I want to marry my sister

Well the explanation was below i guess. Yeah I kind of strugggled with my wording on that. It depends on what you think redefinition means I guess. I think there is a difference though. I was trying to argue against is the idea that "the whole thing is different now so why not marry a dog." Those are mostly the kinds of arguments where I have heard people use that "redefinition" word. My point was that the definition is essentially the same except for the removal of the gender bias. I have no problem with that personally.
I was being kind of wicked there for sure, but it is the law in my country and going that way in most others, so I stand by that one. I am not sure that I am qualified to comment on the brother sister thing at all and would like to avoid it. (even though its kinda the whole point of the thread)

Since that isn't fair though I will give my considered, but perhaps not too well informed opinion.

I would think that a big part of the problem is that marriage has always been thought of as a union for the production off children, yet this is not explicitly written down anywhere. This is I guess the crux of the right wing argument against gay marriage, but because it has no legal standing and has never been codified, it does not work as an argument.

On the other hand, as you point out, if children have nothing to do with it, then the argument against brother sister marriage *is* kind of on thin ice.

You know as I am writing this I am kind of changing my mind, (hopefully its not just the heat). Perhaps there is no legal reason why a brother and sister should not marry, but I can see some pretty big pitfalls in the way of anyone who would want to try it.

First, even though marriage is not legally about having kids, if the brother and sister tried to have them, it would be in societies best interests to prohibit it. This gives you a really wacky situation where *some* married couples (incestuous ones), would have a child bearing "ban," and what a HUGE can of worms that opens up!

All of a sudden we are judging the fitnees or the rightness of this couple or that couple to have babies. I for one can think of some hetro couples that I would like to ban from reproducing.

Secondly, I think I am right in saying that incest is "taboo" in almost every culture and the taboo goes back millenia. That is a lot of ingrained opinion to fight against. (the same cannot be said of gay marriage or gayness in general)

Finally though perhaps the whole thing is a red herring. How many brothers and sisters want to get married? How many of them just change their names and do it anyway?

Further fodder :

A recent study I read about, sugggests that most folks are not physically attracted to similar faces and forms to their own, which is to say that hardly ever will a brother find a sister attractive anyway. At least not in *that* way.

Another I remember in the news recently said that most incestuous relationships were really about father daughter rape, and the ones that were brother sister, were more childish games, playing than a true adult relationship.

.

Well, as I've said before, I like to argue. Plus, it's an issue I've struggled with myself alot, for a long time.



Well, I think one could maybe argue that it's *impact* has lessened a bit, but I still think there is a valid survival element... Sure, people can live a more normal life with some of the genetic defects that crop up, but they still crop up.

without quoting everything Dianne just wrote, I do agree with her sentiment, but wonder if it should be law to ban sibling marriage even if most people would not want to participate.

After reading, skimming and thumbing through this thread, I have come to the conclusion that all of you may have misinterpreted the original post. There seems to be an assumption that Champie wants to be joined in matrimony with a sibling. If you stand the original post on its head, it could also mean that he wants to perform the actual wedding ceremony for his sister and her fiancee, but due to local laws, he can't legally "marry" them.

ok playing an devils advocate here.

Why can't someone like me who wants to marry a fully grown adult that just happens to be in my family not do it? using this RL example (yes this is my real life example)

Me (adopted)- My Dad - His Brother (adopted) - His wife- her child who is over drinking age (not my uncle's child)

As gene therapies grow more sophisticated, I expect the biological objections to inbreeding to be muted.

I also suspect that if sibling marriages were decriminalized and recognized, we'd still see very few of them. Most people seem inherently prone to seek out people beyond their family (or family-like group).

Somebody earlier voiced an objection to polyamory, stating their opinion that it was an unstable form of relationship. To an extent, that's true. It takes a very special mix of personalities and a lot of love and work to make it function. It's not for everybody.

And that's the point, whatever alternative marriage you're talking about - it's not for everybody. Legally recognizing such unions won't cause an explosion of sibling incest. It would simply extend legal protections and benefits to relationships that already exist. It might also be a step towards the day when we can all come out of our respective closets and deal with one another without fear.

This is not something I advocate without reservations: but I think there is a case to be made for it.

I suspect, given human "inventiveness" in pursuit of their goals, that people who have such inclinations would not find it very difficult to skirt the prohibitions.

I can point to no evidence for this, but "man with 4 wives in separate cities" stories are not unheard of and lend credence to the feasiblity of skirting monogamy laws.

We don't genetically test marriage applicants in the US... yet

well should it have to be on a practical basis? no -

But realisticly it may have to be.

1000 years ago the concept of marrying for love was nearly foreign in the western tradition. 300 years ago it was extremely rare. 150 years ago, "you'll learn to love him"
Now people who marry for money are gold diggers.

100 years ago interacial marriages in the US and many othere places were forbidden.
Now they are increasingly common.

25 years ago only the counter culture would have listened to anyone argue for gay marriage.
Now at least people will debate it.

..and so on..

Did people marry for love? of course they did , throughout time - but it wasnt a good reason Until relatively recently. There have been interracial and gay relationships throughout time also.

What if you've been really dating yourself for while, but you really aren't sure you want to commit....is self love incestuous?

Seriously, the whole thread should be summed up in one phrase: "Love will find a way." If you care about anyone deeply enough to be intimate, and they return that love...it really doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. People should learn to mind their own damn business when it comes to other people's relationships.

4% is really nothing to write home about. This interracial marriage arguement doesnt really make a strong point. It has increased from nothing to slightly larger than nothing. Wow. I'm not impressed.

Wow. Is that true?
I would have thought a much larger percentage than that. Where I live interacial couples are soo... well, everywhere.

Subjective assessment only, but I would have thought more like 10 or 20% from what I see on the street and in my daily interactions with folks in my area. 4% is sad.

.

Well likely there will be more interacial marriages in urban areas where races are more mixed.

When this satistic is taken as a whole it would become only 4% or lower. Also considering MOST marriages did not take place in the last couple of year - they are a progressive thing based on how many peopel are married.



Taken from the same Essay -

The law forbidding interracial marriage was terminated in 1967, and as a result, since 1970 to 1993, interracial marriages have increased from 310,000 to 1,161,000.

that is a fairly significant number of marriages as far as increasing.

Of course not! They just wants to do the wild thing!

P2

I thought that might be attributable to population increase, but in that same time period, the U.S. population increased only about 30%.

I'm really thankful this was repealed the year I was born or I would be a bastard.

Sorry it took so long to get to this response...




Well, yes, but understand that to the opposition, "removal of the gender bias" is not "just" one little thing... It's a very major thing. To them it's as major a change as taking out the "consenting" bit or the "adult" bit. Or even the "human" bit, as silly as you may personally find that notion.



Welllllll... No. You're counting your chickens before they have even been laid, much less hatched. Same-sex marriage is, I believe, legal in four countries out of 192. (Not counting america, where it is at best questionably legal in only one state). It's much, much to early to say which way all the countries are going. If I were placing money on it, unless the UN were to get involved (and the UN is worthless, and I personally hope and suspect it will crumble within two decades at this rate), I highly doubt you will see same-sex marriage being legal in more than perhaps two dozen countries by the end of this centurey.



Well, I've often thought an easy, reversable steralization procedure ought to be developed and adminstered to every child upon puberty... Reversal only comes after passing a test. Mind that this isn't meant to be a precurser to eugenics... I wouldn't suggest banning races or sexualities or anything. It's to weed out the dumb parents who leave their children at home with pitbulls, or lock them in hot cars for hours, stuff like that.

But, to borrow part of your phrase, thats a whole new can of worms.

As far as inter-familial marriages, I would make a mandatory irreversable sterilization a requirement for it to happen.




Well, while your right that incest is a taboo in pretty much every culture, understand that even if it's not as strong as the taboos against incest, a majority of cultures (I feel confident in saying that) do have some pretty strong taboos about homosexuality, even if they are only "Ok, fine, but you best not make it obvious" or "Ok, fine, but you still better get married and produce an heir". Even the greeks and romans who are often touted as being surprisingly open about such things had some of these. The opposition to homosexuality is not something that sprung up in the last few years.



Yeah, but like I said... I'm not comfortable with the logic of defining "relevence" of civil rights based on how many people it would effect. When my mind goes down that road, I remind myself that I too am a minority. Perhaps not as small of one as the kinlovers, but if homosexuality wasn't a minority, there wouldn't be all the struggle we're having right now. Even if I were a smaller minority, I would hate to be dismissed "just because there aren't many of you".

I loved the brother, sister aspects of this book -

*shrugs* everything else has been said by everyone that I agree with