CreateDebate


Debate Info

26
25
Yes No
Debate Score:51
Arguments:42
Total Votes:54
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (21)
 
 No (18)

Debate Creator

Crashley(14) pic



Should siblings be allowed to marry?

With the debate for same sex marriage happening, should we allow siblings, whether it be brother/sister, brother/brother or sisiter/sister to have the choice to marry?

Yes

Side Score: 26
VS.

No

Side Score: 25

Does the idea creep me out? yes.

But, provided the couple does not reproduce naturally, and that both people are rational consenting adults, I have no logical argument against it.

Side: Yes
1 point

Equality for everyone As long as two consenting adults are in love and not harming anyone the government should not be able to tell anyone who they can or cannot marry. We are changing laws for same sex couples to get married why not siblings, brother/sister, brother/brother or sister/sister. The government needs to stay out of the bedrooms of people.

Side: Yes
Jace(4706) Clarified
2 points

We are changing laws for same sex couples to get married why not siblings, brother/sister, brother/brother or sister/sister.

This is a fallacious premise; the former does not in and of itself constitute a justification for the latter.

Side: Yes
Crashley(14) Clarified
1 point

The laws are changing because people believe the government should not be able to dictate who two consenting adults can marry.

Side: Yes
1 point

Correct, it is the slippery slope fallacy. .

Side: Yes

If they are at the proper age and proper minds, I see no problem with it

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes spread the word equalilty for all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Yes
1 point

Unfortunately, yes. As much as it disgusts me that incestuous couples would be included, consenting adults should be allowed to marry each other.

Side: Yes
2 points

No, and i do not say this to aggravate such couples but merely to rebut this topic.

One of the main reasons I state "no" is because siblings share similar dna, if the two (under physically possible circumstances) were to have a biological child together, there could be many negative outcomes. One of these is that incest allows diseases to spread more rapidly through the future generations of that family. I believe that this is not fair on the child being brought into the world as they would have no such choice in the matter.

Side: No

Completely agree.

Side: No
Centifolia(1318) Disputed
1 point

Then forbid them from reproducing but still allow them to marry

Side: Yes
lordsheldor(5) Disputed
2 points

But was it not that the original purpose of marriage was to take a step into the prospect of family life? That to "marry" is to create a future in which you may share with the upcoming generations of one's own family?

Also, marriage is an act of law where the couple must be of a certain age - whereas sexual interactions between youth, although not recommended, physically cannot be "stopped" in the same ways in which marriage can. What makes you believe that a MARRIED couple would stick by this "forbidding" when 14 year olds don't? And what makes you certain that one could "forbid" sex between siblings so easily where they have little to no control over the situation? It is like a homophobic person trying to halt all same-sex sex.

Side: No
Crashley(14) Clarified
1 point

In response to this then, my question also asked about brother/brother and sister/sister. Would it then be ok as long as they are of the same sex and cannot reproduce?

Side: Yes
lordsheldor(5) Clarified
1 point

Good point! Same sex marriage is a search for equality - but would we not be contradicting this by denying the marriage of a straight couple who are siblings, but allowing a same sex couple in the same instances to marry? Doesn't seem really fair.

It seems that no matter what is done, at least one group of people will always be left out. So, is it not easier to just say no to siblings marrying if saying yes would mean that there's possibilities of only allowing siblings of the same sex to do so, that if a straight couple was to marry they could not biologically reproduce, and that if a couple was able to do this that future generations would suffer greatly? I'm sorry, but, regardless of the circumstances, saying yes to the marriage of siblings is not a reach for equality as it is claimed to be. It is only a mere misconception of what equality really is. Equality is NOT the process of targeting a smaller, lesser in strength set of people in order to give "justice" to a more dominant group.

Side: Yes
1 point

You people are hilarious... You all are so sold out on this idea that everyone is entitled to your support you can't even stand against something that is so obviously wrong... Guess what people... you can say "NO"! It is your right to decide, "hey, we are paying for the tax breaks, I don't want to give it to people that are only capable of breeding monsters. I don't want the government to endorse a relationship that is vile."

Yes... that's right... when people come out seeking approval in the public square, YOU DON'T OWE IT TO THEM. And if they are so hurt over it they can just keep their affairs private!

Side: No
riahlize(1573) Disputed
1 point

You're right. Let's ban you from getting married. I don't want my tax breaks to go to you for the government to endorse a relationship you have with someone that will be so vile. Better yet, all Christians will be banned from it. So I say "NO", now, thank you for showing me that.

.

.

.

Is that better?

Side: Yes
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

Ok, go ahead... All you have to do is get 51% of the people in the country to see things the way you do and get it through your state legislature. I won't be crying to the courts about it.

Side: No

No because that is not a biologically healthy thing to promote. The survival of the human species depends on not allowing incestuous reproduction. Even if there is no child resulting from the union several millennia of antiincest education have created a mindset where such a thing is not biologically healthy. I like to call it neuropsycholigical programming. What this is is the formation or alteration of a biochemical state of mind through repeated external stimuli such as education, punishing certain behaviors, and so on. The story of Pahlov's dogs is a testament to the legitimacy of neuropsychological programing as an actual method. Someone rang a bell whenever it was time for the dogs to eat, and eventually, the dogs would salivate when the bell was rang. It is why I get nervous on stairs because I fell down a set of stairs. It is why if you throw a ball at me, I shield my face and turn away because I was hit in the face by a soccer ball. What this means is that the programming of our minds through antiincest education forms a mindset where only a dysfunctional relationship can form because we are trained to think it is wrong.

Side: No
1 point

You just cannot marry your family. That is incest, it's not like you are with a friend you have had for a long time, it's your own flesh and blood.

When brother and sisters get together and try to have sex their kids can come out mentally unstable because of it. The DNA of both partners are too close to the same.

Do you really want to increase that risk.

Side: No