We had "civil unions" in California, before SSM was decreed, in which any two people could form a legal union. I used to do photography for civil union ceremonies in the late 90s and early 2000s (basically same sex weddings without legally labeling them as "marriages").

These unions were only recognized in California.

And yes, there were instances of roommates who weren't romantically involved who formed unions in order to get benefits. For some reason this pissed people off.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I'm swayed by some of the arguments here, but I'd need to think on it a bit more.

I'll just add the anthropologist's perspective that a taboo against incest is one of the very few 'cultural universals' that you see across virtually every human society. there's been much ink spilled on it over the years.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

I'm of the as long as it's consenting adults who cares persuasion.

Fortunately children raised together are very rarely interested in one another, including when not related, as illustrated by the Israeli kibbutz.

I have no idea, are non related step siblings allowed to marry?

I see no reason why step siblings can't hook up, but never checked the law.

If I'm being honest, I'll admit that something about SSM doesn't sit right with me. Although I'm Catholic, my faith is not strong and I probably know less about the teachings and readings than many here. But it's not so much the religious aspect that's driving my feelings, rather the traditional aspect and nature side of things - though I'm aware there will be points that contradict these feelings. To me, heterosexual sibling unions make more sense than same sex ones, but of course that doesn't seem right either.

I've heard people ask how it's actually affecting me. On a personal level it's just a breakdown of perceived norms in society which inevitably leads to the next change. Who knows what's next? I can't help feeling this way. I don't think I'm going to be persuaded anytime soon. But of course I'm aware it's just my sole opinion. I don't begrudge equal rights on most other levels (I don't agree with IVF but that's a totally separate matter which I won't delve into) but I just wish there was a way marriage could have been left alone.

A lot of interesting discussion though. Thanks all.

I met my wife when I was 6 and she was 2.

I would say that she holds the balance of power.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Just adding: having read JSAs comments here and from Duffy's older thread, I wonder why psych's believe there something inherently wrong in sibling attraction any more then SS attraction, given society has historically frowned upon both.

Well at some point relatively recently marrying first cousins fell out of fashion, and I think is illegal in most states? But I'm pretty sure was fairly common in the west until then.

Marriage to close relatives is generally illegal because of the prejudice against close familial procreation, and for good genetic reason. However, we seem to be rapidly approaching a time when parents will be able to identify and repair genetic faults in their children before birth. At that point, what would be the purpose in preventing brother and sister from procreating, for example?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

#LoveWins

More than anything I heard people advocate for gay marriage on the grounds that they are two consenting adults and they are not hurting anyone. Using the same logic I don't see why siblings couldn't get married or 3 or 4 people can't all get married. We all know societies subjective moral preferences are not based in logic or truth. If you're unsure about global warming you're a science denier, but where does science belong when a man says he's a woman?

Mother, 36, and son, 19, who fell in love when they met last year after she gave him up for adoption as a baby, say they'll go to JAIL to defend their relationship.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...AIL-defend-love.html

I met my wife when I was 6 and she was 2.


What were you first attracted to? :)

More than anything I heard people advocate for gay marriage on the grounds that they are two consenting adults and they are not hurting anyone.


I hear that all the time too and I'd like to hear those who use that try to say how it doesn't apply to the marriage of siblings.

Her when I met her again when she was 19. (Although we ran into each other many times over the years, our parents are friends).

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

It's also illegal for siblings who are adopted (and share no genetics at all) to marry.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the whole inbreeding thing is a bit overblown if you're talking about a one off of siblings having children, it's really when you have an inbred population of a bunch of close relatives marrying for generations (e.g. some island populations) that deleterious genetic traits can become a problem.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

How recently? As a child at least 30 years ago I recall talk of not being able to marry your cousin - because there were two cousins in our year and we all thought the girl was hot!

I know Darwin was married to a first cousin, so it was still going in the 19th century.

AFAIK the US is the only country that outlaws marriage between 1st cousins.

Last tally I've seen, marriage between 1st cousins is illegal in 24 of the 50 US states. 7 states allow marriage between 1st cousins with certain restrictions and it is legal in the remaining 19 states. Since there are 50 different family codes things may have changed since then (Texas only made 1st cousin marriage illegal in 2005).

Note that because of the Full Faith and Credit clause of The Constitution states are required to recognize marriages from other states. So if 1st cousins who live in a state where it is illegal wish to marry they can simply get married in a state where it is legal and their state will recognize it.

The Full Faith and Credit clause is one of the reasons there was so much panic after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. Conservative states mobilized their lawyers and legislatures to try to find a way to not recognize gay marriages from other states.

Cousin marriage used to be widespread, it was a way to keep wealth within families. Historically a majority of marriages were probably between 1st cousins.

1st cousins (except double 1st cousins) only share one grandparent. The odds of birth defects are only 5% higher with first cousin parents than unrelated parents. For comparison a 35 year old mother has 400% higher risk of birth defects than a 25 year old mom.

As far as sibling marriage goes; I can't justify banning it. To me anything between consenting adults should be legal.

Agreed. On the basis of the arguments used for SSM, there is no way to not allow sibling marriage as well.

IMO the key is to get rid of the governmental benefits of marriage. If there were no tax benefit, etc. there would be no reason for SSM or sibling marriage other than the commitment between the two people, or three or four. The problem started when we gave preferential treatment to married people and then restricted who could get married.

Marriage should have stayed a religious institution with no outside benefit to it, everyone could do what they want and no one could cry foul about not having equal opportunity or rights. Religions would be happy with not being coerced to marry those outside their group as well.

Come up with some contract language for medical emergencies and end of life decisions, then forget the rest of the "benefits".

I am just tremendously relieved to find that same sex marriage has not weakened civil marriage as a societal institution.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."