The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: ?marriage variations  (Read 3989 times)

Offline annie123

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
?marriage variations
« on: 17/08/2010 21:38:54 »
Now that gay marriage is OK, is there any reason to further object to incestual marriage? Why can't a brother and sister get married? Progeny complications you say? Chances of flawed offspring increased? The same could be said of sanctioning marriage between mentally 'challenged' couples, or people with known physical or mental defects , but no one would dare to challenege their right to marry.I don't have a personal interest in this - don't fancy my brothers  etc.- but when gays won the right to marry I just couldn't see why this didn't bring down any barriers to anyone who wants to marry.


 

Offline Variola

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1063
  • Everyone should beware of The Pox...
    • View Profile
?marriage variations
« Reply #1 on: 17/08/2010 22:44:46 »
Quote
The same could be said of sanctioning marriage between mentally 'challenged' couples, or people with known physical or mental defects , but no one would dare to challenege their right to marry.   

You could say that but only if you had no real grasp of genetics...


Quote
.I don't have a personal interest in this - don't fancy my brothers  etc.- but when gays won the right to marry I just couldn't see why this didn't bring down any barriers to anyone who wants to marry.   

Because being gay is a sexual/emotional/attraction preference, it is NO different in that respect from hetrosexual marriage. Why would it bring done any barriers? It is just giving gay people the same rights as hetrosexual people, it is not a 'free for all'.  ::)

 

Offline annie123

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
?marriage variations
« Reply #2 on: 21/08/2010 01:20:06 »
One of the arguments people make against gay marriage is that marriage is supposed to be for procreation and there is the possibility of producing children.This argument has been regarded as not valid by people who support gay marriage(and I'm not on one side or the other, just interested in the arguments).
People who argue for it, as you say, posit the argument that it is a preference like het. marriage - two people love each other and the gender shouldn't matter. Well, what if two siblings love each other? And I do know something about genetics, and history, where the results of such unions are not always a problem. I can read Mendel too.And I also know that mentally challenged people and people  with recognisable genetic diseases who MAY, like siblings, produce children with exacerbated problems, are not forbidden by society or law to marry.

If the argument for marriage is now that people who love each other should be allowed to marry,regardless of any mitigating circumstance whether social or medical, then siblings should be allowed to as much as people with mental or other health problems, or the possibility of such.

As for a free for all, I did not use that phrase, or slippery slope, or anything else that suggests irrationality is a part of my enquiry.
 

Offline JnA

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1093
  • Stunt Scientist
    • View Profile
?marriage variations
« Reply #3 on: 21/08/2010 14:31:59 »
Marriage is a legal construct only. Social interactions will happen regardless.
A legally recognised marriage is appropriate only for legal ramifications (and that is, indeed, the basic premise of legalising homosexual marriages).
Right now, In Australia, a gay couple living together in a defacto relationship don't even have the same rights as a heterosexual couple in a defacto relationship.
A recognised legal union takes away the inconsistencies.
 

Offline Variola

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1063
  • Everyone should beware of The Pox...
    • View Profile
?marriage variations
« Reply #4 on: 23/08/2010 08:42:33 »
One of the arguments people make against gay marriage is that marriage is supposed to be for procreation and there is the possibility of producing children.This argument has been regarded as not valid by people who support gay marriage(and I'm not on one side or the other, just interested in the arguments).
People who argue for it, as you say, posit the argument that it is a preference like het. marriage - two people love each other and the gender shouldn't matter. Well, what if two siblings love each other? And I do know something about genetics, and history, where the results of such unions are not always a problem. I can read Mendel too.And I also know that mentally challenged people and people  with recognisable genetic diseases who MAY, like siblings, produce children with exacerbated problems, are not forbidden by society or law to marry.

If the argument for marriage is now that people who love each other should be allowed to marry,regardless of any mitigating circumstance whether social or medical, then siblings should be allowed to as much as people with mental or other health problems, or the possibility of such.

As for a free for all, I did not use that phrase, or slippery slope, or anything else that suggests irrationality is a part of my enquiry.

You may be able to read Mendel but that only covers a small part of the genetics involved in reproduction. People with recognisable genetic diseases are NOT always people who are 'mentally challenged' as you put it. You need to recognise the differences between a genetic disorder and a heritable genetic disorder for a start, the two are very different.
Marriage is a declaration of love and mutual bonding between two people, it is not for procreation, that idea went out decades ago. It is now quite acceptable to have children and not be married, or to be married but not want/have children.
Incest is morally wrong, and is widely accepted as morally wrong, regardless of the genetic implications. That is why brothers and sisters do not marry, nothing to do with genetics of it. As for people who are mentally disabled, the full implications of marriage may not be understood by them, that is why marriage is considered very carefully.
You need to separate out the issue of marriage from your issue of genetics, the two are not linked.
 

Offline Make it Lady

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4050
  • Hands-on fun for everyone!
    • View Profile
?marriage variations
« Reply #5 on: 23/08/2010 20:56:15 »
If Siblings want to live together all their lives then they can. When one dies their money/house is more likely to go to the other sibling because they are related. A will obviously makes things clearer. If one sibling just becomes dangerously ill the other sibling can phone the hospital and find out how he/she is because they are related. If you are an unmarried gay couple you can live together all your lives but if one of you dies even with a will, the money/house will not automatically go to you as it can be contested by family members. If your gay partner falls dangerously ill you may not even be allowed to see them in hospital because you are not a family member.
Gay marriages were brought in to protect the rights of the partner in this situation.
As for procreation, I know gay couples who have children. They adopt, they use surragates, they use sperm doners. They use similar methods to infertile heterosexual couples.

I can't really empathise with sibling being in love as I can't imagine fancying my brothers but I have heard that siblings that are seperated at a young age and find each other in later life are often sexually attracted to each other. I guess this is because we tend to look for partners that have traits similar to our parents.     
 

Offline annie123

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
?marriage variations
« Reply #6 on: 25/08/2010 19:17:35 »


You may be able to read Mendel but that only covers a small part of the genetics involved in reproduction. People with recognisable genetic diseases are NOT always people who are 'mentally challenged' as you put it. You need to recognise the differences between a genetic disorder and a heritable genetic disorder for a start, the two are very different.
Marriage is a declaration of love and mutual bonding between two people, it is not for procreation, that idea went out decades ago. It is now quite acceptable to have children and not be married, or to be married but not want/have children.
Incest is morally wrong, and is widely accepted as morally wrong, regardless of the genetic implications. That is why brothers and sisters do not marry, nothing to do with genetics of it. As for people who are mentally disabled, the full implications of marriage may not be understood by them, that is why marriage is considered very carefully.
You need to separate out the issue of marriage from your issue of genetics, the two are not linked.

I am aware that Mendel didn't say it all, just as Darwin didn't and a century or so of research has expanded on both.
I never said that people with genetic diseases are always people with mental problems.
You miss my point, that the arguments on which gay marriage was objected to are exactly those presented for the marriage of siblings, including the 'morality' of the situation.
Introducing the word 'moral' into the argument is  spurious anyway since there is no absolute morality and whatever you mean by it could be based on completely different premises from mine or anyone else's.People's concepts of morality were one of the main obstacles to gay marriage in the first place.The samae applies to cultural expectations in terms of having a family of whatever description or however acquired.
But the more verifiable objections, based on physiology and genetics questions, which are the ony ones independent of cultural influences, are equally applicable to the gay and the sibling situation.You can't say genetics are irrelevant because reference to genetic research is always part of the argument against siblings.As for saying mentally challenged or whatever words you would use to describe people lacking in mental ability enough below the norm to be a functional problem, to say that they may not be able to understand the meaning of the process   could apply to many 'normal' couples, is irrelevant because they are allowed to marry regardless.
Back  to the bones of my argument which you have not addressed - the if...then ...bit.
If the argument for marriage is now that people who love each other should be allowed to marry,regardless of any mitigating circumstance whether social or medical, then siblings should be allowed to as much as people with mental or other health problems, or the possibility of such.

[/quote]
 

Offline Variola

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1063
  • Everyone should beware of The Pox...
    • View Profile
?marriage variations
« Reply #7 on: 25/08/2010 20:07:49 »
Quote
  Back  to the bones of my argument which you have not addressed - the if...then ...bit.
If the argument for marriage is now that people who love each other should be allowed to marry,regardless of any mitigating circumstance whether social or medical, then siblings should be allowed to as much as people with mental or other health problems, or the possibility of such.

 

So now you are leaving the genetics out of it then? And the homosexual marriage viewpoint too it seems.Not much or your "argument" post left now.

You are still missing the point, marriage is a social event in someones life, people who can appreciate what marriage is and that is may lead to a sexual relationship/procreation should consent to it. That rules out people with a mental disorder that impairs that understanding. Generally speaking though, people capable enough of feeling love for another, can understand the concept of marriage. Incest considered is both legally and morally wrong, whether it should be or not is another matter, but sibling relationships are (usually) based on love, but not in a sexual way or with attraction. To allow siblings to marry promotes breaking of that taboo both legally and morally.
Homosexual relationships used to be considered morally wrong, but times have changed and we have come a long way since then. Perhaps one day incest will be see the same way, but I doubt it.
 

Offline annie123

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
?marriage variations
« Reply #8 on: 26/08/2010 21:01:04 »
such.

[/quote] 

So now you are leaving the genetics out of it then? And the homosexual marriage viewpoint too it seems.Not much or your "argument" post left now.

You are still missing the point, marriage is a social event in someones life, people who can appreciate what marriage is and that is may lead to a sexual relationship/procreation should consent to it. That rules out people with a mental disorder that impairs that understanding. Generally speaking though, people capable enough of feeling love for another, can understand the concept of marriage. Incest considered is both legally and morally wrong, whether it should be or not is another matter, but sibling relationships are (usually) based on love, but not in a sexual way or with attraction. To allow siblings to marry promotes breaking of that taboo both legally and morally.
Homosexual relationships used to be considered morally wrong, but times have changed and we have come a long way since then. Perhaps one day incest will be see the same way, but I doubt it.
[/quote]

I haven't left genetics 'out of it'. All I have done is say that SINCE the various objections to sibling marriages are more or less the same as those advanced for gay or mentally lacking individual marriage in the past and don't exist any more, THEN I don't see why the same latitude should not be extended to siblings. The objections included genetics- not for gays, but certainly for some mentally disabled people.The essence of my arugment hasn't changed.
As for your points, although they aren't relevant to my argument, marriage is not just a social event for everyone. For some it is a sacrament. For some it is a property arrangement. For some it used to be a political arrangement.
Secondly, you say people with mental disorders should be ruled out in terms of being allowed to consent to marry- but this is not the case at the moemnt. And even if it were introduced, who is to judge the level of lack of understading? Given the rate of divorces there must be a lot of people who did not fully understand the nature of their commitments.
Thirdly, you keep using the term 'morally' when you haven't addressed the fact that what is moral varies according to your basic criteria which vary from person to person and belief systems. Legalities are usually based on a particular society's concensus as to what that society's moral stance is, generally based on what is best for the survival of the society and the heirarchy within it.
As for predicting whether incest could become legal, I doubt if many people would have predicted homosexuality would become legal either. But I'm not interested in predictions. I'm interested in reasons why incest should not be accepted and words like taboo or morality don't add anything to a rational verdict.
 

Offline Variola

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1063
  • Everyone should beware of The Pox...
    • View Profile
?marriage variations
« Reply #9 on: 26/08/2010 22:20:41 »
Ok, I really do think this is a FFS moment for me, I have lost the will to discuss this subject with you.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
?marriage variations
« Reply #10 on: 26/08/2010 22:33:09 »
Ok, I really do think this is a FFS moment for me, I have lost the will to discuss this subject with you.


I thought managing 3 replies before reaching the FFS limit showed super-human forbearance
 

Offline Make it Lady

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4050
  • Hands-on fun for everyone!
    • View Profile
?marriage variations
« Reply #11 on: 26/08/2010 22:33:56 »
My Mum nursed special needs people. Sometimes they found love. They may have had a mental age younger than their actual one but the relationship made them happy. In cases where they were allowed to marry their care workers would make a decision as to whether it was appropriate for them to have children. There are lots of people in this world that would be ill advised to have children but in some cases the support is not there for them to stop them from doing so. I live in an area where there are massive numbers of children having children. They stand outside Tescos with their pushchairs, swearing at their boyfriends, smoking like chimneys and generally acting unlike a responsible parent. People that have a special needs are not a big problem on the breeding front as they get masses of support. (Please note that I use special needs instead of mental disorder. It is more polite.)
Back to the gay thing. A lot of people still think it is wrong to be gay as it says it in their religious documents. I'm not religious so I am tolerant of most things. Anne, we really need to know why you want siblings to marry to understand why you are fighting this argument so strongly.
 

Offline Variola

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1063
  • Everyone should beware of The Pox...
    • View Profile
?marriage variations
« Reply #12 on: 26/08/2010 22:45:32 »
Ok, I really do think this is a FFS moment for me, I have lost the will to discuss this subject with you.


I thought managing 3 replies before reaching the FFS limit showed super-human forbearance

Thank you! I do try but some things are just beyond me.
 

Offline Make it Lady

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4050
  • Hands-on fun for everyone!
    • View Profile
?marriage variations
« Reply #13 on: 26/08/2010 22:48:34 »
I still want to get to the bottom of this!
 

Offline annie123

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
?marriage variations
« Reply #14 on: 27/08/2010 22:35:58 »
 Anne, we really need to know why you want siblings to marry to understand why you are fighting this argument so strongly.
[/quote]

As I said before - no personal reason - I dont fancy siblings,  have my own home grown children the regular way, I'm not gay, and contrary to what some people are suggesting I have a functional IQ level. I am just puzzled as to why the arguments for gay and 'special needs' or whatever marriage can't be used for sibling marriage.
So far no one has come up with a real reason, although there have been pontifications about morality and taboos etc.

On another note I have to admit that I am naive enough not to know what FFS means - I can think of possibilities but don't want to spend much time on on this.No doubt someone will pounce on this and leave my original inquiry in limbo. Oh well.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

?marriage variations
« Reply #14 on: 27/08/2010 22:35:58 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length