IMO, anyone should be allowed to marry anyone they want or not, as they see fit, irrespective of the number of participants, as long as all parties are consenting & informed. Neither marriage nor its absence should be construed as defining the commitment-level of people to a relationship. Legal documents should be made freely available that allow all participants to define the depth of their commitment and there should be a legal obligation to secure certain aspects of this depth (e.g. shared debt/mortgage, protection of children/offspring). I think this framework should be applied in a well educated environment where people are made aware of their obligations as well as their social responsibilities.
I understand that humanities general reticence to engage in romantic relationships with family members is part evolutionary (e.g. instinctive avoidance of negative genetic factors) and part sociological (e.g. local culture/mores). Maybe some of our resident biologists & sociologists can comment on those mechanisms and provide some data to inform our discussion?
I understand that humanities general reticence to engage in romantic relationships with family members is part evolutionary (e.g. instinctive avoidance of negative genetic factors) and part sociological (e.g. local culture/mores). Maybe some of our resident biologists & sociologists can comment on those mechanisms and provide some data to inform our discussion?
Sum ergo sum
