A question for gay-marriage proponents and advocates?

Question

Did you hear the news about this German hetero couple who were lobbying for their relationship to be allowed and sanctioned by the Law?

They were brother and sister, and they'd been living as a couple for some years. I guess they even had normal children.

What's your position about incestuous relationships and marriage? Will you be prejudiced against this type of relationship?

(I'm honestly wondering, I'm all for GLBT marriage)

Here's the link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254943,00.html

Theists, please refrain from posting your usual rants or copy/paste scripture.

No apples and oranges here, it's a sexual taboo that is legally forbidden and that denies some people their freedom and rights. Pretty much like the anti-gay laws still in force in most of the world.

Answer 1

Good question. Since inbreeding could be harmful to offspring, I would not be in favor of it. I mean birth defects and all.

A marriage between 2 consenting adults of the same gender but not related is another matter. Discrimination based on gender is wrong.

Some nuts even compare gay marriage to beastility. IDIOTS!

Answer 2

It's complicated.

Personally if two people love each other and are willing to commit to each other and are able to consent, I'd say go for it.

In the case of incest, there is the health of any offspring to consider, so perhaps a condition of non-procreation would fix that, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the State being able to tell a woman that she is forbidden to conceive or bear children.

I guess the best way to argue against allowing incestual marriages (since you know the anti-gay crowd are going to start using the "slippery slope" argument) is that brother/sister/mother/father ALREADY have a legally defined relationship, so that for much the same reason that two people who are already married cannot legally marry, then two people who already have a biological relation can reasonably be legally denied a second one.

Answer 3

Any adults who are capable of entering into a contract- that is, not legally prohibited from doing so via age, mental health, etc.-should be able to enter into a contract.

Just because *I* find their relationship abhorrent, doesn't mean they don't have the right to the same legal protections as others. They should be able to choose.

It is apples and oranges, true, but the fact remains that once you take marriages out of the church (IE: by having a government benefit to marriage) you take the church's say out of the marriage.

If you want marriage to be limited to those you like, you should advocate for the return of marriage to the church, and the withdrawal of marriage as a legal concept.

There SHOULD be a rational approach- churches SHOULD be allowed to marry those they feel should be married under their church and everyone else should have a civil partnership contract. This civil partnership contract, if married couples want it, should be applied for SEPARATELY from the marriage in the church, as it has nothing to do with the church. In otherwords, if you are married in a church, you don't share health insurance, tax benefits, etc, until you get that civil partnership.

This is the only rational approach, but it will take another 50 years before it is instituted in the US, as the US only moved towards rationality slowly.

Answer 4

Some of the greatest Pharaohs of Egypt came from incestuous relations. It is also true that some such relationships, where there is a genetic defect, can result in deformed children, Pharaoh Ankaton. (sp) Same results sometimes come from unrelated couples. I think marriage should be extended to whom ever feels the need for it. These days it is more a finical thing than a "Let's make babies thing."

Answer 5

First of all, I know people just love to confuse homosexuality with incest, bestiality, pedophilia and the rest, when there is not the least ground for doing so. It's as if I were to claim that all religions besides Christianity were essentially the same thing.

That said, my belief is, whatever consenting adults choose to do, it's not my business (unless I'm one of the adults...lol). Incest, groups, torture, whatever. If all parties involved are fully aware of the consequences, and heartily consent thereto, it's worse than pointless to try to intervene. The sex instinct is fundamental, and if you try to place arbitrary restrictions on it based on your own personal predilections, you'll only obligate people to criminality. (See the "Drug War.")

Now note that this definition rules out pedophilia, rape, or any other activity in which one or more of the parties in question do NOT consent, or are incapable of responsibly consenting.

THAT said, marriage is another question altogether - it involves money! But when you consider that in America, we have a billion five in our federal budget to PROMOTE heterosexual marriage - as if it's some kind of new idea that needs proselytizing - it's hard to object to the idea of other kinds of couples being allowed to marry and enjoy the same rights because of any additional financial burden it might place on society.

Answer 6

I don't have any challenge with polygamy. If all the members are adults in order that they may be able to consent, then it is their trade, is not it? I help homosexual marriage given that they're intended to have the identical rights because the relaxation folks - are you accustomed to the 14th Amendment? Four standards have been asserted within the textual content of the 14th modification. They have been: one million.State and federal citizenship for all men and women irrespective of race each born or naturalized within the United States was once reaffirmed. two.No state could be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of residents. three.No man or woman was once allowed to be disadvantaged of lifestyles, liberty,or estate with out "due system of legislation." four.No man or woman might be denied "identical security of the legislation." <<<< This is the primary facet. How does it damage my marriage of 38 years if 2 guys or 2 ladies love each and every different and desire to have the entire privileges of marriage? I consider divorce is a lot more hazardous to the tuition of marriage - why is not anybody calling for making divorce more difficult to get than it's?

Answer 7

There is no correlation. GLBT are not related to each other and are seperate humans the same as hetero. Brother and Sister come from the same speerm and egg donors and are more likely to produce offspring that are mentally or physically challenged.

Answer 8

incestuous relationships/marriages cannot be compared to gay marriages. That being said, I wouldn't have a problem with two willing adults marrying other, if they are brother and sister. It's not something I would ever do, but who am I to stop them.

Answer 9

Thanks for the insight full and thought provoking question. It answers one of my Questions.... Where do politicians come from? Obviously offspring from incests relationships. But Hey it is a free world we all make our own choices and pay our own consequences. it is all a roll of the dice. Sometimes ya win some times ya loose, no matter what the odds say.

Answer 10

I'm no expert, but I do think there are the increased possibilities of biological consequences for family members that reproduce a child.

Comparing that to gay marriage is apples and oranges.