic defects are somehow inferior and have less rights compaired to those without genetic defects.

You see my mind keeps switching to the perspective of a governing body. On a purely philosophical basis, I can agree with you mostly. But in this thread at least I have primarily been arguing from the position of a governing entity. Ie/ If I had control to change society, which direction would I take it?

And as a governing entity, I'd definitely place a restriction on the legality of incestuous marriage. To add to my earlier reasoning (the influence on cultural attitudes, social norms) is that unlike homosexuality, I think that our desire/lack of with sibling relationships is mostly cultural. We are grossed out by it because we're taught to be. In other cultures there actually were sibling marriages and that was normal. Especially in our globalised society with our speedy communication methods and the reduction or time and space through technology, the allowance of marriage between siblings could result in a huge cultural change where being incestuous becomes a normal part of life.

So from that perspective of a governing entity, I'd probably not want to run the risk of this happening. You'd then likely be running a nation full of disabled people who can't work or function normally, your economy would die and it would be a complete wreck.

I'm one of those people who always thinks of the consequences before doing anything