• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

Samhain said:
Are you referring to an "eww" factor?
Click to expand...

No. A natural psychological aversion that I already posted info on earlier in this thread. It is something that develops in those raised together, even if there isn't any blood relation.
 
roguenuke said:
No. A natural psychological aversion that I already posted info on earlier in this thread. It is something that develops in those raised together, even if there isn't any blood relation.
Click to expand...

RN, how far back was that?
 
roguenuke said:
Post #218 (I think, I have a horrible shortterm memory), but it is about page 21 or 22 of this thread (for me anyway).
Click to expand...

thx. The thread is rather long and didn't want to get stuck having to search for it
 
I'll admit that I get a natural "eww" reaction from homosexuality / incest.

But it seems wrong to legislate that reaction; if bros/sis want to get married, so be it, same with two of the same gender.

It's none of our business really. In Germany you can marry animals ...

(and you reap what you sow, E.G. people should be free to make their choices, and deal with the consequences themselves - not have 'parent' govt. institutions attempt to form their behavior)

^ for that reason, homosexuality and incest will NEVER be socially acceptable - the outcome is personal pain / detriment, so natural cycles keep these two sexual desires at bay.

This is why Russia (atheistic) and the USA (Christendom) are both anti-homosexual / incest - it's not about 'religion' but outcomes of life choices.

Nobody WANTS to be gay or incestuous ... desire leads to action, action leads to personal detriment -> society sees the detriment and makes it unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
SingleCellOrganism said:
I'll admit that I get a natural "eww" reaction from homosexuality / incest.

But it seems wrong to legislate that reaction; if bros/sis want to get married, so be it, same with two of the same gender.

It's none of our business really. In Germany you can marry animals ...

(and you reap what you sow, E.G. people should be free to make their choices, and deal with the consequences themselves - not have 'parent' govt. institutions attempt to form their behavior)

^ for that reason, homosexuality and incest will NEVER be socially acceptable - the outcome is personal pain / detriment, so natural cycles keep these two sexual desires at bay.

This is why Russia (atheistic) and the USA (Christendom) are both anti-homosexual / incest - it's not about 'religion' but outcomes of life choices.

Nobody WANTS to be gay or incestuous ... desire leads to action, action leads to personal detriment -> society sees the detriment and makes it unacceptable.
Click to expand...

That "eww" feeling is natural though for humans and primates in general.

And when people don't have that "eww" feeling toward at least those they were raised with, then it can be a strong sign that there was some form of abuse or neglect. It is stupid to ignore that, especially when allowing parent/children or siblings to marry in general will only make some to feel that circumventing that aversion is okay (but since actions to circumvent it must occur mainly during childhood, then it would be wrong).

I have little issue with making exceptions for those siblings who were not raised together and really didn't even know each other being in relationships, but they should be given genetic counseling at the least because that is a very real problem and it hurts society to allow people to take such risks when it comes to children.
 
roguenuke said:
That "eww" feeling is natural though for humans and primates in general.

And when people don't have that "eww" feeling toward at least those they were raised with, then it can be a strong sign that there was some form of abuse or neglect. It is stupid to ignore that, especially when allowing parent/children or siblings to marry in general will only make some to feel that circumventing that aversion is okay (but since actions to circumvent it must occur mainly during childhood, then it would be wrong).

I have little issue with making exceptions for those siblings who were not raised together and really didn't even know each other being in relationships, but they should be given genetic counseling at the least because that is a very real problem and it hurts society to allow people to take such risks when it comes to children.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but then you're left creating a system of control instituted by other humans. (which is worse, and leads to abusing people)

Not a good idea. And like I argued, homosexuality / incest will naturally weed itself out and be kept at bay.

Look at Rome circa Augustus. [every culture in history has been anti-homosexual / anti-incest | I see no reason to legislate a system which creates abuse worse than the negatives of homosexuality and incest]

In other words: Government institution legislating morality is WORSE than the negatives of the ~5% who choose unnatural sexual practices.

(for a parent incesting their child, our existing child abuse laws condemn them - and should since a child is helpless/innocent)
 
Last edited:
SingleCellOrganism said:
I don't disagree, but then you're left creating a system of control instituted by other humans. (which is worse, and leads to abusing people)

Not a good idea. And like I argued, homosexuality / incest will naturally weed itself out and be kept at bay.

Look at Rome circa Augustus. [every culture in history has been anti-homosexual / anti-incest | I see no reason to legislate a system which creates abuse worse than the negatives of homosexuality and incest]
Click to expand...

There is a balance.

But banning incest and incest marriages isn't anything new. And since we have science to support that such relationships are not healthy (the vast majority of the time), then it can be easily shown how restricting such marriages furthers a legitimate state interest.
 
roguenuke said:
There is a balance.

But banning incest and incest marriages isn't anything new. And since we have science to support that such relationships are not healthy (the vast majority of the time), then it can be easily shown how restricting such marriages furthers a legitimate state interest.
Click to expand...

But State Interest is SCARY! :)

Unless a child under 18 is involved, then people should be free to choose to live their lives as they please.

('reaping what we sow' is all the 'punishment' for deviance we need - state 'punishment' becomes tyranny long term - look at the drug war)

Drug users pay a heavy toll.

Incestuous relationships pay a similarly heavy toll.

Do we need anything beyond that? I would argue no!
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
But State Interest is SCARY! :)

Unless a child under 18 is involved, then people should be free to choose to live their lives as they please.

('reaping what we sow' is all the 'punishment' for deviance we need - state 'punishment' becomes tyranny long term - look at the drug war)

Drug users pay a heavy toll.

Incestuous relationships pay a similarly heavy toll.

Do we need anything beyond that? I would argue no!
Click to expand...

But here's the thing, technically it is likely that one of the person's was under 18 when the relationship was first influenced. We know this from the research showing when the aversion develops. So it is like saying that we shouldn't prosecute someone for child abuse if it isn't discovered til after the child is 18.
 
roguenuke said:
But here's the thing, technically it is likely that one of the person's was under 18 when the relationship was first influenced. We know this from the research showing when the aversion develops. So it is like saying that we shouldn't prosecute someone for child abuse if it isn't discovered til after the child is 18.
Click to expand...

Like you said, there certainly is a 'balance'.

In no circumstance should a pedophile be 'let off the hook' for their crime.

So if it can be established in court that the parent was abusing their child, then they should be prosecuted.
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
Like you said, there certainly is a 'balance'.

In no circumstance should a pedophile be 'let off the hook' for their crime.

So if it can be established in court that the parent was abusing their child, then they should be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

But a big clue is if a person wants to be in an intimate relationship with someone they are related to and/or that they grew up with. And it isn't just parents that abuse children within a family. In fact, they are finding more and more that older brothers, particularly those with a large age gap between them and the younger sibling (of either sex) are the second most likely perpetrator of incestuous child abuse.
 
And now Corbett is apologizing after rightie talkers defended what Corbett actually said.
He's another one-term gov, as 2010 gets reversed next year.
 
roguenuke said:
No. A natural psychological aversion that I already posted info on earlier in this thread. It is something that develops in those raised together, even if there isn't any blood relation.
Click to expand...

You're not the only one who's noted that. I believe that I have that post above this referenced post and within the last two or three pages.

SingleCellOrganism said:
^ for that reason, homosexuality and incest will NEVER be socially acceptable - the outcome is personal pain / detriment, so natural cycles keep these two sexual desires at bay.
Click to expand...

You mean like interracial sex/marriage will never be socially acceptable?

roguenuke said:
But here's the thing, technically it is likely that one of the person's was under 18 when the relationship was first influenced. We know this from the research showing when the aversion develops. So it is like saying that we shouldn't prosecute someone for child abuse if it isn't discovered til after the child is 18.
Click to expand...

If it can be proven that it occurred prior to 18 then yes. But that still remains under child abuse laws. There is no need to have additional laws for what is already covered. While the aversion can be used as evidence towards possible abuse, it is not a clear conviction.
 
roguenuke said:
However, there is still a psychological aversion to such relationships that does develop in most households where the siblings are raised together.
Click to expand...

But if they aren't raised together, due to split households or foster care, or they don't have a psychological aversion to such relationships, then what? The state's interest in restricting those relationships is.......
 
Samhain said:
But if they aren't raised together, due to split households or foster care, or they don't have a psychological aversion to such relationships, then what? The state's interest in restricting those relationships is.......
Click to expand...

I have said multiple times that I believe there should be an exception for such cases allowing them to marry. I think they should have to be the ones to prove though that they weren't raised together, to a judge and let the judge decide, just as many states now have judges deciding whether those under 18 (or other ages) can get married.
 
maquiscat said:
You mean like interracial sex/marriage will never be socially acceptable?
Click to expand...

Of course not! Interracial marriage has almost always been acceptable (depending on time period). This is a misdirect which doesn't deal honestly with the discussion.

(similar to calling someone racist / stupid for criticizing or supporting Obama / Bush)

We aren't talking about natural sexual behavior, but same-sex or sibling sex.

Natural sex - no detriment, within the confines of marriage (fornication will kill a society with poorly raised children - so marriage is key)

Sibling / same-sex - social detriment (focus on the fulfilling of 'sexual desire' leads to unreasonable and narcissistic people)

However as I stated, sibling/same-sex should NOT be barred by the government - these things will weed themselves out naturally; 'government' solutions cause far more pain than they alleviate in this matter (IMO).

Just like the drug war.

Cycles of anti- or pro-homosexuality always happen; (not so much for sibling) independent of culture/spiritual/philosophical conceptions.

E.G. homo and sibling sex make most people's toes curl regardless of philosophical underpinning, and only on the up-cycle of homosexuality is it even a concern for social minders (see Greece, Rome, modern USA for examples).
 
Last edited:
SingleCellOrganism said:
Of course not! Interracial marriage has almost always been acceptable (depending on time period).
Click to expand...

What??? There are plenty of us here at DP who are old enough to recall when interracial marriage was a gigantic social no-no.

How old are you? I'm guessing younger than 30?
 
Dragonfly said:
What??? There are plenty of us here at DP who are old enough to recall when interracial marriage was a gigantic social no-no.

How old are you? I'm guessing younger than 30?
Click to expand...

Yes I am.

But as I mentioned "depending on time period" and race in question!

E.G. this isn't necessarily a race issue, but a social class issue.

Look at the history, and notice the similarities:

Interracial marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OF COURSE in the USA black people were abused in this regard (and the white people who married them).

But regardless of that recent history, interracial marriage has been a staple of human development for thousands of years.

So it's a misdirect to suggest that this is some long running conundrum like homosexuality has been. (and is an attempt by the poster to call me the equivalent of 'racist')

It's equivalent to calling someone 'judgmental' for saying that heroin use is detrimental to the person and society. (in other words, nonsense)
 
Last edited:
SingleCellOrganism said:
Yes I am.

But as I mentioned "depending on time period" and race in question!

E.G. this isn't necessarily a race issue, but a social class issue.

Look at the history, and notice the similarities:

Interracial marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OF COURSE in the USA black people were abused in this regard (and the white people who married them).

But regardless of that recent history, interracial marriage has been a staple of human development for thousands of years.

So it's a misdirect to suggest that this is some long running conundrum like homosexuality has been. (and is an attempt by the poster to call me the equivalent of 'racist')

It's equivalent to calling someone 'judgmental' for saying that heroin use is detrimental to the person and society. (in other words, nonsense)
Click to expand...

This simply isn't true. There are many cultures that have been very much against interracial relationships. There are still many cultures today that frown upon intercultural relationships, including many Asian cultures (some only okay them if they are marrying an American).
 
roguenuke said:
This simply isn't true. There are many cultures that have been very much against interracial relationships. There are still many cultures today that frown upon intercultural relationships, including many Asian cultures (some only okay them if they are marrying an American).
Click to expand...

That isn't true!

Asia (the continent) had long periods of intermarriage with Arabs, Turks and Europeans (China, Japan, Korea, etc).

There are conversely periods where that was frowned on.

But if you look at the time period, it's almost NEVER about race, and almost ALWAYS about social status/class warfare.

Regarding homosexuality or incest it's hard to judge social reaction, for example in Greece the 'homosexuals' were actually pedophiles. There weren't many same age homosexual relationships (that we're aware of). So their reaction against homosexuality could possibly be caused by the pedophilia involved, rather than rejecting same-sex sex. Similarly with Rome.

Incest and homosexuality is naturally offensive (IMO), unlike interracial marriage, which I think explains the consistent anti-homosexual views throughout history. (incest is obviously naturally offensive, no need to investigate)

Rome and Greece are truly poor examples, since the vast majority of their homosexual acts were actually 'boy love'. E.G. a socially dominant older male with a young boy. But still they became violently anti-homosexual.

In China the history is a little more varied - Confucians weren't anti-homosexual, but many Taoist and Buddhist writings are.

Oh well ... I don't care what anyone else does. Free will and choice should be all anyone is concerned with. E.G. legalize gay marriage, legalize drugs and anything like it.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
I have said multiple times that I believe there should be an exception for such cases allowing them to marry. I think they should have to be the ones to prove though that they weren't raised together, to a judge and let the judge decide, just as many states now have judges deciding whether those under 18 (or other ages) can get married.
Click to expand...

But where is the raised together point that such an aversion would develop? Let's use the Brady Bunch as an example, because well that's a perfect spread. So would we deny Bobby and Cindy but allow Greg and Marcia? Where would Peter and Jan fit in? When does the aversion develop? Why should the couple have to prove that the aversion is not there? I would say that if there is abuse then it is the state's responsibility to prove it as with any other abuse case.

SingleCellOrganism said:
Of course not! Interracial marriage has almost always been acceptable (depending on time period). This is a misdirect which doesn't deal honestly with the discussion.
Click to expand...

No it's not a misdirect. It's pointing out a very factual and historically repeated event; that which people claim will never be accepted can indeed become accepted. Does it happen with everything? Who knows? We can only point out what has not been accepted yet, or has been repeatedly accepted and then later fall back into the not accepted category. But in reality you can not claim that it will never become accepted. You can doubt that it will ever happen in your lifetime (or even assure it if you have little time left), but never is a long time and things can, do and have changed.

We aren't talking about natural sexual behavior, but same-sex or sibling sex.
Click to expand...

By whose standard? We can certainly claim that homosexuality and incest are not statistically normal, and to a lesser degree polygamy, but there is really no evidence that it is not natural.

Natural sex - no detriment, within the confines of marriage (fornication will kill a society with poorly raised children - so marriage is key)
Click to expand...

Define what constitutes a detriment. We all have our different ideas as to what that would be. Sorry, fornication does not automatically equate to kids, yet alone poorly raised one. In addition, I doubt that you would find many people who will claim heterosexual behaviour outside of a marriage as "unnatural", which by your quoted definition, it would be.

Sibling / same-sex - social detriment (focus on the fulfilling of 'sexual desire' leads to unreasonable and narcissistic people)
Click to expand...

Again, by what standard? We historically have several cultures, including Roman and many Native American, that have no negative stigma with same sex pairings. Sibling/shared blood? I'd have to look into that a little more. While there are indeed those cultures, most in fact, that have shunned such pairings, it would not surprise me to find a few who were neutral towards it. With that I would doubt that there would be many incidences due to the natural aversion, so to them it would probably be a non-issue since the rate would be so extremely low. I'm not sure how one would go about it as there probably wouldn't be any note if they were indifferent to it.
 
maquiscat said:
But where is the raised together point that such an aversion would develop? Let's use the Brady Bunch as an example, because well that's a perfect spread. So would we deny Bobby and Cindy but allow Greg and Marcia? Where would Peter and Jan fit in? When does the aversion develop? Why should the couple have to prove that the aversion is not there? I would say that if there is abuse then it is the state's responsibility to prove it as with any other abuse case.
Click to expand...

Research tells us that it takes so many years after a certain point, but in general, it only takes a sibling watching their younger sibling being taken care of by a "mother". I posted the research.

So yes, for many stepfamilies, they really shouldn't be marrying, at least not if the parents got together before the children were teenagers.
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
That isn't true!

Asia (the continent) had long periods of intermarriage with Arabs, Turks and Europeans (China, Japan, Korea, etc).

There are conversely periods where that was frowned on.

But if you look at the time period, it's almost NEVER about race, and almost ALWAYS about social status/class warfare.

Regarding homosexuality or incest it's hard to judge social reaction, for example in Greece the 'homosexuals' were actually pedophiles. There weren't many same age homosexual relationships (that we're aware of). So their reaction against homosexuality could possibly be caused by the pedophilia involved, rather than rejecting same-sex sex. Similarly with Rome.

Incest and homosexuality is naturally offensive (IMO), unlike interracial marriage, which I think explains the consistent anti-homosexual views throughout history. (incest is obviously naturally offensive, no need to investigate)

Rome and Greece are truly poor examples, since the vast majority of their homosexual acts were actually 'boy love'. E.G. a socially dominant older male with a young boy. But still they became violently anti-homosexual.

In China the history is a little more varied - Confucians weren't anti-homosexual, but many Taoist and Buddhist writings are.

Oh well ... I don't care what anyone else does. Free will and choice should be all anyone is concerned with. E.G. legalize gay marriage, legalize drugs and anything like it.
Click to expand...

It is true. At least for a certain portion of our recent history.

But then again, there are many things that are different from history overall. Never before until quite recently has love been the main reason for marriages. Not in most major societies anyway. And in very few major societies were women given full equality to women legally.
 
roguenuke said:
Research tells us that it takes so many years after a certain point, but in general, it only takes a sibling watching their younger sibling being taken care of by a "mother". I posted the research.

So yes, for many stepfamilies, they really shouldn't be marrying, at least not if the parents got together before the children were teenagers.
Click to expand...

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.

More intriguingly, when the subject had seen the sibling as a newborn, it did not matter how long the two had lived together, the incest aversion was equally strong. For younger siblings (and the small cohort of older siblings who had not seen their younger brothers and sisters with their mothers), this aversion was not as strong unless they had lived together for at least 14 years.
Click to expand...

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:
First, our data indicate that sexual aversions are triggered by exposure to cues of genetic relatedness: seeing one's biological mother caring for an infant (MPA cue), or living in the same household with a child for most of one's own childhood (coresidence duration cue). If an individual has not been exposed to either of these cues, then the sexual aversion will not be triggered. This means that individuals may be more incestuously inclined when their upbringing has disrupted their exposure to these cues of kinship: regardless of their conscious beliefs, the brain mechanism that detects siblings will not have tagged that person as a sibling. The results in such cases may be tragic, but they do not stem from a malfunctioning of the brain.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom