Going to marry my sister

Made you look. Don't really have a sister. But have an idea for a thread. I was watching an old Krauss debate on YouTube and the subject of incest came up. And he didn't seem to have that big a problem with it assuming that it's a relationship between two adults who are both in their right mind. We live in a very pc time, yet relationships (let alone marriage) between close relatives is hardly viewed as an ok thing by society. Do you think this should remain that way? If so, can you give an argument to support you case, preferably an argument that doesn't start with either "Ewww" or "well, the bible says..". And (probably going to get sht for this) how come similar arguments that are used in support of gay marriage cannot be applied here? Or can they? Two people (close relatives) who are both adults and in their right mind made a conscious decision. Go.

Ps: honestly interested in hearing arguments for both sides, never really thought about it and looking to get enlightened.

I don't mind. Consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they wish. Now, given, I'd find it weird and kind of off-putting seeing some dude marrying his sister or his mother, or his dad... oh, God.

Well people used to say the same thing about a dude marrying another dude. Some still do. Shouldn't we be open minded about it?

Originally posted by SamZED
Well people used to say the same thing about a dude marrying another dude. Some still do. Shouldn't we be open minded about it?

I suppose we should. Just don't have any kids, alright?

My first thought upon just seeing the title?

"Hm... bet this is a trick and the poster is ordained, and is going to 'marry' their sister to someone else."

^You gave me too much credit.😄

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I suppose we should. Just don't have any kids, alright?

nah, **** incest. it's biologically unsound and it's creepy for a good reason

Just a matter of time.

Animals next.

😂

First, the GDF really has turned into a sh*tty, third-rate version of a Buzzfeed knock-off or news aggregator. This is the most blatant clickbait title I've seen, but it's not like it's new for us.

That said, this is one of the most hilariously done threads of this nature. And it's a surprisingly interesting topic, so I'll bite.

...

I can't come up with a reason why the marriage should be morally reprehensible (more on kids in a bit). I understand why it's looked down upon. But it's a particularly poignant question when you can strike at the heart of even the most progressive people with a lot of their own logic, but use it to make a point that a lot of them will find creepy. I love pushing intellectual boundaries, if only for the mental exercise. Well done. 👆

Now, the primary concern seems to be children, and for good reason, it seems. So let's go there for a second. This is an area where I feel like we need raw data that I don't have access to. What are the statistics on birth defects for incestuous relationships? And, for comparative purposes, what are those same stats for women of various ages? 30+? 40+? 50+? There are even studies (though less conclusive) about increased risk of birth defects when it's the man who is older. But...we know for a fact that women over 40 have an increased likelihood for certain complications and birth defects. Yet we don't "look down" upon a 42-year-old woman having a baby. We just wish her the best. And I think the key question is: is that risk demonstrably lower than the risk associated with incest? If it's a negligible difference, are we applying a double standard? Or is the risk much higher for incest, thus providing potential justification for condemning one but not the other?

If it's the latter (large gap in risk), we then have to ask a follow-up: at what point do we draw the line for acceptable risk? And are we obligated to dictate - legally, legislatively, religiously, culturally, or otherwise - whether or not it's allowed?

I don't have answers to those. It hasn't and won't affect me or my family, so I don't have a particular reason to dig deep enough. But that's the level of research and inquiry that I think would be required to sufficiently form an opinion.

Originally posted by Digi
😂

First, the GDF really has turned into a sh*tty, third-rate version of a Buzzfeed knock-off or news aggregator. This is the most blatant clickbait title I've seen, but it's not like it's new for us.

That said, this is one of the most hilariously done threads of this nature. And it's a surprisingly interesting topic, so I'll bite.

...

I can't come up with a reason why the marriage should be morally reprehensible (more on kids in a bit). I understand why it's looked down upon. But it's a particularly poignant question when you can strike at the heart of even the most progressive people with a lot of their own logic, but use it to make a point that a lot of them will find creepy. I love pushing intellectual boundaries, if only for the mental exercise. Well done. 👆

Now, the primary concern seems to be children, and for good reason, it seems. So let's go there for a second. This is an area where I feel like we need raw data that I don't have access to. What are the statistics on birth defects for incestuous relationships? And, for comparative purposes, what are those same stats for women of various ages? 30+? 40+? 50+? There are even studies (though less conclusive) about increased risk of birth defects when it's the man who is older. But...we know for a fact that women over 40 have an increased likelihood for certain complications and birth defects. Yet we don't "look down" upon a 42-year-old woman having a baby. We just wish her the best. And I think the key question is: is that risk demonstrably lower than the risk associated with incest? If it's a negligible difference, are we applying a double standard? Or is the risk much higher for incest, thus providing potential justification for condemning one but not the other?

If it's the latter (large gap in risk), we then have to ask a follow-up: at what point do we draw the line for acceptable risk? And are we obligated to dictate - legally, legislatively, religiously, culturally, or otherwise - whether or not it's allowed?

I don't have answers to those. It hasn't and won't affect me or my family, so I don't have a particular reason to dig deep enough. But that's the level of research and inquiry that I think would be required to sufficiently form an opinion.

IOW: you want new jack marry your sister.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
IOW: you want new jack marry your sister.

Shhh. I might actually be able to have a non-combative conversation in this forum for the first time in months. Go play with your toys.

*throws political thread across the room*

Fetch!

😂

Well, all through out history, insest has been openly accepted through various cultures and societies. However, that doesn't mean it's right and if you said you wanted to marry your sister i'd slap you.

There are some other considerations I didn't touch on as well. Mostly I focused on brother/sister and the children issue. Someone mentioned things like marrying one's mother or father, in either a heterosexual or homosexual relationship. I hope it's not close-minded to say that issues of mental health and parental abuse could be involved in such cases, so I would think there would need to be a thorough psychological evaluation before anything was made official.

But, assuming two people of sound mind who aren't being manipulated or coerced into anything...sure? That it seems inherently creepy to us is a mental boundary, not unlike what many still experience with LGBT relationships. I can't say it feels normal or right to me, tbh, but since I can't explain why that is using objective criteria, I have to admit that it's likely my own bias instead of something inherently wrong with it (again, presuming there's nothing foul about the situation as I mentioned earlier).

Take Oedipus. Until he learns the truth of his wife/mother, no one frets much. Ignoring the magical elements of the story, the stigma was cultural, not inherent.

Or, sh*t, who watches Game of Thrones? Joffrey's a little sh*t, but biologically sound. The rest of the children are fine too. Yes, it's fiction. But my point is this: what's inherently wrong with their love/relationship/children? They hide it, but it's because it's stigmatized in society. If you strip down the ancillary drama, would you condemn what they're doing? Because we can imagine a RL situation like theirs, can't we? And we can imagine a situation like that with well-adjusted children and loving parents, yeah?

We need those numbers, as I mentioned earlier. The conversation hinges on them, imo, but I'm not the man to find them. We also have to realize that what we're talking about is a healthy relationship in all other ways...a lot of incest currently involves the issues I mentioned earlier, and isn't healthy in any way. If we use modern examples of incest as our guidepost, it won't end well.

...

Basically, what am I missing? I'm reserving my opinion on children pending data, and stipulating mentally sound decisions by well-adjusted adults. Is it wrong for another reason? Much like OP, I'd be interested in hearing why.

Originally posted by Digi

Basically, what am I missing? I'm reserving my opinion on children pending data, and stipulating mentally sound decisions by well-adjusted adults. Is it wrong for another reason? Much like OP, I'd be interested in hearing why.

Well, it's a case where the human mind is actually built with some fairly strong emotion settings dealing with family members, and they normally only break under bad situations, and there's usually power imbalances as well. A recipe for compounded problems.

In a case where the people actually don't know each other, people who grew up separately... yea, those aspects aren't as present. There's still some genetic issues so having kids is not recommend, but the mental issues aren't really there as much. My instinct is still against it, but it's not as severe.

Originally posted by Q99
Well, it's a case where the human mind is actually built with some fairly strong emotion settings dealing with family members, and they normally only break under bad situations, and there's usually power imbalances as well. A recipe for compounded problems.

In a case where the people actually don't know each other, people who grew up separately... yea, those aspects aren't as present. There's still some genetic issues so having kids is not recommend, but the mental issues aren't really there as much. My instinct is still against it, but it's not as severe.

Right, we're talking about ideal conditions. I understand that, for practical purposes, there's something wrong a lot of the time when it happens irl.

And I'd still like to see the data on genetic issues as compared to women of advanced age(s) giving birth normally. We may be right to stigmatize it. But if it's equivalent to, say, a 45-year-old woman giving birth in terms of risk, we may have a double standard on our hands.

Originally posted by SamZED
Made you look.

😂

Damn you, Sam.

http://listverse.com/2014/05/22/10-incendiary-facts-about-incest/

Originally posted by Q99
My first thought upon just seeing the title?

"Hm... bet this is a trick and the poster is ordained, and is going to 'marry' their sister to someone else."

That sister kisser.

I'd like to once again point out that I don't have an agenda here, i'm honestly not sure how I feel about the subject.
BUT... if I were to argue against it... so far I cannot think of a single argument against it besides the classic ones that have been used for decades to argue against gay marriage. And those are:
1) The good old slippery slope.
2) "I personally find it nasty".
3) "It is against my religious beliefs".

Few posters brought up the issue of kids' health. That is a good point but for the sake of the argument we're taking a perfect scenario where future parents are aware of the risks and therefore will go for adoption instead. Again, in a perfect scenario things like that can be regulated. "How" is a whole other discussion.

The article Red posted above mentioned another interesting point. Here's the quote: "incest is unacceptable because it destroys the family unit whereas, two unrelated gay people in a relationship form a new one. According to political author William Saletan, homosexuality is an orientation, but incest is not. Banning homosexual sex would mean that gay people wouldn’t be able to create relationships, while those attracted to a close relative can conceivably find alternate sexual partners".

And while that's all well and good it can be easily countered with - Why should that be anybody else's problem? So two adults who love each other can't be together because some lawyers feel that the concept "destroys the family unit"? It becomes even less of an issue if such couples decide to adopt.

I'm sorry to go for yet another gay marriage analogy but saying that such couples can find "alternate sexual partners" sounds a helluva lot like "We are not denying anybody their rights, gay people have the exact same rights as straight people i.e. to get married to a person of the opposite gender. Equality FTW". It's not just a matter of orientation but the ability to chose your life partner.

Did I miss anything?

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW 😂 Damn you, Sam.

Originally posted by Mindset Since Sam posted it, I thought it was legit. That sister kisser.