Advocacy of Incest in Tv Show

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So what, then, would be the justification for prohibiting incest when there is no such socialization to begin with (e.g., Oedipus, Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa, etc.)?

 

The genetic component, as I mentioned upthread in my first reply.

[Daniel2]

The risks of birth defects between first cousins is often overestimated, as outlined in this 2002 New York Times article (again, pre-dating Obergefell by 13 years).  It’s also interesting to note that world-wide, the taboo doesn’t exist as profoundly as it does here in the states, and consanguineous marriages are sometimes even preferred:

Quote

Few Risks Seen To the Children Of 1st Cousins

By Denise Grady

April 4, 2002

Contrary to widely held beliefs and longstanding taboos in America, first cousins can have children together without a great risk of birth defects or genetic disease, scientists are reporting today. They say there is no biological reason to discourage cousins from marrying.

First cousins are somewhat more likely than unrelated parents to have a child with a serious birth defect, mental retardation or genetic disease, but their increased risk is nowhere near as large as most people think, the scientists said.

In the general population, the risk that a child will be born with a serious problem like spina bifida or cystic fibrosis is 3 percent to 4 percent; to that background risk, first cousins must add another 1.7 to 2.8 percentage points, the report said.

Although the increase represents a near doubling of the risk, the result is still not considered large enough to discourage cousins from having children, said Dr. Arno Motulsky, a professor emeritus of medicine and genome sciences at the University of Washington, and the senior author of the report.

''In terms of general risks in life it's not very high,'' Dr. Motulsky said. Even at its worst, 7 percent, he said, ''93 percent of the time, nothing is going to happen.''

The report is in today's issue of The Journal of Genetic Counseling.

''As genetic advisers,'' Dr. Motulsky said, ''we give people all the various possibilities and risks and leave it up to them to make a decision. Some might decide a doubling of the risk is not something they want to face.''

He and his colleagues said no one questioned the right of people with genetic disorders to have children, even though some have far higher levels of risk than first cousins. For example, people with Huntington's disease, a severe neurological disorder that comes on in adulthood, have a 50 percent chance of passing the disease to their children.

The researchers, a panel convened by the National Society of Genetic Counselors, based their conclusions on a review of six major studies conducted from 1965 to August 2000, involving many thousands of births.

Dr. Motulsky said medical geneticists had known for a long time that there was little or no harm in cousins marrying and having children. ''Somehow, this hasn't become general knowledge,'' even among doctors, he said.

Twenty-four states have laws forbidding first cousins from marrying, and seven states have limits like requiring genetic counseling. But no countries in Europe have such prohibitions, and in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia, marriages between cousins are considered preferable.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Daniel2

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Imagine? They would be incapable of consent?

Yes. The inherent familial bonds can imo be considered a sort of built-in duress or pressure.

[Vanguard]

44 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That is essentially my point, that such remedies do not exist because of the inherent nature of familial relationships'.

To deny two competent adult individuals (perhaps more competent than me or you) the ability to marry based on your premise that they aren't competent to make such a decision if they are relationally/biologically too close sounds too Orwellian for my liking.

Someone on this board will start posting examples of couples who fit these parameters but who are thriving in all aspects - just you wait. ; )

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

To deny two competent adult individuals (perhaps more competent than me or you) the ability to marry based on your premise that they aren't competent to make such a decision if they are relationally/biologically too close sounds too Orwellian for my liking.

Someone on this board will start posting examples of couples who fit these parameters but who are thriving in all aspects - just you wait. ; )

What do you mean by Orwellian?

There's something else that hasn't been mentioned here as far as I know, and that is that immediate family living together are already next-of-kin, so one could argue that they can already derive some degree of legal benefit. 

And I would say that if competent individuals in incestual relationships exist, perhaps they could tell us how a person subjected to lifelong familial, sexual abuse and manipulation wouldn't be subject to further abuse, if not for the criminalisation of incest? 

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

To deny two competent adult individuals (perhaps more competent than me or you) the ability to marry based on your premise that they aren't competent to make such a decision if they are relationally/biologically too close sounds too Orwellian for my liking.

Someone on this board will start posting examples of couples who fit these parameters but who are thriving in all aspects - just you wait. ; )

So our options are living in a real world 1984 or accepting that a son can choose to marry his mother when he turns 18? I think I smell a false dichotomy here.

I may need to print out a copy of this thread as evidence for my theory that libertarianism breaks people’s brains. “Two consenting adults” is not a code phrase that requires everyone to allow anything.

Also these are people who want an incestuous relationship. I would argue by definition they are not of sound mind or competent to make that decision in the same way we prevent suicide even when done by a “consenting adult”.

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by The Nehor

[Amulek]

54 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The genetic component, as I mentioned upthread in my first reply.

But we don't prevent people with the same genetic diseases (say, e.g., Huntington's) from marrying each other.

And what if they aren't capable or even interested in having children? Why can't an 80 year old woman marry her 60 year old son for companionship and estate planning reasons? 

 

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, Amulek said:

But we don't prevent people with the same genetic diseases (say, e.g., Huntington's) from marrying each other.

And what if they aren't capable or even interested in having children? Why can't an 80 year old woman marry her 60 year old son for companionship and estate planning reasons? 

 

Because it is wrong.

 

Smac, I owe you an apology. I thought it was a shocking quirk of a TV show and it was but something is spreading this and incest supporters seem to be everywhere.

THE INCEST PROPAGANDA IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE THREAD!!!!!

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

But we don't prevent people with the same genetic diseases (say, e.g., Huntington's) from marrying each other.

The increased risk of one disease is not the same as compounded risk of a host of cosanguinuity-induced problems.

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

And what if they aren't capable or even interested in having children? Why can't an 80 year old woman marry her 60 year old son for companionship and estate planning reasons? 

You mean if they're not interested in a sexual relationship, ie an intimate, marital relationship? Then seek nonmarital legal remedies not immediately provided by their already-existing kinship.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because it is wrong.

 

Smac, I owe you an apology. I thought it was a shocking quirk of a TV show and it was but something is spreading this and incest supporters seem to be everywhere.

THE INCEST PROPAGANDA IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE THREAD!!!!!

It sounds to me like the need to prove some automatic slippery-slope resulting from same-sex marriage. But when examined, the argument sounds forced and is not at all equivalent.

[Amulek]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because it is wrong.

I don't disagree. And, while I'm pretty sure you were being sarcastic (but just to be clear in case there was any confusion), I am by no means an incest propagandist. 

I'm just curious to see what Meadowchick's answer would be given her foundational ethic on the subject which is based purely on genetics and consent. 

 

[mgy401]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I’ve been advocating a libertarian position on this board since the early 2000’s, and have been consistently saying that it is not the role of government to restrict consenting adults’ spousal choices (“consenting” and “adult” being key).  And I’ve been specific in saying that equally applies for straight, gay, interracial, inter-religious, plural, and even incestuous relationships, years before Obergefell was even before the courts.  It’s not an “Obergefell-type reasoning” (though that sounds really convincing if you’re wanting to blame gays and their supporters as horrific bogeymen responsible for perceived social decline); it’s really libertarianism. 

First off, kudos for your consistency.

Second:  It seems to me like a more purist libertarian position would be to ask why government resources need to be allocated to solemnizing/recording civil marriages at all.  Why should government care at all about what “consenting adults” do, or whether they want to participate in a ceremony in which they (statistically, pretend to) publicly commit to an exclusive sexual relationship? 

 

[Amulek]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The increased risk of one disease id not the same as compounded risk of a host of cosanguinuity-induced problems.

My point was that we already allow people to get married when there is a known risk that their children will have genetically inherited diseases. We allow adults with achondroplasia to marry and don't think anything of the fact that their kids will almost invariably suffer from a myriad of health problems. 

So how many 'risks' do there have to be before two people should be allowed to marry? Should we force all couples to have genetic testing done and only allow marriages to take place when a sufficient number of ailments are unlikely to arise from their progeny? 

 

Quote

You mean if they're not interested in a sexual relationship, ie an intimate, marital relationship? Then seek nonmarital legal remedies not immediately provided by their already-existing kinship.

They could be interested in an intimate relationship - just not one that would produce children. If Oedipus comes home to marry his mother who has been through menopause and can no longer bear children, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry under your genetics/consent philosophy? Or two gay siblings from the same sperm donor who were raised in separate homes but met in college? What outside of genetics and consent should stand in the way of such a union in your mind?

 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes. The inherent familial bonds can imo be considered a sort of built-in duress or pressure.

Would that not be totally dependent on the individual circumstances or are you making a blanket assumption?

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

It's a new day.  The Me Too movement has dawned.  Brothers and sisters are now feeling pressure and are feeling coerced into marrying each other because they now realize each of them is an eligible mate for marriage. 

Maybe not their marriage, but somebody's marriage.

Run away!  Be afraid!  Hide!

I don’t know that there is coercion involved, but it does seem to me that previous taboos no longer have the foundations they once had given the new definition of marriage as a relationship between consenting adults. 

Edited February 27, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

What do you mean by Orwellian?

There's something else that hasn't been mentioned here as far as I know, and that is that immediate family living together are already next-of-kin, so one could argue that they can already derive some degree of legal benefit. 

And I would say that if competent individuals in incestual relationships exist, perhaps they could tell us how a person subjected to lifelong familial, sexual abuse and manipulation wouldn't be subject to further abuse, if not for the criminalisation of incest? 

Orwellian in the sense that 'others' are deciding that although one is a wholly functional adult, s/he is incompetent 'because I said so'. And couldn't we say the same for folks who have sought out an abortion without measurable negative ramifications to their sense of well-being? You know, "perhaps they could tell us how a person subjected to lifelong familial, sexual abuse and manipulation wouldn't be subject to further abuse, if not for the criminalisation of abortions?" Hmmm...

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because it is wrong.

 

Smac, I owe you an apology. I thought it was a shocking quirk of a TV show and it was but something is spreading this and incest supporters seem to be everywhere.

THE INCEST PROPAGANDA IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE THREAD!!!!!

Well, there you go - "because it is wrong". I think we have a winner! ;o

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

My point was that we already allow people to get married when there is a known risk that their children will have genetically inherited diseases. We allow adults with achondroplasia to marry and don't think anything of the fact that their kids will almost invariably suffer from a myriad of health problems. 

So how many 'risks' do there have to be before two people should be allowed to marry? Should we force all couples to have genetic testing done and only allow marriages to take place when a sufficient number of ailments are unlikely to arise from their progeny? 

Blood tests (now outdated) have been used in the past as a part of the marriage license process, to prevent the spread of syphillus. Perhaps this would provide a precedent if one or more conditions became a widespread health concern. On the other hand, a test for communicable disease is not the same as more generalised genetic testing, which veers more closely into the realm of privacy that could in itself become problematic.

7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

They could be interested in an intimate relationship - just not one that would produce children. If Oedipus comes home to marry his mother who has been through menopause and can no longer bear children, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry under your genetics/consent philosophy? Or two gay siblings from the same sperm donor who were raised in separate homes but met in college? What outside of genetics and consent should stand in the way of such a union in your mind?

First, what legal apparatus would even trigger the knowledge that two children of sperm donors will be identified? Regarding an Oedipal relationship, I've already explained the reasoning prohibiting incest between adult children and their parent. But, if they don't know they're related, then neither does the law, right? If the law knows, then they know, most likely via existing family ties.

Of course, once the government owns access to our personal genetic maps, there is the potential of many more moral hazards.

I think that incest prohibitions cover a group of problems, like the saying "hitting two birds with one stone." It might not hit all related problems, but does hit known issues to help prevent unnecessary suffering and abuse. Ther value of that prohibition can outweigh any benefit provided to the few exceptional cases, like with older relations, especially since they already do have some kinship benefits.

[Meadowchik]

23 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would that not be totally dependent on the individual circumstances or are you making a blanket assumption?

I don't think it's a blanket assumption, but a scientific generalisation. 

[Meadowchik]

16 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Orwellian in the sense that 'others' are deciding that although one is a wholly functional adult, s/he is incompetent 'because I said so'. 

I haven't advocated a "because I said so" reasoning. 

[Vanguard]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I haven't advocated a "because I said so" reasoning. 

Then what do you rest your position on if the individuals prove to be competent in every way that you and I are? They're incompetent and they don't even know it?

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Then what do you rest your position on if the individuals prove to be competent in every way that you and I are? They're incompetent and they don't even know it?

Most incompetent people do not know it. This also applies to many of the meanings of the word “incompetent”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

First off, kudos for your consistency.

Second:  It seems to me like a more purist libertarian position would be to ask why government resources need to be allocated to solemnizing/recording civil marriages at all.  Why should government care at all about what “consenting adults” do, or whether they want to participate in a ceremony in which they (statistically, pretend to) publicly commit to an exclusive sexual relationship? 

 

Great question. A few thoughts in response:

First, I wouldn’t consider myself a “purist” libertarian. While I definitely lean libertarian, I recognize that some laws and restrictions are required, especially in attempting to balance conflicting rights, safety, etc.  A good example of this, in my case, is that I support restrictions and prohibition on late-term abortions. And while I am a gun owner and have my concealed firearm permit, I also support some gun control measures (I struggle to understand or support private citizens’ need or “right” to own automatic assault weapons).  So, that which is “purely” libertarian may not always be the ideal. As the saying goes, any virtue taken to the extreme may become a vice.

Second: civil marriage and the legal rights and responsibilities associated with and within it exist because it benefits said married  individuals and, by extension, their families. Our neighborhoods, society, and even government benefit from stronger families. So while individuals’ choices regarding whom and how they are to be married should not be decided or controlled by the government, the resources the government spends in regulating marriage is to regulate and respect the rights of said individuals’ families regarding care giving and health care, shared ownership and inheritance, child rearing and responsibility, equity and fairness, etc.  Civil marriage is the means by which families lay claim to said rights and responsibilities, which I also support.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Daniel2

[Ahab]

32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Most incompetent people do not know it. This also applies to many of the meanings of the word “incompetent”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Most, huh.  I suppose there are always exceptions.  I wonder how competent I am, or you are, or anyone else is?  We may all be incompetent and not even know it.

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

...given the new definition of marriage as a relationship between consenting adults. 

When you say "new," by what are you measuring...?  The statement, "Marriage [is] a relationship between consenting adults" (as an invention of the modern age, given historically it wasn't always so) has been around for decades, if not longer.

It's actually been somewhat of a struggle to find info about just when "consent" and "adult" were added to legal requirements for civil marriage.  I found this timeline from Wiki to be interesting:

1900–1999 [edit]

 

1900 – All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.

 

1904 – LDS Church President Joseph F. Smith issues the 1904 "Second Manifesto," which stated that the church was no longer sanctioning plural (polygamous) marriages and would excommunicate anyone who participates in future polygamy.[1]

 

1907 – All women acquire their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date.

 

1913 – The federal government formally recognizes marriage in law for the first time with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913

 

1929 – All states now have laws regarding marriage licenses.

 

1933 – Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands.

 

1948 – California Supreme Court overturns interracial marriage ban ( Perez v. Sharp ).

 

1965 – The Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut ).

 

1967 – The Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia ).[2]

 

1969 – The first no-fault divorce law, signed by Governor Ronald Reagan , is adopted in California. [2]

 

1971 – The Supreme Court upholds an Alabama law which automatically changes a woman's legal surname to that of her husband upon marriage. [citation needed ]

 

1971 – The Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling allowing prohibition of same-sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson ).

 

1972 – The Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing contraception (

Eisenstadt v. Baird).

 

1973 – Maryland becomes the first state in the U.S. to define marriage as "between a man and a woman" in statute.

 

1975 – Married women allowed to have credit in their own name.

 

1975 – Three states outlaw same-sex marriage by statutes.

 

1976 – The Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting abortions for married women without the consent of the husband.

 

1993 – All 50 states have revised laws to include marital rape.[2]

 

1994 – 40 of the 50 states amend their marriage statutes to outlaw same-sex marriage. citation needed.

 

1996 – President Bill Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act into law, which outlaws federal recognition of both same-sex marriage and polygamy, and removes any requirement that states recognize such marriages entered into in other jurisdictions.

 

1998 – Hawaii amends its constitution to allow the legislature to ban same-sex marriage, in response to a court ruling which would otherwise have allowed such marriages. Alaska becomes the first state to ban both same-sex marriage and polygamy in its constitution.

 

1998 – South Carolina is the penultimate state in the U.S. to remove the ban on interracial marriage in its state constitution.

 

2000–present [edit]

 

2000 – Nebraska amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy.

 

2000 – Alabama becomes the last state in the US to remove the ban on interracial marriage in its state constitution.

 

2002 – Nevada amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy.

 

2004 – Massachusetts grants and recognizes same-sex marriages, while 14 states rush to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state constitutions in response.

 

2005 – Texas amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy.

 

2006 – 26 states outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state constitutions. Arizona becomes the first state in the United States to reject a constitutional amendment banning both same-sex marriage and polygamy, but passes a constitutional amendment two years later.

 

2006 – 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Nebraska's ban on gay marriage.[3]

 

2008 – New York starts recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, but does not grant such marriages.

Connecticut begins granting and recognizing same-sex marriages. California briefly granting and recognizing same-sex marriage until the passage of Proposition 8 later in the year (as well as both the states of Arizona and Florida in banning same-sex marriage and polygamy on the same day in their state constitutions). In California only (prior to Proposition 8.) continues recognizing same-sex marriages entered into prior to the proposition's passage. 29 states outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state constitutions.

 

2009 – Iowa and Vermont grant and recognize same-sex marriages; the District of Columbia starts recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, but does not grant such marriages. Maine repeals the legalization of same-sex marriage before coming into effect by popular vote, which was overturned three years later by another popular vote.

 

2010 – New Hampshire and the District of Columbia begins granting and recognizing same-sex marriages. Maryland

starts recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, but does not grant such marriages. In

Perry v. Schwarzenegger , a district court overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage (however, the decision is stayed pending an appeal).

 

2011 – New York begins granting and recognizing same-sex marriages.

 

2012 – A federal appeals court upholds the district court decision that struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage (the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court ). [4]

 

2012 – North Carolina amends its state constitution by a vote to outlaw both same-sex marriage and polygamy, bringing the total to 30 states that have outlawed both same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state constitutions. Rhode Island

starts recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, but does not grant such marriages.

 

2012 – Both Washington and Maine begins granting and recognizing same-sex marriages, only after approval from a

referendum , while Minnesota rejects a constitutional amendment banning both same-sex marriage and polygamy.

 

2013 – Maryland begins granting and recognizing same-sex marriages, only after approval from a referendum.

 

2013 - Legal same-sex marriage begins in Delaware and Minnesota.

 

2013 - The Supreme Court of the United States finds that there is no standing for the appeal of the decision overturning Proposition 8 in California, leading to re-introduction of legal same-sex marriages in that state.

 

2013 - The Supreme Court of the United States overturns the Defense of Marriage Act , which outlaws federal recognition of both same-sex marriage and polygamy. Requiring that the federal government recognize marriages in states where such unions are legal.

 

2013 - US District court finds in Brown v. Buhman that portions of Utah's ban on multiple cohabitation were unconstitutional but allowed Utah to maintain its ban on multiple marriage licenses.[5] [6] [7]

 

2013 - The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah strikes down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling was not stayed for several weeks allowing nearly a thousand same-sex couples to marry, though the ruling was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 6, 2014.

 

January 2014 - On January 14, The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma struck down Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage and stayed the ruling pending appeal. Oklahoma announced its intent to appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

February 2014 - On February 12, U.S. District Court struck down Kentucky's ban on recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The order was stayed pending appeal on March 20 and never took effect. On February 13, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia struck down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage and stayed the ruling pending appeal. On February 26, a U.S. District Court struck down Texas's ban on same-sex marriage and stayed the ruling pending appeal.

 

March 2014 - On March 4, several Illinois counties began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couple after an opinion issued by the state attorney general. This was ahead of a law scheduled to take effect statewide on June 1. On March 21, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan struck down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling took effect immediately and over 300 same-sex couples obtained marriage licenses before the ruling was stayed pending appeal by the

Sixth Circuit.

 

May 2014 - On May 9, a Pulaski County Circuit Judge in Arkansas struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Nearly 500 couples obtained marriage licenses before the ruling was stayed on May 16 by the Arkansas Supreme Court  On May 14, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho struck down the state's same-sex marriage ban and ordered the state to start recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions as well as license them. The ruling was stayed pending appeal before it took effect. On May 19, the U.S. District Court of Oregon struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage and ordered marriages to begin immediately. The state agreed with the ruling and refused to appeal, legalizing same-sex marriage in Oregon. On May 20, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania struck down Pennsylvania's statutory ban on same-sex marriage. Like Oregon, the judge ordered marriages to begin immediately. The state refused to appeal the decision, legalizing same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania.

 

June, 2015 - On June 26, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State, [8] legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States.

 

April 2016 -- The Tenth Circuit overturns the District Court's ruling on Brown v. Buhman declaring that Brown lacks standing to sue. [9]

Do you believe that the addition of "consent" and "adult" were each a positive or negative addition to the requirements for marriage?

Edited February 28, 2020 by Daniel2

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Why couldn't this also apply to marriage contracts in my scenario?

How could you ensure no family member was telling another at every family gathering 'we were meant to be' and out of respect for the family the other didn't make a big deal about the hugs and kisses and constant pressure to do more?  Or worse if they lived together and one sibling had to daily face romantic gestures from the other?  How do you create legal distance between family members seeing each other in family contexts, including ones where conflict is heavily frowned upon?