So far, the only entirely rational reason given to opposed adult incest marriage is “inbreeding”. That is off-the-table if the partners are sterile/sterilized or gay.
“Eww” and “you can choose other partners” and “it’s not needed” and “there is little/no demand for it” are not rational reasons. They are based in emotion & circumstance, and thus invalid in a secular rational society.
It’ll take a decade before there is such a contingency, and another decade before people start taking it seriously.
And without a major swing of the pendulum, a third decade will see opponents labeled as bigots who deserve social disdain.
People are funny. I expect most people in this thread are rather pro-SSM. I expect some even consider it a badge of honour that they are. I also expect some people in this thread have written or spoken some pretty good arguments for SSM. But there is a rulebook that says being pro-SSM is in these days (not that I wish to imply that’s a bad thing) but, funnily enough, there’s no mention of sibling marriage in the book, so we resort to emotional decisions with weak post hoc rationalizations (or so it appears, to me).
I’ve seen similar results here when it comes to rape. The rulebook is obviously very clear that rape of women is unacceptable. There is far less mention of the rape of men, though, so while 99.9% of the people here will fall over each other to speak of how bad rape is, when the subject of men being raped comes up we’ll see a lot of “big deal”, “he deserved it” or “lol” type responses. You know, the kind of things that unenlightened rape apologists would have said a few decades ago, until the rulebook made it clear that it’s forbidden.
In my opinion, the best argument against the anti-SSM-types is the “why not?” or “live and let live” argument. The one where you point out that there is no need for anything to be illegal as long as it’s causing no harm, etc. I don’t see why that shouldn’t apply here. You don’t need the rulebook if you change how you think.
I don’t have a problem with gay siblings marrying. And if brother and sister want to marry, then one of the two should be sterilized. Ideally, the procedure should be reversible so that if they should divorce they’d be free to have children with a new spouse.
Do you think this should apply to other carriers of “bad” genes? If we’re going to sterilize anyone for the potentially poor genetics they could pass onto their children, would siblings even be the most logical choice? And is this based on the assumption that they can’t be trusted to use contraception?
I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad idea, but it doesn’t seem very consistent with how we deal with anyone else’s crappy genes.
It’s a quite sensitive area in which we should tread carefully with the advice of experts in the field. If the risks to the children of siblings is significantly greater than what we are willing to tolerate, then the sterilization option makes sense. But I think we should make that decision only after the facts are on the table. When you start to get into telling individuals that they must be sterilized due to the risks their children would face regardless of their partner in fertilization, then that’s a line best left uncrossed. To me, that is too much like what went on in Nazi Germany.
Science already tells us the answer. I don’t recall the exact details, but the risk of sibling pairings is only slightly greater than average. But once you establish the legal concept that genetics can be used to prevent people from marrying, then you open a whole can of worms. There are people with known genetic disorders with much, much greater risk of passing those disorders on to children than any sibling pairings.
I’m sorry, but it’s all about the ick factor. Especially when we move beyond brother/sister to father/daughter. Let’s not be a bunch of “incest realists” here.
This is actually one of those questions that I think is worth considering. I’m generally of the opinion that rights shouldn’t be something that people have to beg for, but rather should only be denied with good reason. I certainly don’t think “eww” and social taboos cut it, after all, as others have pointed out, that applies for a lot of society as far as gay marriage these days or interracial marriage a generation or two ago.
I do think the genetic issues of inbreeding present an issue, but not something that should just require a blanket ban. After all, there’s plenty of non-incestuous relationships out there where there are known major risks for genetic defects and we don’t ban those people from marrying and/or having kids. Moreso, as the story upthread demonstrates, it’s not a guarantee and it sure doesn’t stop them from having kids because we ban them from marrying. Further, plenty of non-incestuous couples can be married and have sex and not have kids, so I don’t see why that makes much reason here either. Why not just let them get married, make them aware of the risks, and run from there? Hell, just like with drugs, maybe if people know about these things resources and stuff can be in place to help prevent more issues that may arise.
On top of this, I could see other benefits related to allowing sibling marriage. For instance, it’s quite possible that two siblings may cohabitate and not have a sexual relationship. Even if it’s easy to make a blood relative next of kin, they might benefit from other things like health insurance or whatever. I could definitely see this being true for elderly siblings, as I know it’s not terribly uncommon for that, and maybe they don’t want their kids fighting over all that stuff.
Of course, that all said, since it’s illegal in most or all states now, without a critical mass demanding it, it’s not something that’s going to get the ground level support to make it happen since it would take effort to actually change the laws from where they are now. So, unless the laws are specifically changed to allow any two consenting adults as part of the SSM changes, this doesn’t seem likely any time soon.
It’s not about the ick factor. It’s about the lack of interest factor. Octarine pretty much nailed it - prohibited activities remain prohibited until people start demanding that we stop prohibiting them. Until quite recently I was under the impression that birth defects were basically a given for doubly consanguinous couples, and I was gently corrected (in a gay marriage thread, unsurprisingly.) Turns out the risk isn’t that much higher. So, let them marry - if they want to.
Kind of a nit pick, but it is about the ick factor. If there was no interest in it, there would be no need to ban it. That was the reason for the ban, even if “not enough interest” is the reason for the ban not being lifted.
However, note that in many states it’s not even just about marriage-- sexual relations outside marriage is also illegal, depending on the level of consanguinity defining incest in that state. If anyone is every prosecuted for such an act, we could see the incest equivalent of Lawrence.
I agree, but we have to be consistent in our legal opinions. If the “ick” factor or traditional public morality laws are not legitimate reasons for outlawing particular conduct, then one is hard-pressed to deny a brother and sister (or a brother and brother) a marriage license.
I’m sure that in a country with over 300 million people, we can find two who would take the case to the Supreme Court. So when it gets there, we have to have some sort of limiting principle (or none at all). Is the rule that two consenting adults can marry? Why not three? Why just adults? Why limit it to members of the human race?
When you start limiting it, then it becomes apparent that one is simply making a value judgment. And that same value judgment can be equally (and I would say better) done by the people through their elected representatives.
I don’t see anything wrong with any two adults marrying each other. I don’t think marriage is the government’s business anyway, but assuming it is there’s no good reason to stop siblings from marrying. It’s happened plenty of times through history , and it still happens and people just keep quiet about it because no one is checking. It’s not something that happens frequently, if it did maybe there would be some kind of public interest, but it doesn’t happen much and even if it did I’m not sure what could be done about it. It’s not like there’s that tight of a relationship between marriage and reproduction anyway.
I might have a look later for some kind of evidence. But I was largely talking about the SDMB there, where I think we can all agree “she deserved it” is quite uncommon. I also expect that most people can agree that the rape of a man is generally considered less shocking, more likely to be funny and more likely to be wished upon someone by people we would not consider to be incredibly nasty. I don’t know how many people feel the rape of a woman can be amusing or deserved, but I do know that the reaction of society to a person saying those things would be much stronger than if the victim were a man.
I was also speaking fairly generally about how I’ve noticed many people revert to instincts rather than thought when their chosen philosophy has little to say on a subject, which would be difficult to prove. Fortunately, it wasn’t my intention to make a statement about how the world is, but for people to simply consider whether it applies to them. Of course, I expect many people will immediately assume it doesn’t, and those are the ones it most applies to.
Why two and not three or thirty? Why only adults? Why only people and not animals?
You may respond to the first question about the legal difficulties of polygamy, but if marriage is such a fundamental right, then the Legislature can damn well work out those difficulties.
Questions two and three will get a variation of the response that we have historically denied children marriage, and that contracts are incapable of being entered into by animals.
Well, SSM itself throws history and tradition out the window. Why not a reexamination of the others? Is someone who is 17 years, 11 months, and 29 days old really that different from an 18 year old? Ease of administration in laws is important, but not if we are talking about a fundamental right.
My dog might not be as smart as a human, but he understands commitment. I would argue that he shows more devotion to me than my ex-wife ever did. Should I be denied a life bond with him simply for the bigoted reason that he is not a member of the species homo sapien?
As I said, though, your answers or my answers to these questions matter little. We would all set some form of limiting factors on marriage. Why shouldn’t that be done in the legislature where our collective value judgments are given a voice instead of in the courts where only elite value judgements are given a voice?
I don’t have a good answer for you WRT polygamy, which is why I would make it legal. I have perfectly good answers for children and animals - the universal principle of consent, which you seem to be handwaving away. By the same token, you might as well abolish rape as a crime.
