Can justification of gay marriage lead to justification of incest?

[Tenofovir]

If you’re a social conservative, chances are you’ve had a conversation something like this:

Conservative: “But if we accept homosexual behavior as normal, how do we retain other traditional taboos, like the one against incest?”

Liberal: “That’s just a straw man. Nobody’s going to advocate incest.”"

Now, read this, from Tauriq Moosa, tutor in ethics, bioethics and critical thinking at the University of Cape Town, South Africa (courtesy of my friend Dale Nelson):

Thirdly, and oddly, people exclaim [incest is] “just” repugnant. We will examine this more closer later. Nonetheless, why should the sexual activities of two consenting adults concern us? This is the same question we can ask those who are ‘against’ homosexuality (which is like being against having blue eyes). It is none of our business what two consenting adults wish to do (as long as no one else is harmed/involved without consent).

Repugnance helped many things we now consider wrong to continue in the past, such racial and sexual inequality. We can’t rely on repugnance to justify our social policies, since our repugnance is simply that: our own. Besides which, people are repulsed by different things – and we cannot leave it up to the whims of our emotions to implement policies and laws which could, unnecessarily, cause suffering to other people, as is the case with gay people, women, and indeed the current brother-and-sister couple."

merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2011/12/the-dance-of-the-straw-men.html

What do people here think?

 

[Orogeny]

merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2011/12/the-dance-of-the-straw-men.html

What do people here think?

Of course the same argument can be made for incest, incestual marriage, polygamy or any other activity that consenting adults want to do. Not only that it is justified, but it seems to me that the definition of marriage will have to be modified as the union between any consenting adults, period. Now that the definition of marriage has been changed, it is discrimanatory to exclude any possible combination of sexes or numbers or relations from the definition.

Peace

Tim

 

[Whadyamean]

merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2011/12/the-dance-of-the-straw-men.html

What do people here think?

Noting that royal families sometimes practiced incest, ed Egypt in the pharonic age, here is an interesting bit from
historyundressed.blogspot.com/2009/08/incest-within-royal-families.html

"Consanguinity is how close in relations you are, and it was grounds for annullment in the Roman Catholic Church. From 1550 - 1917 marriages within the 4th degree, or beyond third cousins were prohibited, but as we’ve witnessed through several cases, these relationships easily recieved dispensations from the Pope. Payment to the church was required to recieve a dispensation. So essentially it was about the money. But it was also about avoiding strife. Some documented reasons from The Formulary of Dataria (Rome, 1901) for granting dispensation are:

“smallness of place or places; smallness of place coupled with the fact that outside it a sufficient dowry cannot be had; lack of dowry; insufficiency of dowry for the bride; a larger dowry; an increase of dowry by one-third; cessation of family feuds; preservation of peace; conclusion of peace between princes or states; avoidance of lawsuits over an inheritance, a dowry or some important business transaction; the fact that a fiancée is an orphan or has the care of a family; the age of the fiancée over twenty-four; the difficulty of finding another partner, owing to the fewness of male acquaintance, or the difficulty the latter experience in coming to her home; the hope of safeguarding the faith of a Catholic relation; the danger of a denominationally mixed marriage; the hope of converting a non-Catholic party; the keeping of property in a family; the preservation of an illustrious or honourable family; the excellence and merits of the parties; defamation to be avoided, or scandal prevented; intercourse already having taken place between the petitioners, or rape; the danger of a civil marriage; of marriage before a Protestant minister revalidation of a marriage that was null and void; finally, all reasonable causes judged such in the opinion of the pope (e. g. the public good), or special reasonable causes actuating the petitioners and made known to the pope, i. e. motives which, owing to the social status of the petitioners, it is opportune should remain unexplained out of respect for their reputation.”"

 

[rossum]

merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2011/12/the-dance-of-the-straw-men.html

What do people here think?

“But if we allow a man to marry a woman, then what is to stop a brother marrying his sister, or a mother marrying her son?”

rossum

 

[Tenofovir]

“But if we allow a man to marry a woman, then what is to stop a brother marrying his sister, or a mother marrying her son?”

rossum

I think marriage is defined strictly as a man marrying a woman who is not related to him (not directly at least), so no mum, sister or daughter. If we say marriage can be between any two people who care about each other, well why not two siblings, or why not a man and a child?

Why discriminate against those who love their siblings?
Why discriminate against pedophiles?
Why discriminate against those who love animals or inanimate objects?

 

[mtbender]

I have yet to see a justification that couldn’t…

 

[SteveGC]

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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2011/12/the-dance-of-the-straw-men.html

What do people here think?

If we’re willing to push the proverbial line on marriage with gay marriage, what’s to stop us from pushing it further? Polygamy is already being debated in many circles. Incest, child brides, etc. 15 years ago when you talk about gay marriage, people will say you are crazy. Where are we today? When you talk about incest or polygamy today people will say you are crazy. Wanna guess where we will be in 15 years?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

When you talk about incest or polygamy today people will say you are crazy. Wanna guess where we will be in 15 years?

My personal opinion, I don’t see incest being popular enough in circles that push for change to make this an issue a decade or two from now.

Polygamy may be a different story. I don’t think one would be labeled as crazy for talking about it. Especially not in Salt Lake City, Utah.

 

[exnihilo]

Not only can it but the argument put forth by most people does. These people say that two consenting adults should be able to do what they want. As long as incest is consensual according to them there is no moral problem with it. They have established consent as the only standard of morality. Of course this is a terrible standard and removes any moral obligations to the self. Even the pagans were smart enough to know that we have an obligation to our self to do that which is best for us. This justification for homosexual marriage is a result of the extreme individualism where our only concern is our self. It is supremely selfish, not surprisingly since moral theology concerning sex is based on the giving act of creation.

 

[Orogeny]

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.

That may be the case now, but I think that you would have found no support for same-sex marriage 30 years ago and that the attitude towards homosexual sex was much the same as it is towards incest today. All you need is a group of people who want incest legal and accepted to start comparing the denial of incestual marriage to slavery or racism and moral relativists will have to agree with them. At that time, you will see a push for incest to be considered acceptable as long as it is between consenting adults. Anyone who opposes them will be called haters and some kind of phobe.

The typical homosexual is a normal productive citizen just like his heterosexual neighbor.

What does that have to do with marriage?

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.

You mean, like society viewed homosexuals in the very recent past? Back when the American Psychological Association (APA) listed homosexuality as a psychological disorder?

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 think ANY argument against same-sex marriage will be met with the same reaction. No doubt those involved in incestual relationships feel that they are on par with heterosexuality.

Peace

Tim

 

[Whadyamean]

“But if we allow a man to marry a woman, then what is to stop a brother marrying his sister, or a mother marrying her son?”

rossum

From a wonderful sci-fi story: “If all men are brothers, would you let your sister marry one?”

 

[rossum]

I think marriage is defined strictly as a man marrying a woman who is not related to him (not directly at least), so no mum, sister or daughter.

Exactly my point. We change the definition to “Two people who are not too closely related”, keeping the definition of “too closely related” as it is currently. The current law does not lead to legal heterosexual incest, so any changed law can easily be written so as not to allow legal homosexual incest. This is a non-issue.

If we say marriage can be between any two people who care about each other, well why not two siblings, or why not a man and a child?

In the same way that the current law does not allow a man to marry his daughter. This is a solved problem.

Why discriminate against those who love their siblings?

Merely retain the same discrimination that is part of the current marriage law.

Why discriminate against pedophiles?

A child cannot give legal consent, as is currently the case for heterosexual marriage. Though I do remember something about Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his young cousin. Again this is a solved problem.

Why discriminate against those who love animals or inanimate objects?

Can an animal or an object give legal consent? What if the human and the animal are of different sexes? Would the law on heterosexual marriage allow that currently? Again, this is a solved problem.

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

Exactly my point. We change the definition to “Two people who are not too closely related”, keeping the definition of “too closely related” as it is currently. The current law does not lead to legal heterosexual incest, so any changed law can easily be written so as not to allow legal homosexual incest. This is a non-issue.

At this time.

In the same way that the current law does not allow a man to marry his daughter. This is a solved problem.

At this time.

Merely retain the same discrimination that is part of the current marriage law.

Discrimination is not always bad. Should men and women have separate toilets? How about dressing rooms?

A child cannot give legal consent,

At this time.

Though I do remember something about Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his young cousin. Again this is a solved problem.

At this time.

Can an animal or an object give legal consent? What if the human and the animal are of different sexes? Would the law on heterosexual marriage allow that currently? Again, this is a solved problem.

At this time.

In all the above where I answered with “At this time”, all it takes is a change of the current law, similar to what is happening to allow same-sex “marriages”. Perhaps it is a silly notion that societal norms can change to the point that those laws would be changed, but what was the thought about same-sex “marriage” 50 years ago?

Peace

Tim

 

[LemonAndLime]

Because apart from gender, there is no difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual couple. The only ‘difficult’ factor is that they are the same gender rather than different.

However, with incestuous couples you have - psychological issues (many are relatives who were seperated for a long time so never developed a bond), biological issues (any children are likely to have deformities).

The argument that “but if you let gays marry they’ll let anyone marry” is not a new one. That was said about people of different classes, races, religion and nationality before now. And we haven’t started to allow people to marry absolutely anything after all those things happened, have we?

 

[Tenofovir]

Exactly my point. We change the definition to “Two people who are not too closely related”, keeping the definition of “too closely related” as it is currently. The current law does not lead to legal heterosexual incest, so any changed law can easily be written so as not to allow legal homosexual incest. This is a non-issue.

The current law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And it’s been this way for ages, 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, well any sort of people could then get married, and animals.

In the same way that the current law does not allow a man to marry his daughter. This is a solved problem.

Current law is unfair and bigoted and set against those productive human beings who develop attraction between close blood relatives.

Merely retain the same discrimination that is part of the current marriage law.

Why discriminate?

A child cannot give legal consent, as is currently the case for heterosexual marriage. Though I do remember something about Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his young cousin. Again this is a solved problem.

Because it’s said that sex is harmful to children (and we all agree). But some psychologists have started pushing that already and some activists claim that adult-child sex may be beneficial or in the least is not harmful. The harm comes from rape (which can occur in any adult relationship too), coercion and societal response. In addition why does it have to be penetrative sex. It could be intimate loving type sexual behaviour. There could be rules and laws and etiquette. Of course this is wrong and repugnant but once we decide everything is arbitrary - even the definition of harm and marriage - well nothing can stop those who feel their lust must prevail.

Can an animal or an object give legal consent? What if the human and the animal are of different sexes? Would the law on heterosexual marriage allow that currently? Again, this is a solved problem.

Can an animal give consent to being fed or cared for? Again only if sex with animals is harmful and even that has to have some metaphysical basis which could be challenged.
Horses are way better endowed than humans. There’s no way a man would be able to harm a mare physically.

The utilitarian super star philosopher, Dr Singer said that sex with animals is or could be beneficial, didn’t he?

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

 

[Langdell]

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:

When we’re dealing with a legal system that’s built on analogy and precedent (both binding precedent and persuasive precedent), the possibility of a slippery slope has to be taken seriously.

And this is true even though the past decisions are distinguishable from a future one. Employment discrimination laws, for instance, are not the same as same-sex marriage. Legislative decisions are not the same as constitutional ones. It was certainly possible to draw the line between legislative decisions to ban private discrimination in employment and judicial decisions to ban governmental discrimination in deciding who may marry. That two matters are distinguishable does not mean that they will be distinguished by future decisionmakers. And in fact they may influence future decisionmakers even when the earlier decision expressly disclaims any attempt to accomplish what the later decision did, as was the case with the Iowa antidiscrimination statutes, which expressly said that they “shall not be construed to allow marriage between persons of the same sex.” Though they themselves weren’t construed as allowing same-sex marriage, they were indeed construed as a data point in favor of a constitutional decision allowing same-sex marriage.

So people who worry about slippery slopes generally — and who worry about slippery slopes in the field of sexual orientation and the law — can’t be lightly dismissed. And it is reasonable for them to worry: If we have gotten this far partly through slippery slope effects, will we slip further, and to what? In particular, would this increase the likelihood of further broadening of antidiscrimination laws? Would it increase the likelihood that groups (such as the Boy Scouts) that discriminate based on sexual orientation will be excluded from tax exemptions, just as groups that discriminate based on race are often excluded from tax exemptions? Would it increase the likelihood that such groups will be excluded from generally available benefits?

 

[Ridgerunner]

When sexual perversion of any sort is deemed “normal”, then the only remaining question is how many other forms of sexual perversion have the same claim. Surely, for example, most pedophiles consider their perversion simply a version of “normal”. Unlike homosexuality, it is simply not endorsed by society at this time. But then, neither was homosexuality not so long ago.

When it comes to incest, the big “secular” taboo was based on the potential for birth defects. But since we are now virtually “liberated” from that concern by abortion on demand, who is to say there is any underlying secular basis for prohibiting it now? For that matter, an incestuous couple could utilize artificial insemination from a donor, just as lesbians do now, and avoid the risk entirely.

 

[rossum]

In all the above where I answered with “At this time”, all it takes is a change of the current law, similar to what is happening to allow same-sex “marriages”.

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.

Perhaps it is a silly notion that societal norms can change to the point that those laws would be changed, but what was the thought about same-sex “marriage” 50 years ago?

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.

rossum

 

[Tenofovir]

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.

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.

rossum

Marriage has by far and large been between a single male and a single female. Yes there have been polygamous cultures but even there they were between males and females. And there are strong biological reasons for it - pregnancy lasts 9months in humans and the female needs to be sheltered and protected for much of that time, she has to breastfeed the baby after that, and also requires protection, food and shelter. It’s all linked with biology.

Once marriages are based on pure sex (lust) and sentimentality - well you’re going away from inter-racial marriage, inter-class marriage and so on. All of the changes you mention are not really counter to biology. A black man can easily father a child with an Asian or Caucasian woman. A rich man can marry and father children with a poor woman. No problems here.

But once you move outside this biology, you have two guys, two girls, and then why not animals, siblings and children?