Here's possibly the strangest question you've heard all day

[eliotmoore]

I want a lawyer to weigh in on this one. Having said that I am going to argue against the majority of you on this one. Two identical twins might easily have sons who became romanically involved. Clones are just artificial twins. I believe first cousins may legally marry in Western cultures (well they were doing it in the nineteenth century at any rate). Am I wrong?

 

On the topic of clone incest... my The Ship is the World story is the incest story to end all incest stories!

Edited July 21, 2007 by eliotmoore

[Graeme]

Is it discrimination to permit same-sex incest but not different-sex incest? I don

[glomph]

Coincidentally, after I read the early messages in this thread, I saw an item about a woman who had sexual relations with twin brothers over the same time period. (Not at the same time. Supposedly neither brother knew what the other was up to. They were both her type, apparently.) She then became pregnant. The court has to decide which one is the father. Of course DNA tests come back positive for them both, so they are no help.

 

As for our theoretical half-brother-cousins, they would on average be no more genetically alike than the sons of any other twin brothers by each of their wives.

 

They each get a different mix from half the chromosomes from each father, besides the contribution of the other half from the moms. IOW, they do not receive identical genetic material from their fathers. The pairs of chromosomes split, almost certainly in different ways before they are passed on to the sons.

 

Let's suppose for the moment that the men have the rare blood type AB and the boys' mothers have coincidentally the very common type 0. Each boy has a 50% chance of being type A and a 50% chance of being type B. The O they each get from their mothers is recessive, and so of no consequence in this case.

[Kanaye]

It sounds like no one else has my thoughts... though a few of you guys have nudged mine aliitle. I'm adopted and I personally think just because someone is related to you biologically, that doesn't make them "family". I think if learning about their "suposed" biological connections breaks them up, then thier love wasnt that strong to begin with.

 

I'm actually going to write down the senario just because I get distracted very easily and writing it down will be much easier for me to construct my thoughts around.

 

(Senario)

Guy A is cloned to make Guy A2 w/o his knowlage.

 

Guy A gets married to Wife A has Son A.

 

Some where else... Guy A2 gets married to Wife B and has Son B.

 

Son B meets Son A and they have a romantic relationship.

 

First of all, since this is a story, you could have Son B and Son A fight everyone else about why thier relationship is NOT incest. Someone else mentioned that incest has psycological effects as well as birth defects. Since, in this matter, birth is not an issue, lets talk about Psycological.

 

It's one thing if they were dating for a mere 2 weeks, weren't in love and found out, that would be completely understandable if they became grossed out or awkward with eachother.

 

But, if they had been dating for 2 years and wanted to get married so they met the other father at the marrige. I say that splitting the two Sons apart would have a much much bigger effect on thier psycological selves then continuing on with thier relationship.

 

*~*

 

Now if Guy A gets cloned WITH his knowlage and knows about Guy A2 and they talk and the Sons also know about the cloning, then yes, that would be incest. But I don't know how that would effect them psycologicly since they both knew and they both made a concious decision to have "relations" with eachother.

 

I think if you fall in love with someone and you love them with all your might then finding out that you're sorta kinda a little bit related to them, shouldn't make even the tinist bit of difference. If it does then, again, like I said before, they didn't have a strong enough love and a even sneeze could have split them apart.

Edited July 21, 2007 by Kanaye

[PatrickOBrien]

"Tangled Web"? Spiderman has a clone?

 

Hehe yes, he did. There was an old story called "The Clone Saga" and it was the most convoluted and confusing story ever, lol. At one point, Peter Parker thought HE was the clone, and then Ben Reilly (the actual clone) became Spider-Man. After a while, people started to hate Ben Reilly, so they killed him off, but they left it open enough so that he might not have died.

 

I always liked Ben Reilly, so when I had an idea to do a story about Peter's son, I thought it was the perfect opportunity to use him.

 

^_~

[Luc]

I'm playing devil's advocate now

 

Based on the above argument, it is therefore NOT discrimination to prohibit same-sex marriages, since the primary reason for marriage in society is to foster a stable environment for raising the offspring of the that relationship. Since same-sex relationships can not reproduce, they should not be granted the benefits of marriage.

 

An exception could be made for same-sex couples with children, but as a general rule, this argument strongly implies that banning same-sex marriage is not discriminatory because heterosexual relationships are different to homosexual relationships.

 

Now, if Luc agrees with this, then we have a basic situation where we can agree to disagree. If, however, he disagrees with the above, then I would have to say he's being hypocritical by saying that homosexual vs heterosexual relationships are different when it suits him and the same when it doesn't.

 

Iwould agree with you--if I agreed with your statement of the reason for marriage. The contract of marriage is, in my opinion, an economic arrangement. Economic benefits exist for a married couple that do not exist for an unmarried couple--such as the ability to obtain medical benefits etc. that are available to a spouse. At one point the primary reason for marriage may have had its roots in providing a stable environment for raising children--and there is in my mind no question that it still does this--but that stability has the ability to exist without the contract of marriage. Back when women did not have the same rights as men (yes, this still does exist in some areas), the only way to ensure stability on a woman's life--and the lives of her children--was marriage. I believe we have moved on from that. So for me, the primary reason for a contract of marriage is economics. It is discrimination to deny the rights to an economic contract based on gender.I don't think I am being hypocritical in my thinking on this, though my lack of hypocrisy does depend on my interpretation of the primary reason for marriage.

[Graeme]

Iwould agree with you--if I agreed with your statement of the reason for marriage. The contract of marriage is, in my opinion, an economic arrangement. Economic benefits exist for a married couple that do not exist for an unmarried couple--such as the ability to obtain medical benefits etc. that are available to a spouse. At one point the primary reason for marriage may have had its roots in providing a stable environment for raising children--and there is in my mind no question that it still does this--but that stability has the ability to exist without the contract of marriage. Back when women did not have the same rights as men (yes, this still does exist in some areas), the only way to ensure stability on a woman's life--and the lives of her children--was marriage. I believe we have moved on from that. So for me, the primary reason for a contract of marriage is economics. It is discrimination to deny the rights to an economic contract based on gender.I don't think I am being hypocritical in my thinking on this, though my lack of hypocrisy does depend on my interpretation of the primary reason for marriage.

My turn to disagree

 

The primary benefit of marriage is economics, but the reason for that is that the government wants to encourage a stable environment for bringing up the next generation. Since the government has limited abilities in providing for that environment, they provide economic incentives for couples to create that environment.

 

So, I view the economics to be a benefit and not a reason for marriage to exist. Having said that, I agree that there are some (many?) couples only get married for the economic benefits, but I don't believe that justifies saying that the reason for a marriage contract is the economic benefits.

[glomph]

Back when women did not have the same rights as men (yes, this still does exist in some areas), the only way to ensure stability on a woman's life--and the lives of her children--was marriage.

 

Well, that's economics, too. Marriage equaled support.

 

The marriage ceremony was in part a transfer of property. The woman went from being the property/responsibility of her father to the property/responsibility of her husband. The bride was "given away" by her father, at which point her right hand was conveyed from the father's to the groom's. The phrase "to have and to hold from this day forward" is language from property transactions. Deeds and some of the mess of papers you sign at a property closing have phrases like that.

[Rigel]

In my own lineage, I have two grandparents who were first cousins once removed (she was a first cousin to one of his parents), which is/was the closest of permissible legal consanguinities. Of course, that's the side of the family that the gay genes come from. (I look at which of my cousins are gay or lesbian, and you can tell these things--at least four of us in the third and fourth generations are GLB). It also makes me my own third cousin once removed, or something like that.

 

-----

 

I can think of at least two gay stories I've read in the past year that toy with incest, of brothers or half-brothers raised apart; in each case, they realize physical similarities (in once case, they are identical twins raised apart from each other), but in both cases the brothers discover their actual relationship only after sexual encounters with each other. To avoid complete spoilers, I'll identify only the authors but not the stories nor the characters' names: one story is by Jeff Allen and another by Mickey S.

 

--Rigel

[colinian]

My cousin Chris (my mom's sister's son) was being harassed by his dad about being a sissy boy and a fag because he's a brain and not a jock. He actually is gay, but was totally in the closet, scared of being beat up and/or thrown out by his dad. His mom didn't intervene or give him any support. It really got bad, and he told me about it in emails and on IM, I told my folks, and he ended up moving from the Seattle area to live with us, and my parents became his legal guardians. I told them that he was gay when I told them about his situation. At that time I wasn't out to my folks.

 

Chris and I have separate bedrooms, but share a bathroom. We're both gay and have normal raging teenage hormones (Chris is 4 days older than me). We talked about whether we should or should not have sex, and decided that it wouldn't be right because of my BF.

 

I think our decision is the right one for us. Honestly though, if I hadn't had a BF I think we would have decided to have sex together. During our discussions we talked about incest, and if it really applied to two guys. California Penal Code section 285 covers incest and is interesting:

 

285. Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which

marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who

intermarry with each other, or who commit fornication or adultery

with each other, are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.

 

 

Colin

[AFriendlyFace]

I have some thoughts...some of them are even about this

 

 

Gay sex is as bad as incest in the eyes of society. But we have no problems gay sex because we indulge in it.

I would definitely disagree with this basic point, for my society. Gay sex is most certainly not as taboo or "bad" in the eyes of American society as incest. There may indeed be very conservative individuals who would view them to be on equal footing, but society at large is definitely more okay with homosexuality than incest. I realize of course that you live in a different country and the situation may indeed be much different there.

 

That is a weird question but it is not as far fetched as it sounds. There are many people who were born from gonated sperm or eggs. At least here in the US, the donor is anonymous. There are many people who have half brothers or half sisters they do not know about. It is entirely possible for someone to fall in love with a half sibling without knowing it.

LOL, sorry I actually mean this to point out how ditsy I am and not to make fun of your typing, but it actually took me awhile to figure out that you meant "donated". I was thinking a "gonated" sperm/egg must be some kind of special biological term with which I wasn't familiar (it kinda looks like "gonads" so I was going from that)

 

When looking at things that are considered

[Graeme]

Hi, Kevin,

 

I was considering quoting specific parts of your post relating to marriage to respond to, but I decided it wasn't necessary.

 

Firstly, I'll repeat I was playing Devil's Advocate. The comments were not necessarily my own opinion, but arguments that could be put forward as a consequence of the statements that had been made. I happen to like playing Devil's Advocate because it encourages people (including myself) to think outside of their narrow view of the world.

 

Next, I happen to agree with practically everything you said. Where the confusion lies (and I believe where it has always lied in this debate within society) is what you highlighted -- there are different views of marriage. If I could restate it in a different way, marriage means several different things and unless all parties in the debate agree on which meaning they are arguing about, the debate isn't going to go anywhere.

 

To me, marriage is four distinct things:

 

1. A public declaration of love between two people.

2. A legal state that provides certain benefits and obligations.

3. A social institution.

4. A religious ceremony.

 

Most of the debate on same-sex marriage has been focused on point 2, but points 3 and 4 keeps getting mixed up in it. Your definition seems to focus on point 1 -- well, you have that now. There is no point debating it in the USA (or Australia). Any same-sex couple can make a public declaration of love if they want to. What the debate is about is gaining the legal benefits that come with marriage. My arguments above are to do with why those legal benefits exist in the first place, and whether they should be granted to same-sex couples. Personally, I think they should, even though I was presenting arguments why they shouldn't.

 

Point 3 is a lot harder to debate because the social institution of marriage is a construct of the way society views marriage, and it is hard to see what impact (if any) same-sex marriage will have on those views. Will it weaken/cheapen it, as some opponents suggest? That is a legitimate question that can't be easily answered. It is why the accusations of "social engineering" are reasonable. My personal view is that it shouldn't, because the number of such relationships is still only going to be a very small minority. It shouldn't have a significant impact in the wider communities view of marriage -- any more than arranged marriages do, or "trivial" marriages (eg. marriages of convenience, or the infamous 24-hour marriage of some celebrities).

 

Point 4 should be taken out of the debate completely. It has no bearing on point 2 (which is where the focus should be when it comes to making same-sex marriages legal), other than to maintain a church/state separation.

 

I know we've gone off topic, but I think this topic (while it has been debated many, many times) is still important enough to continue to discuss. If we're not clear on what we are asking for, or what we are arguing about, we're not going to get what we want.

[TalonRider]

Reminds me of a song by Ray Charles, I'm My Own Grandpa.

[PatrickOBrien]

Hahaha, does anyone else have "Dueling Banjos" stuck in their head? I didn't know this would spark such a heavy debate.

[glomph]

Reminds me of a song by Ray Charles, I'm My Own Grandpa.

 

Ray Charles? Ray Stevens, maybe. Or did you just have Georgia on your mind?

 

The song is from the 1940's, BTW.

 

Oh, and I'm my own distant cousin (third cousin once removed, I think).

[Rigel]

I'm My Own Grampa

 

 

Lyrics:

 

Many, many years ago when I was 23,

I was married to a widow who was pretty as can be.

This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red

My father fell in love with her and soon they two were wed.

 

This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life

For my daughter was my mother cause she was my father's wife

To complicate the matter even though it brought me joy,

I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.

 

I'm my own grampa,

I'm my own grampa

It sounds funny I know

But it really is so

I'm my own grampa.

 

 

My little baby then became a brother-in-law to dad,

And so became my uncle though it made me very sad.

For, if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother

Of the widow's grown-up daughter who, of course, was my step-mother.

 

My father's wife then had a son who kept them on the run,

And he became my grandchild for he was my daughter's son.

My wife is now my mother's mother and it makes me blue

Because, although she is my wife, she's my grandmother too.

 

I'm my own grampa,

I'm my own grampa

It sounds funny I know

But it really is so

I'm my own grampa.

 

Oh, if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild.

And every time I think of it, it nearly drives me wild

For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw

As husband of my own grandmother, I'm my own grampa.

 

I'm my own grampa,

I'm my own grampa

It sounds funny I know

But it really is so

I'm my own grampa.

 

 

A bit of history from the Web:

 

In the '30s, Latham had a group, the Jesters, on network radio; their specialties were bits of spoken humor and novelty songs. While reading a book of Mark Twain anecdotes, he once found a paragraph in which Twain proved it would be possible for a man to become his own grandfather. In 1947, Latham and Jaffe expanded the idea into a song, which became a hit for Lonzo and Oscar. It's also one of the songs on Michael Cooney's album of Songs for Children.

(Michael Cooney is the person I first heard it from, years ago.)

 

And a link to Ray Stevens's version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KzU8CBHRBo

 

--Rigel

[TalonRider]

Ray Charles? Ray Stevens, maybe. Or did you just have Georgia on your mind?

 

The song is from the 1940's, BTW.

 

Oh, and I'm my own distant cousin (third cousin once removed, I think).

Thanks for the correction. I was thinking Stevens and wrote Charles.

 

Jan