Why Not Incestuous Marriage?

In light of homosexuals arguing for marriage I'm going to see if anybody can successfully argue why incestuous marriage should not be allowed. Since I don't know any incestuous participants (thankfully), I'm going to have to make the argument for them.

I'm challenging anybody (ESPECIALLY those who support homosexual marriage) to come and explain to me why my mother and I can't get married. She's 55 and I'm 19.

Let's do this.

(ETA: just to make this clear... I'm actually 29 and my mom died when I was 2 so this isn't about me... but to make the point I can't find any incestuous couples who want to come on here and defend themselves)

 

Well, what is the rational argument against it? It doesn't hurt anyone, as long as siring children isn't involved.

 

Why do you want to marry your mother? Is this an Oedipus/Freudian thing?

 

I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) who you marry as long as all parties consent.

 

The main argument against incest is the same argument against underage marriages. The sticking point is consent. All relations must be between consenting parties and the consent must be real and uncoerced. Between close family members, there is no real consent, even if one or both parties says there is. Real consent, uncoerced by any means, physical or psychological, is assumed to be impossible between close family members, and this is regardless of the ages of the parties.

>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic//Flamebait Removed<<<

 

Don't have children.

 

This argument to me, to me, is kind of irrelevant. By law, you would be mother and son. BY LAW. You share the same genes and it can cause serious health problems to any newborns. Also, a male marrying a male cannot produce a child (naturally), so there presents NO risk to any child because of their sexuality.

- - - Updated - - -

That was a low blow, as the OP stated, his mother has passed away.

OP- I apologize for your loss.

 

This is a very good question. I take no issue with siblings (*)(*)(*)(*)ing for several generations, producing horribly deformed offspring.

Of course, government should get out of marriage entirely, but in theory I have nothing wrong with incestuous marriage.

 

Actually, there's no good reason not to, as long as you monitor in utero and are willing to abort. Inbreeding amplifies characteristics, both good and bad. Inbreeding was, in fact, the only way to truly improve the line before genetic engineering, but you must cull ruthlessly. Ask any breeder.

 

The OP brought it up. If he wishes to use a tasteless and silly example he should expect tasteless and silly replies.

 

No it wasn't. And you are being dishonest. I was responding to his hypothetical situation and fictional mother which I quoted. So no low blow. No apology. If he doesn't want people to respond in a silly manner to silly hypothetical situations then he shouldn't post them. You'll have to do better than that.

 

Notice folks the homosexuals and their supporters have to now engage in allowing incestuous marriage. They're not presenting an argument against it because they know they can't.

 

Consent? Your bigotry is well noted. How DARE you claim that incestuous couples are not consenting. An adult male has the right to tell you whom he wants to consent with just as an adult female does. Furthermore, an incestuous couple would argue that they love their partner more than you love your partner because they love their partner as a lover as well as family.

And are you arguing that the POSSIBILITY of abuse of a child is enough to justify discriminating against someone who did not engage in that?

 

Wait a minute... as homosexuals have argued that procreation has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Now we're saying that procreation IS relevant to marriage? We can't have it both ways. Either procreation is relevant to marriage or it is not.

Furthermore, you're not stopping them from having children by stopping them from getting married. They can have children whether you allow them to marry or not. All you are doing by denying them marriage is denying them equality under the law and their equal rights granted to them by the 14th amendment.

Also, what about the incestuous couple who may be sterile and are not able to have children? Or what about the gay incestuous couple... they're still not allowed to marry either.

Thanks, not trying to be rude to anyone just want to make a point.

 

Haven't the homosexuals been stating that marriage has nothing to do with procreation?

- - - Updated - - -

Too bad Freud has been conclusively proven wrong.

Not to mention I had a grandmother who raised me from there who was a far better person than my mother was from everything I've gathered. So I'm thrilled

- - - Updated - - -

It is an IMPOSSIBILITY to defend a ban on incestuous relationships if you accept homosexual ones. Period.

 

You haven't presented anything relevant to gay marriage. You are talking about a mother and son (defined by LAW) which a mother has passed her genes to. This is a different type of "love". This argument is too weak to be an argument against gay marriage, as why it'll be fully legal soon.

 

Incest is a crime.

There is no reason that siblings should not be allowed to be married though. Sex and marriage are independent of eachother.

 

Yes I have. In fact there is no argument that is acceptable to reject incestuous marriage that can't be used to reject homosexual marriage. And there is no argument that is is acceptable to approve homosexual marriage that can't be used to approve incestuous marriage. That's the entire point.

- - - Updated - - -

Homosexuality was a crime as well. All that needs to be done is like with homosexuality to make it not crime.

 

I'm not flip flopping on anything. When have I ever said that procreation had nothing to do with homosexuality? I'd love for you to quote me saying that.

My point is that it's an actual medical RISK to procreate with mom and son. It's NOT for homosexuals, as they cannot have kids. That's why this argument is so stupid.

 

Like the song from Married with children said, "You can't have one without the... other."

- - - Updated - - -

Well then if procreation IS relevant to marriage then homosexual marriage is not acceptable as they are incapable of procreating in and of themselves.

 

Marriage and sex are independent of eachother. The fact that incest is a crime has nothing to do with whether or not brother and sister or brother and brothers should be able to marry. I only pointed out that incest is a crime because I didn't want to you infer that I was supporting the act of incest.

There is no reason that a marriage between siblings would necesarily lead to them having sex.

 

Another homosexual supporter that also must acknowledge he has no grounds to reject incestuous marriage as well.

Thank you.

The slippery slope is very real... and very dangerous.

 

You can't say that it's "unacceptable". You can be against it. You aren't the judge of people's love. You made an argument that is not relevant to gay marriage.