Posted on 03/17/2005 1:55:21 PM PST by lowbridge
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3286878
RememberTheCoup (1000+ posts) Thu Mar-17-05 08:06 AM Original message
Why SHOULDN'T siblings be allowed to "marry" or enter civil unions?
Why do we so often hear about such a situation as a "slippery slope" result of allowing same sex unions? Why does a marriage/civil union have to imply a sexual relationship? Almost all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage are economic or legal in nature and not sexual. "Right of consortium" is one of the few I can think of that are sexual in nature.
What if a man with a wife and a couple of small children suddenly becomes a widower. What if his unmarried sister decides to come live with him to help rear the children? She quits her job in order to be a stay-at-home caregiver and the brother's salary goes to support her as well as himself and his children. Why shouldn't these two siblings, who live together, share child-rearing responsibilities, are connected by bonds of love (though familial rather than romantic), and have a financial partnership, be permitted to "marry" and enjoy spousal healthcare benefits, tax advantages, and the other rights and responsibilities granted to traditional married couples? For that matter, why shouldn't ANY two people who wish to make that commitment to each -- whether connected by bonds of blood, deep friendship, or sexual love -- be permitted to do so?
Many thanks for the info and the source link!
Idiots.
To say that liberals are clueless is a gross understatement.
Where does one begin? Sheesh.
Don't marry a chimpanzee and for gods sake don't serve wedding cake if you do.
Q. "What do you call a 6-year old virgin from Camden county?"
A. "A girl who can run faster than her brothers..."
Sounds like a West-By-God joke.
Sounds like the voice of experience.
They are both one in the same.
Selfishness is thine name, Liberaltarian.
If everyone was as wonderful and considerate as I am, Libertarianism wouldn't be a bad thing.
However, THOSE people can't be trusted.
;-)
Siblings marrying & having offspring = New DU member!
It would be total anarchy, leading to totalitarianism. No doubt about it.
How do we decide what is legal/illegal?
There are moral absolutes, universal to every monotheist religion (and some that aren't, like Buddhism) since the dawn of history. That's a start. Blackwell allowed that the 10 Commandments are the foundation of laws, at least in the western legal tradition.
People like to spout "you can't legislate morality" as though it meant something. All laws are legislating morality. Usually people who recite that mean there should be no laws impinging on sex acts. But society has a strong interest in controlling sexual behavior, which is a long topic in itself.
The only way a society could exist without laws would be if every citizen were a living saint.
Ha ha.
I read to the 34th post, that's all I could take. In those 34 post.....no objections.
I don't think they were that distant, EER's dad was teddy's brother, and Ted and Frank were first cousins, so they were somewhat close, either way, what they did was legal in NY, but in alot of other states, would not have been.
Up until the first part of the 20th Century it was totally acceptable to marry your first cousin...among the upper classes and royalty it very commonplace and probably encouraged (dont want to let the riff-raff in!) I'm not sure why it is now considered so disgusting...I'm no scientist but what are the realistic chances of having retarded kids from a first cousin marriage? Anybody know?
If there is a bad gene that is dominant, it is not affected by first cousin marriage. if there is a bad gene in a common relative that is recessive (for example grandfather has a bad recessive gene), the chances of it displaying is about 1/50 for first cousin marriage of decendents of that grandfather. That is 1/50 for each child. It is acutally a bit less because there can be no double recessive for the Y chromosome, and for the X chromosome, well male children only get one.
If you have several children, (say 10) then there is a greater chance of it displaying in one of them.
FDR and Eleanor were 5th cousins. FDR was actually from the more obscure part of the family, Eleanor being more closely related to TR.
Thanks..I said 4th or 5th; couldn't remember which and I did know the rest of that. :-)
See post # 75...you're wrong.
Well, on the bright side; it can't possibly decrease.
.
A. "A girl who can run faster than her brothers..."
Works for Kentucky and Arkansas, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.