INCEST

[ignoramus]

People (society) will always link "marriage" as a contract far beyond its legalities. Rather one of intimacy and a right to "moral" sex.
To me it's a "universal" cultural "thing" like guns are to the USians.

Gays love each other, why can't they get married.
Then, brother and sister love each other, why can't they get married. (Only problem is they want to get married because she's already fucking pregnant!)
Then, farmer Joe loves Dolly .....etc

Then lastly, you'll have gay brothers screaming out for marriage equality (gay + incest)
Then you'll have Muhammed wanting to know why he can't have his 23 wives living with him, etc

It's never gonna happen, but it's fun contemplating.

[Whateverist]

I'm with Tibs, A, I don't think producing children is a good idea, but getting married has little to do with that according to the modern concept of marriage.

If the inability of gays to produce children is irrelevant to allowing them to marry, then the increased likelihood of difficulty producing children can't be used as an argument against sibling marrying either.

But siblings aren't the only ones with genetic difficulties with reproducing.  I have a friend who married and had a child with cistic fibrosis.  After the fact they found out that they had an increased chance of any further children they had also being born with that life shortening and debilitating condition.  You might be shocked to learn they didn't immediately get a divorce.

Sibling marriage is more like an extreme sexual fetish, as others have already suggested.  You don't really need to legislate against them because they have very little general appeal.  In fact, making them more forbidden would likely have the opposite effect.

That doesn't mean every unusual sexual fetish should be tolerated.  When there is a victim, as with children, prohibition is required.  Sibling marriage can safely be ignored and tolerated.  However we wish to legislate in relation to the marriage of people with genetic incompatibility such as my friends with the CF child should suffice for siblings who wish to marry.  Inform or forbid.  

I would lean toward more tolerance and not forbid it.  No imminent stampede toward incest is likely to result from making it forbidden.  And there will always be some drawn to it if we do forbid it who might not have been otherwise.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Whether something is legal and whether it is moral are two separate questions. There are many things that I think are profoundly immoral and yet I would not criminalize them (like drug use). Likewise there are many laws that I feel are necessary (like many traffic laws and some building codes) that really have no moral component.

[paulpablo]

I voted A (Yes, with no restrictions) because I don't believe the government should restrict two consenting adults from doing something which is victimless, or which only harms the two participants themselves.

The act of marriage itself has nothing to do with bearing children, so citing that as a reason for prohibiting it is the exact same line of reasoning that bigots used against gay marriage (and is invalid).

Now, whether there should be separate restrictions on siblings from procreating is an entirely separate issue, and should be treated as such, because it has the potential to harm another person (the child). However, saying that, prohibiting people from procreation because their child may be harmed is a slippery slope; should we for instance prohibit two people with a deadly genetic disorder from procreating, since their child will in all likelihood also inherit the condition? It's a difficult question and one that needs proper thought before answering (a bit like my position on abortion).

The question of marriage however is easier to answer. Yes, absolutely, with no restrictions.

Surely procreation wouldn't be a separate issue?

It's kind of like saying, we support your union together, it's fine for you to live together as husband and wife, but please just wait until the decision has been made about if you can have sex in the bed you share together.

Admittedly I don't know much about law but in practical terms it seems illogical to say yes brothers and sisters can get married, but don't start having sex. You're going to have a brother lying next to his sister in their honeymoon suite, I don' think he's going to pay attention to procreation laws, nature's just going to take its course and they're going to be pounding like rabbits.

I really don't care about marriage personally it doesn't effect me, a man could marry a table, doesn't bother me at all. 
And I'm pretty sure it's still legal to drink and smoke while pregnant too and to get pregnant when very old so I think if incest is illegal due to birth problems then these things should also be looked at with more scrutiny.
So with those things in mind I think you're right the issue is extremely complicated and difficult.

I don't actually know what marriage is for to begin with, but I think universally it's pretty much acknowledged that if people are getting married some sex is about to happen at some stage, and in the case of a brother and sister with a healthy reproductive system that will result in babies.

[Catholic_Lady]

If you want to challenge it, be my guest.  I'm too old.

That's irrelevant, the question was whether you thought it should be illegal. You've stated it should be because of complications with procreation, and when I pointed out that marriage isn't about procreation, you simply responded that it's currently illegal in all states. My only conclusion is that you believe that incest should be illegal because it's already illegal. That's not really a rational argument that I'd expect from you Min, and I'm disappointed that don't seem to have a response to my challenge (without resorting to tradition and current laws, why should siblings be prohibited from marrying?).

BTW, you'll be proving the christards right when they said gay marriage would open the doors to polygamy, bestiality and incest.

I don't really care. In the past when they brought it up my standard response was "so what?" anyway. I'd rather let them be right than compromise the integrity of my arguments. If we use an argument for gay marriage but then use it against incestuous marriage, we are just as bad as the anti-gay bigots.

Oh, and as others have pointed out, bestiality does not involve consenting parties, so it's an entirely different issue (comparable with child marriages).

I just wanna say I appreciate your consistency. Even when I disagree, I can respect/understand someone's point of view when they are consistent in their argument. 

I probably stand in the same position as you in regards to this. If a bro and sis want to get legally married by the state, then so be it.  

I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a second here ask, why do we need consent from animals to do this type of stuff? (Not saying I think it should be ok, I definitely don't, lol. just trying to think about this objectively and not as someone who thinks it's disgusting and wrong.)

[Catholic_Lady]

Whether something is legal and whether it is moral are two separate questions. There are many things that I think are profoundly immoral and yet I would not criminalize them (like drug use). Likewise there are many laws that I feel are necessary (like many traffic laws and some building codes) that really have no moral component.

Yes, I have a pretty libertarian view on some things. If you're not hurting/endangering anyone else, I don't think the government needs to get involved. I think drug use and prostitution should be legal, despite how much I'm against those things. I just tell myself that us people of faith should answer to a higher law, regardless of what man's law is.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Whether something is legal and whether it is moral are two separate questions. There are many things that I think are profoundly immoral and yet I would not criminalize them (like drug use). Likewise there are many laws that I feel are necessary (like many traffic laws and some building codes) that really have no moral component.

Yes, I have a pretty libertarian view on some things. If you're not hurting/endangering anyone else, I don't think the government needs to get involved. I think drug use and prostitution should be legal, despite how much I'm against those things. I just tell myself that us people of faith should answer to a higher law, regardless of what man's law is.

I wouldn't go so far as legalizing prostitution. It would become too easy for wicked people to legally exploit vulnerable and desperate people. Also, human trafficking, pimping, and pedophilia would be too easy to conceal from "regulators" and law-enforcement. I don't think trying to emulate the Bunny Ranch nationally would work. Those abuses seem to invariably accompany prostitution.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a second here ask, why do we need consent from animals to do this type of stuff?

I doubt many cows and pigs consent to be slaughtered and eaten.

[Catholic_Lady]

Yes, I have a pretty libertarian view on some things. If you're not hurting/endangering anyone else, I don't think the government needs to get involved. I think drug use and prostitution should be legal, despite how much I'm against those things. I just tell myself that us people of faith should answer to a higher law, regardless of what man's law is.

I wouldn't go so far as legalizing prostitution. It would become too easy for wicked people to legally exploit vulnerable and desperate people. Also, human trafficking, pimping, and pedophilia would be too easy to conceal from "regulators" and law-enforcement. I don't think trying to emulate the Bunny Ranch nationally would work. Those abuses seem to invariably accompany prostitution.

Hm, hadn't thought of that. It would definitely have to be strictly regulated if it were going to be legal, which ends up defeating the whole point of small government to begin with.

[Handprint]

I think it is different from people who are gay having kids because, because when a couple who is gay has kids, half of the DNA would have to come from an outside source, ensuring it was more diverse. (Artificial insemination or surrogate mothers). There's also the option of adoption in which the dna has nothing in common with the parents themselves.

I voted against marriage between brother and sister simply due to genetic reasons.

Although there is also the thought that it may mess up the family relationship? As in, how do parents of these children…who are now married, handle it? Extended family? It somewhat goes against the edict of fraternal and familial love and changes it into romantic. A dynamic the family would have to face and deal with. How would they do that?