Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

maquiscat said:

I noticed that one article noted that it can also take as long as 14 years before the aversion developed in siblings who didn't start early life together.

So with that you might have an argument for Bobby and Cindy, but not really for Peter and Jan and not at all for Greg and Marcia (staying with the example). And how does this aversion apply to the Aunt/Uncle to Niece/Nephew relations, or cousins? Hell we can't even assume that there will be an age difference nowadays. My wife's niece has 2 aunts and an uncle who are younger than she is (my wife's half siblings by her dad's second marriage). Now, for full disclosure, they actually did grow up together (the half-brother and the niece are only 3 months apart. There's a funny story my sister-in-law loves telling about that period) so the aversion is most likely there by all observations. However, if they hadn't grown up in the same area, where would that all fit in? And even if they had, what if the aversion had not developed?

I also noted this passage:


Unsaid, but equally true, it would not stem from abuse either. The abuse argument would seem to only really apply to...well abuse, for which there are already laws. For which I would certainly agree, should such happen, regardless of when the abuse occurred, that the abusing sibling (I won't assume the older, although I concede that would be the most likely) should suffer the consequences. But like all other abuse cases, the state must prove the abuse.

Click to expand...

As to the first part, there really isn't a time that is known for "younger siblings" though. More and more women are being encouraged to breastfeed past 1 year, and breastfeeding and other such care would seem to be a very big trigger. And no intimate relationship should develop unless they are older, certainly old enough to develop the aversion, unless someone was trying to develop the relationship earlier.

Aunts, uncles, and cousins would likely be different, depending on the family. I have an aversion for many of these such family members, especially my cousins because they were raised so close to me, I saw them almost every day of my childhood, was loved and disciplined by my aunts and uncles, considered my cousins siblings (heck, I had one living with me for about 2 years, claiming her on my taxes, plus several have lived with my mother throughout their teens and twenties)(and I was there at the hospital when my older cousin had her son and her twins, we went to the same high school).

And you misunderstood what that line was saying about the aversion. It basically was talking about those siblings/relatives not raised with each other to pick up the cues. Plus, a person doesn't have to have a malfunctioning brain result from abuse. It can simply be manipulation to prevent the aversion from taking hold, even if the person doesn't know anything about the actual aversion.

roguenuke said:

As to the first part, there really isn't a time that is known for "younger siblings" though. More and more women are being encouraged to breastfeed past 1 year, and breastfeeding and other such care would seem to be a very big trigger. And no intimate relationship should develop unless they are older, certainly old enough to develop the aversion, unless someone was trying to develop the relationship earlier.

Aunts, uncles, and cousins would likely be different, depending on the family. I have an aversion for many of these such family members, especially my cousins because they were raised so close to me, I saw them almost every day of my childhood, was loved and disciplined by my aunts and uncles, considered my cousins siblings (heck, I had one living with me for about 2 years, claiming her on my taxes, plus several have lived with my mother throughout their teens and twenties)(and I was there at the hospital when my older cousin had her son and her twins, we went to the same high school).

And you misunderstood what that line was saying about the aversion. It basically was talking about those siblings/relatives not raised with each other to pick up the cues. Plus, a person doesn't have to have a malfunctioning brain result from abuse. It can simply be manipulation to prevent the aversion from taking hold, even if the person doesn't know anything about the actual aversion.

Click to expand...

Not raised together early enough does pick up the cues. A key difference I believe. I make this point because you put forth the assumption that the aversion is so common that we should assume abuse/manipulation first without determining if the aversion was ever there to begin with. Or at least that is the impression that I am receiving from your posts. Your position seems to be that we hold incest, in and of itself, to be illegal and then to allow for exemption. I hold that incest, in and of itself, absent abuse, manipulation and children involved, should not be illegal but allowable as part of our freedoms, every bit as much as homosexuality or bisexuality. I expect that it would be rare, that any involvement of children or abuse or manipulation would be held accountable under current laws for those subjects. While the concept of requiring genetic counselling is acceptable in my view, such a requirement would need to be applied across the board to all who have the same risk or higher as the lowest level of risk of a non-historical consanguineous couple.

maquiscat said:

Not raised together early enough does pick up the cues. A key difference I believe. I make this point because you put forth the assumption that the aversion is so common that we should assume abuse/manipulation first without determining if the aversion was ever there to begin with. Or at least that is the impression that I am receiving from your posts. Your position seems to be that we hold incest, in and of itself, to be illegal and then to allow for exemption. I hold that incest, in and of itself, absent abuse, manipulation and children involved, should not be illegal but allowable as part of our freedoms, every bit as much as homosexuality or bisexuality. I expect that it would be rare, that any involvement of children or abuse or manipulation would be held accountable under current laws for those subjects. While the concept of requiring genetic counselling is acceptable in my view, such a requirement would need to be applied across the board to all who have the same risk or higher as the lowest level of risk of a non-historical consanguineous couple.

Click to expand...

It is extremely common, that is in fact the point. In general, it requires either not having been raised around a relative or something that interferes with the development of the aversion, and generally that "something" is some form of abuse, either actual child abuse or neglect.

There is no orientation to those who are your siblings or family members. And while I don't completely disagree with exceptions (and in fact feel that the genetic argument is very shaky with even first cousins) the genetic argument is a part of it. And given that we know that there are genetic risks with every 1st tier (and even 2nd tier) incestuous couple and that with the fact that an aversion should develop to prevent it easily makes a state interest for keeping them from marriage.

Honestly, I don't care if adopted siblings or step-siblings marry. In many places, they can. But there is definitely a question as to if abuse was going on of some kind in such relationships. The relationship itself is in fact a sign of some sort of abuse to one or both siblings. And that needs to be addressed.

roguenuke said:

It is extremely common, that is in fact the point. In general, it requires either not having been raised around a relative or something that interferes with the development of the aversion, and generally that "something" is some form of abuse, either actual child abuse or neglect.

Click to expand...

It requires that the older sibling not have received the early cues, such as observing the newborn with it's mother (I disagree with the paper's term of biological mother, as if the older sibling was adopted as an infant, it would not know the difference), or that either sibling not have spent enough years together for the aversion to develop. In fact I would think that most forms of abuse or neglect would cause a different type of aversion to develop towards the abuser. Maybe not with the same "force" as the incest aversion, but an aversion nonetheless.

There is no orientation to those who are your siblings or family members. And while I don't completely disagree with exceptions (and in fact feel that the genetic argument is very shaky with even first cousins) the genetic argument is a part of it. And given that we know that there are genetic risks with every 1st tier (and even 2nd tier) incestuous couple and that with the fact that an aversion should develop to prevent it easily makes a state interest for keeping them from marriage.

Click to expand...

There is no orientation towards redheads, or asians, or BBW's or any number of things that attracts one to another. And at no point have I have suggested that it's an orientation. But it runs as parallel to the orientation arguments for being allowed under the concept of freedom as does interracial sex/marriage. If the aversion develops on both sides then the issue is self-solved. If it is lacking on only one side, then abuse will be involved and that issue is already covered by law. Abuse is abuse is abuse and relationship simply does not enter into it. But if neither of the couple developed the aversion, where is the interest in preventing them from being together? As to genetic risk, I've never denied that it is not a concern, but if it is really that much of a concern, why is it applied only to the one potential avenue and not to any risk of that level or greater. If the 10%+ risk factor (number chosen randomly for example's sake) is a valid concern it's valid regardless of the conditions that bring the risk factor into play.

Honestly, I don't care if adopted siblings or step-siblings marry. In many places, they can. But there is definitely a question as to if abuse was going on of some kind in such relationships. The relationship itself is in fact a sign of some sort of abuse to one or both siblings. And that needs to be addressed.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you on the abuse concept. In this day and age where families are broken and joined there are many cases where siblings as well as other relations will not develop the aversion. If indeed it takes up to 14 years to develop the aversion and the siblings have only been together say 10 years and their early years were not part of that, why would abuse be automatically part of that? The aversion simply did not develop because of the lack of factors to cause it to develop. Why is that abuse? Now this is not to say that an incestuous relationship would not occur due to abuse. Opportunity and cover-ability(I know there is probably a better word for this but I can't think of it ATM) are key factors for abuse and naturally family relationships while there is a developing child in the house bring those factors to their highest. But we don't find every family having abuse despite these high factors.