There are many heterosexual couples that are unable to have children, and I don't think it would be fair to say that their 'love', isn't in fact love.
Marriage is a declaration of a couple's love towards each other, however the concept is a religious tradition, and most if not all religions fundamentally outlaw same-sex relations.
Marriage isn't directly about the production of offspring in the modern day, it's more about declaring their love.
I suppose it depends how technical you want to be with the religious side of it, and how 'modern' you are. An Interesting question.
If you ban straight incest marriage based on the possibility of genetic defects then to be consent you need to ban two people who share the same genetic disease from getting married, because they have a higher (100% if it's based on recessive genes, 75% if the condition is based on dominant genes and both parents have heterozygous dominant genes) chance of their child getting the disease, whereas the risk from incest is considerably smaller.
Personally I do find the idea of incest gross, but that doesn't give me the right to discriminate against people in those relationships.
Love is love is love is love is love is love is love. How can someone deny love? This is also a contract between two consenting adults. Why does government regulate this and discriminate against two people that love each other. Love is love is love is love is love.
Marriage is about love and love only. Love is not gender specific. Historically it is wrongly reinforced in human minds that marriage is a relationship between just opposite sexes and only for procreation. Marriage is not only for procreation but also for recreation as sex has a strong element of enjoyment. So it is totally discriminating to make the love illegal between two consenting adults gay or opposite sex who are related to each other. If they can enjoy chess playing with each other, enjoy having playing sports together, enjoy having food together why cannot they enjoy sex together as long it is protected and no offspring is involved.
Unless you are prefect, what gives you the right to tell another person how to live their life. When the politicians (usually republicans) argue that it is against their beliefs, and want to make laws demanding that you live your life according to their beliefs, how is that freedom of religion
The reason for this, is that if you are gay and happy with another person, you should try to do anything in your power to stay happy. People who aren't gay should just be in love with their opposite sex. But if you like the same sex as you are and the one you like likes you back, then good for you.
If we respect the rights of consenting adults, we can't deny consanguineous lovers their rights. There is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against consensual incest that is consistently applied to other relationships. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in what I call 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 this debate points out, some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. But I am defending the rights of ALL, not just same-gender, so... 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. It is true that in general, children born to consanguineous parents have an increased
chance of these problems than those born to nonconsanguineous parents, but the odds are still minimal. Unless someone is willing
to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force
everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally
disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry.
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 more than 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.
Some say is isn't necessary because they are already legally family. However, marriage is given special status and designates "next of kin" and may be desired by someone who'd rather one family member get next of kin status before others. ALSO, some genetic relatives are not legally considered family because of adoption, egg donation, etc. but are still denied their right to marry.
Let consenting adults love each other!
Just like with homosexual marriage there is no logical reason to obstruct incestuous marriage from being legal. Who and why you wish to marry or have an intimate relationship with is a personal choice. The government should have no right to dictate that decision for you. The only organization that should regulate marriage in your religious institution whatever that may be. I do not see marriage as a significant social problem and some of the answers to the issues are simple; end the government intervention.
To deny siblings the right to marry is as arbitrary as denying gays to marry. It all comes down to people's morals, but for anyone to oppose incestual relationships and yet support gay marriage is just plain hippocracy. We've already established that marriage is no longer bound to a simple definition, so it is time we allow two consenting adults of any sort of relation (be it a close blood relation or otherwise) to be able to marry.
There are some straight couples that cannot have children, if we are able to get married only because we can have sex, then old couples couldn't get married, even if they were straight, some men have to take different drugs (medicine) that stop the making of sperm. Are they able to be married?
Could people stop asking repetitive, erroneous questions like this on the opinion polls? Sheesh. People need to get a life and worry about more than just social issues. It is really irritating and facetious as people purposely continue to bring up the same issues time and time again without ever ceasing. Give people a break.
It doesn't make sense. Just because we support gay marriage doesn't mean that something like incestuous marriage should be considered. There's a limit and marriage between siblings is beyond that limit. What difference does it make whether they're not going to have children or not. Gay marriage is absolutely fine and I support it but incestuous marriage is ridiculous.
If gay sisters or gay brothers are able to get married, then we as a group would need to allow the same for straight incestuous couples. We are looking to be equal and not be given special privileges over other couples. I think we should just be okay with marriage equality.