Opinions on sibling marriage/relationships

[Atomist]

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.

That's absurd. Just because people can marry their siblings that doesn't mean that people will all of a sudden have relationships with their siblings and marry them. Anymore than if gay marriage is allowed then more people will become gay.

 

[Madhuri]

That's absurd. Just because people can marry their siblings that doesn't mean that people will all of a sudden have relationships with their siblings and marry them. Anymore than if gay marriage is allowed then more people will become gay.

How do you know that? It's been a norm within certain communities throughout history.

 

[Atomist]

How do you know that? It's been a norm within certain communities throughout history.

fine... I'll even grant you for the sake of argument taht it will increase rate of sibling relationships... I don't accept it's relevant because it' not like all of a sudden any significant % of siblings will get married and have children. Like the percentage would be trivial... just like saying people have the rights to commit suicide would increase suicide percentages. Okay even if true it's not enough to damage the society as a whole... since it would still be trivially small.

 

[DarkSun]

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?

Martians too.
And the people living on Uranus.

 

[Midnight Pete]

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.

Inbreeding is something people do when they don't know any better. Any science person could tell you why inbreeding is bad.

 

[AxisMundi]

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.

Well, I do not agree that it is a valid point at all.

It is a totally unrelated question, no better than "Why don't we allow people to marry animals, kids, or their furniture."

 

[Meow Mix]

Well, I do not agree that it is a valid point at all.

It is a totally unrelated question, no better than "Why don't we allow people to marry animals, kids, or their furniture."

Animals, kids, and furniture can't provide clear mature consent.

Whether or not any of us like it -- and I certainly don't, incest is repugnant to me -- Atomist indeed has a valid point that's difficult to answer.

The question is, should it even be answered in the negatory?

If you're like me then you probably started out thinking that it should.

But I may have changed my mind. As I said I'm not in the business of believing what I want to believe. I'm in the business of finding out what's true, even if I don't like it.

 

[Atomist]

Inbreeding is something people do when they don't know any better. Any science person could tell you why inbreeding is bad.

obviously not... the evolution of homo sapiens is a result of inbreeding.

 

[Midnight Pete]

I was thinking more along the lines of the Russian Royal Family and hemophilia. If royal families kept intermarrying, the genetic defects (like hemophilia) would increase with each generation until it resulted in sterility for any survivng individuals. How could our entire species survive like that?

 

[AxisMundi]

Animals, kids, and furniture can't provide clear mature consent.

Whether or not any of us like it -- and I certainly don't, incest is repugnant to me -- Atomist indeed has a valid point that's difficult to answer.

The question is, should it even be answered in the negatory?

If you're like me then you probably started out thinking that it should.

But I may have changed my mind. As I said I'm not in the business of believing what I want to believe. I'm in the business of finding out what's true, even if I don't like it.

As a stand alone argument, certainly it is a valid one.

However, I have never come across this as a stand alone argument whatsoever in my time arguing with people online since the late 1980's.

To answer it as a stand alone argument, the chances of severe genetic malformations is just too great, and allowing same gendered sibling marriage would be discriminatory towards opposite gender ones. Case closed.

 

[Atomist]

I was thinking more along the lines of the Russian Royal Family and hemophilia. If royal families kept intermarrying, the genetic defects (like hemophilia) would increase with each generation until it resulted in sterility for any survivng individuals. How could our entire species survive like that?

but that doesn't affect ALL siblings relationships can can affect non-sibling relationships

 

[Atomist]

To answer it as a stand alone argument, the chances of severe genetic malformations is just too great, and allowing same gendered sibling marriage would be discriminatory towards opposite gender ones. Case closed.

Why the insistence of the slippery slope fallacy.
1) If happens gay sibling marriage then straight sibling marriage
2) we must not allow straight sibling marriage
3) we must not allow gay sibling marriage
that' the definition of the slippery slope fallacy since there is no reason to disallow gay sibling marriage outside of the fact that YOU find straight sibling marriage wrong because you perceive it to be "too great" which you have to demonstrate and not just assert.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Is it possible for two species to breed successfully, generation after generation? I was under that impression that Nature doesn't allow that.

 

[Atomist]

Is it possible for two species to breed successfully, generation after generation? I was under that impression that Nature doesn't allow that.

well ancestral chimpanzees that we came from were inbred.

 

[Skwim]

Is it possible for two species to breed successfully, generation after generation? I was under that impression that Nature doesn't allow that.

Wolves, Canis lupus, and coyotes, C. latrans, are one well known example. Contrary to the belief of some, biological definitions of "species" do not address inter-fertility. So, despite the fact that almost all species are incapable of successfully interbreeding with other species, there are those that can.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Wolves, Canis lupus, and coyotes, C. latrans, are one well known example. Contrary to the belief of some, biological definitions of "species" do not address inter-fertility. So, despite the fact that almost all species are incapable of successfully interbreeding with other species, there are those that can.

So I guess it's just a matter of genetic similarity.

Moving on ...

If chimpanzees and humans are so genetically similar to humans, why don't they look more like us? Why aren't they more human-like?

 

[Skwim]

So I guess it's just a matter of genetic similarity.

Moving on ...

If chimpanzees and humans are so genetically similar to humans, why don't they look more like us? Why aren't they more human-like?

Well, they aren't all that different.

​

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

i really dig this thread, i just wish a few of you were paying closer attention. almost every point that's been brought up was answered in the OP and i'm honestly a little disappointed in the debate skill of a lot of people posting in it. but ultimately it's been fun to read, even though i feel as though i'm getting into it just as it's about to peter out. =(

To answer it as a stand alone argument, the chances of severe genetic malformations is just too great, and allowing same gendered sibling marriage would be discriminatory towards opposite gender ones. Case closed.

disallowing marriage between siblings is already discriminatory toward opposite gender sibling relationships and same gender sibling relationships. lifting the ban on those sibling relationships that are incapable of causing harm is not discriminatory. giving rights to those who cannot do harm is responsible, allowing relationships that can do harm is not.

as far as the question of whether opposite sex relationships between people who may not be siblings but still pose a potential risk for genetic defect within the offspring is concerned, i dont exactly have my answer worked out. but i get to take a pass on this question because more important to me than healthy babies is a significant drop in population. there are certain luxuries for being misanthropic. =)

If chimpanzees and humans are so genetically similar to humans, why don't they look more like us? Why aren't they more human-like?

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO, stop what you are doing right now. i can smell you changing the subject and you are NOT going to populate another thread that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution with EVOLUTION DISCUSSION.
the discussion is marriage between siblings who can not reproduce, it's a single species discussion, and you havn't really made your opinion of it clear. so please stick to it, i'm frakkin begging you.

 

[ChristineES]

I don't like comparing humans to dogs, but I remember hearing once about pure breed dogs- how they became inbred and started developing problems down the line.
I can't dictate who people fall in love with nor can I dictate to people whether or not they can have children. But there are times when I have reservations about things. I guess that it couldn't cause too much of a problem since most people (at least those I have known) are put off with romantic dealings with close relatives (most people I know get ill when you mention him or her with his or her sibling). It seems to be a natural thing, too.

 

[Midnight Pete]

i really dig this thread, i just wish a few of you were paying closer attention. almost every point that's been brought up was answered in the OP and i'm honestly a little disappointed in the debate skill of a lot of people posting in it. but ultimately it's been fun to read, even though i feel as though i'm getting into it just as it's about to peter out. =(


disallowing marriage between siblings is already discriminatory toward opposite gender sibling relationships and same gender sibling relationships. lifting the ban on those sibling relationships that are incapable of causing harm is not discriminatory. giving rights to those who cannot do harm is responsible, allowing relationships that can do harm is not.

as far as the question of whether opposite sex relationships between people who may not be siblings but still pose a potential risk for genetic defect within the offspring is concerned, i dont exactly have my answer worked out. but i get to take a pass on this question because more important to me than healthy babies is a significant drop in population. there are certain luxuries for being misanthropic. =)


NO NO NO NO NO NO NO, stop what you are doing right now. i can smell you changing the subject and you are NOT going to populate another thread that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution with EVOLUTION DISCUSSION.
the discussion is marriage between siblings who can not reproduce, it's a single species discussion, and you havn't really made your opinion of it clear. so please stick to it, i'm frakkin begging you.

Misanthropes really shouldn't beg. Would Hitchens beg?