Can justification of gay marriage lead to justification of incest?

[rossum]

The current law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And it’s been this way for age

I disagree with you here. Civil marriage was redefined in 1967 in Loving v Virginia, which struck down racial provisions in who could and who could not get married. The laws governing marriage do change. Ages of consent have generally risen since the 19th century for instance.

but once you start changing what marriage is ONLY BECAUSE some people who did not fit in the previous definition think it would be great to be married too

The Lovings didn’t fit the previous definition either. I am sure you don’t want to go back to racial provisions in who could marry who, do you.

Look once you open Pandora’s Box…and once certain types of liberal philosophers start pontificating, well…

So, we should start by striking down Loving v Virginia? We should set the age of consent back to 19th century values like 12 or 13. And then we can reintroduce Solomonic marriage - one man with 700 wives. Civil marriage is not a fixed thing, but a changing thing. It has had many different definitions in law over the years. We are seeing just another change in the law coming now.

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

And exactly the same arguments could have been made in 1967 about Loving v Virginia, allowing inter-racial marriage. Changes in the law follow a process. The law is not fixed, and can change according to the relevant procedures.

So, my point is made and you agree that your statements were irrelevant. It doesn’t matter one iota what the law is today. We have now decided that all that is necessary for a marriage is that there is love between the adults being married. Just because there are current laws prohibiting incestual marriages or polygamy or, to take it another step, pedophile/child marriages, is a change in societal acceptance and then a change in the law.

Who thought about inter-racial marriage 150 years ago? Who thought about inter-class marriage 250 years ago? Marriage has changed over the years. It is a living institution, so it continues to change.
…
Marriage is not fixed in aspic, it has changed over the years. Civil marriage is a legally defined human institution, and it changes. We are seeing another change happening now.

So, I guess I don’t understand why you have been arguing that justification of same-sex “marriage” will not lead to incestual “marriage”. Can you clarify that for me?

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

So, my point is made and you agree that your statements were irrelevant. It doesn’t matter one iota what the law is today. We have now decided that all that is necessary for a marriage is that there is love between the adults being married.

I disagree. Before Loving v Virginia, the law was: “Two adults of opposite sexes and the same race, not too closely related”. The “and the same race” part was taken out, while the “not too closely related” part was left in. Changing one part of the law does not mandate changing other parts of the law. I have an example from the past to prove my point. Further changes will have to be argued separately on their merits.

Just because there are current laws prohibiting incestual marriages or polygamy or, to take it another step, pedophile/child marriages, is a change in societal acceptance and then a change in the law.

Yes, civil law reflects social acceptance. That is why the law was changed to take the racial element out of marriage. Social attitudes to race changed, and the law changed to reflect the new situation. Social attitudes to homosexuals are changing, and the law is changing in response.

Incest and paedophilia are irrelevant. Is either legal in any of the US states or other countries that have legalised same sex marriage or civil unions? You are arguing against a strawman here, unless you can show me a country which legalised all three simultaneously.

So, I guess I don’t understand why you have been arguing that justification of same-sex “marriage” will not lead to incestual “marriage”. Can you clarify that for me?

Civil law generally reflects social attitudes. The social attitude to homosexuality is very different to the social attitude to paedophilia or incest. Proposition 8 in California failed by 52% to 48%. Do you think it would have been anything like that close a result if it had been about paedophilia or incest?

rossum

 

[exnihilo]

A child cannot give legal consent, as is currently the case for heterosexual marriage.

The ability to give legal consent is not a constraint upon the law. I can consent to take drugs, but the law restrains me. I can consent to prostitute myself, but the law restrains me. I can consent to be killed and eaten (as in the case of a couple homosexual German cannibals a few years ago), but the law restrains me. I find it interesting that we suddenly have a libertarian culture when the vast array of laws restricting freely consented activities is not seriously challenged. The argument is sophistry since the principle is so narrowly applied.

The constitutional-law expert Eugene Volokh (who is ethnically Jewish and, AFAICT, agnostic) has done a lot of interesting research on “slippery slopes” in connection with the development of U.S. law. Here’s one of his blog posts on the topic: volokh.com/2009/04/06/more-on-the-slippery-slope-to-same-sex-marriage/

The post is fairly technical, but the conclusion he draws from his research is worth noting, particularly since he considers himself in favor of permitting same-sex marriage:

I think this is just common sense. Man tends to accept his current condition as being basically right (most radicals are only demanding certain principles be more accurately followed to their way of thinking). The average man seems to lead an unexamined life and is easily persuaded to make ‘minor’ changes. Once homosexuality was not viewed as abnormal it had to necessarily be normal. Once it was normal then marriage would be part of living a normal homosexual life. Change, both good and bad, is gradual.

 

[mark_a]

What do people here think?

Justification of homosexual activity, incest, necrophilia, beastiality, serial monogamy, polygamy, pedophilia, adultery, sterilization, Onanism, fornication, and pornography happened with the justification of contraception.

The floodgates have been opened.

The Church has known this for 2000 years and the Jews knew it for at least another 1000 years.

 

[ASimon]

In the most reductionist sense, there might be a logical argument to be made for accepting incestuous relationships, from out of a similar argument for homosexual relationships. You’d still have to ignore the biological implications of endorsing incestuous relationships (not nearly as dire in a case-by-case basis as is normally imagined, but certainly worth considering regardless).

The reason why I don’t lie awake worrying about this is because gay marriage hasn’t become a legitimate issue due to the argument for it being so logical (though it is). The reason it became legitimate is because literally millions of people (gay, bi, and straight alike) are putting their shoulders to the wheel and trying to get it made legal. There is no special interest group doing the same for incestuous couples, or if there is, one doubts that they’re getting many calls returned.

Same with polygamy - while it may not be difficult to concoct a half-sensible rationale for keeping it illegal, in the end, it hardly matters whether one exists or not. There just isn’t going to be a culture shift that leads to so much polygamy that we’ll ever need to seriously question its legality.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The reason why I don’t lie awake worrying about this is because gay marriage hasn’t become a legitimate issue due to the argument for it being so logical (though it is). The reason it became legitimate is because literally millions of people (gay, bi, and straight alike) are putting their shoulders to the wheel and trying to get it made legal. There is no special interest group doing the same for incestuous couples, or if there is, one doubts that they’re getting many calls returned.

Same with polygamy - while it may not be difficult to concoct a half-sensible rationale for keeping it illegal, in the end, it hardly matters whether one exists or not. There just isn’t going to be a culture shift that leads to so much polygamy that we’ll ever need to seriously question its legality.

Well, perhaps not yet.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon
**
There just isn’t going to be a culture shift that leads to so much polygamy that we’ll ever need to seriously question its legality. **

And you know this how?

Nambla has pushed for legalized sexual relations between adults and children. Is there any doubt in your mind that if, legalized, they would become commonplace?

 

[dandingo]

The proponent of homosexual marriage knows that people in general don’t find homosexual acts as repugnant as incestuous acts. They know that much of society shares their view that homosexual inclination could be congenital, and that incestuous inclination is a learned perversion perhaps not too far from the perversion of bestiality.

The typical homosexual is a normal productive citizen just like his heterosexual neighbor. On the other hand, those with incestuous desires are typically seen as abnormal, perhaps mentally damaged in some way, or otherwise up to no good. That’s the stereotype, anyway.

So this argument about gay marriage justifying incestuous marriage is, to them, a desperate and unconvincing attempt to deny them their perceived rights by equating their “normalcy” to a perversion. They see homosexuality on par with heterosexuality, and every other inclination beneath both of those.

I just don’t think we gain much ground at all by attempting to use this justification of incestuous marriage argument.

That’s a very good point but I think the point of the original argument is that if you allow homosexual marriage, where does it stop? Where do we draw the line? Polygamy, incest, beastiality? Now, no one is saying these are equal in any way. But you have to draw a line somewhere or draw no line at all.

Also, I genuinely believe that one of the main reasons that homosexuals want to get married is to enjoy the tax breaks and other social benefits that go along with marriage. If the .gov didn’t have its leg knee deep in marriage, allowing tax breaks and whatnot, we wouldn’t be having this conversation on the level that it is today. Marriage has pretty much always been a religious celebration but with the advent of the state getting involved, it has moved away from that.

 

[Orogeny]

I disagree. Before Loving v Virginia, the law was: “Two adults of opposite sexes and the same race, not too closely related”. The “and the same race” part was taken out, while the “not too closely related” part was left in.

And now we are taking out “of opposite sexes”. Why is it a leap to see the “not too closely related” removed? Fact is is that I could see the “closely related” part removed before I could the “opposite sexes” taken out. Historically, incestual marriages weren’t that uncommon, especially among royalty. I don’t know of a time when two people of the same sex were allowed to marry.

Yes, civil law reflects social acceptance. That is why the law was changed to take the racial element out of marriage. Social attitudes to race changed, and the law changed to reflect the new situation. Social attitudes to homosexuals are changing, and the law is changing in response.

What prevents society from accepting incest?

Incest and paedophilia are irrelevant. Is either legal in any of the US states or other countries that have legalised same sex marriage or civil unions? You are arguing against a strawman here, unless you can show me a country which legalised all three simultaneously.

I’m sure you know this, but homosexuality used to be illegal here. The law changed with Lawrence v Texas. There is no reason for me to show you that all three are legal at this time. The point of this discussion is what will happen in the future.

Civil law generally reflects social attitudes. The social attitude to homosexuality is very different to the social attitude to paedophilia or incest.

It is now. Would you have been able to say the same for homosexuality 50 years ago?

Proposition 8 in California failed by 52% to 48%. Do you think it would have been anything like that close a result if it had been about paedophilia or incest?

What do you think the results would have been on that proposition 50 years ago (understanding that a vote on that topic would never have happened)? It is all about change and that comes with constant pressure over time. No one can logically argue against incestual marriage if they support same-sex “marriage”.

Peace

Tim

 

[JimG]

J. Budziszewski reminds us of what we lose when we forget what sex is for.

“Let the sexual revolution bury the sexual revolution. Having finished revolving, we arrive back where we started. What your mother—no, what your grandmother—no, what your great-grandmother told you was right all along. These are the natural laws of sex.”

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-06-022-f

 

[Whadyamean]

J. Budziszewski reminds us of what we lose when we forget what sex is for.

“Let the sexual revolution bury the sexual revolution. Having finished revolving, we arrive back where we started. What your mother—no, what your grandmother—no, what your great-grandmother told you was right all along. These are the natural laws of sex.”

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-06-022-f

Which are??? Good grief; don’t you realize that “natural” leaves it wide open? Reminder: if it happens in Nature, it is “natural.” Moral by the select standards of some? That is questionable and arguable, but not on the grounds of what is “natural.”

 

[pilots13]

It’s a big leap to go from gay marriage to me marring my dog or my lamp.

1. All marriage is between two consenting people. Your dog can’t consent. Your lamp can’t consent, your 13 year old can’t legally consent. That law alone separates gay marriage from pedophilia, bestiality, etc.
2. Pedophilia and incest are also illegal because of the health concerns surrounding them (mental issues with kids and birth defect issues with incest)
3. I can listen to the argument about polygamy being a next step, but it will never happen. Because the people who want to sleep around with 8 people are already doing so and aren’t going to get married.

A few other general comments to posts I’ve read here

• Marriage numbers (especially in Europe) are dropping dramatically. Where will we be in 15 years? Look at Europe. That’s where the US is heading. And I can’t marry my sister in Europe, even though most of western Europe has either gay marriage or same sex unions.
• There is no long time set standard definition for marriage. For example, today alone age of consent laws range from 16-18 in the US (and 9-18 internationally). Who knows what it’s been over history
• There are currently 7 states which allow gay marriage. There are 24 states which allow you to marry your first cousin. Not a lot of outcry against first cousins going on.
• To the person who used the “At this time” line repeatedly. What happens of Pope Benedict comes out tomorrow and declares women can be priests (or some other radical change in Church teaching)? He could do it. So the “At this time” is a lame argument. Yes, any of these laws could be changed at any time, but you have to look at it realistically. The law changing so marring your dog has as much of a chance to happen as the Pope declaring women can be priests.
• When the right to vote changed, first women were added, then minorities were guaranteed it, but has it continued to snowball into 5 year olds voting? Or my dog voting? Or dead people voting (Ignore Chicago…)? No Just because someone opens the door in Hoover Dam a bit doesn’t mean the entire Dam is going to come crashing down in a pile of rubble and destroy society below it.

 

[ASimon]

ASimon
**
There just isn’t going to be a culture shift that leads to so much polygamy that we’ll ever need to seriously question its legality. **

And you know this how?

Well, for one thing, powerful sexual jealousy is basically a human universal (so is incest avoidance). It’s a behavioral trait common across virtually every culture and society on the planet. I would venture to say we’re evolutionarily adapted for it. Which is not to say it can’t be successfully overcome it, but most of us don’t. Which is to say, most of us don’t find the attempt to overcome it an even remotely worthwhile exercise.

Nambla has pushed for legalized sexual relations between adults and children. Is there any doubt in your mind that if, legalized, they would become commonplace?

Do you honestly mean to say that the only thing stopping pedophilia from running rampant in society is that we have laws forbidding it?

When did you develop such a low opinion of humanity?

 

[rossum]

And now we are taking out “of opposite sexes”. Why is it a leap to see the “not too closely related” removed?

Because if you compare the political pressure for same sex marriage with the political pressure for sibling marriage there is a huge difference. How many places currently allow sibling marriage? Where would sibling marriage get a 48% vote in favour? The political pressure is just not there. Civil marriage law is a political issue; so we just have to look at the politics.

What prevents society from accepting incest?

You and I do. We are both part of society. I know that I wouldn’t accept the legalisation of incest

I’m sure you know this, but homosexuality used to be illegal here. The law changed with Lawrence v Texas. There is no reason for me to show you that all three are legal at this time. The point of this discussion is what will happen in the future.

We cannot decide current law on the basis of the possibility of a different law being passed in future. “We cannot abolish the death penalty because in future jaywalking might be made legal.” Not a sensible argument.

What do you think the results would have been on that proposition 50 years ago (understanding that a vote on that topic would never have happened)?

I agree, attitudes are changing. The law is changing to reflect the change in attitudes. That is not an argument against changing the law. The laws on slavery changed to reflect a change in attitudes (and the result of the Civil War in the US). Should we reinstate the old laws because we don’t like laws that reflect changes in attitudes of the citizens of a country?

If we don’t allow laws to change, then why have a Congress/Parliament at all? The whole point of legislative bodies in a democracy is to change laws to reflect the wishes of the population. Their wishes on same sex marriage are changing. Their wishes on child marriage are not changing.

rossum

 

[lnslucky]

A homosexual relationship poses no danger.

…BUT…

An incest relationship poses the danger of disfigured or mentally challenged offspring.

I personally believe that if you are able to prove that both people in the incest relationship are sterile and cannot create offspring, they should be given the right to marry if they want it. But, if they WANT kids made by them, absolutely not. Because they are posing a huge danger to the life of their future child, and that is wrong. (of course this does not apply to adoption)

 

[mtbender]

I think we have really failed to look at what the justifications for homosexual marriage really are. I am sure I am going to miss some, but I will do my best here.

“Two consenting adults who love each other.”

Can someone give me anything in addition to that? How is that different from incest?

Now we can try to go above and beyond and talk about negative health implications – but where is the ability to have a healthy baby identified as a prerequisite for any marriage – including homosexual? Homosexuals will certainly not, and some heterosexual couples may not be able to. If we are removing the procreative aspect from marriage – which we did for homosexual marriage, we have to remove it totally and not select who is restricted by it. Bottom line is, the justifications – as I know them – can be used for both. From a legal aspect, I would think any incestuous couple who chose to challenge this in court would have a really good chance of winning…

With that said, I do not support either. Marriage – both secular and within the Church were created to serve a purpose. The purpose of marriage was not just for an outward expression of love as we want to make it today. We have opened Pandora’s box, and I have no doubt we will see the spiral continue….

 

[Orogeny]

Because if you compare the political pressure for same sex marriage with the political pressure for sibling marriage there is a huge difference. How many places currently allow sibling marriage? Where would sibling marriage get a 48% vote in favour? The political pressure is just not there. Civil marriage law is a political issue; so we just have to look at the politics.

Again, move this conversation back 50 years and tell me how much political pressure there was for same-sex “marriage”. You are only looking at the here and now, not the future implications of redefining marriage in a way that has never been done before.

You and I do. We are both part of society. I know that I wouldn’t accept the legalisation of incest

Why? Those people love each other. That’s all that matters, right. Who are YOU to put your morals on THEM?

And what would you do if you were part of the 52% that voted to define marriage as a union of two non-closely related consenting adults and had people on your doorstep protesting you as a hater, protesting your workplace because your company supported that proposition, had your elected officials challenge the results in court?

We cannot decide current law on the basis of the possibility of a different law being passed in future. “We cannot abolish the death penalty because in future jaywalking might be made legal.” Not a sensible argument.

I’m actually not judging same-sex “marriage” laws on what may happen in the future, I judge them on how wrong they are on their own merits. However, you cannot ignore precident and we now have a precident for re-defining marriage in a way that has never been accepted before.

I agree, attitudes are changing. The law is changing to reflect the change in attitudes. That is not an argument against changing the law. The laws on slavery changed to reflect a change in attitudes (and the result of the Civil War in the US). Should we reinstate the old laws because we don’t like laws that reflect changes in attitudes of the citizens of a country?

No. I think we should reject same-sex “marriage” laws because they are wrong on their own merits, but, as I mentioned above, they do set precidents that must be acknowledged.

If we don’t allow laws to change, then why have a Congress/Parliament at all? The whole point of legislative bodies in a democracy is to change laws to reflect the wishes of the population. Their wishes on same sex marriage are changing. Their wishes on child marriage are not changing.

And this is the exact argument that can be used for incestual marriages.

Peace

Tim

 

[exnihilo]

It’s a big leap to go from gay marriage to me marring my dog or my lamp.

1. All marriage is between two consenting people.

You have defined marriage in a way so that it applies to gay people by saying it is ‘two consenting adults’. That is really begging the question. Marriage is between a consenting man and a consenting woman. If we are going to start deconstructing or reconstructing marriage then we need to ask why there is marriage in the first place. What purpose does it serve?

The most obvious, and right answer, is that it is an institution through which parents raise children. Only a man and a woman can create children. No two men or two women could ever create children. They can adopt children, but the very nature of the two makes it so that they can not themselves create children. Nature is such that only a man and woman can create children thus it naturally follows that the man and the woman raise the child they create. We have ownership or stewardship over that which we create. So if marriage exists to create and raise children a man and a woman are an essential element.

Your dog can’t consent. Your lamp can’t consent, your 13 year old can’t legally consent.

It is interesting that you first list things which can not consent and then change the standard to legal consent. Legal consent is normally based on merely an age. That age is different across different cultures and time. That a 13 year old cant consent is not the same as a lamp not consenting because nowhere at no time could a lamp ever consent. Since consent is not so rigid we could surely work our way down to grant legal consent to younger and younger people.

Since marriage is about creating a bond for the raising of children it would seem that we could open marriage up to any person capable of reproducing. This would allow for the marriage of increasingly younger women (as I understand it girls are starting to menstruate much earlier than in the past) and very young boys. The argument for younger marriage is far stronger than gay marriage since a young person does have the capacity to create children which is an essential element of marriage.

 

[JimG]

You have defined marriage in a way so that it applies to gay people by saying it is ‘two consenting adults’. That is really begging the question. Marriage is between a consenting man and a consenting woman. If we are going to start deconstructing or reconstructing marriage then we need to ask why there is marriage in the first place. What purpose does it serve?

The most obvious, and right answer, is that it is an institution through which parents raise children. Only a man and a woman can create children. No two men or two women could ever create children. They can adopt children, but the very nature of the two makes it so that they can not themselves create children. Nature is such that only a man and woman can create children thus it naturally follows that the man and the woman raise the child they create. We have ownership or stewardship over that which we create. So if marriage exists to create and raise children a man and a woman are an essential element.

It is interesting that you first list things which can not consent and then change the standard to legal consent. Legal consent is normally based on merely an age. That age is different across different cultures and time. That a 13 year old cant consent is not the same as a lamp not consenting because nowhere at no time could a lamp ever consent. Since consent is not so rigid we could surely work our way down to grant legal consent to younger and younger people.

Since marriage is about creating a bond for the raising of children it would seem that we could open marriage up to any person capable of reproducing. This would allow for the marriage of increasingly younger women (as I understand it girls are starting to menstruate much earlier than in the past) and very young boys. The argument for younger marriage is far stronger than gay marriage since a young person does have the capacity to create children which is an essential element of marriage.

Yes. Sex is designed for procreation; procreation is designed for marriage. Budziszewski sums up the argument at greater length in the article I cited: touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-06-022-f

It’s not all about feelings; it’s not all about self fulfillment; it’s not even all about love. It’s about the possibility of procreation and continuance of civilization. That’s why governments have recognized and promoted marriage. They have never—until now—recognized same sex marriage because that does nothing to further society or civilization.