According to most people, inter-family marriage should NOT be allowed because if they procreate, the children will be at high risk of disorders. **THIS IS CORRECT**
However, based on this, the MARRIAGE is not allowed because the CHILDREN, not the TWO PEOPLE BEING MARRIED, are at risk. The MARRIAGE is defined…
I think children with a greater chance of disability is a risk of inter-family procreation, but not a reason that their marriage is banned. With that logic, two unrelated people with a chance of certain offspring defects wouldn’t be allowed to marry either. And if someone really wanted to have children with their sister/brother/cousin/mother/father/etc, not being allowed to marry won’t stop them.
And quite honestly I don’t think it’s actually illegal to marry someone you’re related to, maybe just sick. There are often stories of children separated at birth who wed each other later in life.
Also, same sex marriage isn’t universally legalize/endorsed.
If you level the playing field and say “all people should be able to marry whomever they choose” it creates equality in one sense, but opens the door to more problems and rules. Can I marry a child? Can I marry an animal? Why only 1 husband or wife? If you say no, why not. It is legal for a sister to marry a brother and a man to marry another man, it should also be legal for a man to wed a donkey. Your rules are unfair.
It doesn’t matter, they’ll end up divorced anyways.
Limitations on why someone can or can not be married are present for so many reasons. To relate one issue to the other at least in my eyes is ridiculous.Inter-family marriage is obviously restricted for health concerns. How is a child’s health threatened by a same sex marriage? Lets be realistic marriage is simply a legal union of two people who have such strong feelings for each other that they want to spend the rest of their lives together. I grew up in a very urban environment where many of my friends were brought up in a family with same sex parents. They are fine there is nothing wrong with them. They are fully functional individuals. I believe that when it comes to a legal view point the issue is not so much if the same sex union can have children as what is the health and well being of the child. I believed many of these fears stem from a lack of exposure to the situation. You would be surprised how many instances of same sex partners having children that actually exist. The only difference is it isn’t legal. I don’t think that much would really change if it is made legal except certain religious leaders having heart attacks.
Inter marriage was only banned because of the issues with royalty in Europe. It’s really not that much of a problem.
Marriage is an idea that can only be defined by religion.
Originally marriage was defined as 2 people, a man and a woman.
If you can question man/woman, then you can question the #2.
If the institution of marriage is to continue to exist, it must stay in the state it is in now. Otherwise, we should just get rid of it on the state level, and simply have the church decide what it wants to authorize. It would cease to be a legal institution and would go return to its original form as a religious institution. I wouldn’t mind this, but if the government wishes to continue to authorize it for larger categories not defined by standard marriage religion, I say we vote in politicians that will remove marriage completely from the government.
People who are older also cannot have children. Are you going to prevent them from being married, too? Marriage is not defined by the children you produce.
My marriage argument is about gay versus straight. Inter family marriage proponents are on their own with their fight.
EDIT: If pressed to make a decision I would say I’m fine with it. The idea kind of makes me cringe because I think of my family members who I wouldn’t marry…ever. I am also fine with polygamy, although I’m not quite sure how we would handle the taxes for that.
Just curious…if a brother and a sister get married but then wind up divorced…how does the family handle holidays?
Whoa whoa, i think you need to take a look at what marriage means again. People don’t get married JUST to have children. There are many reasons why people get married. By inter family I’m assuming you mean interracial families. I don’t know where you’re hearing this from buy interracial marriages are not illegal or SHOULD be illegal. These are your just your own opinions .
FYI: My cousin is married and she and her husband both agreed to not have children at all because she is very involved in her work. She travels from 4-8 months a year and they wouldn’t have time to raise a child. They married as to make a public delcaration of their love. As i stated before not everyone marries just for children.
wrong.. two same sex partner..that is women can have children..just as single mothers do all the time..yeah they may have to go to a sperm bank to become that way.but they still can..they can always get around it..even the men can..all they need is a surgerate mother and wham they can have a child..but two closely realted people of the opposite sex get married and have a child the chance are good the child will have promblems..and if not maybe the grandchildren would..when i married my ex i did not know his grandparents were first couisin had i know i might not have married him..his father and aunts and uncles all had breathing promblem..but i took it to be because they were all heavey smokers..they all died before they reach 60 but 3 who live just past that age..there were 10 of them..there children all have promblem..breathing ..slow to learn and the grandkids..well there a few mental one in the bunch but i will say that the gays..having a child the ways i mention the chances of them having a child with a prombem..is not as high as close realtive..heck they have the same chance as we do for having a healthy baby
Actually cousins married within families for many years. Marrying a close relative carries a risk of birth defects for offspring. That’s why it was outlawed. Cousins who are sufficiently far apart can get married today.
It bears no relationship to gay marriage. Where is the analogy?
Gay marriage is sure to be legal within a generation I guess that accounts for the panic on the Right.
In inter-family relationship, there is the issue of influence (since family members are with you through your childhood). They can not love each other “in the same way that gays love each other”, unless the relatives are unaware that they are related at the time the love occurs. What makes you think it’s banned due to problems with children only? In inter-family relationship one is exposed to the influence of the initiator of the sexual contact his/her whole conscious life. Considering the psychical and physical vulnerability in such a contact, even if both of them are consenting adults there still is the fact that one of them is rather brain-washed than consenting.
Marriage between a man and a woman has been legal for centuries, we still don’t have fathers marrying daughters.
I personally think incest, at least between consenting adults in a non-coercive environment, should be legal even though I personally think it is icky. It’s really none of my business what two people do in their own home or who someone loves.
Incest doesn’t generally cause much of a problem to the next generation unless their is a generally unbroken stream of inbreeding in a community which can cause birth defects and an upswing in genetic disorders, but this is a lot less likely in the developed world.
I think consenting adults should be allowed to marry whatever consenting adult they want to.