Obviously, because it leads to a reduction in biological diversity, and that tends to be an evolutionary danger to the species.
Ask any breeder of pedigreed animals to explain inbreeding to you. Nearly all of them can tell you horror stories of damage done to a particular breed or species by this.
Well, some of them. But certainly not all. For example, there are historical records of same-sex marriages in ancient Rome, about 2,000 years ago.
Plus I believe most of the marriages recorded over history have been something other than “one man, one woman”. (Mainly men with multiple wives.) So the talk of “polygamy” as the next step is rather backwards; it was the previous step, which we seem to have fallen away from. After all, weren’t most of the marriages in the Bible polygamous ones? But our “definition of marriage” has changed since then, and we no longer approve of that (except for a few Mormons back in the hills of Utah. Oh, and major parts of the world in Africa and Asia.)
That’s not a good answer, really. Modern birth-control ( up to permanent medical procedures ) makes the genetic risk a non-factor and procreation is obviously no longer the universal goal of marriage ( as my young married neighbors who loath children will happily tell you 
). Plenty of other people to pick up the slack there.
My answer is that there is no good reason to deny truly consensual brother-sister marriages other than weight of tradition and the “ick” factor, which are insufficient IMHO. So yep, legalize it. I think in the vast majority of cases ( which I suspect wouldn’t be many ) it is likely to be a very emotionally dysfunctional relationship, but legal adults are allowed to screw up there lives in all sorts of ways. There is no compelling reason that I can see to deny them this avenue as well.
And lest anyone is wondering, NO, I don’t have a sibling I have the hots for :D.
By the above I mean that I think it is unlikely there would be a huge demand for brother-sister marriage licenses.
Ah, so suddenly reproduction is an essential ingredient of marriage?
Bye, bye, pro-gay-marriage arguments.
Chaim Mattis Keller
No, I didn’t say any such thing.
You asked why there has been different treatment of brother-sister marriages during history, and I tried to explain it to you.
If you want to ask about the “essential ingredient of marriage”, I would say it is simply people in love who wish to join together in marriage.
I don’t think your argument really works, when one takes into consideration homosexuals are capable of reproduction. As to the slippery slope argument, I’ve found the comparison to incest as applicable on the heterosexual front. Aha! You are a man wanting to marry a woman. Well, what is next, you’ll want to marry your sister? What? You as a heterosexual woman have one husband, what is to stop you from wanting another, and another? How strange, next you will be marrying salamanders.
I find the arguments about lack of evidence for same sex marriages in the past to be a bit silly, as well. “Well, we’ve always done it this way, so og forbid we ever examine something and decide for ourselves.”
Then you misunderstood me. I was replying to rocket_dog, who said that allowing homosexual marriage would not be a slippery slope toward allowing incestuous marriages between brother and sister. He says that “we know the difference” between these kinds of relationships, and therefore we will not eventually come to include incest as legitimate marriage. I asked him what that difference is that will prevent us from permitting siblings to marry. Not historical, but current and future.
If reproductive viability is an important factor in how our society will distinguish which partnerships shall be sanctioned as marriages from which shall not, then that necessaily excludes same-sex couples as well.
cichlidiot:
But not within the marriage. A brother and sister are capable of non-genetically-dangerous reproduction as well, if you’re willing to involve an extramarital partner, as is necessary for gays.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Sure within the marriage, heterosexual couples do it all the time. Surrogacy as far as I know, isn’t considered extramarital. Same thing with having sperm donated, is the sperm donor considered extramarital? If you mean it literally, extra - outside / marital - marriage, I agree it’s not conventional, but hardly something freaky or implying unfaithfullness. You also skipped the part about brothers and sisters (incest) being equally applicable to heterosexuals.
I did not mean to imply unfaithfulness when I said extramarital. What I meant was that such reproduction would not have been a product of the marriage - it would be a product of some outside alliance. If reproductive viability is the gauge of which partnerships can be sanctioned by the state as marriage, then same-sex marriage is equally unfit as sibling marriage. The partnership, in and of itself, is incapable of reproduction. If, on the other hand, a partnership does not need to be, in and of itself, reproductively viable, but merely in love and wanting to have the partner on the same health plan, then sibling marriage is equally fit as same-sex marriage.
When I said:
I mean, in the case of siblings, “genetically safe reproduction,” of course.
While the sermon quoted in the OP expresses very lovely sentiments, I’m not terribly thrilled with them from my personal Jewish perspective (speaking as a Conservative Jew, but not for Conservative Judaism, necessarily).
AFAIK, Judaism never had a problem with “miscegenation” as defined in pre-Civel Rights era America. Although, to be sure, Jews can be just as bigoted as anyone else, there has never been a religious stigma associated with differences in skin color. The important thing is that the spouse be a Jew, whether by birth or conversion. On the other hand, same-sex marriage is a pretty big change from a Jewish perspective. I have seen (but cannot, unfortunately, quote, or, really, evaluate completely) arguments to the effect that the Torah prohibitions on homosexual behavior may have been addressed at something very different from sexual preference. So, there may be some wiggle room (in Conservative Judaism, at any rate) for things like accepting gay couples and their children as a single family unit for the purposes of congregational organization, for example. But I doubt that we would ever sanctify gay marriages (who gives the ketubah at the marriage, and who gives the bill of divorce in the event of a dissolution?)
All this being said, I fully support the concept of civil gay marriage (and religious gay marriage for those religions that choose to permit it). To me, the important thing is that people should be able to choose who gets the (civil) legal rights associated with compeleting a marriage license. Incidentally, I think it’s perfectly consistent to prohibit those same benefits for polygamy/polyandry, but I reluctantly admit that it isn’t consistent to also prohibit them for (adult) siblings who choose to marry (eww, ick!).
-Rick
I see you as being a bit dishonest here, by ignoring the slippery slope argument that has been pointed out. The best evidence I have to go on, is that with heterosexual marriage, brothers and sisters are not marrying, men are not marrying chickens and women are not marrying big-horn sheep. Since some people are specifically asking for same sex unions, it doesn’t mean they are asking for anything else but just that. If someday, proposals are set forth where people want to marry their relatives or animals, those will be dealt with, too, as separate issues. One could argue, that keeping marriage between a man and a woman, does not stop me from marrying my brother, if we follow your line of reasoning. (or a big-horn sheep)
I really don’t understand the confusion and the whole “slippery slope argument”. Not that I don’t understand what is being said, I just fail to understand how people really think that way. To me it is a simple matter of sexual discrimination.
Women have the legal right to marry men. Unless you argue that the right is not actually to marry men, but to marry someone that has the potential to produce children, then this is a right that men do not have. Men have the right to marry females. Women do not legally have this right. This strikes me as simple sexual discrimination. (I realize this is not a valid legal argument as the laws are currently interpreted.)
The facts of the matter is that gender/sexuality/sex is not a simple either/or matter and our antiquated laws try to pretend that it is. For example if two people with ambiguous genitalia want to get married under the current law structure they might or might not be able to, solely depending upon the opinion of whomever originally filled out their birth certificates. This is by now means fair. I don't pretend that this is a common occurrence, but it is illustrative of my point.
The whole concept which prevents animal marriage, etc, is CONSENT. It really doesn't need to be belabored any more than that. As to brother-sister Marriages (YUCK) the state does have a valid interest in preventing inbreeding.
As long as two people are able to give legal consent, what does it really matter to anyone else? Other than by strengthening their unrealistic world view that everything is black and white? I realize I am banging my head against a wall,IS there not a contradiction here?
The absolute measure of if a marriage should be allowed is consent, but, hold your horses, we can’t have all that icky inbreeeding going on.
What business is it of the state, by which i assume you mean government, if that should occur, really?
Is incest even illegal? Obviously it is forbidden by Jewish law, but does the government outlaw it?
cichlidiot:
No one’s saying they are. But the issue remains, once the definition of marriage has been released from its mooring in Judeo-Christian religion, where does the redefinition end? Is there any limit (other than the ability to mutually consent) to what partnerships can bear the name “marriage”? At the moment, there are still pairings that are forbidden by law - sibling incest being the easiest example to cite - but under what justification, if tradition is no longer our guide?
Beltane:
Sounds like a eugenics program to me. In any case, let’s say for the sake of argument, that this is true. Then should a brother and sister be allowed to marry if they’ve sterilized themselves?
Alan Smithee:
Yes, marriages between siblings are forbidden in all states.
Chaim Mattis Keller
It’s already been “released”. People of other religons, or no religon at all, get married all the time. Not that the concept of marriage is Judeo-Christian in origin, nor is the Judeo-Christian model free of polygamous marriages and such. (In particular whith regard to the monarchy)
I have no problem with tradition as a * guide* I do have a problem with tradition as the leader with everyone chained in behind it. In other words, I think compassionate logic should be given consideration over “because it’s always been the way we’ve done it.”
In the case of a bother-sister combination that were not raised together (“Oh, I finally met the one person I feel I am destined to be with”…[then, after a blood test]… "what do you MEAN she’s my sister who was put up for adoption as a baby!!) Sure, why not! But I think children who were raised together should not be allowed to marry. With siblings one child is inevitably older than the other, and having children believe that marriage between them would be acceptable is liable to increase incidents of siblings having sex at a young age, which would lead to abuse issues.
I personally think that the incest taboo should include step-siblings or adopted siblings as well for just that reason.
My apologies for any and all errors in my last post, I hit [enter] by mistake from the preview page and submitted before I had edited.
Well, most of the Reform Jews I know have no particular issue with SSM, although admittedly my circle of relatives and acquaintances ain’t exactly a statistical sample. But I just had to share an anecdote…
A couple of years ago, one of my oldest childhood friends got married in Berkeley, CA. She’s of half-Jewish ancestry (or a “semi-Semite” as one acquaintance explains), and had essentially no religious upbringing at all. Her husband is Jewish, though, and she’s gotten acquainted with that half of her heritage in adulthood and had a thoroughly Jewish wedding, in spite of everything.
She didn’t do the whole traditional bridesmaid thing, but as her single friend of longest standing (and since she has no sisters), I sort of had the “maid of honor” role; I came out a couple days ahead of time for moral support, and to schlep around with her doing last-minute wedding errands. One of these was to pick up her rented chuppa (the traditional canopy that stands over the bride, groom, and rabbi during the ceremony) at a Judaica shop in Berkeley. (I didn’t know you could even rent something like that, but then I’m somewhat of a loser Jew. I always assumed you just made your own, used one handed down in the family, or maybe borrowed one from your synagogue.) While she was filling out paperwork, I was browsing through their collection of ketubot – these are traditional Jewish marriage contracts. My friend had made her own – she’s a professional artist, among other things – but they are often quite beautiful, with all sorts of illuminated calligraphy and other artwork, which I love (being a rather amateur calligrapher myself).
The ketubot had helpful little index cards clipped to the side, indicating the nature of the text of the contract: “traditional Hebrew, Orthodox Aramaic,” or whatever it was. Then I flipped to one which said “egalitarian Reconstructionist Hebrew; suitable for same-sex ceremonies.” Ahhhh, only in Berkeley…