CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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?
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.
You realize that is the same argument people made about interracial marriage, right? It was incorrect then, and remains so at present.
The real reason laws are changing is not because some other group gained their rights at some juncture, but because individual groups have organized and begun to demand equality themselves on the independent merit of their claims.
If same-sex marriage, I would argue the law is not consistently in place any longer and is becoming outmoded. This is because of a galvanized demand for change, accompanied by the utter lack of any legitimate basis to deny the change.
If sibling incest law, I would contend that it is in place partially because there has not been a galvanized demand for it to be changed and because there are objective, proven harms to incestuous reproduction (though I think that is a false conflation of issues; marriage is not synonymous with reproduction).
I was meaning the sibling incest law. Also when you get into the reproduction part of incest you are delving into eugenics and I don't feel the need to debate that issue.
Not necessarily. You can penalize incestuous reproduction without engaging in eugenics. In any case, reproduction is an independent issue from marriage so your withdrawal from the debate is premised upon a non-topical objection.
I'm not withdrawing from the debate. Which side are you debating for, do you believe siblings should be allowed to marry or do you think they shouldn't?
If you are for it then you shouldn't be debating my points but if you are against it you shouldn't be debating those arguments. Since you have been arguing both sides am I to presume you have no opinion on the matter and you are just trying to bait people?
I have no strong feelings on the matter, but if pushed to choose would support the right of siblings to marry. However, this in no way means that I cannot point out fallible arguments made by others taking the same stance, which is precisely what I did.
No it is not. A slippery slope fallacy is saying that one thing will naturally lead to another due to one similarity. He is not saying that. He is saying that incest should be allowed because the government should not interfere with relationships between two consenting adults and that this was the reason for why homosexual marriage was legalised.
I agree with your definition Dr. Atrag, but saying that legalizing same sex marriage will lead to polygamy and incest is a slippery slope fallacy in my view. I mean 0% disrespect so please don't be mad. ;)
Crashely said (pay attention to the bold parts): 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." I feel that the bolded statement is a slippery slope fallacy.
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.
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.
But was it not that the original purpose of marriage was to take a step into the prospect of family life?
Same thing was said to interracial and homosexual marriages. Guess you know what happened to it.
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
uhh...we have people with deadly sexually transmitted diseases whom are free to marry anyone. If they truly love each other, they would open up each others secrets to prevent any regrets.
Educate them on what consequences may happen to their child if ever they do anything foolish, and that's all that has to be done
The actual original purpose of marriage was primarily a financial transaction between families (see, dowries). Disregarding the persistent financial attributes of some contemporary marital institutions, and assuming instead that your claim is true: biological offspring (and, really, offspring in general) are not necessary to the formulation of a family. Adoptive and childless families have existed before and will continue to do so.
With respect to whether one can reasonably believe that sibling couples won't reproduce once we extend the right of legal union to them... what makes you think they won't reproduce without that legally recognized union to begin with? If they are determined to have children, they will have children. There is little the law can do to prevent it, unless we are willing to force abortions or sterilization. What the law can do is ensure that if this occurs the children are supported (a particularly important point, considering the greater risk of genetic dysfunction).
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
That's really sad. But now I understand why you argue what you do. How can you stand up to other injustices when you wouldn't stand up to ones that happen to you either.
It is an injustice not to have the same rights as everyone else.
Oh but they do have the same rights. They can live together, they can take part in whatever ceremony they want to, they can even marry any non-related adult human of the opposite sex just like everyone else. All they are being denied is the right to sign a piece of paper. They are denied the endorsement of the people of the state they live in, which is a privilege not a right.
And where are you getting that someone else's money would be used?
Oh but they do have the same rights. They can live together, they can take part in whatever ceremony they want to, they can even marry any non-related adult human of the opposite sex just like everyone else. All they are being denied is the right to sign a piece of paper. They are denied the endorsement of the people of the state they live in, which is a privilege not a right.
Obviously this part barely applies (if at all) to incestuous couples:
So it's a privilege, not a right to get to see your significant other in a hospital, when restricted to immediate family only? It's a privilege, not a right to speak for them when they are unable to speak for themselves in a critical hospital situation?
It is a privilege to anyone who has not yet married, this is because they haven't chosen to marry. But those who have and register it to the government proclaim that this couple has made a serious step to legally intertwine family.
I brought this up, not because it's relevant to incestuous couples, but because you seem to think marriage is just signing a paper. There is no point in bringing this discussion further if we can't even get passed that. No modern and legal marriage is required to have endorsement, it simply requires legal recognition.
Tax breaks, remember? Stay focused.
Unmarried people can get tax breaks. This is moot.
Not to mention they have higher incomes, lower unemployment, and more education than the average heterosexual.... tell me again how much they are suffering....
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.
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.
