Opinions on sibling marriage/relationships

[Atomist]

Didn't you just say it wasn't a legal question?

And how does that challenge my response?

because what is legal has no bearing on what is right... and thus is a red herring.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Didn't you just say it wasn't a legal question?

And how does that challenge my response?

because saying something should be illegal because it is illegal is just cyclical.
if this was a good argument then changing the legal system would be immoral.

 

[AxisMundi]

Both of you are merely searching for way around my sound argument.

Firstly, you won't see "anti-incest" laws lifted, because incest does harm some people. (even assuming, for the moment, that only siblings are involved, and not clouding the issue by inserting parent/child relationships into the debate.)

Secondly, as incest is, and would remain, illegal, one cannot have sibling marriages in the US without completely redoing icnest laws across the country. This will not occur as incest can be a crime with a victim.

Thirdly, as siblings come under the auspices of family laws first and foremost, they cannot be considered under any sexual orientation Protected Class for purposes of marriage.

 

[Atomist]

Both of you are merely searching for way around my sound argument.

Firstly, you won't see "anti-incest" laws lifted, because incest does harm some people. (even assuming, for the moment, that only siblings are involved, and not clouding the issue by inserting parent/child relationships into the debate.)

Secondly, as incest is, and would remain, illegal, one cannot have sibling marriages in the US without completely redoing icnest laws across the country. This will not occur as incest can be a crime with a victim.

Thirdly, as siblings come under the auspices of family laws first and foremost, they cannot be considered under any sexual orientation Protected Class for purposes of marriage.

By your sound argument I can show that...

through your own reasoning that people with Huntington's disease shouldn't be able to have sex much less marry with ANYONE. As any children they have would automatically have an increase chance of getting a genetic disease... namely Huntington's.

If you think that's a valid conclusion that you want to live with, then okay.

I'll even take it a bit further and use this thought experiment... because your problem seems to be with the potential negative health effects of incest.

Lets say we discover a small group of people that have a genetic mutation where they can't get sick... they still age like normal humans, but they have no capacity of getting diseases of infectious natures if they have the recessive immunity trait, ii. Under the definition of genetic defects and, your view as I understand it, if we are not able to fix the genetic defect of the whole population minus the small group of people through genetic engineering, then we can only allow for the group of people who can't get sick to reproduce since everyone else has a genetic defect and reproducing would be detrimental to the children's health relative to the children that don't have the defect.
Further, the group without the deficient gene can't reproduce with the group that does or else it also would adversely affect the children they have... as the combination Ii would have no health benefits that ii has.

The question is can anyone reproduce outside of the group that doesn't have the genetic defect? and if not is it right to disallow ALL people from reproducing except a select group?

 

[AxisMundi]

By your sound argument I can show that...

If you think that's a valid conclusion that you want to live with, then okay.

I'll even take it a bit further and use this thought experiment... because your problem seems to be with the potential negative health effects of incest.

Show where these people fall under either marriage or incestual laws.

Someone accused me of interjecting strawmen into this debate.

Yet you are doing the same above.

 

[Atomist]

Show where these people fall under either marriage or incestual laws.

Someone accused me of interjecting strawmen into this debate.

Yet you are doing the same above.

your argument is that incestuous marriage and incest should be illegal because of the genetic diseases. It's obviously not straw man because I'm addressing the exact point you made. Unless you want to demonstrate why incestuous laws should exist even if no genetic diseases could occur... but you can't... so... my argument is 100% valid.

or are you arguing this?

because saying something should be illegal because it is illegal is just cyclical.
if this was a good argument then changing the legal system would be immoral.

Either way your "valid point" has been addressed

 

[Zampano]

Incestual marriage is a matter of the states.

It would be legalized in Alabama, but nobody likes that state anyways.

But seriously, if you make incest marriage unlawful on grounds that it causes genetic disease, then it is only consistent to make it illegal for people with genetic deficiencies to marry.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Secondly, as incest is, and would remain, illegal, one cannot have sibling marriages in the US without completely redoing icnest laws across the country. This will not occur as incest can be a crime with a victim.

any sex can be a crime with a victim, because it could be rape. sex isn't outlawed.

if there is no victim (in the case of consensual sex or in the case of same sex incest) why should it be ciminalised?

 

[AxisMundi]

your argument is that incestuous marriage and incest should be illegal because of the genetic diseases. It's obviously not straw man because I'm addressing the exact point you made. Unless you want to demonstrate why incestuous laws should exist even if no genetic diseases could occur... but you can't... so... my argument is 100% valid.

or are you arguing this?

Either way your "valid point" has been addressed

No, it hasn't been addressed, especially as far as marriage is concerned.

As for incest itself, it is all but impossible to determine if said relationship has been coerced or if it was actually a mutually concenting relationship. This is in addition to the increased chance of abnormalities in any offspring.

 

[AxisMundi]

any sex can be a crime with a victim, because it could be rape. sex isn't outlawed.

if there is no victim (in the case of consensual sex or in the case of same sex incest) why should it be ciminalised?

Becasue in sibling relationships it is all but impossible to accuratly determine if the relationsship is mutually concesual.

There would be a matter of intimidation, coersion, or a basic need to protect family.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

No, it hasn't been addressed, especially as far as marriage is concerned.

As for incest itself, it is all but impossible to determine if said relationship has been coerced or if it was actually a mutually concenting relationship. This is in addition to the increased chance of abnormalities in any offspring.

are you a boxer? because you've got incredible reach.
and the same can easily be said for any marriage.

 

[Atomist]

No, it hasn't been addressed, especially as far as marriage is concerned.

your argument is that incestuous marriage and incest should be illegal because of the genetic diseases. has been addressed by showing that we accept relationships and marriages of people WITH genetic diseases...

As for incest itself, it is all but impossible to determine if said relationship has been coerced or if it was actually a mutually concenting relationship.

Okay... so we can say that about all relationships thus is a nonfactor... so we're still left with this:

the increased chance of abnormalities in any offspring.

This is the exact point I've been addressing the whole time... with this line:
through your own reasoning that people with Huntington's disease shouldn't be able to have sex much less marry with ANYONE. As any children they have would automatically have [an increased chance of abnormalities in any offspring]... namely Huntington's.

So you have the following options:
1) accept the analogy as valid and say people with huntington's disease can have sex or get married anyone (thats consenting)
2) accept the analogy as valid and say people with huntington's disease can't have sex or get married with anyone (thats consenting)
3) show why it's morally dis-analogous. ie why people with huntington's having a relationship with a random person is different than sibling (or any other incestuous) relationship given they're both not coerced (and since we can't tell for either case we should just assume it's both not or both are)

I would be surprised if you can show 3, but you've failed every time thus far.

If you do anything else then your wasting everyone's time

 

[AxisMundi]

your argument is that incestuous marriage and incest should be illegal because of the genetic diseases. has been addressed by showing that we accept relationships and marriages of people WITH genetic diseases...

Okay... so we can say that about all relationships thus is a nonfactor... so we're still left with this:

This is the exact point I've been addressing the whole time... with this line:
through your own reasoning that people with Huntington's disease shouldn't be able to have sex much less marry with ANYONE. As any children they have would automatically have [an increased chance of abnormalities in any offspring]... namely Huntington's.

So you have the following options:
1) accept the analogy as valid and say people with huntington's disease can have sex or get married anyone (thats consenting)
2) accept the analogy as valid and say people with huntington's disease can't have sex or get married with anyone (thats consenting)
3) show why it's morally dis-analogous. ie why people with huntington's having a relationship with a random person is different than sibling (or any other incestuous) relationship given they're both not coerced (and since we can't tell for either case we should just assume it's both not or both are)

I would be surprised if you can show 3, but you've failed every time thus far.

If you do anything else then your wasting everyone's time

You're argument is destroyed by simple statistics.

Because of the genetic material from the parent without Huntington's disease, to use your anology, the chances of the offspring also having it are app. 50% (according to the wiki entry).

In the case where sibligs are concerned, any chances of aquiring such a condition nearly double, as both parents either have it or are more likely to carry the recessive gene.

Therefor, ocne again, incestual relationships icnrease the chances of genetic disease and abnormalties.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Therefor, ocne again, incestual relationships icnrease the chances of genetic disease and abnormalties.

incestuous relationships (THAT CAN PRODUCE CHILDREN) increase the chances of genetic disease and abnormalities.

same-sex relationships are fundamentally incapable of producing children.
you keep reverting back to opposite-sex incestuous relationships which is NOT the point of the thread.

 

[Atomist]

You're argument is destroyed by simple statistics.

Because of the genetic material from the parent without Huntington's disease, to use your anology, the chances of the offspring also having it are app. 50% (according to the wiki entry).

In the case where sibligs are concerned, any chances of aquiring such a condition nearly double, as both parents either have it or are more likely to carry the recessive gene.

Therefor, ocne again, incestual relationships icnrease the chances of genetic disease and abnormalties.

nice red herring... it doesn't chance the fact that:
1) your okay with a huntington person having a NORMAL relationship with ANYONE outside of siblings
2)your not okay for siblings to have relationships
3) siblings having a relationship on AVERAGE is less damaging to a potential child than someone with huntington's having a relationship with ANYONE, on AVERAGE.
4) Therefore you're guilty of special pleading...

So no your comparison fails because there exist non-trivially siblings relationships that have less risk for genetic diseases than some people in normal relationships. So the genetic argument fails, unless you define a line on where it's acceptable to discriminate based on genetic deficiencies.

And no siblings relationships is not that line since I already said there are normal relationship people with higher genetic defects which are not excluded from marriage/sex.

But... I suppose throwing the baby out with the bathwater is pretty good too.

 

[Atomist]

incestuous relationships (THAT CAN PRODUCE CHILDREN) increase the chances of genetic disease and abnormalities.

same-sex relationships are fundamentally incapable of producing children.
you keep reverting back to opposite-sex incestuous relationships which is NOT the point of the thread.

It's argument for that is the robust slippery slope fallacy.

 

[AxisMundi]

incestuous relationships (THAT CAN PRODUCE CHILDREN) increase the chances of genetic disease and abnormalities.

same-sex relationships are fundamentally incapable of producing children.
you keep reverting back to opposite-sex incestuous relationships which is NOT the point of the thread.

It most certainly is pertinent to this thread.

We are speaking of siblings first and foremost, not gay people, and why their relationships are illegal.

Yes, there is indeed a large portion of social morals invovled with incest being ilelgal. Certainly there is some "Ick Factor" invovled as well.

But there are indeed valid reasons to keep it illegal.

Increased chance of genetic abnormalities, and especially the unclear nature of whether or not it is consensual are reasons enough.

 

[AxisMundi]

nice red herring... it doesn't chance the fact that:
1) your okay with a huntington person having a NORMAL relationship with ANYONE outside of siblings
2)your not okay for siblings to have relationships
3) siblings having a relationship on AVERAGE is less damaging to a potential child than someone with huntington's having a relationship with ANYONE, on AVERAGE.
4) Therefore you're guilty of special pleading...

So no your comparison fails because there exist non-trivially siblings relationships that have less risk for genetic diseases than some people in normal relationships. So the genetic argument fails, unless you define a line on where it's acceptable to discriminate based on genetic deficiencies.

And no siblings relationships is not that line since I already said there are normal relationship people with higher genetic defects which are not excluded from marriage/sex.

But... I suppose throwing the baby out with the bathwater is pretty good too.

Between us, you're the only fisk monger.

1. Having Huntington's isn't illegal.
2. No, I'm not simply becasue of the fact that said relationship may ahve been coerced.
3. Why do you keep denying the increased chances of genetic abnormalities? Some sources state figures as LOW as a 40% chance of a genetic abnormalty in any offspring of incest.
4. At least I am not guilty of intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to uphold my position.

I have shown why, jsut from a genetic standpoint, sibling incest is undesirable.

I will let our fellow posters judge my position.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Who here is a product of incest?

Who here wants to marry their sister/brother?

Who here is already married to their sister/brother, had children with them. and is desperately trying to rationalize what they done?



Why anyone would want to campaign for incest if not for those listed above, I have no idea. Maybe next we'll hear about the possible benefits of coprophagia.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

It most certainly is pertinent to this thread.

We are speaking of siblings first and foremost, not gay people, and why their relationships are illegal.

but what I am arguing is that you do not have any reasons to keep same-sex sibling partnerships illegal. and the issue of consent is one that certainly applies to much more than just sibling relationships.

Who here is a product of incest?
Who here wants to marry their sister/brother?
Who here is already married to their sister/brother, had children with them. and is desperately trying to rationalize what they done?

Why anyone would want to campaign for incest if not for those listed above, I have no idea. Maybe next we'll hear about the possible benefits of coprophagia.

[emphasis mine]
you are applying an argument from ignorance here. i dont doubt that you cant think of any reasons, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.
sometimes moral people are interested in standing up for the rights of people who do things that they dont themselves do. there were plenty of white people participating in civil rights in the 60's. there are plenty of male feminists. there are atheists who want to protect rights of the religious.
and nobody is 'campaigning' for incest, we're not knocking on doors saying "hey there, i'm with the universal incest church and i'm here to talk to you about sleeping with your sister. may i come in?" you wont find us printing out "TRY KIN!" bumper stickers. we're simply discussing the implications of a social norm, and some of us cannot find logical reasoning behind keeping it illegal if there's potential that it can do no harm.
if it's too icky of a subject for you, go play in a different sand box and dont jump to conclusions about those who want to openly discuss any and all issues that come up.