Ship of Fools: Is Marriage between a Step-Brother and Step-Sister permitted?

Thread: Is Marriage between a Step-Brother and Step-Sister permitted? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027415

Posted by Curiousity (# 18138) on :

forgive me if this is the incorrect thread. im new.

Also if it is not permitted please reference me proof.

thanks in advance.

P.S im just having a debate with a friend, not actually considering this.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

All things are permitted, but not all things are beneficial.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

No, it is not permitted.

quote:
Incest is illegal in Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It is defined as sexual intercourse between a person and their parent (including adoptive parent), grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. It is punishable with up to two years' imprisonment. For familial child sex offences (sex with a family member under 18 who lives in the same household), the relationship definitions include step-parents, step-siblings, first cousins, current and former foster parents and current and former foster siblings.

(from wikipedia, but it's an accurate representation of the law.)

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, it is not permitted.

quote:
Incest is illegal in Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It is defined as sexual intercourse between a person and their parent (including adoptive parent), grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. It is punishable with up to two years' imprisonment. For familial child sex offences (sex with a family member under 18 who lives in the same household), the relationship definitions include step-parents, step-siblings, first cousins, current and former foster parents and current and former foster siblings.
(from wikipedia, but it's an accurate representation of the law.)

1) The bit about step-siblings seems to be purely about under-18 sex.

2) "Is it permitted?" doesn't actually mean the same thing as "is it legally permitted in the UK?" - What about "permitted by this religion", or "permitted in Canada"?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Sorry, that's not the question you asked.

The answer is yes, with provisos, which are, apparently:

1, They are at least 21 years old
2, The couple must not have lived in the same household together at any time before the youngest had reached the age of 18.

Things are more complicated if the non-related parent adopts the new spouse's children.

(xposted with St Deird - mea culpa)

[ 18. June 2014, 09:45: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

If it is a legal question then Wikipedia informs me that step-siblings marrying is illegal in a number of jurisdictions but is legal in others such as Brazil and Sweden. So YMMV.

Posted by bad man (# 17449) on :

The Table of Kindred and Affinity in the Book of Common Prayer governs the rules in the Church of England.

Despite the 16th century language of the preamble, this has been tinkered with a lot, especially in the last 100 years - see this page for a discussion and explanation of the changes.

The rules for the Church of England don't always correspond with the rules in English law - the Deceased Wife's Sister Act of 1907, for example, did not lead immediately to an amendment of the Prayer Book Table of Kindred and Affinity. This led to a court case in which a clergyman wanted to refuse communion to a man who married his deceased wife's sister within the law of the land but contrary to the Table of Kindred and Affinity (the clergyman lost).

Are step siblings included in the simple words "sister" and "brother"? Even in the 16th century widows and widowers would remarry and create step siblings. The Table does not include the word "step" for any of the listed relationships, but the reference (for example) to the "Father's wife" is listed separately from "mother" and so must refer to a step mother.

In the same way, sibling marriages for men exclude: "Sister, Father's daughter, Mother's daughter" - but this only rules out marriage to full and half sisters. It does not rule out marriage to "Father's wife's daughter" and so marriage to full step siblings (i.e. with no blood relationship) is not ruled out.

Posted by Curiousity (# 18138) on :

Let me add that the evidence i want is not law by country but law given by the church.

I dont particularly care which church, however please site the churches official opinion and the church it comes from. own opinions are welcome.

Preferably i would like one from the catholic rite and one from orthodox rite.

All the replies have been much appreciated.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

In the Orthodox Church, one is not permitted to marry one's step-sibling, or a child one's parents adopted, or a foster-sibling, or even the children of one's godparents.

Posted by Curiousity (# 18138) on :

can you tell me which orthodox rite and where it says that. ive heard that orthodox arent united between churches when it comes to law etc. (correct me if im wrong)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Not sure what you mean by "rite." As far as I know we have two rites -- the Byzantine or eastern rite, and the western rite.

I can't tell you where it's posted; I do not have the canons of the church memorized. You could do some homework if you were interested.

I do not know if this is an area where the Orthodox patriarchates are in disagreement. I know what my priest told me about what I or my children might be allowed to do.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

I'm interested in why this question is being asked. You seem to be after a list of denominations and references to their internal rules on this issue? Why?

Posted by Curiousity (# 18138) on :

yeah that is what i meant by rite mousethief. ive done considerable research but ive found literally nothing on orthodox churches (and going by church websites the laws of the church vary from church to church rather then country to country) so its really hard to dig up info. catholic rites have the opposite issue. the information is plentiful and everyone follows the one set of rules but its all in jargon that i wont understand unless i put a fair amount of time into researching all the terms. doctrines of the church are hard to read for a layman.

i have a thick headed friend who thinks its ok and i dont think i can convince them it isnt. which is why im asking for specifics. they are orthodox and i am catholic which is why i asked for both (since i am not sure about the churches stance on this either).

Posted by Curiousity (# 18138) on :

when i say church to church i meant archdiocese to archdiocese.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiousity:
i have a thick headed friend who thinks its ok and i dont think i can convince them it isnt. which is why im asking for specifics. they are orthodox and i am catholic which is why i asked for both (since i am not sure about the churches stance on this either).

Ah, cool. In that case can I deconstruct the word 'ok' a little?

I can't speak for the RCC or Orthodox, so I'll speak from one individual protestant perspective.

There are different questions I think tangled up here. One question is whether such a marriage is a good idea/should happen/is moral. Another is what rules of behaviour people have put in place on this issue.

Many denominations of course have internal rules governing whether their ministers will or will not marry certain people.

bad man has given you the internal rules of conduct within the denomination called the Church of England. Mousethief has given you rules for his denomination (though he would use diferent terms to me)

These rules are based in the end on the consent of the members of that denomination, who can leave if they disagree. (The secular state should not prevent them from changing denomination or religion or penalise them)

The secular states also have laws, either as a result of democratic decision making or autocratic dicat.

Your question seems to me to presuppose a model of morality where a denomination passes a law on whether or not something is 'permitted' and that law has normative effect - in other words, what is not permitted is therefore immoral.

This model is wrong, which is why in my first answer above I quoted Paul - everything is 'permitted'. But not everything is good.

Marrying half-brothers and half-sisters is not wrong because the Church of England (or the RCC or the Orthdox or the Quakers etc) have rules saying it will not marry them.
Instead the CoE has those rules because it believes (rightly or wrongly) that all such marriages would be wrong.

So from my perspective the meaningful question is - is it good, helpful for a half-brother and sister to marry? This is not looking for a ruling but seeking the best outcome for these particular people in this fallen world.

So to answer the question on whether such a marriage is 'ok' we need to be clear whether we are asking whether the marriage is legal under a particular secular law, whether such a marriage would be in accordance with the rules of a particular denomination or whether such a marriage is good, right, moral, in accordance with the revealed nature of God.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

But if they're Orthodox, then it's very very easy. Have them ask their priest. End of.

Posted by Curiousity (# 18138) on :

Demas you have a very good point in how you put things however, i must disagree to some extent. Yes, humans have no right to judge what is right or wrong, however they can judge what God has deemed to be right or wrong. to simplify, there is definitely a right and a wrong, in almost every case, but like with everything, there are grey areas in which cant be clearly defined and in which we must consider whether it is "better or worse" by what we can gain from the action. however judging like this it is clear that step-sibling marriage would be wrong, as there are more beneficial marriages, yet there is division. which is why i try to always fall back to scripture or canon law of a particular church.

Mousethief i really dont want to be pressuring her or kind of condescend to her. but i emailed the archdiocese this morning and hopefully the patriarch will reply.

Thank you all for your replies. your opinions have really helped. when asking people, many said it was fine, wouldnt encourage it but nothing particularly wrong with it. knowing that there are people who dont agree with it helped me continue researching. thanks

For my point of view, there is Leviticus 18:9 which basically specifies no marriage to siblings regardless of blood relation or distance. however there is also the fact that a marriage joined under God is a union of souls, however it isnt just between husband and wife, its between family and family. 2000 years ago, after marriage, they rarely mentioned things that specified separation like brother-in law. they simply called the wifes siblings brother or sister. to that same effect both parents children are unified and tied together as a family in God's eyes. So i was under the assumption that if God saw them as brother and sister, no church could argue. when i saw the division between churches on the matter i was shocked and i came here.

once again, thank you for all your replies. much obliged.

[ 19. June 2014, 03:33: Message edited by: Curiousity ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiousity:
Mousethief i really dont want to be pressuring her or kind of condescend to her. but i emailed the archdiocese this morning and hopefully the patriarch will reply.

You don't want to pressure her so you bugged the patriarch? Why is this so important that you have to fire off a letter to headquarters of somebody else's church?

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiousity:
[humans] can judge what God has deemed to be right or wrong. to simplify, there is definitely a right and a wrong, in almost every case, but like with everything, there are grey areas in which cant be clearly defined and in which we must consider whether it is "better or worse" by what we can gain from the action.

I agree. Each of us has an obligation to consider in our actions what is right and wrong. Often there are grey areas. We should try to do our fallible best.

This wasn't my point.

quote:
scripture

This is a new word in the conversation [Smile]

quote:
Mousethief i really dont want to be pressuring her or kind of condescend to her. but i emailed the archdiocese this morning and hopefully the patriarch will reply.

You seem very concerned about what is usually a pretty obscure question! If this is more than merely an academic argument you are having, please please tread slowly and carefully and always keep in mind that she is a loved child of God. At every stage you must make sure you are acting for her own benefit and respecting her own moral autonomy under God, not attempting to win an argument.

quote:
For my point of view, there is Leviticus 18:9 which basically specifies no marriage to siblings regardless of blood relation or distance. however there is also the fact that a marriage joined under God is a union of souls, however it isnt just between husband and wife, its between family and family. 2000 years ago, after marriage, they rarely mentioned things that specified separation like brother-in law. they simply called the wifes siblings brother or sister. to that same effect both parents children are unified and tied together as a family in God's eyes. So i was under the assumption that if God saw them as brother and sister, no church could argue. when i saw the division between churches on the matter i was shocked and i came here.

Maybe some of those churches have differing ideas on how the holiness codes of Leviticus should inform the life of modern Christians in the light of the revelation of Christ.

Posted by Curiousity (# 18138) on :

quote:
Maybe some of those churches have differing ideas on how the holiness codes of Leviticus should inform the life of modern Christians in the light of the revelation of Christ.

yeah i know they do. which was why i furthered my explanation. sorry if it seemed a bit all over the place :S
since the laws of Leviticus were under the old covenant some churches disregard them, however st Paul states makes mention that they shouldnt be disregarded, only that some arent necessary to which he specifies e.g circumcision.

quote:
You don't want to pressure her so you bugged the patriarch? Why is this so important that you have to fire off a letter to headquarters of somebody else's church?

Yes. yes i did. it is a 3 second question for a leader, but it is disputable among priests. rather than it being "so important" i just dont like any gray areas in the rules that need to be followed. Catholic leaders of archdiocese really dont have issues with questions being asked (or at least not in mine). im honestly sorry if i offended you. forgive me.

quote:
You seem very concerned about what is usually a pretty obscure question! If this is more than merely an academic argument you are having, please please tread slowly and carefully and always keep in mind that she is a loved child of God. At every stage you must make sure you are acting for her own benefit and respecting her own moral autonomy under God, not attempting to win an argument.

She has no step's of any kind so its not like that and if she did, id probably be even more cautious. i dont want her to think im throwing catholic canon in her face is all. so i really dont care what length of research i have to do if it means that we both come out understanding God's laws a little better. This is technically an academic dispute but its not like we sit there any argue for ours, like i said its difficult for different denominations to discuss without it seeming like we are throwing words at walls. so i just thought i would clarify it for both of us.

For the record, about moral autonomy, someone raised in today's society with moral autonomy is almost guaranteed to fall down the wrong path when they could have been helped otherwise. me not noticing the difference between my and another Catholics friends beliefs allowed him to stray without me being able to aid him. the amount of things he believes to be "good" or "natural" that the church believes is appalling is ridiculous. simply because no one influenced his morals and rather let him freely decide.

Sorry that my previous paragraph is off topic. moral autonomy is not something i like. there are times when people need time to think and reflect and that time could be large amounts of time, but they must still should be influenced (simply by hearing why something is right or wrong, not manipulation or anything like that)by reliable sources (not my personal opinions obviously).

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiousity:
since the laws of Leviticus were under the old covenant some churches disregard them, however st Paul states makes mention that they shouldnt be disregarded, only that some arent necessary to which he specifies e.g circumcision.

I think we will have to disagree on that reading of Paul.

quote:
She has no step's of any kind so its not like that and if she did, id probably be even more cautious.

Glad to hear it. Makes me wonder why you care so much about this pretty unusual situation though!

quote:
moral autonomy is not something i like. there are times when people need time to think and reflect and that time could be large amounts of time, but they must still should be influenced (simply by hearing why something is right or wrong, not manipulation or anything like that)by reliable sources (not my personal opinions obviously).

My post said 'moral autonomy under God' which does not preclude listening carefully to other people's views.

In any case, I have tried to get across my response to your original question about the permissibility of half-siblings marrying, so this is all probably off topic.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Hosting
Hi Curiousity,
Welcome aboard! this is the dead horses board which is only for a a specific set of subjects which are named in our guidelines. this isn't one of our topics so I am moving it to the general debate board - Purgatory.

thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host

Hosting off

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

It strikes me that we have to be careful what we are talking about here.

For example, a woman called X gets married and has a child A. And a man called Y gets married and then his wife has a child B.

Both couples get divorced, then X (with custody of A) and Y (with custody of B) get married to each other. Clearly A and B are not related by blood at all. Can they legally marry? In my book there is no moral reason why they may not, but there may be legal provisions once their respective parents have tied the knot.

Things presumably get even more complicated if X then legally adopts B as her child, and Y does the same for A!

The situation for half-brothers and -sisters is a different kettle of fish entirely, as they share a parent. In this case I would be morally dubious, even if it is legally or ecclesiastically permissible.

[ 19. June 2014, 11:12: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Curiousity (# 18138) on :

quote:
I think we will have to disagree on that reading of Paul.

feel free to explain it to me. i read it quite awhile back and havent looked it up yet. my memory isnt 100%.

quote:
Makes me wonder why you care so much about this pretty unusual situation though!

situation isnt unusual. ive heard without actually going out of my way to search in the double digits of stories or people wanting to get together with their steps. honestly i hear less stories about abortion and thats ridiculously common place nowadays (and sad too).

quote:
My post said 'moral autonomy under God' which does not preclude listening carefully to other people's views.

sincerest apologies. i misunderstood autonomy to mean no influence.

quote:
In any case, I have tried to get across my response to your original question about the permissibility of half-siblings marrying, so this is all probably off topic.

not half siblings haha [Razz]

Posted by Curiousity (# 18138) on :

Baptist Trainfan. Half-siblings is an absolute no no. Adopted children are absolute no no's. and i believe if the parents are divorced (and the divorce isnt acknowledged by their church) and they remarry (again, without acceptance by their church) then the children of each (with no blood relation) can marry after they are of the age of 18 (no romantic relationship permitted until that age either). but the latter about the step-siblings is church specific which is why i was looking for details though.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity:

quote:
My post said 'moral autonomy under God' which does not preclude listening carefully to other people's views.
sincerest apologies. i misunderstood autonomy to mean no influence.

No, just that in the end after listening to all advice, the choice is the responsibility of the person and cannot/should not be abrogated.

quote:

quote:
In any case, I have tried to get across my response to your original question about the permissibility of half-siblings marrying, so this is all probably off topic.
not half siblings haha

Shug. My answer doesn't change really. See Baptist Trainfan's comment where he refers to the possibility of something being morally dubious even if legally or ecclesiastically permissible.

Knowing whether something is legally or ecclesiastically permissible is useful when deciding whether it is moral, but is only (more or less helpful) evidence of what other people think, not an answer to the question.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiousity:
Mousethief i really dont want to be pressuring her or kind of condescend to her. but i emailed the archdiocese this morning and hopefully the patriarch will reply.
You don't want to pressure her so you bugged the patriarch? Why is this so important that you have to fire off a letter to headquarters of somebody else's church?

Even if Curiousity's friends were step siblings, an Orthodox priest would have to perform the marriage. One can conclude that if he did her church was OK with step siblings and if he wouldn't her church wasn't OK with it. Emailing the archdiocese is indeed overkill.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiousity:
Baptist Trainfan. Half-siblings is an absolute no no.

Well, that's what I meant - although I suspect it may just be legal in some countries?

quote:
Adopted children are absolute no no's. and i believe if the parents are divorced (and the divorce isn't acknowledged by their church) and they remarry (again, without acceptance by their church) then the children of each (with no blood relation) can marry after they are of the age of 18 (no romantic relationship permitted until that age either).

Of course, in today's society the parents may well end up living together without being married. It almost seems to be the "getting (re)married" which ends up causing the problem - which is rather ironic!

When we add into the mix the fact that different church polities regard marriage and divorce in varied ways, the picture gets very complicated!

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

This brings to mind the following possibility: John is a widower and Mary is a widow. Each has one child, and their children marry. A couple of years later, John and Mary want to marry. Is this legal? (We do not even have a term for their tenuous relationship.)

Now do it over: suppose the respective grandparents (a widow and widower) of a man and wife want to marry. Is that legal?

Another interesting sideline: should first cousins be allowed to marry? In the U.S., half the states prohibit this and a few more place some restrictions on it.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Surely all these should be asked of geneticists, not moralists or religionists?

There are a lot of first cousin marriages round here and it doesn't go well health-wise.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Psychologists, too, though. Stable family bonds are very important, and shifting a familial relationship to a romantic one needs to be approached with extreme caution, whether or not genes are involved.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Psychologists, too, though. Stable family bonds are very important, and shifting a familial relationship to a romantic one needs to be approached with extreme caution, whether or not genes are involved.

Yes - good point.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Psychologists, too, though. Stable family bonds are very important, and shifting a familial relationship to a romantic one needs to be approached with extreme caution, whether or not genes are involved.

I think this is the issue going back many thousands of years and across many cultures. Genetic may add to the restraints (which raises a whole kettle of issues about whether unrelated people should be tested for certain genetic issues and forbidden to marry if their kids are highly likely to have no future but pain).

But culture after culture (not all but many) has said no to marrying close family. The reasons pre-date modern knowledge of genetics, so the reasons probably have to do with differences between the growing up together family relationship and a marital relationship.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Before we congratulate ourselves on a modern knowledge of genetics, we should remember that genetics simply provides the mechanism for what stock-breeders had already known for thousands of years.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Yes. yes i did. it is a 3 second question for a leader, but it is disputable among priests. rather than it being "so important" i just dont like any gray areas in the rules that need to be followed. Catholic leaders of archdiocese really dont have issues with questions being asked (or at least not in mine).

Couple of things. first, while answering a question like that MAY only take a few seconds, it may in fact be more complicated without a single clear answer that applies in all cases. secondly, a hierarch may not have those three seconds (in the sense that if everyone asked them these three second questions, they wouldn't have time to do anything but answer them). this is why most large organizations of all sorts have special people who deal with answering questions like this (aside from the obvious "ask your priest"). Finally, you say you have trouble with grey areas, but there are a LOT of grey areas in Orthodoxy (in all religions, I assume, but Orthodoxy in particular). it's not that the rules aren't clear, so much that the rules have nuances which may not be obvious, as well what one may call conflicting guidance (i.e. by following the letter of one law, you in fact end up violating a much more important law--Jesus had a few things to say about this). In any case, Orthodoxy is generally very, very comfortable with ambiguity, and having to say that we just don't know a particular answer.

so, if you are debating in an abstract way whether marriage between step siblings is right or wrong, and you expect a single yes or no answer that applies in every single case, even within one singe denomination, your search is very likely futile. if, on the other hand, you were deciding whether in a particular, specific situation it was right or wrong, you may have a better chance of a definitive answer (at least answer "according to X"), but then the best way to get that answer is, as mouse thief says.. "ask your priest" (or equivalent clergy).

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

... and your average pastor, priest, or leader isn't going to give you the answer you want right away. They're going to say, "Tell me more about the situation..." and expect at least a half hour consultation, if not more. Because when you're dealing with human souls, you don't just hand out rulings like lollipops, you find out a) what they really want to know, b) what they really NEED to know, and c) what is likely to happen if you give them advice X or Y. To handle things otherwise is irresponsible.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiousity:
Mousethief i really dont want to be pressuring her or kind of condescend to her. but i emailed the archdiocese this morning and hopefully the patriarch will reply.
You don't want to pressure her so you bugged the patriarch? Why is this so important that you have to fire off a letter to headquarters of somebody else's church?
Even if Curiousity's friends were step siblings, an Orthodox priest would have to perform the marriage.

Orthodox priests are not forced to perform any marriages. I don't understand your comment.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
In my book there is no moral reason why they may not

I agree. I've never understood some of the aspects of kindred and affinity. There are sound biological reasons why people shouldn't marry their siblings, parents etc, relating to inbreeding. But I never understood why a man shouldn't marry his brother's widow, nor can I see why step siblings with no biological affinity should be banned from forming a union. I don't know if such unions are illegal or only proscribed by the church.

In 1503 Pope Julius II granted a papal bull to permit Prince Henry of England to marry Catherine of Aragon, widow of his recently deceased brother, Prince Arthur. 30 years later, this unleashed havoc on this land!

Posted by Julian the Orthodox (# 18107) on :

With regards to consanguity, the Orthodox Catholic Church prohibits marriages up until the fourth degree, that is first cousins.

Marriage is also prohibited up to the third degree with regards to affinity, that is relationships arising as a result of marriage. There must be six degrees of separation.

The cases in which these rules are bent out of mercy is an altogether different story. [Big Grin]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Julian the Orthodox, a quick word of official welcome to the Ship!

Please take the time to read our 10 Commandments, posting Guidelines for the various boards, and check out the FAQs.

You are also welcome to say hello on the "Welcome Aboard" thread in All Saints.

Enjoy travelling with us!

Eutychus
Purgatory Host

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Ok, so if, say, your father remarries, and you can't marry your stepmother's daughter...

... what if you marry someone, and then your father and her mother want to get married?

(The difference, you'll see, is that in the first case you're step-siblings before you're married, and in the second, you're married before you're step-siblings.)

Posted by Ann (# 94) on :

When this all gets out of hand

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
, nor can I see why step siblings with no biological affinity should be banned from forming a union.

Are adoptive parents real parents? Yes, because it is the relationship, not the genetic material, which makes that bond. Same should be true of step-siblings. So, banned? Perhaps not. A bit wrong, though.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

This question reminds me of the movie Clueless (which I love, btw). The protagonist, Cher, winds up "going with" her former step-brother, Josh, whom her father is still fond of. As he said, women you divorce, not their children. Slyly, in the denouement, there is a sight gag that for a moment implies that they are marrying. Ew! she says in the voiceover, I'm only sixteen and this isn't Kentucky!

Posted by Mrs Shrew (# 8635) on :

I think there is a big difference here to be drawn between those with no blood relationship and those with. I would feel quite concerned regarding any blood relationship but where there is none we need to give this more thought.

I agree that if children have been raised together I would feel a strong concern if they decided to marry, but some examples have been given of situations I which people could be adults at the start of a potentially tricky situation.
The example of two divorced or widowed adults with adult children marrying springs to mind. In that case, surely the adult offspring would have no moral obligation not to marry, particularly since they could have had a preexisting relationship.

Another situation which springs to mind would be: A fathers a child, X. He and the mother split up and X grows up not knowing his or her father.

A later remarries, adopting his new wife's child, B.

A and B meet as adults. Now from what has been said above I think legally they cannot marry (as adopted half siblings) but morally? Are they any different from any other pair of humans not related by blood? We

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

Were I to be widowed, the prayer book (1662) quite properly tells me not to make an inappropriate and wrong marriage with my wife's sister's daughter.

However, it is silent on a marriage with my first cousin's daughter, which would be, if anything, an even more inappropriate and wrong union.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Were I to be widowed, the prayer book (1662) quite properly tells me not to make an inappropriate and wrong marriage with my wife's sister's daughter.

However, it is silent on a marriage with my first cousin's daughter, which would be, if anything, an even more inappropriate and wrong union.

Since it is lawful, even if not recommended, to marry one's first cousin, it is also lawful to marry his or her daughter.

It's important to recognise, even if one doesn't agree with the idea, that there are two sorts of incest, blood and social. The blood sort is obvious as it affects genetics. It's ease and unease about the social sort that is driving this thread, a feeling that it might be wrong to marry one's step-sister, even though there are no genetic reasons why not.

One of the reasons for having taboos against social incest, is so that people of different sexes can safely and securely live, function and work in family units together in close proximity as brother and sister etc without the pressure of having to treat each other as potential sexual partners.

This is part of the reason why everyone accepts that adopted people are in the same relationships as regards incest as they would be if they had been born with the genetic relationships they have been adopted into. It is also the reason why no one seems to have queried the assumption that civil partnership and same sex marriage should be bound by the same rules as regards incest as apply to ordinary marriages.

[ 21. June 2014, 09:47: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The answer is yes, with provisos, which are, apparently:

1, They are at least 21 years old
2, The couple must not have lived in the same household together at any time before the youngest had reached the age of 18.

Agreeing with Enoch and adding that number 2 in Doc Tor's post seems very wise. In some situations the older sibling can be in enough of a dominant position over the younger one to effect her/his free will. Resulting in a situation that is a little bit like the predator "grooming" the child and this dynamic can last into adulthood.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Julian the Orthodox:
Marriage is also prohibited up to the third degree with regards to affinity, that is relationships arising as a result of marriage. There must be six degrees of separation.

Yes, in the quite distant past, my family came up against this one. You are not allowed to marry your brother/sister-in-law. If the eponymous Emma and Mr.Knightley hd been Orthodox, their marriage would have been forbidden.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
You are not allowed to marry your brother/sister-in-law. If the eponymous Emma and Mr.Knightley hd been Orthodox, their marriage would have been forbidden.

But Mr. Knightley was not Emma's brother-in-law. He was her sister's brother-in-law.

Moo

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Fanny and Edmund, in Mansfield Park were first cousins and grew up in the same household for many years while under eighteen years of age. Blech.

[ 21. June 2014, 22:06: Message edited by: Twilight ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

First cousin marriage is pretty much culture-bound. It doesn't bother me--is mandated in some cultures--but squicks out a lot of other people.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

But the marriage of cousins leads to a much higher incidence of genetic problems various. There's a lot of research on that for the Romany and the immigrant Asian communities where first cousin marrying has been common. So there's a good genetic reason for proscribing first cousin marriage.

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :

Never mind first cousins! Our minister pointed out in this morning's sermon that the OT patriarch Abraham (no less) married is sister. And he's universally admired by Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

Paternal half-sister to be exact. His son Isaac married his first cousin once removed (Rebecca was the granddaughter of Abraham's brother, Nahor, and Abraham's niece, Milcah daughter of Haran another of Abraham's brothers). And Jacob married two of his first cousins (who were also his second cousins once removed), Leah and Rachel, Rebecca's brother's daughters.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
You are not allowed to marry your brother/sister-in-law. If the eponymous Emma and Mr.Knightley hd been Orthodox, their marriage would have been forbidden.
But Mr. Knightley was not Emma's brother-in-law. He was her sister's brother-in-law.

is this clearer: you are not allowed to marry the brother/ sister of your brother's/sister's husband/wife.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It's interesting how in Scripture the further you get from Creation, the farther out go the boundaries of incest. I mean, Adam and Eve's kids were presumably marrying full siblings; Abraham marries a half-sibling and nobody says anything; and then we get all the first and second cousin weddings all over the place, including Jacob and Isaac. Then Moses is (apparently) the child of an aunt/nephew marriage, though it's hard to be sure given the Hebrew penchant for using "son/daughter of" to refer to any descendant, whether that's really a grandchild, great-grandchild, etc. Finally we get the Law codifying things, where first cousins are the inner limit (although there's some argufying over the uncle/niece thing, I believe).

It's pure speculation, but I wonder if, as time went on, the average load of genetic damage in the population became greater to the point where the no-marriage boundaries had to be increased.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
is this clearer: you are not allowed to marry the brother/ sister of your brother's/sister's husband/wife.

Since when?

What you are saying is that two brothers cannot marry two sisters. Or any similar permutation. That quite simply is not correct.

If it were correct, it would mean that the one that got their wedding in first would then bar his brother or her sister from marrying their fiancé(e).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

It's pure speculation, but I wonder if, as time went on, the average load of genetic damage in the population became greater to the point where the no-marriage boundaries had to be increased.

I wonder if the tendency for people in the ancient world, including the Israelites, to take wives or concubines from among the foreigners they conquered can be explained as an urgent if unconscious desire to expand the gene pool. Marrying half-siblings and cousins kept inheritances within the family or tribe, but sooner or later it must have presented problems.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
is this clearer: you are not allowed to marry the brother/ sister of your brother's/sister's husband/wife.
Since when?

What you are saying is that two brothers cannot marry two sisters. Or any similar permutation. That quite simply is not correct.

The children of such marriages are known as double first cousins.

Moo

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0