Opinions on sibling marriage/relationships

[DeitySlayer]

I believe that sibling marriages should be legislated, with the proviso that conception of a child is forbidden.

 

[McBell]

I believe that sibling marriages should be legislated, with the proviso that conception of a child is forbidden.

Even artificial insemination?
I mean so long as it is not the brothers sperm and the sisters egg...

 

[Midnight Pete]

I believe that sibling marriages should be legislated, with the proviso that conception of a child is forbidden.

Now that same-sexs marriage is on the books, lobbying for sibling marriages would be a demonstration of the Slippery Slope in action. After sibling marriages, what's next?

Did you read about the lady who married the Effeil Tower?

'I married the Eiffel Tower' - Living, The New Review - The Independent

Where does it stop?

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Misanthropes really shouldn't beg. Would Hitchens beg?

i'm not really sure what that's even supposed to mean. or if you really meant anything by it.

 

[linwood]

i'm not really sure what that's even supposed to mean.

Don`t sweat it.
I`m certain he`s not sure what it`s supposed to mean either.

 

[Meow Mix]

Now that same-sexs marriage is on the books, lobbying for sibling marriages would be a demonstration of the Slippery Slope in action. After sibling marriages, what's next?

Did you read about the lady who married the Effeil Tower?

'I married the Eiffel Tower' - Living, The New Review - The Independent

Where does it stop?

Well clearly marriage should be restricted to two mature sentient beings that can each give clear consent.

This eliminates beastiality, marrying strange objects, pedophilia, etc.

I don't think that if by the odd chance extraterrestrial life exists and is ever encountered, and that they're of the same or similar enough psychology that a human and ET would ever want to marry, that there would be a problem. I don't consider shacking up with ET in terms of marriage (or even sex) beastiality or anything wrong because they are consenting sentient beings. I'm hoping there's hawt blue human-like women out there Haha, jk. I really doubt ET would look like us but with convergent evolution, it is actually more within the realm of possibility than some would have you believe.

 

[Atomist]

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. =(

Thank you... I'm glad that my awesome argument wasn't all in vain... It's really frustrating answering the same questions over and over when the objections are so flawed in it's face.

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. =)

Exactly, I'm glad there are people that think with their head and not with their gut... I mean outside of you and meow mix and maybe 1,2 others, it seems like people are quick to dismiss my argument because it's "disgusting" or that it's "damaging to potential children" rather refuting the argument itself.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Atomist, sometimes you really should think with your gut. Visceral responses *are* important.

 

[AxisMundi]

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.

I do not base my opinions merely on emotions.

There is indeed the genetic hazards of the off-spring of incestual relationships.

This is why those States that permit cousins to marry dictate how far removed said cousins are, to help guard against this.

As hetero siblings are refused the recoginition of the State, for the above named reasons, permitting same-gendered siblings the right to marry woudl be simply discriminatory.

There is no slippery slope involved in those statements.

 

[Atomist]

I do not base my opinions merely on emotions.

There is indeed the genetic hazards of the off-spring of incestual relationships.

This is why those States that permit cousins to marry dictate how far removed said cousins are, to help guard against this.

As hetero siblings are refused the recoginition of the State, for the above named reasons, permitting same-gendered siblings the right to marry woudl be simply discriminatory.

There is no slippery slope involved in those statements.

okay by that reasoning non-related couples that say have a child that have a genetic disease out of wedlock cannot be allowed to marry?

 

[AxisMundi]

well ancestral chimpanzees that we came from were inbred.

We share a common ancester with the apes, we are not "decended from them".

Nor was "inbreeding" invovled.

I have no idea where you get your misinformation from, but I suggest a change of source.

 

[Atomist]

We share a common ancester with the apes, we are not "decended from them".

Nor was "inbreeding" invovled.

I have no idea where you get your misinformation from, but I suggest a change of source.

nice red herring... it's OBVIOUS that evolutionary wise we are inbred chimps... because there has to be a first fusion of chromosome 2 because we have 23 chromosome pairs and the other great apes have 24 so there has to have been some interbreeding between the divergent group to get from 24 pairs to 23 pairs (via those with 47 chromosome breeding with each other=> the 46 chromosome breeding with each other)

Unless you want to demonstrate how a society of humans predecessors all developed a fusion in chromosome 2 independently of inbreeding.

 

[AxisMundi]

...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. ....

Your reply only makes sense within the paradigm of hetero-only marriages.

I.E concentrating on the genders involved, a rather disctrationary practice.

If one set of siblings are permitted to marry, and the other is not, that is indeed discriminatory.

 

[AxisMundi]

nice red herring... it's OBVIOUS that evolutionary wise we are inbred chimps... because there has to be a first fusion of chromosome 2 because we have 23 chromosome pairs and the other great apes have 24 so there has to have been some interbreeding between the divergent group to get from 24 pairs to 23 pairs (via those with 47 chromosome breeding with each other=> the 46 chromosome breeding with each other)

Unless you want to demonstrate how a society of humans predecessors all developed a fusion in chromosome 2 independently of inbreeding.

"Obvious" perhaps to you, not quite so "obvious" to the scientific community.

Your "hypothesis" is flawed from the begining in assuming all genetic changes "must" be mutations, and that said mutations only occur through incest.

Fail on both counts, I'm afraid.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Don`t sweat it.
I`m certain he`s not sure what it`s supposed to mean either.

Yeah, that one kinda got away from me. I have no idea what I was trying to say.

 

[Atomist]

"Obvious" perhaps to you, not quite so "obvious" to the scientific community.

Your "hypothesis" is flawed from the begining in assuming all genetic changes "must" be mutations, and that said mutations only occur through incest.

Fail on both counts, I'm afraid.

you obviously didn't understand what I said... Let me try again:
1) one mutation occurred for the fusion of chromosome 23
2) that ape had 47 chromosomes
3) that ape breed with other apes with 48 chromosomes
4) some apes had 47 chromosomes
5) some 47 chromosomes breed with each other to have 46 chromosomes
6) 46 chromosome apes breed with each other
7) those with 46 chromosomes ARE our ancestors...

Explain to me how that's not inbreeding.

Edit: that IS the accepted scientific consensus on how humans diverged from the other great apes as far as i know.

Edit: when I referred to ancestor chimp I mean the decedents of humans and chimps... which in a sense could be categorized as such...

And I never once said "all genetic changes "must" be mutations, and that said mutations only occur through incest." not once... I said in this case there was a mutation and that mutation propagated through incest and that mutation/incest led to human beings... Maybe you should try to understand a person's argument before critiquing it.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Do either of you guys believe in de-evolution?

 

[Atomist]

Do either of you guys believe in de-evolution?

Devolution (biological) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Exactly, I'm glad there are people that think with their head and not with their gut... I mean outside of you and meow mix and maybe 1,2 others, it seems like people are quick to dismiss my argument because it's "disgusting" or that it's "damaging to potential children" rather refuting the argument itself.

yeah, i like to only use my brain for thinking. this leaves my gut free to do things like digestion, which it's much better at than thinking, frankly.
and technically your argument ISNT damaging to potential children since the parameters set up in the OP exclude sexual reproduction between siblings.
(and for that matter "disgusting" is a word that one can only use to describe their own reaction, considering there are plenty of people who obviously are not disgusted by it since they themselves practice incestuous sexuality)

Your reply only makes sense within the paradigm of hetero-only marriages.

I.E concentrating on the genders involved, a rather disctrationary practice.

If one set of siblings are permitted to marry, and the other is not, that is indeed discriminatory.

i really dont know that you're understanding what i meant. it is indeed discrimination to disallow hetero-partnerships between siblings. it is also discrimination to disallow same-sex marriage between siblings. removing one of these discriminatory limitations does not instantly make it discrimination, because it's already discrimination. allowing only white men to vote is discrimination. allowing only men (regardless of race) is still discrimination. it didn't become discrimination simply because it didn't include women - it was simply a step closer to ending discrimination in the vote. i feel like i'm being redundant, but i dont really know any other way to describe what i'm trying to say to make it more clear to you.

 

[Atomist]

yeah, i like to only use my brain for thinking. this leaves my gut free to do things like digestion, which it's much better at than thinking, frankly.
and technically your argument ISNT damaging to potential children since the parameters set up in the OP exclude sexual reproduction between siblings.
(and for that matter "disgusting" is a word that one can only use to describe their own reaction, considering there are plenty of people who obviously are not disgusted by it since they themselves practice incestuous sexuality)

well I edited the op after like 3 pages of the same canned argument without reading my rebuttal to such flawed arguments.