I want to marry my sister

I happen to agree with Champie's line of reasoning, even if not perhaps all the conclusions that could be reached from it.

I'm also gay.

So, homophobic? No, I don't think so. That word gets bandied around so much in an attempt to discredit the other side that it has all but lost any valid meaning.

well in Di's defense there ARE a lot of homophobics whether blatant or supposedly open minded - Or at least those who are discrimatory against Homosexuals. (i think its possible someone can not be homophbic, but still discriminate)

Perhaps enough that the word isnt actually over used, but the discrimination on some levels is that pervasive.

So Di who has to deal with this discrimation also, perhaps has her guard up.

I think so few people would want to marry their brother or sister the issue is basically a non issue.

Sure does. Two of the most notorious forum trolls have tried to use it on me.

As far as the sibling marriage thing goes, I guess if two consenting adults want to, I don't see a problem with it.

I read an article a few years back that claimed that they percentage of siblings that have had sexual relations is much higher than people generally believe it to be. The article went on to say that people tend to go to great length to hide these things, due to the social and legal ramifications, hence the relative societal ignorance of this fact.

I see some striking similarities here with regard to interracial and gay relationships, in terms of some reluctance to be "out". What I mean by that is that just 4 decades ago, inter-racial and homosexual relationships were highly frowned upon by the mainstream.

I predict that just as inter-racial marriage is now much more widely accepted, so too will gay marriage be soon, and who knows, maybe support for sibling marriage will gain a little ground as a result. I think that we are still a decade or two away from the point where people will be open-minded enough to seriously consider it though.

One wall at a time...

Kate's fault for buying Malachai this for his birthday:

http://www.wwco.com/gean/grandpa/

p.s. also reminds me of when a friend and i tried to family-tree (it was a square bill wyman (of the rollings stones) who married a young girl, then his son married the girl's mother...

Which is kinda my point... I think "homophobe" as a label has been diluted to the point that it really doesn't mean much anymore, because people are too quick to label anyone with a dissenting opinion a homophobe in an attempt to discredit their opinion - Without knowing anything about that person or their true thoughts on homosexuality, but simply because they dare to mention things that are uncomfortable to adress or don't "tow the party line" as it were.

I've known people I would truely call homophobic in my life. My father used to be one, so you can imagine what my teenage years were like, though since I came out several years ago he's been getting alot better about it. And on the other side I've known people who tend to discriminate against homosexuality simply out of habbit - due to upbringing -, who are labled homophobic but aren't, really... They are just thoughtless.

And then there are the questionables, the ones who get labled homophobe to shut them up rather than address issues they bring up - Champie, for example. Some of these people may even be homophobic (Not saying Champie is, I don't believe he is), but I still feel that labeling them as such really doesn't benefit anyone. I'd rather address their issues, debate then face on, instead of hiding behind labeling the opposition to discredit them. It's a much more real-world-centered, much nastier version of the whole FIC thing we saw on the forums - label a person, dehumanise him, and attack him, not his ideas.



Well, we would have to agree to disagree. I think a lot of people (Even probably the majority, as elections tend to suggest) are uncomfortable with homosexuality, but I don't honestly feel most of them are honostly homophobic. I lump most of those into the "Not really homophobic, just ignorant and lazy" group. Those people you can work with, bring them around to your side with time - Unless you alienate them so badly by attacking them that you create a rift that cannot be bridged for generations, which I feel is unfortunatly a real possibility.



Sure, and I'm guilty of this too sometimes, but it still rubs me the wrong way when I go back and look at it.



When do civil rights become a non-issue?

well lets not get tied down in sematntics - Discrimination based on homosexuality is pervasive. Perhaps not homophobia, but with the numbers that people saw in most of those anti gay marraige ammendments in the states, its obvious people are willing to discriminate.

I dont mean civil rights are a non issue

I mean if Sibling marriage were legal , there would be so few sibling marriages it would basically be a non issue.

Its not illegal for siblings to be in a lasting sexual relationship - I dont think - but yet very few of are.

Okay, serious response here.

These are *not* the same as the gay marriage thing, and I would like to point out that this thread has gone straight towards the kind of ugly comparisons to gay marriage that I first thought it would. Not necessarily with this post, but you cans definitely see the undercurrent in the thread IMO

Gay marriage is a HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE. Sorry about the caps but no matter how many times it is said people just dont seem to get it. It is not a "redefinition of marriage" in any real sense, it is the same definition with the purposeful elimination of a dscriminatory clause.

In almost every culture, marriage has been traditionaly defined as a union of two adult humans, one of which is male and one of which is female. It is the gender definition *alone* that is now considered to violate human rights (it does.) Thus marriage is now formulated as the union of two adult humans, period.

All that stuff about marrying your dog or someone from preschool is just a lot of straw dog arguments. It has no bearing on the thing at all.

Exceptions to the law (restrictions of your "right" to marry), can really only be made on the basis of other serious issues. For instance on health grounds it is inadviseable to marry ones sister or brother. It is in the interestes of the greater community to stop this from happenening, thus the law. Personal freedoms being restricted for the greater good. Simple logic.

The only thing out of all of this that *might* be relevant, is there is no clear reason why more than one person should not get married or (not mentioned here but also relevant), why the length of the marriage needs to be "forever" given that its really just a contract.

.

Ah, but see I actually think the semantics here are important - Homophobia is a very severe charge, as is racist or sexist... I don't feel they should be tossed around lightly.

I also think you are reading something into the gay marriage ammendment failure that isn't there... There is a lot more to that question than "do I like gay people".



Actually, AFAIK, incest is illegal, in most states at any rate, I'm not sure about all.

But I will stand by what I said - At what point does the ammount of people hurt by a lack of civil rights (IE, the ability to get married) dismiss the issue as a "non issue"? 0.01% of the population? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? I'm not comfortable with that line of logic. Actually, more accuratly, I'm very uncomfortable with that line of logic. Because once you set an ammount, any ammount, you've opened that amount up for re-declaration at a later date to serve your own needs.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment here - this sounds a lot like one of the arguments I hear from anti-gay marriage folks.

They have been known to argue that it is not for the greater good of humanity to allow same sex marriage, offering rhetoric like "gay couples cannot reproduce on their own", etc.

Disclaimer - I do not personally subscribe to this point of view.

This crossed my mind as I read that as well.

You can say it's not the same thing. But can you point to how it's different? I can't. And that bothers me...



Well, strictly speaking, it is the redefinition of marrige - Marrige being defined legaly, and in the minds of apparently the majority of the population, as a union between one man and one woman... Regardless of how right or wrong your stance is, it is a re-definition.

If we're simply having discriminatory clauses lifted, I'd like to be able to enter a women's sporting event, please.



No, you would like marriage to be formulated as the union of two adult humans, period. This is not, however, the case as of yet.



The dog part, I agree. I don't think there's any justification for a realistic departure from at least two humans...

But then again, as long as we're redefinining things, what's to stop it? Who are we to force our views on them?



What if the brother and sister didn't have children? Or were brother and brother or sister and sister? We (the gay community) have so long used "Children are irrelivent to marriage" as one of the arguements for gay marriage that it's a little hypocritical now to say we can't allow brother-sister marriages based on the fact that it's not an ideal child-producing union.

Actually im arguing the opposite - im arguing it should be legal , and all the negative things peopel bring up are basically blown out of proportion. You know? Becuase it simply wont come up much.

Go ahead and let siblings marry, the problems cuased wont be nearly as bad as the hype.

The issue of consent is the line in the sand. Neither animals nor children are capable of giving informed consent, therefore, the state must fulfill its obligation to protect them from abuse.

The law on marrage of relatives and siblings stands even if birth defects are NOT apparent. I myself could have relations with ANYONE in my family and the idea of birth defects would be equal of that to me being with anyone else. THe reasoning is simple not only am I adopted but the other large side of my family is adopted as well, only one female in my family is associated genitcally with my parents that is alive. If I attempted to marry one of them I would most likly be denied ina court of law.

Disclaimer: I have no desire to marry any of my relatives or family. I am in a relationship with a wonderful woman and most of my relatives are FAR older then me. though I think they did try to hook me up with my step-cousin (which funny enough is VERY not related to me in genetics. Her mom married my uncle who is adopted but is my dad's brother.)

Actually, though I can't cite a case reference specificly, this has been tried in a court of law and over-turned: Last I checked, it was legal to marry adopted kin.

I think Di has a good point tho

While its all well and good to talk idealism and saying all marriage for consenting adults should be legal ..


By associating the reasons for gay marriage with the reasons for Polygamy and for sibling marriage - it makes gay marriage that much harder to get accepted and legal.

Becuase the public is maybe MORE ready to let gay couples marry , than they are to allow peopel to have more than one partner , and ESPECIALLY than they are to allow brothers and sisters to marry.

A sort of Practical approach rather than the Tilt at Windmills idealist approach.


----------------
Personally I think Polygamy should be legal

For those very rare (which i attempted to point out) sibling marraiges, that should be legal too

Same with Mother / Son -- whatever --- I certainly wont be involved but if they are consenting adults thats up to them.

I agree with your observation. Look at current couple relations. It used to be only M/F relationships were accepted as "visible" relationships. Then after time it became gay/lesbian were acceptable. Now it seems more BDSMish (using this term boradly) are becoming acceptable as well. Granted this is slow but it is happening. Everything takes steps and will happen in due time you just need to really want it and want to work to get it.

well, I should clear something up: I have no interest in marrying my sister.

I posted a link to the article that motivated my initial post. I was not motivated by a personal dilemma.

Let us extend this backwards in time to the 1950's when the miscegenation laws were still in place.

When these laws which held interracial marriage as unlawful were being fought against, if a gay couple had asked for the right to marry at that time, should they have been told they have to get in line, because they might threaten the possibility of the miscegenation laws being overturned?

When the civil rights movement and the women's liberation movement were both big issues in the 60's, should one or the other have taken a back seat?

Did the fact that they were chronologically coincidental slow advancement for either cause?

I certainly agree with this... But, on the other hand, I can't bring myself to stick my head in the sand and ignore that the assosiations are there, and almost every arguement used for gay marriage can be applied just as justly to sibling marriage. Polygamy has a few unique issues, but, again, fundamentally most of the same arguements apply.

While yes, you can say they weaken the case for gay marriage... Ya know, I gotta stop at that and ask, "Well, maybe we need to look at this more." I'm not comfortable with some of the very logical thougth progressions that the concept entails. I never have been.



Practical, maybe, but not all things that are pratical are right or good. I can't bring myself to dismiss valid issues just because they may not be convienient to think about.

Jury: We find the defendent guilty.

Judge: But there is no evidence whatsoever! In fact, all the evidence points to someone else entierly.

Jury: Yeah, but that's inconvienient. It would be easier to just sentance this guy, we don't wanna deal with all those other problems.



Now, see, of the three, I have the most problem with polygamy. I believe (personally) that it is the most inherently unstable form of union (Not that there can't be stable polygamous unions), and often (not always) unfair to one or more partners which studies have suggested tend to migrate to a "lesser" state in the union in fact, though not in name. Basicly I just think it's asking for trouble. But this is my opinion only, and I try to keep an open mind - I'm just not sold on it currently.



Very open minded. I don't agree, because I personally can't get over the "ewwww... icky..." conditioning, but very open minded. Also, I can't ignore the fact that if there were children it's a union which has a statisticly proven higher risk factor in regards to genetic defects. If any partners in such a union agreed to be steralized, I think I could deal with it... I'm not usually in favor of such things, as they have shades of hitler and whatnot, but it's not like we're waving our hands in the air angrilly and decrying a race or ethnicity... It's a proven genetic fact that inbreading increases the chance to develop certain genetic conditions. And I guess that's ultimatly the problem - I'm not comfortable with the concept, I'm not comfortable with what would have to be done to make me comfortable with the concept.

Well, I don't really think this is a valid comparison. BDSM and similar relationships fall more under the line of "shared hobbies", even if the couple elevates it to the level of lifestyle. It's roughly analagous to two people getting married who share an interest in motorcycles or aviation or something, and it exists both within and outside of the matrimonial bonds - Marriage is most certainly not an intrinsic part of it.

It was speaking more on the idea of being outwordly intimate (kissing, hugging, etc) in public. maybe my mind is just cluttered and there is no relation but it was meant more to show that over time things do change you need to work for it if you truly want it.

I'm blown away by the attention and effort Reitsuki has contributed to this thread.

I agree with every word that he has written. I don't think any argument has WEAKENED the case for Gay Marriage, but I do think, as Reitsuki says, many of the arguments leave the door open for many other associations that many of us may not intend to make.

Malachi made some excellent remarks regarding the biology of incest avoidance. As best as I can recall, anthropologists tell us that every significant society in human history demonstrates incest avoidance behavior. The question is, Is incest avoidance a mechanism of natural selection, and therefore no longer relevent to modern society(as Edward O. Wilson, author of Consilience might argue), or are there appropriate reasons relating to civil order and protection of human rights that demand its unlawfulness?

Of course, all this is in the context of a secular society, as I think we have already established.

edit: I want to add that every post in this thread has been excellent, and I don't mean to dismiss anyones contribution by singling out Reitsuki.