Gay marriage supporters, what do you think about incest?

Yes. Some people want to force everyone into a narrow, hetero-monogamous slot. I say, how about instead of trying to come up with convoluted schemes for which adults get their rights and which don't, why not support the rights of ALL adults? The same-gender freedom to marry will be a reality in most of the world soon. Most people who engage in consensual incest and polygamy are heterosexual. Let's not forget that part. BUT, I do know of some triads and quads and brother couples who would marry if they could. Consensual adult incest is legal in a few US states and many modern countries, and there hasn't been a problem. I'm only referring to CONSENTING ADULTS. Last I checked, children were not able to legally consent through our broad legal structure. Minor changes in the law should be made so that an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution,

bullying, or discrimination.

Some people only care about monogamist gay rights, not the rights of anybody else. There were African-American civil rights supporters who didn't care about Latino-Americans, and vice-versa. This is nothing new. There are polygamists who support gay rights and polygamists who don't. People typically try to pin pedophilia on gays, polygamists, and those involved in incest, but I'm addressing CONSENTING ADULTS only.

I support FULL marriage equality. That includes 30-year-olds marrying 60-year-olds. That includes African-Americans marrying Anglo-Americans.That includes two men marrying, even if they are brothers. That includes one women marrying two men. It is ridiculous that in most of the US, it is perfectly legal for a woman to love, have sex with, and have children with two men at the same time, but she isn't free to legally marry both at the same time even though they all agree.

Equality just for some is not equality. Don't like it? Don't do it. As with interracial, adult intergenerational, or gay sex/marriage, there is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against polyamorous or consanguineous sex or marriage. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in polyamory or consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn't do it.

Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. As I noted, some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. For example, it is legal for someone with Huntington's Disease to marry and have children. Look that one up.

Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have morethan one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?

Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes

an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning.

Some say “There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either.

Yes, there are patriarchal societies that have gender inequality and allow religion-based polygyny only, and people cite problems in those societies, but the problems are not caused by polygamy. They are caused by sexism and gender inequality under the law. All the paperwork issues can be resolved. And if paperwork issues could be an excuse to deny fundamental rights, we wouldn't have the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Victims of abuse and coercion would be MORE likely to work with law enforcement if we had relationship rights for all adults.

Incest Supporters

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/awFyl

Sigh. Don't you phobes ever get ANY new questions? MARRIAGE EQUALITY is the issue. Not "gay marriage." EQUALITY. What we want is to have the laws apply in the same way to same-sex couples as they do to opposite-sex couples. That includes the bans on incest and polygamy. Incest is a bad idea because of the psychosocial pressures within the family structure. Incest is never a partnership of equals and is usually a case of one person being victimized, which hardly makes for a good marriage even though a lot of fundamentalist religions deliberately set them up that way, with the husband as master and wife as possession.

What... the **** does incest have to do with people loving each other? And if you were too stupid to know, incest is IN THE BIBLE soooo.... Yeah. Incest sucks i think its stupid. But two people loving each other isn't a problem as long as its not hurting anyone else. Heres a question... How would YOU Like it if you lived in a world of homosexuals and you were the only heterosexual person and you were a so called "minority" and got pushed and shoved and hit and beat up at school and excluded from unalienable rights just because you're different? yeah. you wouldn't like it would you? ALSO, the exemption of gay marriage is also violating the constitution. LIKE OUR UNALIENABLE ******* RIGHTS WICH ARE ... to love one another and the pursuit of happiness. So to take away people rights for the sake of your religion and what YOU think,even though you have NO part in their life is ******* stupid and only a complete and utter d-i-p-s-h-i-t would think that.

bottom line...they are irrelevant so keep out of peoples lives unless the act is PHYSICALLY HURTING YOU. Otherwise... just sit there and shut the f-u-c-k up mkay?

The two biggest issues with incest are the potential for dangerous birth defects and the likelihood of abuse (especially with parent-child incest). Also, most children who are raised together tend not to see one another as potential sexual partners (the Westermarck effect). However, in a case in which neither of these factors were present (a couple consisting of two siblings who were raised separately and met in adulthood and fell in love, and did not wish to have children together), I don't see how it's anyone else's business what their relationship is like. The moral problems with incest are sexual abuse and dangerous recessive genes, not the "ick" factor. In the absence of either of those, there are no moral problems with it.

This has nothing to do with same-sex relationships between people without a blood-relationship, other than that we shouldn't make laws against consensual behavior just because we find it "icky."

WTF has incest got to do about two people of the same sex being in love? It has no relevance what-so-ever.

You are crazy to think there is any connection.

Then to say you think we are dodging it? That's being a bully... You have to make a connection between the two for it to be a valid question in anyway.

---------------------

OKAY fine, I will answer, now you made a connection - you should have done that first.

So you say Gay marriage supporters' main argument is that if two people are in love who are you to stop it?

Well that is a valid argument... but incest is different... you cannot compare the two. All a supporter has to say to shut you up is, if two people are in love and not biologically related.. who are you to stop it?

What has incest to do with gay marriage? It is a completely separate issue like polygamy. Both incest and polygamy could be on the table for discussion some time in the future and when they are, I will listen to the arguments and make up my mind about them. In the meantime both are irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage and bringing them up just muddies the waters.

by itself I don't see whats so wrong with incest...provided its two consenting adults. It used to be quite common. The idea kinda grosses me out, but so does male homosexual sex. Just because something grosses me out doesn't mean its unethical.

the risk of birth defects from children of incest Is drastically exaggerated...you actually could expect children of incest to be normal, most of the time. Royal families of historical monarchies were typically products of many generations of incest.

the main thing that concerns me personally about this sort of relationship is that family in my cultural understanding should, and must, relate to eachother as family. There is a necessary unromantic relationship between them. Adding a romantic factor in there could complicate things quite a lot...certainly its not something I would want to deal with. But I don't know how other families might be...people do lots of things I cant understand...its simply part of accepting diversity to be able to step back and say 'how is this really affecting me...who is the victim here?'

for example, look at the Oedipus myth. he sever his 'family' ties with his mother and ran away. later he met her again, and not knowing it was his mother...they got married. Later he learned it was his mother. How 'wrong' is that? its pretty freaky...but he had zero relationship with his mother at the point of their marriage. If they had never learned the truth, maybe it would have been a normal marriage. Crazy fringe circumstances like this can exist and personally I would advise Oedipus to chill out...he doesn't need to pluck his eyes out simply because he was tricked into a socially awkward situation. just look at things as they are.

Not trying to dodge the question at all but I don't see it like you do. We both agree on one thing-- a line must be drawn somewhere. I think the ideal place to draw it is at 2 consenting adults of any gender who are not closely related.

For example, some people thought it was wrong for a black man & white woman to get married. They used their bigotry to try to stop such unions.

Same thing with same sex marriage-- there is no reason 2 consenting adults shouldn't be able to get married. it's just people's bigotry against homosexuals that makes it a big deal at all.

So marriages between heterosexuals, people of different races or people of different genders are all basically the same thing in my eyes, and should be treated the same.

Incest adds a new element that goes beyond just discomfort of those who don't agree with it. It poses a threat to the family dynamics because family members start looking at each other in a different way-- as potential romantic partners. Parent/child romances are an imbalance of power.Teens might get drawn into relationships with relatives before theyre really emotionally ready for them, because it could be hard to separate the kinds of love they feel for a family member, and in close quarters things are more likley to progress quickly. The family structure would change forever if relatives could date. Families could be torn apart over pregnancies, break-ups and divorces.

That's why incest is really taboo-- because it has the potential to destroy family unity. Inbreeding would take generations before it was a genetic concern, but it also is a potential problem.

While I don't personally approve of them, I would be willing to accept incestuous marriages as long as both partners were legal consenting adults... because what adults do in private is none of my business, whether I agree with it or not. And I would hate to see constitutional laws impeding freedom rather than garaunteeing it.

Though I do see the impact of incestuous marriages as far more damaging than almost any other kind of marriage (including polygamy/polyandry, which my big issue is simply with legal red tape rather than the dynamics of the relationship).

I don't have nearly as many concerns with same sex marriage though; so not only would I be okay with it, I actively support a federal legalization of it.

Same-sex marriage does not pose those kinds of risks to the family or society. I don't see same-sex marriage as posing ***any*** risk at all-- that the 'risks' are only in the mind of bigots who are uncomfortable with homosexuality or religiously oppose it. But again, one group being against something is not enough to ban it for other groups.

In fact, same sex marriage will help many families, by giving same-sex couples the same legal rights and status (as well as their children, if any). Accepting same sex marriages might finally begin to put an end to bigotry, the same way that mixed race marriages became more acceptable and normal over time). The new generations growing up seeing it as 1 state of being, part of the norm, will have less innate prejudices bred into them. That would be a beautiful thing.

So there is your non-dodged answer, are you even going to bother to read it or are you just trying to stir the pot?

ETA: so you have no answer then for me?

Riddle me this I riddle you that Mc Ren is first up to bat Well God has made nations due to incest the moabites and the ammorites from Lot and there daughters but i normaling would think incest is bad. Gay sex is a sin and shouldn't be avioded.