If gay marriage is great, okay to marry your sister?

This poll is ONLY for those who would vote in favor of gay marriage.

Question to you: If you support gay marriage, would you also support marriage between siblings, like brother and sister?

 

sense we have anonymous adoptions, it must be, how would you know

in fact it's happened and people found out years later from ancestry dna type tests

if this is a concern, we should require testing to get married or end anonymous adoptions

"Couple Discovers They’re Siblings – After a Decade of Marriage"

https://www.epplaw.com/blog/couple-discovers-theyre-siblings-after-a-decade-of-marriage/

my answer would be no, except in cases where they did not know at the time - and it's not really the marriage that is the issue, it's the potential children and risks that come with it

 

the Bible seems to say it's good never to marry, unless you're burning with passion and can't control yourself, they are the only ones that should marry

this seems to support of same-gender marriage

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 7:8-9&version=NIV

"
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
"

 

lets ask this, it you are anti-abortion, and a brother sister got pregnant, would you force her to give birth?

 

The only reason why I voted “No” is because it might represent a slippery slope. Given the craziness of the left over sexuality, allowing marriage between siblings could well drift over to heterosexual siblings as well. The far left would label it “a civil rights/equal protection issue.”

The reason for that prohibition is obvious. Marriage between close relatives can result in serious genetic problems. The obvious historical examples is what happened among the crowned heads of Europe. Check out the War of Spanish Succession and the son of the last Tzar of Russia, Nicholas II.

I could see the far left progressives supporting a marriage between a man or woman and an animal. I think they are that crazy and vote hungry.

I fully support gay marriage. Homosexuality is a part of the human condition, and state should sanction it. That does not apply to the churches, however. The state should never be able to force a church to recognize gay marriage. It is a first amendment issue.

 

only ones I hear even asking about this kinda stuff and animals though is the right.... like they are hoping or something

 

Oh BS!

If you can find a Republican who supports beastalogy, please name him or her.

 

the right are always the ones asking about it, never see the left asking

 

It was not a question of homosexual unions having equal rights. It was a question of taking control of vocabulary and alter definitions for another agenda. There was no objective reason for insisting that "marriage" be the term for what was a fundamental change in the social contract. "Equality" was not enough. Control was the goal.

 

Why are you comparing gay marriage to incest? Are you equating the two for some unfathomable reason? Or is it from the point of view that you suffer from intolerance and believe that just because somebody accepts that those nasty gays can get married (sarcasm), that same person would also believe that incest is ok.

 

So you want to take away their first amendment right to use the word "marriage"?

 

Some people point to autosomal recessive diseases in potential offspring, but we don't do genetic testing for people to get married to make sure they wouldn't have such offspring, nor is child-bearing even a requirement for marriage. Of course, depending upon the specific genetic makeup, the risk is increased, but it's not that different from women over 40 having kids and having a much higher chance of having a down syndrome child. We don't regulate that, so why should we regulate this?

So it comes down to the question of what marriage is. Marriage is a contract between people to divide labor in making their lives - a committed generally romantic partnership. The contract holds them accountable to each other, limiting exploitation. Consent is a core element to a contract, which limits the "slippery slope" concerns some have. I think it's kind of weird for people to marry relatives, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to tell them they can't marry. The diseased offspring excuse isn't a good one either, for reasons stated above. So yes, I think they should be allowed to marry. The demand for this, given our society, would be low, so it's unlikely to be significant to most people.

 

Albert Einstein married his cousin if I recall correctly

I seem to remember a case of a rich father wanting to marry his daughter to avoid taxes as his wife passed away, not sure what ever came of that and could not find the article

 

they tried Civil Unions to start with, republicans fought that and refused to recognize them in hospitals and such as next of kin, so then they moved to equal right to marriage and won

Evangelicals bit off more than they could chew and it backfired on them

 

Well, FreshAir, brother and sister having consensual sex and getting pregnant is certainly a far less worse situation than rape, and as you already know, many pro-choicers do oppose abortion even in the case of rape, especially if those abortions are not done very early in the pregnancy.

I personally don't see how being brother and sister would make much of a difference. That should still not be a reason to justify an abortion. Even if you can argue that they shouldn't have been having sex in the first place. But this is talking about consensual sex.

 

To be totally fair, most of those genetic problems took place due to inbreeding that happened over several successive generations.

 

Because the argument for gay marriage, "How does it effect your marriage?" and "Who are you to say people who love each other can't marry" is the same for incest marriage, and lots of other marriage adjacent arrangements.

I thought it was pretty obvious where the OP was going with this.

 

Gay marriage and incest aren’t even in the same league so.

 

In what way? Asking as somebody who has no problem with either, as long as it involves consenting adults.

 

Same sex =/= same blood

 

everyone has the same rules, no discrimination based on gender or race

 

Who made up that rule?
There are plenty of arguments that could be made that that should not be the case, and may not even be common sense, in some situations.

This stubborn idea that everyone always has to be treated exactly equally in all situations can lead to some rather absurd logical outcomes.

 

This was my thought, as well, when I first saw this thread, with then 0 replies-- "WTF does one have to do with the other?" Only, it seemed such an illogical connection, I'd felt that if the thread creator did not bother to explain this, it wasn't worth my effort, to ask. That's why, just now, when I saw that this had rec'd 21 replies, I came back to look at, what I expected to be, many people expressing their puzzlement. Until I came to yours, though, I was, instead, puzzled myself that people were just going with the premise, as if it made any sense to them.

 

I disagree, for a reason that you did not consider: the situation of spending their childhoods together. If incest was not taboo, then an older brother, for example, might take advantage of his access to and influence over a younger sister, to groom her as his lover, and possibly as his wife (or maybe, if he comes from a big family, as one of his wives). Children are just too vulnerable, to make it "acceptable" as this would do, for those growing up together, to manipulate one another, for sexual and romantic purposes. A marriage is much more than just a contract, as you call it, earlier in your post:

Marriage-- that is, finding a romantic partner & pair bonding with them-- is for most, a primary goal in life. But even if the siblings still have to reach adulthood before being allowed to officially marry, this avenue could too easily be blocked off to a younger sibling, by an older one, before the child was nature enough to truly "consent." You know what expression has been credited to Arabs who run jihadist schools, in which boys are trained to be kamikazes, for the cause-- "Give us a child for the first seven years, and we will have him for life." Children are just too moldable, to normalize this type of relationship. There would probably even be some sick parents, into "genetic purity," or some such, who would encourage and foster these inter-sibling unions. So I would vote "no," on this.

Children need time and space, when they begin their romantic forays.
If a brother and sister, once they're adults, chose to mess around on the D.L., that's really none of my concern. But such a union should not be seen as in any way endorsed by government, or by any of society's established institutions.

 

So it’s an arbitrary cultural norm basically. The disease argument doesn’t really work because we don’t police the genetics of potential parents. We don’t monitor CF carriers and make sure they don’t marry CF carriers. We don’t disallow women from having kids at 45 despite the 1 in 30 risk of trisomy vs much lower risks at younger ages.