I want to marry my sister

thats the first honest straight forward answer so far. Thanks Chip.

I raise the question because I read an article on National Review Online (I know not a favorite of many). The political bias aside, the article points out, that such a question is likely to be raised in the near future, and may have to be answered by Justices of the Supreme Court.

here's the link: Kissing Cousins

He knows everything.

Who the heck is Jake? And What does he know that so many here profess to know so passionately in their hearts and minds?

Rumor has it, he married his sister.

Oh, and I think you just gave him his new signature. Well, it should be anyway.

This just sounds like a homophobic troll to me.

well, then you can sit this one out. If you choose to remain silent, then I will refrain from saying what I think you sound like

If, as the bible says, all men are brothers, would you let one marry your sister?

Does it mater if they are or are not? Really there point is right.

1) You can’t Marry your Sybling, Why not?
2) You can’t be in a Poly Marrage, Why not?
3) You can’t marry your same sex, Why not?
4) You can’t marry a animal, why not?
5) You can’t just marry as many people as you want in different states, why not?
6) You can’t marry a child, why not?

1 is told to use that the children will be deformed but yet it’s untrue.
2 is some reason not one has ever told me why it is.
3 is because of biblical reasons and because they can’t have kids natural.
4 because it’s a pet, but really it should be because they are not Consenting Adult.
5 this is said because it hinders of the rights of there spouses that don’t know your secret life and I would agree they are not Consenting because they do not know.
6 because they are not Consenting Adults.

This person could be a Pro Same sex marriage person trying to make a point. This person could be a Anti Same sex marriage person trying to make a point. Does it mater? Or just maybe he is some one that just wants to marry his sister.

this isn't a thread to see who can construct semantic riddles

Societal taboos don't have to have any scientific justification, and indeed many of them don't. In many cases, the shame and guilt of breaking the taboo does much more lasting harm than the act itself.

If relationships between consenting adult siblings were not stigmatized by society, it might be possible to get them the genetic testing and counseling needed to avoid the elevated risk of harmful double-recessives expressing in their offspring.

You could move to Georgia or Alabama. One of the questions on the marriage license application in St Simon's Island, Georgia was "Are you kin?" Swear to God. Apparently it's a problem there.

Once again, this is not an attempt to derail your thread, but Rove, using just the anecdote that I have quoted, obviously 'stands for' or 'represents' or, charitably, 'embraces' a form of entitlement that I, personally, find reprehensible.

His actions, in the distant past and in the not-so-distant past, indicate to me a complete lack of empathy, an almost dangerous myopia, and a huge case of megalomania. I am afraid that I can't be more specific.

to be perfectly honest i do think i can see what Di's meaning is.

The whole slippery slope arguement in reverse. People go and agree that brothers and sisters should not marry - THUS - the person says - Well why shoudl gays be allowed to marry then?

I dont know that you mean this Champie - you could be mainly posting the thread as a joke.

As far as incest between adults and resulting children - the risk on recessive negative genes are higher due to similair DNA. How much higher risk is debatable and I dont think much research has really been done save a few studies.

Remember they used to make people take blood tests and many states stopped that requirement.

Like many have said children arent neccessarily a result of marriage - and if a brother and sister are lovers they dont need to be married to have kids.

I think these are good questions to sort out. I know there are no perfect answers, but the questions are being asked right now in courts. I just thought that since we are about to begin the confirmation process of a US Supreme COurt Justice (an event that has been stated as a very important one by many people in this community) I thought it would be interesting to start a thread here that poses a new "individual rights" question that closely resembles the Gay Marriage issue.

I've said it before, but I can't expect anyone to remember, that there is no compelling secular reason to oppose Gay Marriage. Does the same reaoning apply to incest marriage?

So, Dianne has no basis for her ad-hominem attack.

Well what is the purpose then?
This is exactly similar to other arguments (usually based on polygamy or incest), that always end with:
"Well what's the difference between this and gay marriage then?"

Homophobic?... or just off the wall nonsense that just *happens* to be very similar to homophobic content?

Tell me, cause I want to know what youre thinking

I do remember - you argued Devils advocate on gay marriage a few months back.

Its very likely that , no, there is not a real comelling secular reason for preventing siblings to marry. Although , more in depth research on birth defects could be preformed to educate peopel ont he risks they might be taking (or not depending ont he results?)

I think I was pretty clear in my intentions with this thread in my post in the middle of page 2

I would have hated to have my mother for a mother-in-law, as well; I would have had no peace at all! That's one good argument against!
And shouldnt it be an "ad HOMOnem attack"?

I was just trying to be clever Dianne, I don't have anything particular to say about you.

Why is raising a legitimate legal question cause to label me "homophobic"?

It isn't nonsense either. If any society adopts a legal right to marriage of consenting adults, then does that extend to siblings, despite the taboo of such relationships?

lol...I guess in this case, yes, it was an ad-homonem attack..lol

Ah nevermind.

I guess I'm all about being cranky today.

The Lawrence v. Texas case, though it addressed individual, private, consensual sexual acts, had more to do, in my mind, with a persecutory use of a rarely used state law (in this case, one making sodomy [only between same-sex partners] illegal).

The Houston Police department, with questionable cause, entered Lawrence's apartment as he was engaging in intercourse with another man. Lawrence and Garner, his partner, were jailed. The Supreme Court found in favor of Lawrence (Due Process--14th Amendment).

I do not see the relationship between the Wisconsin case and the Lawrence case as applicable. Marriage and sexuality are not the same thing. Marriage is not defined in terms of sexual relationship. Procreation is not the goal of marriage (removing any Christian biases). It is, in the eyes of the courts, a state-enforced, state-defined contract. As such, there should be no limits on who might enter into a state-recognized marital bond as long as the petitioners are of sufficient age to legally sign a contract (this, by extension, removes other species from the realm of possiblity).

Turns out that there are evolved anti-sibling attraction predilictions which are triggered during a critical period in childhood. However it also appears that the brain module that does that works on a proximity effect and not a true relatedness effect; in rodents, for example, incest avoidance mechanisms are mediated by smell which is directly related to genetic closeness.

The most compelling evidence for the incest-avoidance-by-proximity rule in humans come from Israeli Kibbutzim where unrelated children are group-reared. There are virtually no marriages within these cohorts. This is not to say that people are never attracted to or lust for close relations - but I think that more an issue of generic lustfulness and availabilty of housemates. However that we make rules (laws) about close matings shows that we have both a proclivity for (again general lustiness) and an abhorance of such.

The "horrible mutant" effect from high heterozygosity is a little overstated in folk genetics but the effects of deleterious recessives does exist. For example, there exist organizations within reproductively smallish populations that do genetic counseling to help couples avoid sickle-cell anemia, tay-sachs, etc. It is possible for deleterious recessives to be purged from a genetic line, but it is rare: there is a species of spider mites that are live born, with the females already fertilized by their "brothers" while they are inside mom. It could be argued that this is virtually asexual reproduction.

Finally, it was people mating with closeish kin that is primarily responsible for the "racial" traits that we see in the world. That is, environmental pressures are not sufficient to explain all the variation.

Does your sister want to marry you, though? Yes, I know that diatribe was a tad serious for this thread.

LOL Mostly because critters playing dueling banjo's and the phrase "Squeal like a pig" crack me up.

In all seriousness, I agree with what Chip has posted already.

As Colette mentioned, the risk on recessive negative genes are higher due to similar DNA, this is evidenced in animal breeding, though again, I don't think there have been enough definitive human studies because unions between siblings have been a western societal taboo for a long time.

In ancient Egypt, 20% of the marriages were between siblings and my guess is that the number of people who are (or have been) attracted to a sibling are probably pretty high. After all, they are the among the people who know us best and who we are around the most.

I'm personally uncomfortable with the thought of it because I am an oldest child and I had actual custody of my brothers and raised them. Consequently, I see them more like my own children than I do my brothers. So sibling attraction would have been like child abuse to me and I associate the concept of it with that - and I consider sexual contact with any non-consenting being [rape] and an immoral, prosecutorial offense. Children, by virtue of being children cannot give consent.

I think that two adults who never had contact as children and meet, fall in love, and discover that they are siblings would be a different story.

On a lighter note .... Meet Buck and Chuck: