Sibling/Parental Marriage and Moral Progress/Evolution

[Phatscotty]

What a difference 12 months can make! The time has come for the movement to liberate oppressed individuals in incestuous relationships, and again it's the European countries leading the way to bring social progress.

Ground zero today: Germany. And while it looks like Germany is going to change their laws, now the discussion has come to America, and experts are already weighing in. And of course it seems America is behind the times and doesn't seem quite ready to join the rest of the civilized world in the 21st century.

From Huffington Post

"I suppose I take an unpopular view that it's actually moral progress," - Jesse Bering - expert psychologist and college professor."

from NBC http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/inces ... ay-n211391

MAINZ, Germany -- An advisory board to Germany's government has called for a revision of the country’s incest law, which would end the criminalization of sex between siblings. The 26-member German Ethics Council's recommendations follow a controversial incest case, in which a brother and his half-sister had four children together — including two who are disabled. Patrick Stuebing, who met his half-sister when he was 24 and she was 16, served more than three years in prison after authorities deemed the relationship unlawful. “The majority of the German Ethics Council believes that it is not appropriate for a criminal law to preserve a social taboo,” Dr. Michael Wunder, a psychotherapist and member of the council, told NBC News.

In its 90-page analysis, the council concluded that "the right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination in a consensual relationship weighs heavier in these cases than the abstract good of the family." It added that “neither the consequences for the family nor the possibility for descendants from such incestuous relationships can justify a ban under criminal law.” The panel's members include experts in "scientific, medical, theological, ethical, social, economic and legal concerns."

So.....now what?? Are we suddenly able to draw a line with marriage? If sex is illegal between siblings, obviously a marriage between them is likewise illegal. But if sex between siblings is legal, then likewise marriage between siblings is legal. I think there are a lot of things that need to be addressed on the issue. Sadly, in my opinion, the debate on the issue of marriage has not even started, as everything said in favor of traditional marriages was ignored, slandered, smeared, and ridiculed. Well, I'm still here, I still have the exact same questions and concerns and I still have never gotten anything resembling an answer or a valid response, and obviously the incest issue isn't so easy to ignore/shrug off/ridicule now. It would be great if we could hear the thoughts and opinions from the same people who argued so passionately that marriage is all about who you love, argued so loudly that marriage is a universal human right and to prevent anyone marrying the person they love is to deny them their civil rights. Reality was avoided before, but the consequences of avoiding reality cannot be avoided now.

So, should America evolve? by tolerating/celebrating mothers marrying their son and Fathers marrying their daughter and brothers marrying their sisters? Or should we go back to denying people their human rights? After all, if my neighbor marries his son or his daughter, it doesn't affect my marriage, right?

[betiko]

i think that half brother/sister cases are not the same as actual siblings, mostly if they didn't grow up together.
also i think that wat is really disturbing is to imagine them create descendance.
in other words, don't you think it would be seen as "more ok" to imagine a homosexual relationship between 2 brothers or 2 sisters? Basically, homosexuality in incestuous relationship between siblings is morally more ok than heterosexual ones.
lots of porn out there with hot twin sisters making out.

[Metsfanmax]

Phatscotty: regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of incestuous relationships, do you believe it is the role of the State to interfere in the romantic and sexual activities of consenting adults?

[betiko]

Phatscotty: regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of incestuous relationships, do you believe it is the role of the State to interfere in the romantic and sexual activities of consenting adults?

well it's also a question of social health, so yeah, kind of, but it's debatable.

[Phatscotty]

i think that half brother/sister cases are not the same as actual siblings, mostly if they didn't grow up together.
also i think that wat is really disturbing is to imagine them create descendance.
in other words, don't you think it would be seen as "more ok" to imagine a homosexual relationship between 2 brothers or 2 sisters? Basically, homosexuality in incestuous relationship between siblings is morally more ok than heterosexual ones.
lots of porn out there with hot twin sisters making out.

Makes sense, but as we all know from recent discussions, procreation has nothing/very little to do with marriage, and that many people get married and do not have children/cannot have children. And we don't restrict people from getting married based on genetics. Dwarfs can marry dwarfs, etc

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty: regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of incestuous relationships, do you believe it is the role of the State to interfere in the romantic and sexual activities of consenting adults?

You know the answer to that better than anyone, as I have always stated 'no government permission slips for marriage' and that 'marriage is an ecclesiastic institution'.....just as well as I know better than anyone you do believe it is the role of the state to make sure no person is denied their human right to marry who they love, and to make sure nobody and nothing can discriminate against or interfere in the romantic and sexual activities of consenting adults regardless, and that all relationships must be recognized,accepted, tolerated, and embraced by all governments, NGO's, charities religious or otherwise, small businesses and corporations, regardless. Love is love.

I take it you voted yes then?

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[owenshooter]

i could see them extending this to first cousins, because the health risks are minimized and it has been shown that they can indeed reproduce with very little chance of creating 3 eyed, 6 limbed, 43 toed monsters... but 1/2 siblings, that is just beyond a taboo...-Jésus noir

[betiko]

i could see them extending this to first cousins, because the health risks are minimized and it has been shown that they can indeed reproduce with very little chance of creating 3 eyed, 6 limbed, 43 toed monsters... but 1/2 siblings, that is just beyond a taboo...-Jésus noir

technically no. you share upt to 50% genes with a half sibling and up to 50% with a cousin. technically, if your cousin comes from a twin uncle it's the exact same thing as a half brother.
and the "growing up together as brother and sister" thing is really important in the whole judgment of such a relationship.

I heard a story a few years ago about a guy marrying his ex step-mum or something like that and that the marriage was cancelled.

[Phatscotty]

i could see them extending this to first cousins, because the health risks are minimized and it has been shown that they can indeed reproduce with very little chance of creating 3 eyed, 6 limbed, 43 toed monsters... but 1/2 siblings, that is just beyond a taboo...-Jésus noir

Right, but what about an 80 year old woman who can no longer have children and loves her son.... what about all the benefits that would be denied and the discrimination in denying them? What about their human rights being denied? Should they really be treated as second class citizens?

[Phatscotty]

Another question regarding states which have common law marriage. A daughter lives in the basement of her fathers house, heck, her grandfather, and she lives there for 15 years. Will some states automatically marry them under common law?

[DoomYoshi]

i could see them extending this to first cousins, because the health risks are minimized and it has been shown that they can indeed reproduce with very little chance of creating 3 eyed, 6 limbed, 43 toed monsters... but 1/2 siblings, that is just beyond a taboo...-Jésus noir

technically no. you share upt to 50% genes with a half sibling and up to 50% with a cousin. technically, if your cousin comes from a twin uncle it's the exact same thing as a half brother.
and the "growing up together as brother and sister" thing is really important in the whole judgment of such a relationship.

I heard a story a few years ago about a guy marrying his ex step-mum or something like that and that the marriage was cancelled.

What happens when your cousin comes from a twin uncle and twin aunt who are both siblings of each other?

[owenshooter]

i could see them extending this to first cousins, because the health risks are minimized and it has been shown that they can indeed reproduce with very little chance of creating 3 eyed, 6 limbed, 43 toed monsters... but 1/2 siblings, that is just beyond a taboo...-Jésus noir

technically no. you share upt to 50% genes with a half sibling and up to 50% with a cousin. technically, if your cousin comes from a twin uncle it's the exact same thing as a half brother.
and the "growing up together as brother and sister" thing is really important in the whole judgment of such a relationship.

I heard a story a few years ago about a guy marrying his ex step-mum or something like that and that the marriage was cancelled.

quick google search yielded:

Six states allow first cousin marriage under certain circumstances, and North Carolina allows first cousin marriage but prohibits double-cousin marriage.

you are pointing out obvious unique instances... overall, i think it is genetically ok... i'm telling you, i read about it in the times!!! i need to find that article...-Jésus noir

My evidence

[Metsfanmax]

Phatscotty: regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of incestuous relationships, do you believe it is the role of the State to interfere in the romantic and sexual activities of consenting adults?

You know the answer to that better than anyone, as I have always stated 'no government permission slips for marriage' and that 'marriage is an ecclesiastic institution'

I know your position on marriage. But despite the title of your poll, the actual article you were referring to discussed criminalization of sexual activities. This is far different from positive legalization of marriage. There is a huge difference between saying that it's legal to have sex with someone, and giving them the right to marry, as you should well know. Your comment about how legal sex between siblings necessarily means marriage between two siblings is completely off the mark. That is like saying that if we legalize marijuana, we might as well pay people to get high.

So why are you trying to conflate the two things? Would you have supported the continued existence of anti-sodomy laws because their removal somehow triggered the legalization of gay marriage?

[betiko]

i could see them extending this to first cousins, because the health risks are minimized and it has been shown that they can indeed reproduce with very little chance of creating 3 eyed, 6 limbed, 43 toed monsters... but 1/2 siblings, that is just beyond a taboo...-Jésus noir

technically no. you share upt to 50% genes with a half sibling and up to 50% with a cousin. technically, if your cousin comes from a twin uncle it's the exact same thing as a half brother.
and the "growing up together as brother and sister" thing is really important in the whole judgment of such a relationship.

I heard a story a few years ago about a guy marrying his ex step-mum or something like that and that the marriage was cancelled.

What happens when your cousin comes from a twin uncle and twin aunt who are both siblings of each other?

This is obviously a case of theoretical genetical sibling, although epigenetics dictate that they are not if each pair of twin has been living totally different lifestyles compared to their sibling.

[crispybits]

A question PS

Suppose someone carries an underlying genetic defect that if passed to their children would leave them disabled (there's plenty of these out there). Should that person be banned from having sex with anyone, by law, that they may end up producing offspring with?

It's a morally equivalent case. If the taboo or the reason for the sex being banned is primarily or solely that the offspring of the coupling may be in some way harmed by the nature of the genetic combination, then it's not just brothers and sisters that you have to bring the banhammer down on, and there's a significant minority who you would probably have to ban from ever having sex at all if there is the possibility of children resulting.

If the reason for the ban is something else, then I've missed the point and I'd appreciate you explaining it to me.

[notyou2]

And we don't restrict people from getting married based on genetics.

We do restrict marriage based on genetics, it is the reason you can't marry your father Scotty.

[saxitoxin]

If the reason for the ban is something else, then I've missed the point and I'd appreciate you explaining it to me.

Because it's gross?

[crispybits]

I think peanuts are gross. Is that a good reason for the government to outlaw peanut butter?

(Note, peanuts are, additionally, very dangerous to a small section of the population and lead to many deaths and hospital admissions every year - BAN THE NUT!!!)

[notyou2]

I love that Jerry Seinfeld episode where he says "Hey you, out of the gene pool."

[saxitoxin]

I think peanuts are gross. Is that a good reason for the government to outlaw peanut butter?

Have you tried Turkey Hill Chocolate Peanut Butter Cup ice cream?

It's really good, you might change your mind.

BAN THE NUT!!!

that's what we're talking about, just with relatives though

[notyou2]

If the reason for the ban is something else, then I've missed the point and I'd appreciate you explaining it to me.

This is Scotty's extrapolation from gay marriage.

[crispybits]

If the reason for the ban is something else, then I've missed the point and I'd appreciate you explaining it to me.

This is Scotty's extrapolation from gay marriage.

I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him to present with some rationalisation that this isn't a back-door (fnarr fnarr) way of having another dig at gay marriage or progressive sciety or whatever he wants to lump it in with.

There may be that there are good moral reasons for banning X or allowing Y, to shut down one side of the debate would be unethical. But the people wanting to restrict the behaviours of others by banning something should have some sort of demonstrable case for doing so, normally that it caues harm to someone without their consent. And they should be willing to formulate said restrictions in such a way as to not unduly affect those who are not the people causing the alleged harm...

[Army of GOD]

Only gay sibling sex should be allowed

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy