Homosexual marriages?

[Boerseun]

Ooooh - an emotional topic...

 

I just heard a discussion on the radio regarding the new bill about to be passed in parliament regarding gay marriage. They're about to give legal recognition to gay marriages, but they're not calling it "Same Sex Marriage", you now get a "Marriage", between a man and woman, and a "Civil Union", which is between same-sex couples. And now the Gay and Lesbian support groups are up in arms, because there is still a seperation between the two states.

 

But that's besides the point.

 

A guy phoned in and said that seeing as our universal moral codes are now flexed in all directions to accommodate groups with different viewpoints, like gays and lesbians, for example, where are we going to draw the line? Homosexuality was outlawed in SA for years, and now they are accommodated. The law basically came down to what you can and cannot do with parts of your body to someone else, whether its consensual or not. They basically legislated where you can park your pork, so to speak.

 

Now I, for one, am against any legislature that interferes with things so private as my sexuality. I'm heterosexual, but I'll support this bill in total. But now this is where it becomes tricky: In removing any homophobic laws, we have to be consistent and remove any laws outlawing incest, as well. Else, we're back to legislating what you can and cannot do with your body.

If a brother and sister of consensual age decides to "get married", we'll have to accept that, too. This is kinda tricky...

 

Discuss?

[ronthepon]

That's right. From where I stand, it seems that even incest can be made legal, if there are people to support it the way those supporting... ah... 'civil unions' have.

 

Damn sensitive issue. But if the homos don't support incest, then they're plain hypocrites. Else, there are socially dubbed evil.

 

PS: Civil union is the perfect word. We could say that marriage is a... subset of civil union.

[Boerseun]

Damn sensitive issue. But if the homos don't support incest, then they're plain hypocrites.

Can't give you rep right now, Ron, but this is indeed an excellent point!

Whether you're pro- or con- in the homosexuality debate, this is indeed true. So why aren't we seeing any homosexuals out there protesting for equal recognition of incestuous relationships?

[Zythryn]

But if the homos don't support incest, then they're plain hypocrites. Else, there are socially dubbed evil.

 

I strongly disagree:naughty:

Incest causes damage and is more likely to result in birth defects.

Homosexual marriages do not.

 

That is where I feel the line should be drawn. If it causes harm to society or individuals it should be restricted.

For people that argue that homosexual marraiges or civil unions cause damage to the fabric of society, I would argue that divorce causes more damage than homosexual marraiges. So divorce should be outlawed before homosexual marraiges.

 

You both are absolutely correct though, this is a very emotional topic for many.

[pgrmdave]

Incest is very different from homosexual relations. Incest, as Zythryn pointed out, is more likely to result in birth defects. It is also much more likely to be psychologically damaging to one or both members, and less likely to be consensual. I don't think that one can really equate the two. I do, however, agree that it shouldn't be the government's business whether or not incest is occuring, I simply don't think that it is hypocritical to say that one is okay and the other is not. Do you support interracial marriages? For a long time they were outlawed, and seen as immoral. Does that mean that supporting interracial relationships is hypocritical unless you agree to every possible consensual relationship?

[ronthepon]

I agree, incest does cause the accumulation and increased expression of recessive and harmful genes.

 

That is where I feel the line should be drawn. If it causes harm to society or individuals it should be restricted.

I'm afraid that this won't work out. If this is the criterion, then people with bad genes must be banned from reproducing.

 

I would argue that divorce causes more damage than homosexual marraiges. So divorce should be outlawed before homosexual marraiges

Good point. It shows that things are not currently run in society seeing the amount of profit it shall create in the long run.

 

Incest is very different from homosexual relations. Incest, as Zythryn pointed out, is more likely to result in birth defects. It is also much more likely to be psychologically damaging to one or both members

Which brings out the old factor of 'shades of grey'. None of them is exactly profitable. One is simply much behind popular opinion.

 

However, had there been a general instinct in a different manner, I doubt if anybody would have seen reason to consider it evil. Nobody would have given any big thought to the genetic problems the process creates.

 

I simply don't think that it is hypocritical to say that one is okay and the other is not.

Agreed.

However, a person who has the guts to raise a voice against popular social belief and hope for others to think broadly is hypocritical if he does not consider the 'lower levels' as worth arguing for.

 

Like a murderer saying that genocide is evil.

 

PS: Keep patience with me, I have a bad habit or poorly expressing my views.

[Zythryn]

I'm afraid that this won't work out. If this is the criterion, then people with bad genes must be banned from reproducing.

 

Excellent point ron, you have me there.

I do believe that social norms have come about because of the damage not following the norms would cause damage to the social group (this would deserve it's own thread though, don't want to get this off topic).

 

So I am trying to use some introspection to see why I feel that damage on a general scale is a valid reason for 'rules' against some marraiges but don't feel the same about specific individual cases.

 

I am honestly not sure...:)

[TheFaithfulStone]

There is a huge difference between homosexuality and incest or pedophilia, or bestiality, or any of the other bogeymen that get raised during this argument.

 

1)The question of agency.

 

Children and animals cannot give consent, so pedophilia and bestiality are straight out the door.

 

Furthermore, I would strongly question how many fully consensual incidences of incest there are. Seriously, any mother/son, father/daughter stuff is likely covered under rule 1) and it isn't actually illegal to marry your cousin in most places anymore. So that leaves a single relationship brother/sister) that might not be covered.

 

What is the total incidence of fully adult, consensual relationships between genetically related brothers and sisters? I suspect this number to be EXTREMELY LOW, if not zero. And even then, I suspect you would find a history of sexual abuse or dysfunction.

 

2)The question of power

 

There is also the issue of whether or not one party in a relationship has a disproportionate amount of power over the marriage. That is - can A force B to marry him (or her) and stay married? That covers most exploitative forms of polygamy, and child brides, etc.

 

In a homosexual civil union, both partners enter into it with full agency and as fully capable individuals, either of whom has the right to end the relationship at any time. A partnership that DOESN'T meet these criteria is dysfunctional, no matter how many tabs and slots there are involved.

 

So this actually leave a fully consensual form of polygamy available, and frankly, why shouldn't it? Polygamy (like homosexuality) is actually pretty common in human societies (while incest and pre-pubescent marriage are NOT) so it's not like we can say it's "unnatural."

 

Western society actually has a pretty weird way of mate-selection. You "play the field" until you find someone who you consider to be worthy, and then you settle down - either for five to ten years to raise children, and then you return to the field - or for good.

 

Our brand of monogamy (that is long-term and serial) is pretty strange in the annals of human history.

 

Anyway, discuss that - since that's an actual argument that could be opened up - the incest thing I consider to be pretty much a straw man.

 

TFS

[Boerseun]

What is the total incidence of fully adult, consensual relationships between genetically related brothers and sisters? I suspect this number to be EXTREMELY LOW, if not zero. And even then, I suspect you would find a history of sexual abuse or dysfunction.

The incidence is pretty low, but so what? The incidence of homosexuality under any given sample of humans is low as well. Suspecting that it would be accompanied by a history of sexual abuse and/or dysfunction smells pretty prejudiced to me. If you look at the physical design of the organs under discussion, it could be argued that an incestuous relationship between brother and sister would actually be *more* normal than a homosexual relationship. This is not what we're discussing. What we are discussing, is if you oppose government legislating your sex life, you can't oppose consensual incest too. It might be a societal taboo, but taboos don't need legislation to be enforced.

Anyway, discuss that - since that's an actual argument that could be opened up - the incest thing I consider to be pretty much a straw man.

Well, if you're not happy with the parameters of the discussion I laid out in the first post, please feel free to open up your very own thread and discuss it. Don't hijack mine, though. And, no - the incest thing is not a strawman, it's simply an attempt to see how consistent both sides in the homosexuality argument are. I know, incest is a distasteful topic, but it certainly is valid when we're discussing how far and how personal legislation can go.

 

Lemme put it to you this way: Both homosexuality and incest can be argued to be "unnatural". Both can be argued to be "immoral", or simply "wrong". Yet, we are now starting to flex our morality to accommodate the one, but not the other. The level of incidence doesn't matter, what does matter is that both were legislated against, using very much the same moral arguments. Homosexuals, however, can't insist on recognition of homosexuality but not of consensual incest and be logically consistent at the same time. That's where Ron got the "hypocrite" bit from, and I agree completely.

[Zythryn]

Both homosexuality and incest can be argued to be "unnatural".

 

I believe that argument, at least in the case of homosexuality, would fail. Homosexuality has been observed in many animal species, most typically in mammals, birds and insects. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior).

 

I still hold the point of view that homosexual marraiges should not be legistlated against as they cause no harm in the general sense.

 

As for incest, does anyone know how likely genetic damage is to occur with brother/sister pairings? Seems that could be a reason for the social discomfort and restrictions on incest. As for incest with a son or daughter that seems to fall under pediophilia where the child can't really give informed consent.

[pgrmdave]

It seems to me that there are a few problems with the premise of the original post.

 

1 - An assumption that homosexuality is, or can rightly be construed, as immoral. If this is not true, i.e. if homosexuality is not immoral, then the argument fails.

 

2 - An assumption that incest is, or can rightly be construed as, immoral. If this is not true, then the comparison fails.

 

3 - An assumption that these immoralities are equal. The idea that homosexuality, as an immoral act, can be equally compared with incest as an immoral act.

 

I propose that there are problems with at least numbers 1 and 3.

 

Problems with #1:

 

While I understand that there is a strong sentiment among many people that homosexuality is morally wrong, I have yet to find people with strong moral justifications of this. There are those who point to the bible, where the bible, in many places, condemns homosexuality. However, this does not mean that one should force morality upon others, just like we don't with other religions or other parts of the bible (we don't enforce laws ensuring that we keep the sabbath holy, for example). Nor is the bible necessarily the authority on morality. There are others who seem to either think it's "icky" (for lack of a better word), or "unnatural". As Zythryn pointed out, homosexuality occurs in nature, hence it is natural. It also seems to be linked to genetics and biological chemistry, making it, once again, natural.

 

Problems with #3:

 

Different things are different. That may seem obvious, but it can be lost in rhetoric. Incest is a different thing than homosexuality, and must be treated as such. Ron said: "Like a murderer saying that genocide is evil." as an example of hypocracy. However, we know from experiance that a single murder is not a genocide, that things happen on different scales, and with different circumstances. It is a simple logical fallacy - the slippery slope argument. It ignores the simple idea that one act is not another, and they cannot be equated. The truth is, homosexuality and incest have nothing to do with each other.

[InfiniteNow]

Most of this has already been covered here:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/7072-gay-marriage-why-not.html

 

 

We closed the thread because of the "hotness" of the topic... all 11 pages of it...

[Turtle]

This work about covers the topic for me:

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absudity of Consensual Crimes In Our Free Country

by Peter McWilliams

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm

[infamous]

It seems to me that there are a few problems with the premise of the original post.

Absolutely pgrmdave..........

 

The truth is, homosexuality and incest have nothing to do with each other.

Truly, from one heterosexual to another, the only similarity involves nudity. On the one hand, homosexuality, even though disgusting to the heterosexual, is legal where consenting adults are concerned. On the other hand, incest is unlawful and justly so considering the medical implications such activity may subject any offspring to at birth. Incest and homosexuality have very little incommon except their disgusting nature....................Infy

[Turtle]

On the other hand, incest is unlawful and justly so considering the medical implications such activity may subject any offspring to at birth. Incest and homosexuality have very little incommon except their disgusting nature....................Infy

 

Do you mean to justify a law by virtue of 'disgustingness'? :cup: If so, we must confine all ugly people to homes. :eek2:

 

As to the 'incest causes birth defects meme', it is a myth.

The report concludes that cousins can have children together without running much greater risk than a "normal" couple of their children having genetic abnormalities. Accordingly, the report potentially undermines the primary justification for laws that prevent first cousins from marrying or engaging in sexual relations with one another.

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/columns/fl.grossman.incest.04.09/

 

Post Script Afterthought: Extending the myth idea a bit, who did Cain und Able have children by if not their sisters? Ditto for Noah's little group!? ;)

[Zythryn]

Do you mean to justify a law by virtue of 'disgustingness'? :cup: If so, we must confine all ugly people to homes. :eek2:

 

Turtle, I think you should read the text you quoted again. While 'disgustingness' was mentioned in the sentance after the justification, the justification listed is "considering the medical implications such activity may subject any offspring to at birth".

 

As to the 'incest causes birth defects meme', it is a myth.

 

The quoted text indicates that there is little additional risk for cousins. I have heard similar studies which is why I mentioned 'brother and sister' incest. As the relation between brother and sister is genetically much closer I suspect that this is a greater issue. However, I would be happy to be corrected if you have any links to studies about brother/sister incest not resulting in a higher rate of genetic disorders.

 

Post Script Afterthought: Extending the myth idea a bit, who did Cain und Able have children by if not their sisters? Ditto for Noah's little group!? ;)

 

Hmmm, good question. Perhaps we can infer that the bible is pro-incest;)

[Turtle]

Turtle, I think you should read the text you quoted again. While 'disgustingness' was mentioned in the sentance after the justification, the justification listed is "considering the medical implications such activity may subject any offspring to at birth".

I addressed both topics, albeit out of order; I addressed the last first and the first last. The statement "Incest and homosexuality have very little incommon except their disgusting nature..." affirms 'disgustingness' in both incest and homosexuality. Since I (we?) affirm 'disgustingness' in ugly people, then the ugly ought logically to receive the same attention from the law as homosexuality or incest. Fair and balanced.

 

The quoted text indicates that there is little additional risk for cousins. I have heard similar studies which is why I mentioned 'brother and sister' incest. As the relation between brother and sister is genetically much closer I suspect that this is a greater issue. However, I would be happy to be corrected if you have any links to studies about brother/sister incest not resulting in a higher rate of genetic disorders.

I have found no such links yet, but the search is not over.

 

Hmmm, good question. Perhaps we can infer that the bible is pro-incest;)

Yup.:cup: