0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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.
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.
Ok, I really do think this is a FFS moment for me, I have lost the will to discuss this subject with you.
Quote from: Variola on 26/08/2010 22:20:41Ok, 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