No one has the right to. But the people around them have a way of bringing that to fruition. I guess it depends on the culture that you're in.
Again, no one has the right to put any married couple asunder... :D
I like your Comment
That sounds like religious talk to me.
No one has any "rights" that cannot be violated by other individuals. Still, some actions are inherently "not right". Some times force is the only way to protect what you believe is right. Sadly, force usually invites a counter force of disproportionate strength. Skillful dialogue may be your greatest tool for forging connections with others that disagree with your ideal of what is right. "Quid pro Quo" has its place as well.
On the other hand, they can't very well break up a marriage that they are not aware of. Some ties should be severed if they are pulling you under the surface. Make sure that you evaluate ALL of the consequences carefully before acting.
Good Luck ;)
Why is it wrong for a brother and sister to want to get married and spend their lives together? If they are both adults and realize that they should not have children, why would anyone care? My gut reaction is, "gross", but what difference does that make?
Suppose a brother and sister had never met until udulthood and they became mates without knowing. Is there something wrong with that?
I know this might open up a whole new can of worms, but what the hell.
Yes..."gross" is not always the same as "immoral". Having children would be immoral because it could hurt the children genetically.
In a modern and civilized society, no adult(s) has de-facto rights over other adult(s). So the answer is a "Hell no". But as we all know, there are cases where even laws are passed preventing consenting adults to marry... and I am sure you all know what I am talking about.
Thanks for restarting my Discussion
Couple of questions:
Regardless if we're referring to interracial marriage or gay marriage, there is no RATIONAL reason to prevent such unions. Mostly the "reasons" opponents of these marriages come up with amount to fear, fear of something different, fear of a break with the former homogeneity of the existing culture. Sorry, not good enough.
The harm in such a union as perceived by bigoted members relates to the first question. Again, fear of change from the status quo or what some holy book has taught them. Again, none of this rises to the level of genuine harm.
As for the society itself, is this a democratic society or an autocratic dictatorship? Do all members of this culture have the opportunity to contribute and have input on its structure, or are the rules pronounced ex officio or ex cathedra as unquestioned truth? Most importantly, does the minority exercise its franchise without coercion or are they to be crushed by the tyranny of the majority? Autocracy rarely if ever respects any other sensibilities other than its own, whereas democracy gives breathing room to all and authors laws to maintain order fairly while respecting the rights of the individual.
Personally, I don't see any of the above questions as being trivial or rhetorical. Certainly, any society could arrogate the power you suggest to break unions because it wants to. Whether any genuine GOOD comes from such action, however, is debatable at best.