Inspired by this thread I have to ask the same question about incest among siblings (definately not parents and kids).
While my knee jerk reaction to it is the same as gay marriage (hey, not for me, don’t like to even put that image in my head) I wonder why people would be okay with gay marriage but not a sibling marriage.
I realize the natural complications with it regarding having offspring with high probability of birth defects but if two consenting adults who happen to be siblings wanted to get married and adopt a child, what non-religious reason besides “that’s just so wrong” would there be to be against it.
I’ve brought this up in conversation when talking to people who are “pro-gay marriage” and expressed my opinion as “While not for me, I have no problem with it, same as sibling marriage.”
I get dirty looks and comments like “That’s not even funny. They aren’t even close to being the same thing.”
Ummm…marry my brother? Ummmm…ewwwwww!
I mean, I just think most people are not attracted to siblings in that way. But…is it morally wrong? I don’t think so. If both parties are agreeable to it, and are aware of their actions on an adult level, they should go for it.
I’m the same way, I’m about as liberal as one can be in concerns of sex and the law. If mommy and son want to get hitched, well, hey, go for it. You only get one chance on this rock, might as well be happy.
Of course, why is it considered wrong by most people? Well, I can’t think of any religious text that says incest is OK. Plus, as sweetfreak showed, there is a large ‘ick’ factor for most people.
Well, yeah, but so? There’s a large “ick” factor for many heterosexuals towards homosexuality. I have the “ewww” reaction to the thought of me, personally, marrying and/or getting amorous with another man, but that’s no basis for judging others who’d want to.
Interestingly enough, conservatives argued that the “slippery slope” to incest was one reason to oppose gay marriage. Of course, my reaction was the same – So what? If it’s what they want, and it doesn’t effect me, then go for it.
I think the biggest difference between the two (right now) is that most people think incest is morally wrong (as well as icky). Which I guess means it’s pretty similar to the situation homosexuality was in 50 years ago.
Of course, I could be wrong. I’m sure that if the issue is ever raised on a national level, conservative columnists will be publishing articles about how brothers marrying their sisters is inextricably tied to cancer in lab rats or something.
If the societal aspects of sibling sexual relationships were entirely among adult siblings, there might be some reason to say, “hey, consenting adults, whatever.” But the pragmatic facts of sibling life are that you can’t make an adult decision at the time when you are beginning to form your sexual attitudes. Your siblings are there, the relationship is intimate, and without a taboo (or moral guidance, if you prefer) the decision is inevitably going to be made by children. So, we instruct our children not to have sex with their siblings, and we make it clear that that is a very strict and all inclusive restriction. The ewww part is conditioning.
As long as they don’t reproduce, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But how do you keep siblings from reproducing with one another, if they’re adults?
I do think that intermarriage between close family members runs contrary to the very foundations of human evolution. If it hadn’t been for the development of a large pool of fairly unrelated people to partner with, humans would have remained inbred and unintelligent. I think we owe it to ourselves to keep this trend towards exogamy going.
I guess my complaints against sibling marriage stem from the fact that nobody really has to marry their sibling. I don’t think there’s a legitimate “orientation” that makes people want to sleep with their brothers or sisters, in the same way that homosexuality is dictated by biology and/or psychology. Does anyone really suffer grave consequences from not being able to marry their kin? But again, as long as you can legally prevent them from reproducing (maybe by limiting marriage to couples who are infertile or too old to have kids?), I guess I wouldn’t mind it being legal.
Most higher mammals have an incest taboo. That ick factor is heavily ingrained in our psyche for good biological reasons. I can’t help but think two siblings who consented to an insectual relationship must be seriously disturbed in some other way.
That’s an interesting point, Triskadecamus, and one that I hadn’t thought of. I guess the big question is whether relaxing the government’s prohibition on sibling marriage will necessarily relax the moral effect of the prohibition within families. And frankly, I don’t know the answer to that. But the libertarian in me thinks the government’s presence in any area is probably unnecessary.
As for limiting marriage to infertile siblings, I’m pretty sure that would give rise to some steep constitutional challenges. Marriage and procreation are considered fundamental rights under the Constitution. If you allow incestuous marriage, you’ve got to give a darn good reason for why you won’t allow incestuous reproduction. And since we allow stupid people to get married and reproduce, it seems pretty unlikely that a court would buy the argument that we’re trying to reinforce the gene pool. But I realize that something doesn’t need to be “legal” to make good sense, so I’m just spitballing over here.
Don’t be silly, of course it’s conditionning. Animals committing incest is by no means unheard of.
Are there any figures on how many incestuous generations it would take for genetic defects to arise in the offsprings? (how many generations for them to be 10 times as likely, 100 times? 1000?)
Are there any other kind of relationships you’d want to restrict reproduction in? First cousins? People with a higher chance of inherited defects like mongolism? Negroes with the sicle cell genes? How about naturally infertile people? They’re likely to pass on their infertility to their children if artificially impregnated.
Of course not. But tests with rats show they’ll pick a mate not of close kin if given the choice. No reason to think the taboo amongst humans don’t involve elements of both social conditioning as well as instinctual behaviour.
The negative (as well as positive) genetic consequences will manifest themselves in 1 generation. Currently cousin marriage amongst Arab immigrants in Denmark results in significant higher rate of birth defects.
