Yes, that's true. In a cultural vacuum, where marriage and reproduction are perceptually unlinked, I'd have no problems with marriage between any two adults who can legally consent. In practice, marriage between a man and woman probably does encourage reproduction (even if one doesn't precisely map to the other in every case) and certainly the public isn't going to separate marriage between relatives and incest, conceptually. Which presents problems in comparing it to gay marriage in a public debate (though I realize you didn't do that).
Why did you throw animals in? Animals can't legally consent, so aren't relevant in contractual relationships like marriage (or business deals, or whatever).
I'm not against gay-marriage, no. I said most proponents of marriage (as in those of in favor of strictly heterosexual marriage, I should have made myself clearer) would state that starting a family was the reason for marriage.
The problem with this reasoning is that now you fall back to a "in practice" argument instead of being logical. Usually the argument in favor of gay marriage is that it is black-and-white. Equal rights for all, no questions asked.... unless, of course, you happen to be different (incest, etc).
well, animals is pretty much a given. They are unable to given consent, or have a voice in the matter. Also, there's a cross species thing that has no point in trying to discuss. As for siblings and off-spring, I'm not going to go deep into this argument. Why stop at siblings? Why not extrapolate this into saying that a black person shouldn't marry a white person.
So you are not against gay-marriage, yet you use the reasoning of creating offspring to justify your position on sibling/offspring marriage. Pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.
Sure, agreed. Huh? I thought we were extrapolating the other way. I am arguing that siblings SHOULD have the right.
I'm not sure you're understanding me. In terms of the logic, I do think any two adults capable of legal consent should be allowed to marry. Including relatives. And including polygamists. My point about perception is simply that when marriage between relatives is thrown into public debate, generally by opponents to gay marriage, the intent is to muddy the water because they know such marriage will be conflated with incest by listeners. In other words, the conflation you are arguing against existing (correctly, from a logical point of view) will irrationally cloud the issue. Thus, it's a problematic point of comparison due to that rhetorical trick. But from a purely conceptual perspective, see the above...no problem with relatives marrying.
I see that (and agree, if siblings want to be married who the hell am I to care? It's not something I'd ever do (and not just because I only have brothers)). I'm just saying that arguments like this can be extrapolated into the one I presented, so I wasn't going to dig deeper into it. It's a circular argument (even if you weren't the one presenting it or arguing it), and a style I dislike greatly. On a side note, I think we've exasperated the word extrapolated there.
Like I said, I imagine in the future (but again not our lifetime) that they will lift restrictions on sibling/parent/offspring marriage and arrange it much like those 6 of 25 states have done for first-cousin marriage. Considering that contraceptives do not work 100% (unless both parties undergo the proper procedures but that is another problem in and of itself) of the time and one would imagine in a marriage that there is sexual activity at child-bearing ages (of course not true for the entire population as there are disorders and people who practice abstinence) it is simply a birth defect percentage issue. I imagine many people are not comfortable in the 10% increase from first-cousin to sibling, etc related couplings. Edit: Basically I would be fine with the marriage if they did not have children through themselves and then just because of the increase of birth defect chance. I just think at this time it would be very hard to control or ensure.
"Cultural taboo," eh? You mean like the one against homosexual marriage that has been around since time began, in every single culture, all over the world?? THAT kind of cultural taboo? Good grief, man. If you don't think the taboo against sibling marriage can change over time, you just aren't paying attention.
I edited my post to add a new sentence at the end. I understand you are attempting to be an antagonist but you cannot argue against the increased birth defect risk and the factor that plays. If both parties agreed to go to all lengths and measures to ensure there was no reproduction that'd be fine. But it would be very hard for a woman to get her tubes tied at a child-bearing age, but I imagine such things would be reworked in this scenario from a medical perspective.
Homosexuality itself really hasn't been a taboo since time began. Perhaps since Christianity became a leading factor in the world, but not since time began. The sibling incest taboo is much larger than the gay taboo, IMO. Mostly because of the blood-line issue and birth defect issue. There is a possibility it could change in the future, but like I said highly unlikely ever in our time. Possibly ever. I personally do not care outside of the birth defect issue.
So what? If a brother and sister love each other and want to marry, who are we to stand in their way? People have children with Down's Syndrome and autism and all kinds of diseases and deformities, and they just learn to cope with it. Why shouldn't we let a brother and sister have the same opportunity? This is discrimination!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not arguing against the birth defect risk. I'm arguing that offspring and reproduction has NOTHING to do with marriage. Otherwise gay-marriage would not be legal. You are the one that keeps brining up birth defects and reproduction as the reason for not allowing sibling/incest marriage. It just isn't logical, and it is hypocritical.
I think we can amend my comment to read that I would be fine for marriage between all consenting adults, but if closely related people got married that in the event they wished to have children they agree to either adopt or have a different sperm donor to eliminate the 17% risk of birth defects and bring it down to the least possible amount.
Because it probably isn't a good idea to play the birthing equivalent of Russian Roulette willingly with unborn children. But you keep trying to fight that subtle fight against the queers, Shooter .
I disagree with you and so do that statistics. There are way more people getting married and not having kids by far by proportion than ever before. People get married for their own reasons. Just because some people see it one way doesn' mean they all do. The DINK (Double income no kids) crowd is one of the fastest growing population sectors there is.
