Opinions on sibling marriage/relationships

[Atomist]

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.

 

[Madhuri]

Maybe we should allow marriage for anyone/anything or eliminate it all together. Marriage has a cultural purpose. Is its current function going to be relevant in our future?

 

[Madhuri]

I do however think that keeping social norms against sibling relationships is a good idea, specifically due to the biological ramifications that would come about through sibling reproduction if it were an accepted aspect of society.

 

[Atomist]

I do however think that keeping social norms against sibling relationships is a good idea, specifically due to the biological ramifications that would come about through sibling reproduction if it were an accepted aspect of society.

ah ha... then gay sibling marriage should be allowed but straight sibling marriage shouldn't? then your discriminating against gender. Furthermore are you saying that straight siblings that CAN'T reproduce can get married but those that can reproduce can't?

Another obvious problem is that if two straight couples were known to have a recessive trait that is detrimental to the potential child they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

 

[DarkSun]

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.

Your DNA is between fifty and a hundred percent identical to your siblings'... So marriage and reproduction with a sibling has a much greater chance of leading to autosomal recessive disorders in the progeny... Essentially, the offspring of this relationship have an increased chance of having an extremely low quality of life. Which is why it makes sense to make incest taboo, even if it is consented.

Homosexuality, on the other hand... hurts no one. How is it bad to be gay when the only thing a gay couple will do is be in consented relationship between two adults who love each other. Heck, because they're constantly being judged, they are probably even less likely to hurt others than heterosexual people. Honestly, just because the Bible mentions homosexuality and incest in the same breath doesn't mean they do cause equal harm. There is no reason, whatsoever, to say that being gay is a bad thing besides the whole "the bible said it, it must be true" argument.

And considering Leviticus also claims that you shouldn't eat pork, that you should be keeping a slave (and that it's okay to beat that slave if they get up after three days...), that you can't eat insects with more than six legs (lolwut?), that a priest's daughter who has sex before marriage must be burnt alive for disgracing her father... Ehhh... well... you can begin to get an idea of how well Leviticus applies to reality.

 

[Venatoris]

ah ha... then gay sibling marriage should be allowed but straight sibling marriage shouldn't?

You would have to get gay marriage approved before talking about incestuous marriage.

then your discriminating against gender.

Not gender, sexual orientation.

Furthermore are you saying that straight siblings that CAN'T reproduce can get married but those that can reproduce can't?

You're reaching now.

Another obvious problem is that if two straight couples were known to have a recessive trait that is detrimental to the potential child they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

I'm beginning to think this thread isn't serious.

 

[Atomist]

Your DNA is between fifty and a hundred percent identical to your siblings'... So marriage and reproduction with a sibling has a much greater chance of leading to autosomal recessive disorders in the progeny... Essentially, the offspring of this relationship have an increased chance of having an extremely low quality of life. Which is why it makes sense to make incest taboo, even if it is consented.

Homosexuality, on the other hand... hurts no one. How is it bad to be gay when the only thing a gay couple will do is be in consented relationship between two adults who love each other, who are probably even less likely to hurt others than heterosexual people. Honestly, just because the Bible mentions homosexuality and incest in the same breath doesn't mean they do cause equal harm. There is no reason, whatsoever, to say that being gay is a bad thing besides the whole "the bible said it, it must be true" argument.

And considering Leviticus also claims that you shouldn't eat pork, that you should be keeping a slave (and that it's okay to beat that slave if they get up after three days...), that you can't eat insects with more than six legs (lolwut?), that a priest's daughter who has sex before marriage must be burnt alive for disgracing her father... Ehhh... well... you can begin to get an idea of how well Leviticus applies to reality.

You didn't read the last post let me quote:

ah ha... then gay sibling marriage should be allowed but straight sibling marriage shouldn't? then your discriminating against gender. Furthermore are you saying that straight siblings that CAN'T reproduce can get married but those that can reproduce can't?

Another obvious problem is that if two straight couples were known to have a recessive trait that is detrimental to the potential child they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Not to mention you could share in theory no dna with your siblings... it's true.

 

[Atomist]

You would have to get gay marriage approved before talking about incestuous marriage.

... nice red herring ultimately you didn't address my point which is completely valid.

Not gender, sexual orientation.

Yes... because look lets say bob steven and amy are siblings, bob can marry steven (according to you) but not amy for the sole reason that amy is female and therefore can reproduce with bob.

You're reaching now.

It's a completely valid point, because your arguing that they can't get married because of their potential reproduction problems, and I'm saying well if they CAN'T reproduce then they should be allowed to marry right?

I'm beginning to think this thread isn't serious.

no... it's a valid point because your problem with it stems from the potential problems in reproduction not in their rights as human beings.

I think your bigoted because you have a problem with sibling marriage for the same reasons that religious people are bigoted towards homosexual marriage

 

[Smoke]

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

 

[tatianasfc]

well, in the quran it does mention that we shall not marry our siblings..so if we are faithful and religious we should not marry our siblings..

 

[Atomist]

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

HAHAHAHAHA brilliant

well, in the quran it does mention that we shall not marry our siblings..so if we are faithful and religious we should not marry our siblings..

okay I believe that your holy book saids it... but I'm arguing is it logically wrong.

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

I think this is a valid point that's difficult to answer.

Someone's already brought up the issue of genetic defects being far more prevalent in incestual relationships but Atomist has correctly defeated the objection by noting that not all such relationships would be affected.

I'll throw in that such relationships that would should indeed be barred; though you have questioned whether heterosexual, unrelated couples with known defects should also be barred you'll fin my answer to be a surprising "yes" with stipulations on how well we may be able to isolate the genetic problem from potential offspring.

As for other incestual relationships which don't produce children, it's difficult to find a logical reason why it should be morally impermissable. Perhaps it isn't, all personal feelings of revulsion aside.

Either way I don't think that this question ties into homosexuality other than the fact that homosexuality can seem as revolting to some people as incestual relationships.

All I can really say is that any person -- be they gay or straight -- has a lot of other "fish in the sea," so to speak, than their close relations. No one is stuck being attracted only to their close relations, so the metaphor to homosexuality is nonexistent; making this a separate issue.

 

[Meow Mix]

Also I'm drunk as hell so I'm sure there's typing errors in my posts, just ignore them

 

[Atomist]

Also I'm drunk as hell so I'm sure there's typing errors in my posts, just ignore them

wow... i couldn't tell... I'm actually taken aback from how well you were able to comprehend my argument that there is no reason why we should disallow sibling marriages at the same token with homosexual marriage outside of the "taboo" of it and offer such a brilliant response given your "drunk as hell" state.

I would probably ramble about how it's wrong without giving any reasons if I didn't think about it sober.

 

[Meow Mix]

wow... i couldn't tell... I'm actually taken aback from how well you were able to comprehend my argument that there is no reason why we should disallow sibling marriages at the same token with homosexual marriage outside of the "taboo" of it and offer such a brilliant response given your "drunk as hell" state.

70% of my posts are drunk, 30% are drunk as hell

Just kidding, but it's hard to tell when I'm drunk because for some reason my typing still comes out pretty well and if nothing is distracting me I still understand stuff alright

 

[Venatoris]

... nice red herring ultimately you didn't address my point which is completely valid.

I know I didn't address your point, I made my own point. Jokingly, might I add.

Yes... because look lets say bob steven and amy are siblings, bob can marry steven (according to you) but not amy for the sole reason that amy is female and therefore can reproduce with bob.

Let's say Bob, Amy, and Jill are siblings. Amy and Jill can get married! Hence, it isn't gender discrimination, it's sexual orientation discrimination(against heterosexuals).

It's a completely valid point, because your arguing that they can't get married because of their potential reproduction problems, and I'm saying well if they CAN'T reproduce then they should be allowed to marry right?

I'm not arguing anything! I'm pointing out where you are making leaps in logic and putting words in other peoples mouths.

no... it's a valid point because your problem with it stems from the potential problems in reproduction not in their rights as human beings.

I never made that point, someone else did. I haven't stated a problem with it, yet.

I think your bigoted because you have a problem with sibling marriage for the same reasons that religious people are bigoted towards homosexual marriage

WHOA NOW! I never said any such thing and you calling me a bigot just goes to prove that you are reading way too much into peoples comments. Take your head out of your *** for a minute and read my post again.

 

[Atomist]

I know I didn't address your point, I made my own point. Jokingly, might I add.

But since gay marriage is so obviously should be legalized... I figure we should "debate" the more controversial topic.

Let's say Bob, Amy, and Jill are siblings. Amy and Jill can get married! Hence, it isn't gender discrimination, it's sexual orientation discrimination(against heterosexuals).

I already demonstrate that it's sexual discrimination since Bob can't marry jill for the sole reason that bob is a man. (this argument works for gay marriages but in reverse)

I'm not arguing anything! I'm pointing out where you are making leaps in logic and putting words in other peoples mouths.

no I'm not... your not listening to my argument but just dismissing it.... It's not a "leap in logic" and until you demonstrate that it is, your just avoiding my point because as far as I can tell you can't refute it.

I never made that point, someone else did. I haven't stated a problem with it, yet.

I demonstrated the problem with it that argument that the problem is with reproduction since not all sibling couples will reproduce

WHOA NOW! I never said any such thing and you calling me a bigot just goes to prove that you are reading way too much into peoples comments. Take your head out of your *** for a minute and read my post again.

... I was making a blanket accusation just like you did without understanding my argument that I was "not taking this seriously" because my arguments, as far as I can tell, are perfectly valid, logically and reasonably.

 

[Atomist]

I'll throw in that such relationships that would should indeed be barred; though you have questioned whether heterosexual, unrelated couples with known defects should also be barred you'll fin my answer to be a surprising "yes" with stipulations on how well we may be able to isolate the genetic problem from potential offspring.

Then what if you can isolate the genetic problems in potential offspring of siblings? would it be permissible in that case?

Either way I don't think that this question ties into homosexuality other than the fact that homosexuality can seem as revolting to some people as incestual relationships.

That's debatable... I could easily argue say x years ago homosexuality, interracial and sibling marriage are on equals in terms of being taboo.

All I can really say is that any person -- be they gay or straight -- has a lot of other "fish in the sea," so to speak, than their close relations. No one is stuck being attracted only to their close relations, so the metaphor to homosexuality is nonexistent; making this a separate issue.

You don't choose who you love. Be it your sibling, the opposite gender, etc. As long as it's consensual it should be allowed imo.

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.

 

[Venatoris]

But since gay marriage is so obviously should be legalized... I figure we should "debate" the more controversial topic.

Fair enough, but I reiterate, my post was in jest.

I already demonstrate that it's sexual discrimination since Bob can't marry jill for the sole reason that bob is a man. (this argument works for gay marriages but in reverse)

Then we are on the same page, it isn't gender but sexuality discrimination.

no I'm not... your not listening to my argument but just dismissing it.... It's not a "leap in logic" and until you demonstrate that it is, your just avoiding my point because as far as I can tell you can't refute it.

I wasn't implying that your points weren't valid. Perhaps "leap in logic" was a poor choice of words. I should have said "jumping the gun". To me, it seemed that you read too much into Madhuri's post.
A comment about genetic problems resulting from incest does not infer an opinion that any person with a genetic defect should be prevented from breeding nor does it imply that all relationships where reproduction aren't possible should be allowed. Nevertheless, that's what you got from it.

I demonstrated the problem with it that argument that the problem is with reproduction since not all sibling couples will reproduce

I agree with you, this does seem to be the most valid objection to incestuous relationships that most people have and it doesn't apply to relationships which preclude the ability to produce genetic offspring.

... I was making a blanket accusation just like you did without understanding my argument that I was "not taking this seriously" because my arguments, as far as I can tell, are perfectly valid, logically and reasonably.

I didn't make an accusation, I simply questioned your sincerity. I fully understand your arguments and if you are being serious we can go from here.

Now I can actually get to my objections against incest, straight or otherwise.

I have an older brother and a younger sister. The love I have for both of them is unconditional and it is in no way comparable to sexual love. Love between siblings is far stronger than physical attraction, lust, or romance. The idea is disgusting to me simply because a sexual relationship is about trust and vulnerability. Whether people want to admit it or not, when you engage in a sexual relationship you are risking being hurt(emotionally) by your partner. I don't even want my sister to have sex with her boyfriend because I never want her to be in a position where she might get hurt. Every man with a sister should back me up on that. To run the risk of being the person to hurt her in such a fashion goes against every fiber of my being. Real love between siblings doesn't allow for sexual love. If a person can reduce their relationship with their siblings to sexual love I feel sorry for them because they are missing out on the deepest possible relationship they can ever have.

 

[Atomist]

Fair enough, but I reiterate, my post was in jest.
Then we are on the same page, it isn't gender but sexuality discrimination.

oops I made a mistake it IS gender discrimination because sexual discrimination necessarily requires it to be a gender discrimination in this case since by saying gay sex is right but straight sex is wrong in this case your discriminating against gender which I demonstrated. when I said sexual I meant gender...

so it's both gender AND sexual discrimination.

wasn't implying that your points weren't valid. Perhaps "leap in logic" was a poor choice of words. I should have said "jumping the gun". To me, it seemed that you read too much into Madhuri's post.
A comment about genetic problems resulting from incest does not infer an opinion that any person with a genetic defect should be prevented from breeding nor does it imply that all relationships where reproduction aren't possible should be allowed.

No... no... the argument was as far as I can tell incestuous relationships shouldn't be allowed because of the perceived genetic problems that arise out of incest. But allowing it for those that aren't related but have the same genetic problems is inherently flawed reasoning/logic.

Nevertheless, that's what you got from it.
I agree with you, this does seem to be the most valid objection to incestuous relationships that most people have and it doesn't apply to relationships which preclude the ability to produce genetic offspring.
I didn't make an accusation, I simply questioned your sincerity. I fully understand your arguments and if you are being serious we can go from here.

Why? it's a perfectly valid argument... I was attempting to demonstrate if you allow gay sibling relationships over straight sibiling relationships for the problems associated with sibling reproducing then your discriminating against gender which is against state rights AND your special pleading for those couples that aren't related but suffer from the same genetic problems vs higher risk siblings have.

Now I can actually get to my objections against incest, straight or otherwise.

I have an older brother and a younger sister. The love I have for both of them is unconditional and it is in no way comparable to sexual love. Love between siblings is far stronger than physical attraction, lust, or romance.

That seems like your personal belief, but there are people in the interwebs that have sibling relationships and are perfectly happy and their stories seem to be one of a mutually beneficial kind.

The idea is disgusting to me simply because a sexual relationship is about trust and vulnerability. Whether people want to admit it or not, when you engage in a sexual relationship you are risking being hurt(emotionally) by your partner.

So by your argument love between sibllings is a higher love people than married share?

I don't even want my sister to have sex with her boyfriend because I never want her to be in a position where she might get hurt.

Wow... I'm sorry but I can't accurately respond to this since it's so opposite of love from my perspective.

Every man with a sister should back me up on that.To run the risk of being the person to hurt her in such a fashion goes against every fiber of my being. Real love between siblings doesn't allow for sexual love. If a person can reduce their relationship with their siblings to sexual love I feel sorry for them because they are missing out on the deepest possible relationship they can ever have.

I have a sister, I would never have an incestuous relationship, yet I completely disagree with you since I don't preclude the fact that there can exist health sibling relationships of the sexual nature (just like any other relationship) and you seem to act like they're impossible without doing the research outside of your personal experience.

Obviously sibling relationships (nonsexual) are not the "deepest possible relationship" one can have because not everyone has siblings.

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