Same Sex Marriage & Incest

Same Sex Marriage & Incest

There are 432 comments on the KELO-TV Sioux Falls story from Jan 2, 2011, titled Same Sex Marriage & Incest. In it, KELO-TV Sioux Falls reports that:

Proponents of same sex marriage often defend it on the grounds that people have a right to marry who they want .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KELO-TV Sioux Falls.

First Prev
of 22
Next Last

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#1 Jan 2, 2011
"When a young man falls in love with another man, no family is destroyed. Homosexuality is largely immutable, as the chronic failure of “ex-gay” ministries attests. So if you forbid sex between these two men, neither of them is likely to form a happy, faithful heterosexual family. The best way to help them form a stable family is to encourage them to marry each other.

Incest spectacularly flunks this test. By definition, it occurs within an already existing family. So it offers no benefit in terms of family formation. On the contrary, it injects a notoriously incendiary dynamic—sexual tension—into the mix."

Such a logical argument....let the rebuttals begin.
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#2 Jan 2, 2011
It also depends on what your moral and legal definitition of incest is. For example, some states define sex between first cousins as incest and prohibit their marriage, some states take tehopposite view. Most states prohibit the marriage between aunts & nephews and unces and nieces, and define that as incest, but some states do not. What's your definition of incest ?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#3 Jan 2, 2011
"Proponents of same sex marriage often defend it on the grounds that people have a right to marry who they want ."

And those who liken the desire to marry somone of one's choice to incest know that when this statement is used, it means exaclty the same thing whether or not one is straight or gay.

I'm sure that untold numbers of straight youth in the past have said it when faced with an arranged marriage.

I suspect that a great many still use it today when faced with strong familiy pressure for or againt a marriage prospect.

Does that mean that they must also supporte incest?

Hardly.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Jan 2, 2011
It's a reasonable argument. As for where you draw the line, I think a logical place would be at the immediate family including 1st cousins, aunts & uncles, neices & nephews (for both genetic & family structure reasons). That would of course include step-family members & adoptees (for family structure reasons).

There will always be the odd cases, i.e. 2 gay brothers separated at birth and unaware of the other's existance who somehow meet in adulthood and fall in love. Neither would involve genetic or family structure issues. The same could apply to heterosexual 1st cousins who don't know each other and never have kids.
Prof of Education

United States

#5 Jan 2, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
It's a reasonable argument. As for where you draw the line, I think a logical place would be at the immediate family including 1st cousins, aunts & uncles, neices & nephews (for both genetic & family structure reasons). That would of course include step-family members & adoptees (for family structure reasons).
There will always be the odd cases, i.e. 2 gay brothers separated at birth and unaware of the other's existance who somehow meet in adulthood and fall in love. Neither would involve genetic or family structure issues. The same could apply to heterosexual 1st cousins who don't know each other and never have kids.
That's quite the demonstration of hypocrisy, for a homosexual to "draw a line".
Isn't the whole essence of the homosexual argument that if the sexual behavior of someone else doesn't affect one personally, that person is in no position to have an opinion or judgment?
Isn't morality, or the entire basic concepts of "right" or "wrong" just so much "homophobia" and religious hogwash to homosexuals?
It's entirely hypocrisy for any/every homosexual to state they are against any form of incest or any sexual behavior that can be imagined, including pedophilia.
Unless a particular kid doesn't happen to really turn on the homosexual in question.
But it would still be hypocrisy for one homosexual to say it's "wrong" if another homosexual was attracted to kids and molested them.

“Hello homo sapiens sapiens.”

Since: Mar 07

A galaxy near you.

#6 Jan 2, 2011
Prof of Education wrote:
<quoted text>That's quite the demonstration of hypocrisy, for a homosexual to "draw a line".
Isn't the whole essence of the homosexual argument that if the sexual behavior of someone else doesn't affect one personally, that person is in no position to have an opinion or judgment?
Isn't morality, or the entire basic concepts of "right" or "wrong" just so much "homophobia" and religious hogwash to homosexuals?
It's entirely hypocrisy for any/every homosexual to state they are against any form of incest or any sexual behavior that can be imagined, including pedophilia.
Unless a particular kid doesn't happen to really turn on the homosexual in question.
But it would still be hypocrisy for one homosexual to say it's "wrong" if another homosexual was attracted to kids and molested them.
You've left the incest topic alltogether and wandered into pedophilia territory. Pedophelia is wrong no matter how you slice it or dice it. Adults preying on children is never acceptable and let's face it, twice as many girls are molested as boys. You're back in (so called) heterosexual territory again. Focus.
Prof of Education

United States

#7 Jan 2, 2011
DebJ wrote:
<quoted text>
You've left the incest topic alltogether and wandered into pedophilia territory. Pedophelia is wrong no matter how you slice it or dice it. Adults preying on children is never acceptable and let's face it, twice as many girls are molested as boys. You're back in (so called) heterosexual territory again. Focus.
More hypocrisy. You, as one with homosexual-disorder, are in no position to say anything is right or wrong, let alone about any sexual practices that normal people call perverted.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8 Jan 2, 2011
Prof of Education wrote:
<quoted text>That's quite the demonstration of hypocrisy, for a homosexual to "draw a line".
Isn't the whole essence of the homosexual argument that if the sexual behavior of someone else doesn't affect one personally, that person is in no position to have an opinion or judgment?
No. Not at all.

Unless you want to make the argument that all marriage is only about sexual behavior. And no one believe that, unless you are a bigot afraid that gay folks might marry.

Sex plays no greater (or lesser) roles in our marriages, then they do in yours.

And why is is hypocritical for a gay person who wishes to marry, to have beliefs against incest, but perfectly normal for a heterosexual who wishes to marry to feel the same way, or for yourself to feel that way?

Gay people want the SAME ABILITY TO marry for love that YOU ALREADY HAVE. That's it. That's ALL it is.

We have no more interest in marrying relatives than you have.

Why is this simply fact so hard to understand?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#9 Jan 2, 2011
Prof of Education wrote:
<quoted text>More hypocrisy. You, as one with homosexual-disorder, are in no position to say anything is right or wrong, let alone about any sexual practices that normal people call perverted.
Don't you think that believing that being gay is a disorder is a sign of irrationality? I mean, since the medical community steadfastly disagrees with you?

And, can you list the "perverted sexual practices" that ONLY gay folks engage in? Last I heard, straight folks engage in each and every one.

Are you as obsessed with what a straight person might possibly do in the bedroom, as you are about gay folks?

When you read about straight couples marrying, do you spend as much time worrying about the types of sex they might enjoy?

I'm guessing you must. But I have to tell you, healthy people don't do that.

“Queer love is here to stay.”

Since: May 07

Los Angeles

#10 Jan 2, 2011
The relationship of endogamy to marriages between two people of the same gender is a false analogy.
The arguments against incest are about who should be allowed to have sex with whom or whether or not they should be allowed to procreate.

The question of whether gay people have a legal right to have sex with each other has already been settled. SS marriage is about two people taking legal responsibilities for each other that come from recognized marriages as well as receiving certain benefits that come from marriage.

The State has a definite interest in seeing people, gay or straight forming long term bonds of commitment. The question of any benefits to the State of incest is an entirely different matter and needs to be argued on its own merits.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11 Jan 2, 2011
Prof of Education wrote:
<quoted text>That's quite the demonstration of hypocrisy, for a homosexual to "draw a line".
Isn't the whole essence of the homosexual argument that if the sexual behavior of someone else doesn't affect one personally, that person is in no position to have an opinion or judgment?
No. Whatever "the homosexual argument" is, I've heard no one make it as you've expressed it here. Feel free to link to someone who does.
Prof of Education wrote:
<quoted text>Isn't morality, or the entire basic concepts of "right" or "wrong" just so much "homophobia" and religious hogwash to homosexuals?
No. That's a belief of anti-gay people, that proponents of civil marriage for same-sex couples are amoral or immoral. Feel free to show where a major proponent of civil marriage argues against a general belief in morality.
Prof of Education wrote:
<quoted text>It's entirely hypocrisy for any/every homosexual to state they are against any form of incest or any sexual behavior that can be imagined, including pedophilia.
Feel free to explain why that must be so.
Prof of Education wrote:
<quoted text>Unless a particular kid doesn't happen to really turn on the homosexual in question.
But it would still be hypocrisy for one homosexual to say it's "wrong" if another homosexual was attracted to kids and molested them.
Feel free to explain why that must be so.
Prof of Education

United States

#12 Jan 2, 2011
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you think that believing that being gay is a disorder is a sign of irrationality? I mean, since the medical community steadfastly disagrees with you?
And, can you list the "perverted sexual practices" that ONLY gay folks engage in? Last I heard, straight folks engage in each and every one.
Are you as obsessed with what a straight person might possibly do in the bedroom, as you are about gay folks?
When you read about straight couples marrying, do you spend as much time worrying about the types of sex they might enjoy?
I'm guessing you must. But I have to tell you, healthy people don't do that.
"The medical community" is somewhat of a red-herring, being one of the logical fallacies known as Appeal to Authority.
Some of what the medical community does is hard-science.
Much else, particularly that surrounding psychology and psychiatry, is pure fluff and dogma, similar to that preached in any house of worship and hardly qualifies as a serious profession let alone as a valid scientific discipline.

“Fight bigotry.”

Since: Feb 07

Toms River, NJ

#13 Jan 2, 2011
You're the one who called it a "homosexual-disorder ", all Quest did was point out facts, that does not constitute an appeal to authority. You continue to be out of your league here.
Prof of Education wrote:
<quoted text>"The medical community" is somewhat of a red-herring, being one of the logical fallacies known as Appeal to Authority.
Some of what the medical community does is hard-science.
Much else, particularly that surrounding psychology and psychiatry, is pure fluff and dogma, similar to that preached in any house of worship and hardly qualifies as a serious profession let alone as a valid scientific discipline.
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#14 Jan 2, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
It's a reasonable argument. As for where you draw the line, I think a logical place would be at the immediate family including 1st cousins, aunts & uncles, neices & nephews (for both genetic & family structure reasons). That would of course include step-family members & adoptees (for family structure reasons).
There will always be the odd cases, i.e. 2 gay brothers separated at birth and unaware of the other's existance who somehow meet in adulthood and fall in love. Neither would involve genetic or family structure issues. The same could apply to heterosexual 1st cousins who don't know each other and never have kids.
I STRENUOUSLY DISAGREE as far as inclluding first cousins in your definition of marriage. NO religion, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, other Christian, nor Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, nor any other religion I know of prohibits marriage between first cousins. And there is no real scientific or medical reason to prohibit it, absent any definitive evidence to the contrary. Nearly all countries peremit it, including all countries in North America and Europe. I know of NO country that prohbits it.

For the record, there are no cousin marriages that I am aware of amongst any memebers of my extended family.

I DID have a romantic interest in a cousin of mine who was not a first cousin, but a second cousin of mine (one set of great-grandparents in common.)

And at lesat one state in the U.S., and possibly more, permit uncle-niece and aunt-nephew marraiges.

And with same-gender marriages becomeong legal in more states in the U.S., there is no sound argument to prohibit cousin marraige anywhere in the U.S.

The only REAL argument against cousin marriage comes from within it. If the marriage works out, GREAT ! If it doesn't work out, remember that you can always have an ex-spouse, but never have an ex-cousin.

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#15 Jan 2, 2011
For once, the fundies do not bring the Bible into the discussion, knowing full well that it approves of incest: Abraham married his sister, and the Biblical god blessed that union, making it the cornerstone of two of the major world religions, if not of Islam.

So morality aside, that leaves us only science on which to base a decision as to whether 'incest' is 'right' or 'wrong'--all highly subjective terms! To make it even more complicated, we need to distinguish between sex and marriage (in a legal sense), since a 'legal' marriage carries no obligation to have sex. So what on earth could be the objection to two elderly maiden sisters marrying each other in order to pool their financial resources so the surviving partner will be financially taken care of? Once again, even the Bible supports such a union, to which the example of Ruth and Naomi testifies.

Where we get into murky waters, from a scientific perspective, is not such 'sterile' unions, but the sex act between opposite-sex immediate relatives (father/daughter; mother/son; siblings), which carries the possibility of conception. In my opinion that is the ONLY valid subject to which the term 'incest' should logically be applied, and the genetic pros and cons of such intercourse the ONLY debate worth having.
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#16 Jan 2, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
It's a reasonable argument. As for where you draw the line, I think a logical place would be at the immediate family including 1st cousins, aunts & uncles, neices & nephews (for both genetic & family structure reasons). That would of course include step-family members & adoptees (for family structure reasons).
There will always be the odd cases, i.e. 2 gay brothers separated at birth and unaware of the other's existance who somehow meet in adulthood and fall in love. Neither would involve genetic or family structure issues. The same could apply to heterosexual 1st cousins who don't know each other and never have kids.
I STRENUOUSLY DISAGREE as far as including first cousins in your definition of marriage. NO religion, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, other Christian, nor Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, nor any other religion I know of prohibits marriage between first cousins. And there is no real scientific or medical reason to prohibit it, absent any definitive evidence to the contrary. Nearly all countries permit it, including all countries in North America and Europe. I know of NO country that prohibits it.

For the record, there are no cousin marriages that I am aware of amongst any members of my extended family.

I DID have a romantic interest in a cousin of mine who was not a first cousin, but a second cousin of mine (one set of great-grandparents in common.)

And at least one state in the U.S., and possibly more, permit uncle-niece and aunt-nephew marriages.

And with same-gender marriages becoming legal in more states in the U.S., there is no sound argument to prohibit cousin marriage anywhere in the U.S.

The only REAL argument against cousin marriage comes from within it. If the marriage works out, GREAT ! If it doesn't work out, remember that you can always have an ex-spouse, but never have an ex-cousin.

Since: Sep 07

United States

#17 Jan 2, 2011
Gay Mom wrote:
"When a young man falls in love with another man, no family is destroyed. Homosexuality is largely immutable, as the chronic failure of “ex-gay” ministries attests. So if you forbid sex between these two men, neither of them is likely to form a happy, faithful heterosexual family. The best way to help them form a stable family is to encourage them to marry each other.
Incest spectacularly flunks this test. By definition, it occurs within an already existing family. So it offers no benefit in terms of family formation. On the contrary, it injects a notoriously incendiary dynamic—sexual tension—into the mix."
Such a logical argument....let the rebuttals begin.
I certainly wouldn't argue for marriage between two gay brothers or sisters. But I wonder whether people would argue against sexual relations between them particularly if they are twins.(I understand this is not too uncommon.)

I couldn't get too morally outraged in these cases as there would be no genetics involved but I wonder what others think?
Steve

Edgewater, MD

#18 Jan 2, 2011
once a child is 18 there should be no reason that they cannot marry their parents or siblings.

Its not for me, but who am I to say who can do what?

Its a no brainer, there should be no restrictions placed on marriage for any reason other than age.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#19 Jan 2, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
I STRENUOUSLY DISAGREE as far as inclluding first cousins in your definition of marriage. NO religion, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, other Christian, nor Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, nor any other religion I know of prohibits marriage between first cousins. And there is no real scientific or medical reason to prohibit it, absent any definitive evidence to the contrary. Nearly all countries peremit it, including all countries in North America and Europe. I know of NO country that prohbits it.
For the record, there are no cousin marriages that I am aware of amongst any memebers of my extended family.
I DID have a romantic interest in a cousin of mine who was not a first cousin, but a second cousin of mine (one set of great-grandparents in common.)
And at lesat one state in the U.S., and possibly more, permit uncle-niece and aunt-nephew marraiges.
And with same-gender marriages becomeong legal in more states in the U.S., there is no sound argument to prohibit cousin marraige anywhere in the U.S.
The only REAL argument against cousin marriage comes from within it. If the marriage works out, GREAT ! If it doesn't work out, remember that you can always have an ex-spouse, but never have an ex-cousin.
Any reading of Genesis would lead one to believe that incest was the founding of the human race.
Marriage of brother and sister, cousins were next.

when it came to slavery they said that you could not own a slave unless the slave was from at least a country away, to prevent you from owning those in your own family.

If you need to see the direct results of inbreeding look to the south.

Breeding of Mules and horses and Donkeys. the Mule is no a separate breed that can reproduce with out a horse.
Prof of Education

United States

#20 Jan 2, 2011
Steve wrote:
once a child is 18 there should be no reason that they cannot marry their parents or siblings.
Its not for me, but who am I to say who can do what?
Its a no brainer, there should be no restrictions placed on marriage for any reason other than age.
I'm pretty sure the jerk from ACLU/NAMBLA would disagree.
The ACLU ensured the survival and continuing existence of NAMBLA, the homosexual pedophile group, defending NAMBLA pro-bono against a multi-million dollar judgment after its members abducted, raped, and murdered a 10 year boy. Google Curley v NAMBLA.
Yes, I'm pretty sure ACLU/NAMBLA will bring suit any day now for fathers to have the right to have sex with their children, not go to jail, and in fact, marry their kids.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 22
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 6 min neighbor 2,564
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 15 min Wondering 320
News Is Hollywood's Rape Culture Like a Gay Bar? 28 min Wondering 34
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 59 min old_moose 12,938
News Who would be a better president: Donald Trump o... 6 hr RICH SLAVE 21
News Gay Methodist minister David Meredith, church c... 6 hr Shirvell s Shrivel 3
News Tanzania authorities arrest 12 over "homosexual... 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 14
News Trump pledges fealty to religious values, a oeM... 9 hr Shirvell s Shrivel 150
More from around the web