Barriers to marrying between different races was lifted.

Barriers to marrying between the same sex is being lifted.

Should barriers to marrying between siblings, close kin(uncle,aunt) be lifted too?

Is this one of the last barriers that should not be taboo?

Yeah why not.

As long as close relatives are not allowed to have kids given the fact that that has problems as we all know.

For those cases, those couples should be helped if they wanted to have kids through sperm donation, surrogation or adoption.

I'm pretty radical on this issue. I would grant full legal status to any marriage involving fully consenting adults. (How to determine this is a problem, of course. However, it seems clear to me that very young children and adults who are severely mentally handicapped, for example, cannot be fully consenting.) To make it clear, I have no objection to marriage between close relatives (which I suspect would still be very rare) or group marriage (which I suspect would be a little more common.)

I would not make it illegal for close relatives to have children together (how could this possibly be enforced?) but I would certainly advise them that they need to consider this carefully, get genetic counseling as needed, and so on.

I think we decide each on it's own merits.
Children cannot consent, so that's out.
Siblings? I imagine it would be exceedingly rare, and the genetic issue is a major strike against them. My gut feeling is that it shouldn't be denied, but the dangers of reproducing need to be known to them.
For polyamorous groups, there are different issues mainly relating to divorce and child custody, parental rights in general (if there is more than one man, who is the father?)... I don't see why they should be denied, but a lot of thought will have to go into the specific issues raised by such a marriage before it could be recognized.

I agree, any relationship involving consenting adult should be able to be called a marriage. It's not going to "cheapen the meaning of marriage", at least not to me. Maybe it's because my definition of marriage comes not from tradition but from the heart. Everyone should be given the same choice.

It's interesting that, although most posters are against marriage between children, it is still allowed in almost every state (with parental consent). In New Hampshire, if a guardian agrees, a girl could get married as early as 13. In the fairly recent past, children were wed even without parental consent (remember Jerry Lee Lewis), so I think that's an important perspective when people become up-in-arms against same sex marriage opening the floodgates to "everything". Things have actually gone in the other direction regarding children.

IMO, the only types of marriages which should not be permitted are underaged and those between siblings. Cousins might receive genetic screening and counseling, but be permitted to marry. Siblings, OTOH, have too many potential genetic risks, and we cannot (and shouldn't) enforce sterilization for purposes of marriage. In such a case, the issue becomes larger than simply two consenting adults, because there would be other adversely effected people (offspring).

Otherwise, I am pro same-sex marriages, and pro polygamy.

with the removal of this last taboo, gone also would be incest, no? Or at least the illegality of it. However, the genetic ramifications & risks would not heed rule of law, but rather rule of nature.

I'll now dig up some not-too-recent readings of the history of the House of Saud & edit this post w/ a link/quip as to the perils of familial breeding. (As if that would change anyone's mind)

For me, this question's easier than gay-marriage, for you can point to a beaker or agar/culture for results. No, do not allow siblings to marry, as breeding is not only risky, but likely.

edited to add: i withdraw from consideration links between the House of Saud and incest to preserve lineage. All the information i have found is blatantly anti-muslim, and therefore not constructive. Even if true, it has not been presented in a non-biased format.

I say the only people that shouldn't be allowed to get married are the ones who won't allow other consenting adults to get married. Fair is fair.

so, as long as one is already married, they can say whatever they want?

also, would i be correct to infer that N number of consenting adults want to get married, and that's ok? Here's where i'm taking this: You work for a company, and pay a monthly fee for medical coverage. Enter a number of employees who are polygamists, and possibly of similar bloodline. Due to the significantly greater number of dependents, their number is sufficient to increase your rates for your group plan benefits. These benefits, by the way, are optional.

Is fair still fair?

Take it a few years longer where the HMO/Managed Plan is being sucked dry due to higher rates of genetic screenings/tests, treatments for the (expected) higher rates of health issues.

Is fair still fair?

I'm sorry, I didn't make my self clear: Between TWO consenting adults.

slashdot,

I don't condone Polygamy, nor do I condone incest. I'm a moral person and I condemn adultery also. I think TWO people should commit to each other, three's a crowd.

Children, animals, and inanimate objects (this includes humans who have passed on) should not be allowed to get married.

Consenting adults should. I have an all or none attitude about this, and I support heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, incestuous, group marriages, etc...as long as they are with consent. While I may not agree with some of these unions, myself, who am I to tell a grown adult who to love and how to run their household if they are not harming anyone else in the process? For as long as the government recognizes marriage (and I would argue that it really is not a necessity, but merely a convenience) it should recognize all types of unions, because the government's role is mainly for the purpose of protecting property rights particularly when the union is dissolved.

In the case of incestuous marriages, I would argue that others beyond the consenting adults are effected. Offspring would be (adversely) effected as well.

I would immediately offer my support for heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, and incestuous marriage. While American tradition may favor only the union of one man to one woman, marriage is ultimately nothing more than a social construct to formally recognize the union of two people who love one another. I don't see that any person should be denied the right of such a union on the basis of their sexual orientation, desired quantity of sexual partners or relation to their loved one.

While I feel legal incestuous marriages would be rare, it seems only reasonable to assume that for those which did occur that the chance for reproduction is there. Taking this into consideration I still would not support legally enforced sterilizations or prohibitions of reproduction. While incestuous relations do increase the risk of genetical disorders, it is a realm belonging to nature rather than to us. To prevent the free sexual union of two relatives because of the potential disorders that could befall potential offspring would seem to necessitate that we equally prohibit the sexual union of others whose genetic coding could lead to disorders in their offspring.

Should the handicapped be allowed to copulate? Should those with rare disorders be allowed to knowingly chance passing them on to future generations? Like those who might engage in incestuous relations, it's a risk people take. Short of genetic engineering we take what nature gives us, whether we like a disease or not.

And as far as children are concerned, I think to some extent that children should be allowed to marry -- either amongst themselves or even with adults. I don't speak of toddlers or eighth graders, mind you, but of those teenagers who truly have the capacity to understand the world around them... sometimes better than many adults we may all know in our lives. I think perhaps some kind of standardized testing to evaluate the comprehension levels of teenagers wishing to marry could help establish whether or not a teenager was truly capable of weighing the situation and consenting to the act of marriage.

I don't in anyway advocate legalizing pedophilia in my support of children having the right to marry. But when we have children capable of exceeding adults in our society, I feel they need to be taken into consideration. If they're prepared to enter college or write scientific papers for peer reviewed journals, it seems they could very well be prepared to tackle the challenges of marriage and consentual sexual activity.

who would draw up this test ... administer it, who would judge it worthy or not ...

as we move the line farther and farther where does it stop ?

or will i in 50 years be allowed to marry my dogs and get health benefits for them [sarcasim] who are you to tell me who i can and cannot love ... saying no is a very speciesist attitude, i understand my dogs and love them deeply and i know when they give their consent or not ... who are you to tell me who to love ???[/sarcasim]

before you laugh 20 years ago the idea of sanctioned gay marriage was just as laughable... now we are talking openly about allowing incest and polygamy?

i dont know where to draw the line but i know in many of these cases children get hurt for OUR selfish "me me me " attitude... i see it every day

I would expect that leaders in standardized testing and the field of psychology could compile a test to measure the comprehension of those minors considering marriage amongst themselves or with an adult. If your concern is pedophilia in regards to children getting hurt, this extra step would require an expressed interest from minors to either engage sexually or be wed.

There are enough minors, I believe, with the maturity and understanding to consider their rights to marry who they choose. Demonstrating that they truly do have the maturity and understanding should qualify them to direct their own romantic relationships without state intervention.

As far as your pet is concerned, I've actually already defended bestiality once on this thread. However, animals outside our own species are not granted the right to consent or dissent to sexual activity or human institutions. Courts are not in the position to even consider whether or not a dog or other domestic animal is consenting regarding an interspecies marriage.

I agree. And as it stands, most states allow minors of varying ages to marry with parental concent. When me and my wife got married she was 17. At the same time, she had more mental maturity, and was more ready for it than many people twice her age. Saying that a certain age is an automatic cut-off point for maturity does not take into account any of our mental differences. A more common sense and case by case approach is a good thing (I personally approve of the current parental consent policy, unless something better comes along).

I think that the goverment has no business telling legal consenting adults who they are allowed to mate with for better or for worse. I think that polygamy among consenting adults is advantagous if it is a functional relationship, just like marriage between anyone is in a functional relationship is beneficial to the raising of children, when multiplied it is even more stable. Alaska was a haven for close family relationships back in the late 40s and 50s due to our territorial status, and the rural setting. We have a family in the now-suburbs of Chugiak, and they didn't have to change thier last names when they married! But deafness ran rampant in thier children, though no other defects was noted.

If we don't allow incest due to genetic issues, we need to codify that for everyone, especially for things like Huntingtons Corea, which is so nasty and takes SO much medical resources.

Genetic tests for Huntingtons Corea run about 1000 dollars each. Do you really think it's feasible to require each person to receive such a test before marriage, along with any others which would be equally expensive, especially when a very small percentage of the population is effected?

Closely incestuous relationships have egregious genetic potentialities for offspring, most of which are unscreenable and unforeseeable. I don't see the logic in legitimizing and endorsing a union with a very high likelihood for such problems, on the grounds that there's a one percent chance that other unions would have similar problems.

If they knew what the probable consequences were (genetically speaking), I wonder how many closely-related people would still go ahead and marry each other.

Health information in this case would be vital. It is so tragic when a person has to say, "I didn't know..."

Mrs.P, I can appreciate what you're saying about incestuous relationships, but I don't think that there is enough demand for incestuous marriages for it to really become a problem. It's just so culturally taboo, and because of the medical problems associated with it, I don't see that changing in the future.

Generally, I'd say that anybody with credible judgment and mature mind should be allowed to get married. It is just up to each individual to weigh the consequences their situation may bring and make a non-selfish and educated decision on what they should and shouldn't do.

Legalization of sibling or parent-child marriage would legitimize those unions. It would go from being a strictly enforced taboo to a lax taboo. What is the point of doing that? The issue would go beyond those consensual adults to effect the population. Often hereditary genetic defects originate from inbreeding and become endemic in the population at large, which is why marriage between cousins is frequently discouraged or outlawed. Up to 42 percent of the offspring from sibling relations die before reaching reproductive age.

The point is that genetic defects are a medical problem. Not a legal or criminal problem. A taboo, in itself has to do with the morals of people, and as such should not be legislated. What consenting adults do is their business.

I have a friend (I know that is hard for some of you to believe). Him and his wife both carry the gene for sickle-cell anemia. Because of that any children they have carry a 25% chance of being born with this disease. One of their children is a victim of this disease. Should those carrying this gene be prevented from marrying? My answer is no.

I forget the source or the exact quote but it goes something like this "What one generation tolerates the next embraces"

i hate to be a stick in the mud but there are REAL REASONS to prohibit very close incestuous relationships.

genetic, mental, and physical handicaps

the royal families of europe are riddled with genetic diseases from generations of cousins marrying cousins

Although the risk to the children of your friends is quite high, they aren't creating new gene-related hereditary conditions that would infiltrate the population at large.

Arguments against closely incestual unions go beyond the medical aspects anyway. There are psychological issues and family dynamics implications involved. It simply isn't healthy for siblings to think of each other and their parents as potential sexual partners. In some states the legal age of marriage is as low as 13 with parental consent. Does that mean a father should be able to give his daughter permission and marry her at thirteen?

No, but I don't think that anyone should be able to marry at the age of thirteen.Most teenagers are just not ready for marriage, and those few that are mature enough to know and understand the implications of marriage and who have found someone who is similarly ready for marriage (probably even more rare than finding one person who is ready) will still be in that position when they reach legal age.

I'm further considering the information that you provided about incestual relationships, and I think that you may be correct in your assertions.

It's true that the royals did have many problems because of their small gene pool, but the royals were driven to incest by a motivation for power and control on a global scale. I'm having a hard time reconciling with the idea that legitimizing incestual marriages would in fact cause them to increase among the general populace because of the taboo that we have in place, but you are correct when you say that incestuous relationships that produce offspring do effect the gene pool negatively which in turn effects society at large.

I suppose what needs to be considered is that the potential genetic problems that come with inbreeding are what caused the taboo to develop in the first place, and it's a taboo that benefits society. If the genetic problems are still there than I can't see that the taboo will dissipate either, but that creates some additional problems psychologically with incestuous marriages, especially if they produce offspring, and I can't see how a type of marriage could be legitimized without allowing for offspring.

Additionally, there is the issue of family dynamics and the power structure within. I can't imagine that it is at all healthy for a person in a position of power to marry someone for whom they have been the caregiver.

I'm still thinking about this, but my mind is quickly changing on this issue.

Here's a fresh idea for you:

No state-recognized marriage. Period.

To deal with issues such as property ownership, etc, this can be handled through contracts. If joint-ownership of a piece of property is desired, draft a contract (or select a pre-made one) erecting the necessary terms that would parallel that of present-day marriage. Or, if you want, add in a thing here and there, or take away a thing here or there.

Aside from issues that can be addressed through a contract, why do we need state-recognized marriage in the first place?

Marriage to an older relative is almost always exploitive. People who are dependent on a relative for financial support, or who have grown up together with all of the power dynamics of a family, are already in a subordinate position so they could not enter a sexual relationship where their inferior position could not be taken advantage of. This is the same reason why sexual relationships between employers and employees, between professors and students, or between pyschologists and clients are extremely frowed upon.

The excerpt below is from a conversation on the Gay Marriage thread. I started to post this there, but felt it really fit better over here.



A Utah man convicted of polygamy and sentenced to five years in prison for having five wives -- including one who was 13 when they were married -- says his conviction should be thrown out now that the Supreme Court has decriminalized gay sex.

Tom Green's attorney says there's no difference between the privacy now guaranteed to gay men and women in their homes and the privacy that should be guaranteed to men with several wives and 30 children. But the state prosecutor says this is not a case about privacy, it's about -- "a man who marries young girls and calls it religion."

Polygamy A Privacy Matter?

You know the lawyers of the company producing the ephedra suppliment that killed a Baltimore Orioles pitcher (and are being sued by the man's family) are now claiming that the Oriole's are responsible because they didn't respond appropriately when he fell ill. This statement from them is interesting for one reason; it's not true. The doctors and pathologists that looked at the man's case all said that they acted as best they could and the man's death was caused by the suppliment.

What's the reference to this thread? That's simple. Just because a lawyer says something does NOT mean it's true. In the U.S. it is illegal to harm a minor. Forcing them into marriage at such a young age IS harmful; homosexual unions between adults are not... One has a criminal element the other does not. See where I'm going here? The line will fall between those marriages that actually harm someone (incest, under-age marriages) and those that don't. Anything else is a miscarriage of justice.

Umm, Joe, my post had more to do with the whole slippery slope argument. I had asserted in a previous post (and I see now that I didn't copy the portion of the post where I made the statement) that we would have to wait until gay marriage was legal to see if it would lead to a desire to legalize other unacceptable marriages.

But it appears we won't have to wait.

When looking at liberties(marriage) and who should engage in it, I like to believe that I agree with those who would say that two consenting adults can do whatever they so desire, as long as each other, or a third party are not hurt. Interracial and same sex marriages are not comparable to sibling or incestuous marriage/relationships. The latter two examples are negated as a rightful liberty since genetics would be harmed in the first case, and psychological well-being and coercion are a product of the latter. I know that many people subscribe to a "domino theory" that marraige will deteriorate and that all sorts of criminal behavior will become decriminalized if gays are allowed to marry. If one were to follow my philosophy stated above, it can be seen that drawing a line between liberty and protecting minors is a real possibility, and not a contradiction.

Okay - I just did this once but my computer freaked, so I'm going to try again...

As for cousins marrying one another - this practice is common throughout the world - and I know it is probably a lot more common here in the US than people think. In many cultures, cross cousins (cousins whose related parents are of the opposite sex - my mom's brother's children are my cross cousins and my dad's sister's children are my cross cousins) are the preferred mate - this is due to the idea of lineage (ie you are only related to people through either the maternal or paternal line) which makes the cross cousins unrelated individuals - though through civil practices of land inheritance, etc, they may be ideal mates to increase a young couples wealth (at least, this may be the original reasons, but have evolved over time in the socieities). These cross cousin marriages are common ideas in many places (India, China, Russia and more). Indeed, cousin marriages in general were common ideas into the beginning of the 20th century (when Eugenics began to become popular and some proponents used these flawed ideas to make kissing cousins taboo). I would guess most people have more than two kissing cousins in the family tree if they just looked a few generations back (I know my tree crosses a few times).
Here are some modern websites on romantic cousins:
http://cousincouples.com/
http://www.cuddleinternational.org/

As for genetics, first cousin marriages (sharing a maximum possible of 1/8th of there genes - while most will probably share less) have a 4-5% risk of offspring with a recessive disease - but then the chance for a couple chosen at random from the population is 2-3.5% so this is not a big increase. Certainly, caring cousin-parents would seek genetic counseling - but then, so should people with any genetic diseases (multiple sclerosis, sickle cell anemia, trisomy 21, etc) in their family history because this helps parents in the decision making process - indeed in the modern world, it is possible for parents to use in vitro fertilization and then preselect the embryo that does not carry the recessive trait (obviously, this is a whole different debate there).

The greatest genetic concern involves the closest relatives (uncle-niece, parent-child, double first cousins). And in all but perhaps the double first cousins (cousins who are children of two related cousin marriages), I would wager there is some serious abuse/manipulation concerns. Anyone who told me they were about to marry someone who was their caretaker or held any sort of dominance/leading role (including even teacher-student relationships) would make me raise an eyebrow. And considering the serious risk of incestious relationships causing genetic diseases/problems (look up "consanguinity risks" on yahoo for some real stats) I can see why the state might have a legitimate basis for excluding relationships between first order (parent-child, siblings) marriages and even second order marriages (uncle-niece, double first cousins) on a public health stance.

But, in general, I think along the lines of Orat. I personally think there has been a huge problem of people thinking the government moderates marriage. It does not, nor has it ever (as evidenced by the polygamous clans). The government moderates civil unions - which are essentially property contracts. Its just that no one has really had to think too seriously in the past whether or not a civil union and a marriage are two separate entities. People enter into marriages for spiritual and maybe moral reasons - to spiritually join with another person, maybe produce/adopt/raise children out of that love, and to express that love as they see fit (short of obviously wrong things like "I hit her b/c I love her"). Therefore, marriage falls into the spiritual/religious realm.

What does fall into the realm of our government is the civil union - the property contract essentially (obviously there are other concerns like health insurance, but I'm just lumping everything under "property" for ease of discussion). I'm sure there are enough marriages that occur for solely this purpose - the furthering of one's wealth in some way or another or protection of one's wealth. So, perhaps there would be a number of civil unions without marriage - and without want for the marriage. I think US Government officials need to stop thinking of themselves as stewards of this great state of marriage and realize they have no affect on the quality of marriage in America. I am currently single and will probably be for many many years to come - but I live with a very good friend of mine and she is also single (and planning to be for many years). We are not homosexual, and most definitely like those of the opposite sex - but as the years pass, we could choose to enter into a civil union - sort of like I would adopt her as a sister or something but express it in a more material way. As we grew into old age, and perhaps neither one of us had any family we communicated with, but one of us grew ill - having a civil union could be a good way for the medical community to legally listen to what my goodfriend/longtime roommate (and now civil partner) says about my medical wishes. Obviously, there are ways for people to get medical power of attorney's now, but few think of it until it is too late. Also, if I died unexpectedly but did not leave a will, or had relatives who wanted to contest the will, as far as dispensation of my half of a co-owned house, a civil union would allow for transfer of the house immediately to my civil partner without great difficulty.

I know many people would say, but thats cheating the government, or if you want to do that you can do many other things to get past the problems - but a civil union (allowable between consenting adults) would be an easy way for people to pretty much cover everything in one quick move. Of course, there need to be restrictions on who can enter into a civil union as far as the intent - like people entering in the union have to live together so many days out of the year unless separated by unavoidable circumstances like sickness, out of town jobs, etc. And you can only enter into one civil union at a time (you have to be released from a previous civil union before entering into another one). This would avoid at least some of the illegal uses of the civil union. Also, breaking the civil union would involve the same divorce process (but obviously, civil divorce would be something separate from spiritual divorce).

And I wouldn't care if multiple people entered into ONE civil union (group marriage, polygamy, polyandry) where all property was combined - so everyone was trully bound to the other. In fact, reading some of the sites about the problems with the Kingston polygamists, etc out in Utah - it seems some of the biggest problems come from the fact there is no recognized civil union with the 2nd, 3rd, etc wife so her children are considered "fatherless" by the state and the women and their children rather illegally get welfare because the husbands income is not counted. However, if these were all legal civil unions, the husband's income would be counted, the children would not be fatherless, and the women would more than likely lose the benefits (of course, the tax evasion by the Kingston clan, and other more devious clans is another issue unrelated to issue of marriage).

So, basically, I think civil unions should be allowed between any consenting adults. There obviously would need to be language written to regulate dissolution of some of the more complex civil unions that could arise (such as who gets custody of the children when one of the parents leaves a group marriage, etc). When I say adults, I mean 18 and older. I realize there are differences in maturity between people - but it seems to me 18 is a good age to set as a legal age of consent b/c in all honesty, I don't think anyone (period!) can ever become totally mature until they get out of high school ! and I was always considered one of the more mature kids who no one would have blinked if I'd married someone at 16. But I know it is easy for someone to act mature intellectually but be very emotionally immature (and for many, never mature emotionally)... I think 18 works as an age of consent because it is impossible to think we should look at the merits of every single individual case and assess the maturity of each individual - these leaves far too much room for human error and even abuse! Plus, those deemed "immature" at 16 would cry out, why aren't we testing my 25 year old friend who acts far more immature than me?

I also think its sick that so many states (my own included!) allow marriage with consent for kids as young as 13. If we are even to allow this marriage with consent, then the minor in question should at least be able to drive (16)! I actually worked with a girl who became pregnant at 12 and her parents forced her to marry the guy when she was 13 - the guy was 17. By the time she was a senior in high school at 18, she had three children with the fourth on the way. All of the children were constantly infected with lice, had terrible hygiene and the mother and father were always fighting and dating outside of their marriage. Of course, the parents thought marriage would solve the problems - but from what I saw it only made matters worse. Interestingly the parents had a similar experience because the grandmother was only 27 years old when the girl got married. So, anyone who seems concerned about the sanctity of marriage, blah blah blah - it seems they should be more outraged by marriages involving minors, marriages forced by parents, and marriages only occurring because a couple have produced offspring!

wow, that was a lot longer than I originally intended

There is one problem with the civil union-marriage duality. If we do accept the premise that marriage is a moral "union" blessed by the church, and that civil unions are under the domain of the government, then do we allow churches who "marry" gays to allow their gay members the title of "marriage"? If churches engage in this project, and undoubtedly a few will, who is to say that they are not legally married? And if this occurs, is it "protection of marriage acts" thus unconstitutional since it would violate the religious freedom of married gays?? If we say that marriage is a moral issue left to the churches, then the churches who would morally sanction gay marriage, must be allowed the freedom to do so and acts defining marriage are unconstitutional, since the government is overstepping it's civil union boundary and entering the moral sphere of "marriage"

Exactly...



yes... We as a nation have no bearing on what the churches do. That's separation of church and state. If you don't want your church to marry homosexuals - you would have to take it up with the church elders (or however religious law works - not my area of expertise )


No one - but marriage would actually NOT be a LEGAL definition. Therefore, the church would also have no undue influence on the state (also a separation of church and state - b/c it goes both ways)

But you have to realize, all of the language in our laws that says "marriage" would have to change to say "civil union"... which would actually be an overdue change, since the laws weren't really about marriage anyway. Of course - this is obviously somewhat of a semantics game as I have defined marriage to mean the spiritual union of individuals sanctioned by a spiritual tradition and civil union is (more or less) just the legal union of property

Of course, to start using this duality, people would have to begin to think differently - ie social workers would have to accept someone who is just joined civilly and not hold look for a "married" couple - but once again, its somewhat of a word play.