Homosexuality, Incest and Polygamy

[bartdanr]

Hi All,

Yes, another homosexual thread...I know, this dead horse has been beaten too many times already. Well, just ignore this thread if you're sick of it...

Anyway, here's my question: aside from all religious arguments, what is the possible justification for making homosexual marriages recognized by law but barring incesteous and/or polygamous marriages from the same recognition?

No, I am not making homosexuality the moral equivalent of incest or polygamy (or polyandry). But I would like the rationale behind saying "yes" to homosexual marriage but "no" to incestuous and/or polygamous marriages, using legal, not moral, arguments.

Keep in mind, I am only talking about marriages between adults, involving no minors, and involving no coercion. Furthermore, the arguments about birth defects and incest seem pointless unless we're going to resurrect the whole spector of eugenic laws.

Please feel free to share your thoughts...and though I know this is a highly emotional issue for most, let's try to avoid flames.

Peace

 

[jonny]

There isn't any rational. The whole point of the homosexual marriage movement is that the government shouldn't be able to decide what types of marriages are good for society because marriage is a civil right. You can make the same arguments for every other form of marriage as you would for homosexual marriage. Unfortunately, the other groups to not have the resources to lobby the government in the same way that the homosexuals do.

 

[michel]

Hi All,

Yes, another homosexual thread...I know, this dead horse has been beaten too many times already. Well, just ignore this thread if you're sick of it...

Anyway, here's my question: aside from all religious arguments, what is the possible justification for making homosexual marriages recognized by law but barring incesteous and/or polygamous marriages from the same recognition?

No, I am not making homosexuality the moral equivalent of incest or polygamy (or polyandry). But I would like the rationale behind saying "yes" to homosexual marriage but "no" to incestuous and/or polygamous marriages, using legal, not moral, arguments.

Keep in mind, I am only talking about marriages between adults, involving no minors, and involving no coercion. Furthermore, the arguments about birth defects and incest seem pointless unless we're going to resurrect the whole spector of eugenic laws.

Please feel free to share your thoughts...and though I know this is a highly emotional issue for most, let's try to avoid flames.

Peace

Furthermore, the arguments about birth defects and incest seem pointless unless we're going to resurrect the whole spector of eugenic laws.

I have never, until today, heard of 'Eugenic Laws'; I understand it is mainly concerning "Laws forbidding marriage between people of different races"; so I don't see the relevency of those laws in this debate.

"incesteous and/or polygamous marriages" are a totally different 'kettle of fish'

The arguments about the produts of an incestuous relationship DO centre on the subject of birth defect; there is no way of leaving that out of the Equation. If you want to 'examine' the effects of in-breeding, there is a good way of doing so; you only need look at pedigree dogs. Years of trying to promote certain characteristics in dogs may have succeeded, but the end product is more often than not a dog with some inherrent disease, or at least one that hass a tendencty towards certain illnesses. Joking apart (it is not funny) I have also noticed that highly inbred animals have a tendency towards neuroses.

Polygamous marriages ? I remember watching a programme where the wives of a man (I think Iraqi) were being interviewed. Basically, the only person who seemed to get any benefit from thatarrangement is the man. The wives admitted to feelings oj jealousy, competing with each other.........

But your whole question is based on comparing homosexuality which is a part of nature, to incestuous and polygamous marriages, which come under the realm of morality, and law. You are trying to mix chalk and cheese.

 

[mr.guy]

It's good of you to ask,bartdanr. At one point in the canadian rights battle against gay marriage (before focus on family set up shop as canada's single biggest lobby), polygamy was inevitable as far as they were concerned. I almost crapped myself laughing when i read about it....but it got better. Thing is, they didn't get the "right" people scared of polygamamous relationships. Actually, some groups approved heartily of polygamous marriage even if they were against gay marriage; as if the former were a serious suggestion/warning in the first place. In short as a scare tactic this one fell flat on it's face.

 

[mr.guy]

Here's a woman who somhow got a job writing for the principle ottawa newspaper (slim pickins in ottawa). One of her funnier pieces, or at least i assume it's funny. Generally her writing leaves me in a rage, and right now i'm giggling like mad. Perhaps i've developed a resistance.

http://www.margretkopala.com/news/mk30jul05.htm

 

[James the Persian]

The arguments about the produts of an incestuous relationship DO centre on the subject of birth defect; there is no way of leaving that out of the Equation. If you want to 'examine' the effects of in-breeding, there is a good way of doing so; you only need look at pedigree dogs. Years of trying to promote certain characteristics in dogs may have succeeded, but the end product is more often than not a dog with some inherrent disease, or at least one that hass a tendencty towards certain illnesses. Joking apart (it is not funny) I have also noticed that highly inbred animals have a tendency towards neuroses.

I quite agree with this part of your post (less so with the rest, mind). Here in the UK they are now starting to suggest that we ought to ban marriages between first cousins because they are too closely related. Apparently the British Pakistani community are 13 times more likely than the national average to have children with birth defects or genetic disorders - the rate of first cousin marriages in the community is astounding at about 55%!

I have to say, though, that you misunderstand eugenics laws, Michel. They are laws to prevent the breeding of social undesirables. This can range from such measures as forced sterilisation of people with defects up to the involuntary euthanasia of such people. What is considered a defect has varied in different times and cultures, but criminals were forcibly sterilised in the past (pre-WWII) in the US, so it isn't necessarily just hereditary diseases that are targeted. It's all basically a practical application of Social Darwinism.

My grandfather's first wife was involuntarily euthanised (gassed) in Nazi Germany because she suffered from a mental illness, so you can probably guess that I'm not in favour of eugenics!

James

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Here's a woman who somhow got a job writing for the principle ottawa newspaper (slim pickins in ottawa). One of her funnier pieces, or at least i assume it's funny. Generally her writing leaves me in a rage, and right now i'm giggling like mad. Perhaps i've developed a resistance.

http://www.margretkopala.com/news/mk30jul05.htm

Could be symptoms of insanity.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Some insestuous marriages are permitted in Denmark.
I remember a case in the UK only a few years back which had special permission from the high court.

Terry_____________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[Fluffy]

I too heard about the statistics about the English Pakistani community, James. Whilst this does clearly show exactly how much of a danger with regards to birth defects incestuous sex can be, I don't see the rationale behind using this to ban marriage between cousins (or any closer for that matter).

Marriage doesn't have to involve sex, sex between people who are genetically disabled is not illegal and incestuous sex can happen out of marriage. Furthermore, adoption is a viable alternative for incestuous couples who wish offspring. I might be persuaded to support a ban on unprotected sex between couples who are likely to produce genetically disabled children but I can't see a justification for going any further than this.

 

[bartdanr]

It's good of you to ask,bartdanr. At one point in the canadian rights battle against gay marriage (before focus on family set up shop as canada's single biggest lobby), polygamy was inevitable as far as they were concerned. I almost crapped myself laughing when i read about it....but it got better. Thing is, they didn't get the "right" people scared of polygamamous relationships. Actually, some groups approved heartily of polygamous marriage even if they were against gay marriage; as if the former were a serious suggestion/warning in the first place. In short as a scare tactic this one fell flat on it's face.

Hi Mr. Guy, thanks for the post.

I read the link but I really didn't see the relevance to the debate. I really would like to know, though, why someone would say that homosexual marriage should be allowed, but polygamous marriages shouldn't. You say it was a "scare tactic", but I'm just wanting to know how and why the two should be viewed as different. If we're talking about two or more consenting adults getting involved in a relationship, then should it matter what sex and how many are doing so?

Peace

 

[bartdanr]

Furthermore, the arguments about birth defects and incest seem pointless unless we're going to resurrect the whole spector of eugenic laws.

I have never, until today, heard of 'Eugenic Laws'; I understand it is mainly concerning "Laws forbidding marriage between people of different races"; so I don't see the relevency of those laws in this debate.

"incesteous and/or polygamous marriages" are a totally different 'kettle of fish'

Eugenic laws are laws designed to limit the reproduction of those deemded genetically defective ("negative" eugenics), or to encourage the reproduction of those deemed genetically superior ("positive" eugenics). If we single out one particular type of eugenic laws, saying that there is a higher probability (but not a certainty) of a child being born as "defective" because of incestous marriage, then that marriage should be illegal, then why do we stop there? There are other people that have a higher possibility of giving birth to genetically "defective" individuals, but we do not pass laws against them having children.

Besides, no one said that an insestous relationship had to be heterosexual. A homosexual incestious couple has no probability of producting children.

The arguments about the produts of an incestuous relationship DO centre on the subject of birth defect; there is no way of leaving that out of the Equation. If you want to 'examine' the effects of in-breeding, there is a good way of doing so; you only need look at pedigree dogs. Years of trying to promote certain characteristics in dogs may have succeeded, but the end product is more often than not a dog with some inherrent disease, or at least one that hass a tendencty towards certain illnesses. Joking apart (it is not funny) I have also noticed that highly inbred animals have a tendency towards neuroses.

But then why allow people who carry certain heredity diseases to marry and have children?

Polygamous marriages ? I remember watching a programme where the wives of a man (I think Iraqi) were being interviewed. Basically, the only person who seemed to get any benefit from thatarrangement is the man. The wives admitted to feelings oj jealousy, competing with each other.........

But then why not allow polyandrous marriage (multiple husbands)? And keep in mind that in that same society, monogamous marriage is also very male-dominated, so it is by no means certain that more egalitarian societies would also have male-dominated multiple marriages.

But your whole question is based on comparing homosexuality which is a part of nature, to incestuous and polygamous marriages, which come under the realm of morality, and law. You are trying to mix chalk and cheese.

I agree that homosexuality is a question of nature, but I'm not debating homosexuality per se, but homosexual marriage compared to incestous marriage and polygamous marriage--which is chalk and chalk (or cheese and cheese, I'm not sure which).

Peace

 

[Jaymes]

There's no reason to bar either. I'd just be wary about inbreeding. Are there laws about incestuous sexual relations?

 

[bartdanr]

There's no reason to bar either. I'd just be wary about inbreeding. Are there laws about incestuous sexual relations?

Hi Jensa, thanks for your post.

I believe most jurisdictions have laws against incestuous sexual relations...of course, such 'bedroom' laws are generally not enforceable.

By being 'wary' about inbreeding, do you think that that specificially merits law? For example, should it be legal to enter into an incestuous marriage, so long as no children are conceived? Or should this be a consequence we should be wiling to allow?

I think that specifying certain relationships as illegal because of the possibility of birth defects, but allowing others that also have higher than average possibility of birth defects, is descriminatory. I believe that the main reason that incestuous marriages are illegal is the 'ick' factor...but that's the same reason that most people object to homosexual marriage as well.

However, this brings up a point: what is the purpose of marriage and marriage law? Why does the State recognize certain relationships as changing the legal identity of those that enter into that relationship?

Some people see the legal aspects of marriage as a benefit, others see it as a burden. There are some seniors who avoid legal marriage but have ceremonial marriage to protect their individual social security income and/or other benefits; some people on public assistance may do the same.

Others see things like getting reduced rates on health insurance as a positive for marriage.

But what really are the legal benefits and drawbacks of marriage? Is our system of law regarding marriage reflective of the incentives we want?

Peace

 

[michel]

I quite agree with this part of your post (less so with the rest, mind). Here in the UK they are now starting to suggest that we ought to ban marriages between first cousins because they are too closely related. Apparently the British Pakistani community are 13 times more likely than the national average to have children with birth defects or genetic disorders - the rate of first cousin marriages in the community is astounding at about 55%!

I have to say, though, that you misunderstand eugenics laws, Michel. They are laws to prevent the breeding of social undesirables. This can range from such measures as forced sterilisation of people with defects up to the involuntary euthanasia of such people. What is considered a defect has varied in different times and cultures, but criminals were forcibly sterilised in the past (pre-WWII) in the US, so it isn't necessarily just hereditary diseases that are targeted. It's all basically a practical application of Social Darwinism.

My grandfather's first wife was involuntarily euthanised (gassed) in Nazi Germany because she suffered from a mental illness, so you can probably guess that I'm not in favour of eugenics!

James

Thank you for puting me right James. I think I'll opt out of " a practical application of Social Darwinism. ".

I am as sure as can be that I would have been terminated had medical science been as evolved in 1949 as it is now, in detecting phisycal and mental abnormalities.

My grandfather's first wife was involuntarily euthanised (gassed) in Nazi Germany because she suffered from a mental illness, so you can probably guess that I'm not in favour of eugenics!

Well, what can I say ? Sorry is not enough; but you may like to know that I feel dreadful, vicariously, for what happened to your Grandmother...........

As do I for My wife's grandfather who was arrested, tortured, and died during torture, during the Spanish civil war.

Two days after his death, the persons who had killed him went to see his widow, to apologize; it seemed as if "they had caught the wrong man by accident"........

I am sure his widow was much comforted by that.:areyoucra

 

[ChrisP]

Hi Jensa, thanks for your post.

I believe most jurisdictions have laws against incestuous sexual relations...of course, such 'bedroom' laws are generally not enforceable.

I agree, why do our governments choose to legislate about something that is unenforcable. All they achieve is wasting time and tax.

If prosecution is ever pursued in these cases, families will be destroyed. For what? Enshrining paedophilia protection in law is most definitely necessary but consensual incest? This is more or less the same argument as preventing homosexual sex/relationships, as it is based on Abrahamic moral laws that the countries of our forum members are built on.

Why waste our time and money.

 

[jamaesi]

Looking at the horrible genetic diseases that can pop up with inbreeding (look at many Amish communities for example)- I can't support incest relationships that bear children. If people want to be in a relationship like that, more power to them, but it's not fair to force the effects of inbreeding on children.

I'm also fine with polygamy- I just don't like the idea of religious polyamy because there is so much room for abuse with "marry this man as his fourth wife or you will burn in hell."

There is no victim in homosexuality.




These are like apples, oranges, and bananas. They're all fruit, yes- but they're all wildly different.

 

[ChrisP]

Looking at the horrible genetic diseases that can pop up with inbreeding (look at many Amish communities for example)- I can't support incest relationships that bear children. If people want to be in a relationship like that, more power to them, but it's not fair to force the effects of inbreeding on children.

I'm also fine with polygamy- I just don't like the idea of religious polyamy because there is so much room for abuse with "marry this man as his fourth wife or you will burn in hell."

There is no victim in homosexuality.




These are like apples, oranges, and bananas. They're all fruit, yes- but they're all wildly different.

That's very true Jamesi, I missed that.

There has also been centuries of inbreeding on the pacific islands like Fiji, Tokelau etc. The effects are... well. I don't mean to be mean, but there are some fijians that are pointlessly aggressive and not the brightest.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems there might be an innate, biological taboo against incest:

http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Incest_taboo

 

[Ceridwen018]

I am not personally opposed to polygamy or polyandry as far as morality goes. I don't think that there is a huge demand for it in this country, ie, most people are pretty jealous by nature, and probably wouldn't be happy in such a relationship, but that doesn't mean that legalizing it would be harmful. It would be difficult, however, as far as taxes, registration, and everything else goes. Susie may be married to Rob and John, who in turn have other wives, who in turn have other husbands, do you see where I'm going? In order to keep a situation like polygamy and polyandry from getting too confusing, (and therefore impossible for the government to keep track of), certain regulations would have to be set in place, perhaps limiting the number of spouses that one person is allowed to have at one time.

By making polygamy and polyandry legal, other obstacles would also be encountered. The divorce rate would probably skyrocket, as would tax fraud by way of "sham marriages". We have sham marriages now, without a doubt, but these would become much more numerous and more easily attained, in my opinion, if polygamy were made legal.

As for incest, I'm still not sure about it. I admit I am struggling with my own personal biases when I talk about incest, but that aside, I feel incest is an entirely different barrel of monkeys compared to homosexual marriage and polygamy/polyandry. I think that the legalization of incest would almost be congruent with the legalization of sexual abuse in familes. Little girls and boys are sexually abused enough as it is by their parents and older siblings. If incest is made legal, who is to say that parents will not influence their young kids to marry them, (in some states, kids can be married as young as 10 with parental consent--some states don't even have limits), just so they can legally sexually abuse them?

I think that all marriage can be abused in some way or another, but I think that the abuses possible with incest outweigh any good it could bring.

 

[Mathematician]

I support gay and polygamy marriage, not incest, because in the first two cases the marriage/sex doesnt cause physical harm to a nonconsenting party. In incest, the chances are a lot higher (although people tend to overdo it a tad) that the offspring will come out with major medical flaws.

I'm a firm believer that if you know about n STD in your system and have sex with someone without informing them beforehand, you should be liable for lawsuit. I don't see the difference between that and having incest. In both cases, an unaware person(or thing if yee be pro-choice) has to suffer because of you(s) wanting some fun.

Polygamy marriage could be harder to manage than homosexual marriage, yes, but it's nowhere near impossible. All we have to do is ensure everyone involved knows about the others and with each new addition EVERYONE agrees. As Ceridwen018 said, humans are (for the most part) jealous beings. I don't think legalizing polygamy marriage will unite Americans in one, collosal (sp?) marriage chain. Although it would be hilarious to consider certain people 'family'. :biglaugh: