Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Social ScienceGender Studies · 1 decade ago

Do you support sibling-marriage when two adult siblings love each other?

After all, they're consenting adults.

Update:

Nataly L: Come on, now. Not all people getting married intend to have children. If that were the case, then gay marriage couldn't happen!

Update 2:

Nataly L: Are you saying only married people can conceive?

Update 3:

Nataly L: But if they're going to get pregnant, they're going to get pregnant with or without marriage. Why would you deny this beautiful bond to two consenting adults just because of how they were born?

26 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    It's disgusting and deformities are very likely to result from a pregnancy between the two, but beyond that, there isn't really a logical argument against it.

  • 1 decade ago

    While it is true that inbreeding can cause various birth defects, I think it probably takes at least a few generations of consistent inbreeding for the effects to show up.

    In ancient Egypt, marrying one's sibling was considered the cultural norm. Some - particularly within the royal family - were considered to be born husband and wife just as surely as they were born brother and sister. Clearly, some abnormalities DID show up occasionally, but they did not seem to be as prevalent as one might think.

    I once lived next door to some members of a gypsy tribe in Los Angeles. (Yes, they were ACTUAL gypsies.) They were the most inbred bunch that I have ever seen! They were not an overly large tribe and never married outside their own little group. Virtually EVERYONE was at least some sort of a cousin to everyone else.

    They were uneducated by cultural choice, but seemed no less basically intelligent than any other segment of the population. Some of them were remarkably bright in their own way. I never observed any birth-defected or handicapped members of the group, either.

    I think that ANY two people who TRULY love eachother should be allowed to marry. While the risks of congenital abnormalities may be somewhat greater, there is no guaranteed certainty of them. If the couple wants to take that risk and is willing to deal with the consequences if they lose that gamble, then I would see NO obstacle to their marrying at all. If they are NOT willing to deal with the potential of a deformed or retarded child, but still love eachother, then they should still be allowed to marry, but at least one of them should have a birth-control operation and they should consider adopting if they want children. Who's to say a couple who really loves eachother could not be happy under such an arrangement?

    Source(s): observation and speculation
  • 1 decade ago

    Wow that just blew kissing cousins out of the park!!! I've never heard of such!! I was actually having a decent day, until I realized just how low humanity can go. UGH! Who cares about the kids? is there not any morals left? that is your S I S T E R or B R O T H E R ! May as well, get mom and dad in on it too! thats really keepin it in the family!

  • 1 decade ago

    Wow that's nasty, in my opinion of course, but in biblical history it was the norm. Also, in Ancient Rome, the male's would impregnate their slaves and then sleep with their own children. Male or Female child. they slept with both. And just like their traditional Gladiator festivals and death match's, I find it immoral! It will not only demoralize their children, but it would also cause extreme problems for the child in school an amongst their peers. And where are these married sister and brother going to live? Surely they realized the type of problems they will have with their own friends and family? Think about it!

    Source(s): history baby!
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    "Why would you deny this beautiful bond to two consenting adults just because of how they were born?"

    That's exactly the difference between gay marriage and sibling marriage. Being gay is an orientation, it's something you're born with. The same thing doesn't apply to love between siblings. I support gay marriage mainly because it harms no one, and also being gay isn't something you can change and I think everyone has a right to be with someone they love. But sibling marriage would harm any children born, due to genetic defects, and also it's unnecessary -- there are millions of people in the world, so it's easy to change your behaviour and find someone else. Homosexuality occurs in animals too, and so it's biologically natural, whereas sex with a relation goes against nature.

    The "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage is illogical.

  • joglar
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    i'm somewhat puzzled, so please undergo with me (its after 2 am as i'm scripting this). How is polygamy and gay marriage proper? Polygamy, with the help of definition is the union of one guy with greater effective than one spouse. gay marriage is (in theory) the union of two (AND in basic terms 2) consenting adults, albeit an identical intercourse. If marriage is morally and legally defined because of the fact the union of two human beings (for sake of argument, i won't specify classic or gay marriage at this element; yet when I do consult with a ethical definition, I advise that marriage is between an unspecified couple and not 3 or greater persons) would not that advise that a pair might desire to have love and emotions for an further (till, in all danger, it particularly is an arranged marriage). in any different case, why might a pair marry in the 1st place. outstanding me if i'm incorrect, even if it form of feels noticeably sparkling that marriage is defined because of the fact the union of two human beings (lower back, i'm taking care as to no longer specify classic or gay marriage). So, till you are able to refute that argument, it would in basic terms look honest that if a gay couple have been to circulate into into an identical existence-long dedication to their considerable different as a husband and spouse in a nicely-known marriage, shouldn't they be taken care of as equals in a minimum of a few respects? i'm uncertain what you meant once you mentioned "...then how approximately 2 of age siblings?". are you able to thrill make sparkling-- this sentence would not look to make grammatical experience as written. you besides might suggested "...'unrelated' is likewise arbitrary...:." Unrelated to what? Do you advise that 2 persons who wed at the instant are not meant to be proper (with the help of ways, this may well be a moot element in view that kin can not legally marry besides, with very few exceptions). So in case you are able to desire to make sparkling a number of those factors, i may well be greater effective than happy to proceed this verbal replace.

  • Jesse
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    I think it's disgusting how people think that they can decide on what others are allowed to do with their life. I am fully supportive of sibling-marriage. I wouldn't do so myself, but it's seriously not my place to deny another!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I don't think consenting adults should be prevented from engaging in sexual and/or legal relationships.

    Sibling pairings do not necessarily lead to more birth defects. Incest does not magically create new mutations, it only allows existing mutations (good or bad) a greater chance of expression.

    This slightly increased chance for the expression of genetic defects (as well as genetic improvements) is not a legitimate basis for banning incestuous relationships, unless you are prepared to prevent people with the genes for thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, and a host of other defects, from marrying and reproducing.

  • 1 decade ago

    Do you know any brothers/sisters that wish to marry?

    Has anyone ever heard of any cases of this?

    Why do you care so much what other people do with each other? I mean what's it to you, really?

    EDIT: Upon doing a quick search I just found this case, but it was accidental: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7182817.stm

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Why not? The monarchs and royal families of Europe have "kept it in the family" in the past. And look at the freaks (err, I mean respectable people, yea) they turned out to be.

    Oh, and by the way, your little analogy to gay marriage here is frivolous and leaves a lot to be desired. Just thought I'd throw that out there...

  • CC
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Other than the fact that they will have unhealthy children and complicated family life I see nothing wrong with it.

    If a brother and sister had never met before, didn't want kids and weren't bothered by their relation, I really see no harm in it.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.