Close Kin Marriage & Gay Marriage

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2008-05-17 11:13am

If gay marriage was made legal, would that open up the door for close kin marriage such as Brother and Sister / Father and Daughter? I really have a bit of trouble getting my mind around the subject.

As well, what are opinions on close kin marriage in a modern setting?

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2008-05-17 11:15am

If gay marriage was made legal, would that open up the door for close kin marriage such as Brother and Sister / Father and Daughter?

How does one follow from the other? Gay marriage respects the prohibition against marrying a close blood relation in exactly the same way that straight marriage does.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2008-05-17 11:19am

Bounty wrote:How does one follow from the other? Gay marriage respects the prohibition against marrying a close blood relation in exactly the same way that straight marriage does.

What are our reasons for banning marriage between close blood relations?

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2008-05-17 11:29am

Kitsune wrote:
Bounty wrote:How does one follow from the other? Gay marriage respects the prohibition against marrying a close blood relation in exactly the same way that straight marriage does.
What are our reasons for banning marriage between close blood relations?

Primarily, preventing incest; secondarily, the fact that it is exceedingly freaking rare for any kind of relationship like that to NOT involve abuse of at least one party.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2008-05-17 02:41pm

Molyneux wrote:Primarily, preventing incest; secondarily, the fact that it is exceedingly freaking rare for any kind of relationship like that to NOT involve abuse of at least one party.

The problem is that stating that it is incest becomes circular logic because incest means a relationship between close relatives (in some cases blood but in a minority of cases not)

I would agree with you that it is exceedingly rare for a father / daughter or mother / son relationship not to be a product of abuse but I don't know on a brother and sister relationship. A certain amount of "Doctor" is believed to be natural.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2008-05-17 02:44pm

Kitsune wrote:
Molyneux wrote:Primarily, preventing incest; secondarily, the fact that it is exceedingly freaking rare for any kind of relationship like that to NOT involve abuse of at least one party.
The problem is that stating that it is incest becomes circular logic because incest means a relationship between close relatives (in some cases blood but in a minority of cases not)

I would agree with you that it is exceedingly rare for a father / daughter or mother / son relationship not to be a product of abuse but I don't know on a brother and sister relationship. A certain amount of "Doctor" is believed to be natural.

You're right. What I should have said was that incest is recognized as a BAD THING because inbreeding tends to lead to other BAD THINGS, such as a shrinking of the gene pool, buildup of harmful recessive genes, and the like.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2008-05-17 03:10pm

Molyneux wrote:You're right. What I should have said was that incest is recognized as a BAD THING because inbreeding tends to lead to other BAD THINGS, such as a shrinking of the gene pool, buildup of harmful recessive genes, and the like.

I generally support gay marriage and will go a bit further by stating that what goes on between consenting adults is generally not my business and not the governments either.

That being said, I keep running into people who argue that allowing gay marriage will allow for incest marriage and polygamy. This is echoed in some political figures. I don't love polygamy but don't seem why it is illegal. Incest marriage is the problem to even know how to feel about.

Part of the problem with the inbreeding argument can be shown with my half brother. He has thirteen children. The first batch, four or so, are appear normal. The second group, with another woman, are all severely autistic. If you use the harmful genetics arguments, then he should have not been allowed to produce children with her after the first couple. I almost wish there was a law against what he did but there is not! I doubt any brother / sister coupling would produce any worse damaged children!

Going a bit further, it could be argued that there is no genetic argument between brother / brother or sister / sister relationship. The argument would then likely be if we allow those then you would be unable to argue against "traditional" incest relationships.

Aquarose · Post by **Aquarose** » 2008-05-17 10:12pm

Ok, so, you have two parents who both have a recessive trait, there is a 25% chance of their children receiving said trait, inbreed two children as the pic below indicates then you have a 50% chance of receiving trait...

Saying no to incest is mainly for health reasons, for example, alot of Amish people have six fingers per say because they sleep together so much, the English royalty also had alot of issues thanks to incest. Otherwise in my opinion there is no reason adults should not be allowed to have relations with close relatives(unless your religious)

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2008-05-17 10:34pm

Aquarose wrote: alot of Amish people have six fingers per say because they sleep together

They also have the highest rates of dwarfism of any known population, the reasons being exactly what you've said. I have to admit that there's something kind of funny about an Amish dwarf though...

Equating gay marriage to incestuous marriage is kind of a slippery slope fallacy, isn't it?

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2008-05-17 10:41pm

Superman wrote:
Aquarose wrote: alot of Amish people have six fingers per say because they sleep together
They also have the highest rates of dwarfism of any known population, the reasons being exactly what you've said. I have to admit that there's something kind of funny about an Amish dwarf though...

Equating gay marriage to incestuous marriage is kind of a slippery slope fallacy, isn't it?

What about a literal gay brother-brother marriage though?

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2008-05-17 10:41pm

Superman wrote:Equating gay marriage to incestuous marriage is kind of a slippery slope fallacy, isn't it?

Possibly yes, that is why I am trying to get opinions

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2008-05-17 11:26pm

AniThyng wrote:What about a literal gay brother-brother marriage though?

What about it?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-05-18 02:09am

AniThyng wrote:
Superman wrote:
Aquarose wrote: alot of Amish people have six fingers per say because they sleep together
They also have the highest rates of dwarfism of any known population, the reasons being exactly what you've said. I have to admit that there's something kind of funny about an Amish dwarf though...

Equating gay marriage to incestuous marriage is kind of a slippery slope fallacy, isn't it?
What about a literal gay brother-brother marriage though?

It would still need to be governed the same way. Plus there is the other problem... abuse. We have elaborate biological and cultural systems to recognize kin, and avoid mating with kin. For those to be circumvented, means something fucked up happened and there is often a high rate of abuse, or the relationship itself is a symptom of abuse.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2008-05-18 02:31am

Alyrium Denryle wrote: Plus there is the other problem... abuse. We have elaborate biological and cultural systems to recognize kin, and avoid mating with kin. For those to be circumvented, means something fucked up happened and there is often a high rate of abuse, or the relationship itself is a symptom of abuse.

You're exactly right. I know from working with in a mental health setting that sibling sexual relationships are often the result of having been sexually abused by other family members.

Bedlam · Post by **Bedlam** » 2008-05-18 03:00am

Bounty wrote:
If gay marriage was made legal, would that open up the door for close kin marriage such as Brother and Sister / Father and Daughter?
How does one follow from the other? Gay marriage respects the prohibition against marrying a close blood relation in exactly the same way that straight marriage does.

I assume the argument is suposed to go like this: -

Gay Marriage means that a marrage is totally un linked to reproduction.

Close Kin Marrage is banned as reproduction between close kin is a bad idea.

By allowing marrage that has nothing to do with reproduction you create the idea that anyone two people can be married as long as reproduction does not take place.

Thus Gay marrage opens the door for Close kin marrage as it removes the one block to it.

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2008-05-18 08:24am

I assume the argument is suposed to go like this: -

Gay Marriage means that a marrage is totally un linked to reproduction.

Close Kin Marrage is banned as reproduction between close kin is a bad idea.

By allowing marrage that has nothing to do with reproduction you create the idea that anyone two people can be married as long as reproduction does not take place.

Thus Gay marrage opens the door for Close kin marrage as it removes the one block to it.

Or this: Marriage is an unchanged and holy thing. Changing it makes it bile and horrible, and if you allow perverts to marry you might as well allow incest because the those two things are bad.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2008-05-18 10:56am

Bedlam wrote:
Bounty wrote:
If gay marriage was made legal, would that open up the door for close kin marriage such as Brother and Sister / Father and Daughter?
How does one follow from the other? Gay marriage respects the prohibition against marrying a close blood relation in exactly the same way that straight marriage does.
I assume the argument is suposed to go like this: -

Gay Marriage means that a marrage is totally un linked to reproduction.

Close Kin Marrage is banned as reproduction between close kin is a bad idea.

By allowing marrage that has nothing to do with reproduction you create the idea that anyone two people can be married as long as reproduction does not take place.

Thus Gay marrage opens the door for Close kin marrage as it removes the one block to it.

Marriage was already "unlinked" to reproduction; sterile heterosexual couples can marry anywhere they want. The change is that marriage is linked to pair bonding of a type that generally includes sex.

Because of the (extremely high) probability of abuse being involved, incestual marriage is STILL a bad idea, regardless of the legal status of gay marriage.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2008-05-19 12:11pm

Bedlam wrote:I assume the argument is suposed to go like this: -

Gay Marriage means that a marrage is totally un linked to reproduction.

Close Kin Marrage is banned as reproduction between close kin is a bad idea.

By allowing marrage that has nothing to do with reproduction you create the idea that anyone two people can be married as long as reproduction does not take place.

Thus Gay marrage opens the door for Close kin marrage as it removes the one block to it.

I'm getting married this summer and neither me nor my fiancée have had to prove our fertility or declare an intention to reproduce.

pdf27 · Post by **pdf27** » 2008-05-19 02:57pm

For what it's worth, IIRC two sisters tried to register a "civil partnership" (gay marriage) in the UK a couple of years back when it came in. They're both in their seventies, share a house and wanted to dodge various inheritance taxes.

I can't remember if they were allowed to or not though - I vaguely remember it ending up in the courts somehow.

Aquarose · Post by **Aquarose** » 2008-05-19 03:38pm

Zixinus wrote: if you allow perverts to marry you might as well allow incest because the those two things are bad.

I really don't think it is fair to say that gay couples are perverts, that is a really harsh judgment. I could easily say that straight couples who stay married thanks to religion even though the man is an abusive(mentally or physically) bastard, or the women is a brainless fluff head are worse than alot of the kind gay couples out there that wish to live together legally and receive the repercussions straight couples do when it comes to taxes and sharing of benefits.

Warsie · Post by **Warsie** » 2008-05-19 04:07pm

Aquarose wrote: I really don't think it is fair to say that gay couples are perverts, that is a really harsh judgment.

I think he was joking.

Aquarose · Post by **Aquarose** » 2008-05-19 04:29pm

Oh, well if he was joking than that is cool, I grew up around a mother who calls all gay people perverts so I am pretty quick to defend them.

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2008-05-19 05:05pm

Aquarose wrote:Oh, well if he was joking than that is cool, I grew up around a mother who calls all gay people perverts so I am pretty quick to defend them.

Yes, I think he was giving us the perspective of someone like your mother in this context.

Warsie · Post by **Warsie** » 2008-05-19 05:09pm

Aquarose wrote:Oh, well if he was joking than that is cool, I grew up around a mother who calls all gay people perverts so I am pretty quick to defend them.

okay.

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2008-05-19 05:18pm

I really don't think it is fair to say that gay couples are perverts, that is a really harsh judgment. I could easily say that straight couples who stay married thanks to religion even though the man is an abusive(mentally or physically) bastard, or the women is a brainless fluff head are worse than alot of the kind gay couples out there that wish to live together legally and receive the repercussions straight couples do when it comes to taxes and sharing of benefits.

It was not my opinion. I was just trying to show the more irrational viewpoint of people that oppose gay marriage.

I myself do not think homosexuality is inheritably perverse.

Even if it were, so what? If the two people are consenting and respect each other while doing it, who's business is it? It's not like we prosecute people whom practise BDSM.