Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose incestuous marriage?

[Severian]

As another spin-off from the gay marriage thread (not wanting to take it off-topic), I wondered if anyone could come up with any relevant secular reasons to oppose marriage between close relations, such as brother and sister or mother and son?

 

Let's qualify this a bit by saying that both should be of consenting age.

 

Also, let's right away quash the argument that the off-spring of such marriages have a higher rate of birth defects. This is a flawed argument for 2 reasons. Firstly, having children is not a required for a marriage (plenty of married couples chose not to have children), nor is it restricted to marriage (plenty of unmarried couples have kids). Secondly, there is a precedent - we allow people who have a high risk of passing on seriously debilitating genes to have children.

[JillSwift]

I can't think of any.

[A Tripolation]

So doesn't that mean you HAVE to support incestous marriage, JillSwift?

[insane_alien]

against the marriage itself, i don't oppose it.

 

as to having offsring result from it, i'm not exactly in favour of it due to the higher risks of genetic problems.

 

and i do think that is diffirent from genetic abnormalities from people with existing genetic abnormalities as in an case of inbreeding the parents would be capable of producing healthy offspring if they reproduced with other people whereas those in other circumstances would not.

[Sisyphus]

I'd support it.

[iNow]

There is a potential argument to be made due to issues of consent, as well as psychological impact. I'll leave the psychological impact aside since it's weaker, but consent issues (despite being of age) are a bit more gray.

 

Like others here, I really don't care. It doesn't impact me, so I'm not about to try to get it blocked by law. It's not my place to stick my nose in other peoples business. If it makes them happy, and doesn't harm others, have fun.

 

However, as I mentioned, there are some questions regarding consent. For example, with incestuous relationships you have greater impact from familial pressures, instinctive subservience, the Westermarck effect, and dominance hierarchies. As most people know, we are innately predisposed to following instructions from our parents. "Consenting" to marry ones father or ones mother is not as clear of an issue as "consenting" to marry someone who was previously a stranger, but with whom you fell in love.

 

Again, though... It doesn't harm me, or my family. It doesn't impact my own marriage (if I had one), and it really doesn't matter to me. I have no place trying to impose my own preferences on others unless I can offer a relevant and secular reason to do so. Issues of consent and psychological harm aside, I really can't, so let the wedding bells ring.

[Sisyphus]

Just to elaborate, I'm doubtful almost any incestuous marriage (where sex and/or romance is involved) would be emotionally healthy, but that's not my call. If it leads farther down a slippery slope towards expanding the legal definition of marriage to the point of meaninglessness: good.

[JillSwift]

So doesn't that mean you HAVE to support incestous marriage, JillSwift?

No. By my personal philosophy, however, it means I can not oppose it.

[Pangloss]

Isn't the reason that the law does not provide an "out" for the consent issue that there's no good scientific mechanism for doing so? (E.G. statutory rape.)

 

If that's the case then that would seem to be a relevant, secular reason to disallow marriage below a certain age, regardless of the adult.

 

(NAMBLA can't look to SFN for support quite yet.)

[foodchain]

You have to take into account that certain things people can do can always be looked upon with disgust by some other group. For instance in some cultures cows are looked upon as divine and in other social groups horses could be viewed as a regular food item as in America a cow can be viewed. So when you bring up incestuous relationships, you will always have some certain amount of people in the real world as of now that will view it automatically as "taboo" or simply disgusting.

 

I think the real issue here is how do you empirically state some behavior a person or persons can commit to is bad or wrong? What standard is there ultimately, it cant be that no one is harmed, or everything we do today should be outlawed really including money. I think you tend to deal with that perpetual subjective standard of might makes right to some extent.

 

As with same sex marriage I support it for a couple reasons. One is that why not? I personally do not care to engage or really witness such behavior, but that aside should my bias in that regard be enough to deny people from engaging in some form of social ritual or custom? With incestuous marriage though you really can't link the two just as easy, I mean in a secular format its sort of like having apples and oranges and saying they are both bananas. They are different things, and just because your not opposed to one because it creates social conflict or is abnormal to some observer does not mean you have to automatically accept or reject the next conflict for the previous one, I am sure that is some sort of fallacy.

 

My big beef with all of it stems not from a secular format per say, but a libertarian front. In America for instance the constitution is to grant people certain rights, that are not supposed to be infringed on. I ask from a constitutional standpoint is it ok to simply grant some behavior ok, and others not, from some view that a certain amount of people simply take offense. I am not a huge fan of the bible, if I got together say 60% of the American people on my side, do you think it would be ok for me to just say, ban religion?

 

Incestuous marriage is its own topic, or you could simply say is it ok for heterosexual couples to marry, I mean marriage is a human made institution after all, but it would be easy to say that its not the same as B, or C, its A.

[A Tripolation]

No. By my personal philosophy, however, it means I can not oppose it.

 

And this is how I feel about gay marriage

I don't support it, but I won't oppose it.

[JillSwift]

And this is how I feel about gay marriage

I don't support it, but I won't oppose it.

Yeah, I grokked that early on.

 

I'm still working on understanding outright opposition, though.

[bascule]

As another spin-off from the gay marriage thread (not wanting to take it off-topic), I wondered if anyone could come up with any relevant secular reasons to oppose marriage between close relations, such as brother and sister or mother and son?

 

Not really.

 

Just don't try to slippery slope me into saying supporting gay marriage means I should support incestuous marriage, marriage between people and animals, etc.

[Mr Skeptic]

Just don't try to slippery slope me into saying supporting gay marriage means I should support incestuous marriage, marriage between people and animals, etc.

 

Well that would depend on whether or not the arguments in support of gay marriage apply equally to incestuous marriage, in addition to not having any reasons to oppose incestuous marriage. And many of them in fact do.

[Severian]

Not really.

 

Just don't try to slippery slope me into saying supporting gay marriage means I should support incestuous marriage, marriage between people and animals, etc.

 

I am not interested in slippery slope arguments. I am more interested in what you feel the differences are.

[iNow]

Severian,

 

Let me ask you... How do you feel about gay incestuous marriages? Two brothers, two sisters, a father and son, or a mother and daughter?

[bascule]

Well that would depend on whether or not the arguments in support of gay marriage apply equally to incestuous marriage, in addition to not having any reasons to oppose incestuous marriage. And many of them in fact do.

 

I think in most cases incestuous relationships are psychologically unhealthy, whereas gay individuals can have just as healthy relationships as typical heterosexual couples.

 

Any trepidation I have towards giving my seal of approval on incestuous marriages stems from this concern.

[A Tripolation]

Any trepidation I have towards giving my seal of approval on incestuous marriages stems from this concern.

 

Many hetero/homo relationships are verbally abusive, emotionally damaging and flat-out unhealthy as well...but you are in support of those so I don't see how that support wouldn't apply here

 

*I'm not saying you support abusive relationships. I'm saying you support relationships, some of which are abusive, and that should apply here as well*

[Dudde]

Definitely wouldn't support it, but I doubt I'd oppose it from being passed into law as I really don't see this affecting me in any way, shape or form.

 

I do hold the same reservations as expressed earlier however, it's entirely too easy to mentally coerce someone from a young age so they think they'll grow up to marry a specific someone in the family.

[Severian]

Severian,

 

Let me ask you... How do you feel about gay incestuous marriages? Two brothers, two sisters, a father and son, or a mother and daughter?

 

I would disapprove of course, just as I disapprove of gay marriage generally, and for that matter heterosexual marriage.

 

I think in most cases incestuous relationships are psychologically unhealthy, whereas gay individuals can have just as healthy relationships as typical heterosexual couples.

 

I think many people would have said something similar about gay relationships before they became so 'fashionable'.

[bascule]

Many hetero/homo relationships are verbally abusive, emotionally damaging and flat-out unhealthy as well

 

Would you say the overwhelming majority are abusive? I'd say the overwhelming majority of incestuous relationships are abusive.

 

I think many people would have said something similar about gay relationships before they became so 'fashionable'.

 

Or perhaps people would've said something similar when they were going off gut reactions before the matter was studied by the psychological community.

[A Tripolation]

Would you say the overwhelming majority are abusive? I'd say the overwhelming majority of incestuous relationships are abusive.

 

That may very well be the case, but that is not the point. The point is "who are you to tell two adults that love each other that they can't be together". And this argument is taken directly from the proponents of SSM. It doesn't matter if you think it wouldn't be wise for them to do it. It's their life, not yours, and they can make their own decisions as legal adults.

 

I don't see why the philosophy of SSM can't be used on incestuous marriage as well. Seems like blatant hypocrisy to me.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think in most cases incestuous relationships are psychologically unhealthy, whereas gay individuals can have just as healthy relationships as typical heterosexual couples.

 

Any trepidation I have towards giving my seal of approval on incestuous marriages stems from this concern.

 

Wouldn't it also be the case though that some incestuous relationships are just as healthy as non-incestuous ones, whereas some non-incestuous relationships (gay or otherwise) can likewise be psychologically unhealthy? It is always problematic to apply statistics to individuals, and even more so when this is done by the law -- though I do agree it is sometimes necessary. As far as I know there is no legal requirement for marriages to be psychologically healthy, though for all marriages proper consent is always important. But what happens in a regular wedding if the psychological health or the ability to consent of a couple is questioned?

[padren]

Wouldn't it also be the case though that some incestuous relationships are just as healthy as non-incestuous ones, whereas some non-incestuous relationships (gay or otherwise) can likewise be psychologically unhealthy? It is always problematic to apply statistics to individuals, and even more so when this is done by the law -- though I do agree it is sometimes necessary. As far as I know there is no legal requirement for marriages to be psychologically healthy, though for all marriages proper consent is always important. But what happens in a regular wedding if the psychological health or the ability to consent of a couple is questioned?

 

To play devil's advocate here, some drunk drivers are better than some sober drivers, but we do have more generalized laws based on the statistical trends.

 

It's worth noting too, a lot of people here have differing views of what they think is right and what they think should be legal. I am personally skeptical that a healthy relationship can be born out of a father and a daughter because quite frankly, the father has known the daughter her entire life, and has a huge "edge" in circumventing her normal capacities to evaluate and deliver well reasoned consent.

 

I question whether consent can be considered legitimate, if the father shapes his daughter's understanding of the world and controls her exposure to external information. I am not saying all such relationships are based on that, but the concern does disturb me. Overall, I'd have to investigate the topic in much further detail to determine an opinion on legislation.

[Pangloss]

To play devil's advocate here, some drunk drivers are better than some sober drivers, but we do have more generalized laws based on the statistical trends.

 

Can somebody grab the wheel while I reply to this thread?