So .... my question is this:
If fraternal twins (of the opposite sex, of course) wanted to get married, they would be prevented by laws banning incest. If identical twins wanted to get married, what?
Difference or no difference?
You make the call.
Read more:http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=235255335&blogId=538331299#ixzz0xYl3DW6T
Of course the barring of homosexual couplings between siblings cannot serve any public interest once one accepts the idea of allowing any other homosexual couplings to be considered as marriages. The prohibition against incest has always been because of the biological necessity of some degree of exogamy in successful reproduction, inbred children suffer from it and society must either compound their suffering by rejecting them or sacrifice the needs of other children to extra care for the inbred.
ReplyDeleteOnce one has removed the idea that marriage has any basis in biological reproduction (which I do not, though I assert that the core virtue of marriage is elsewhere), one can hardly claim that there is any compelling reason to forbid marriages between siblings so long as they do not intend to reproduce.
Of course, I believe that the more basic point of marriage is not reproduction (though it is rightly to be regarded as a happy consequence), but to teach men and women to live together in love, one with another. A survey of human history, with particular attention to those times when the idea of marriage as understood in the Judeo-Christian tradition was absent or altered, reveals that without marriage men and women are led apart by fundamentally opposed biological imperatives, most particularly with regard to reproduction but also in relation to everything from preferred modes of communication to desired physical environment.
This is less than satisfactory for the men, but it is utterly disastrous for women (and usually children), who invariably suffer most cruelly where marriage is not honored.
The real question shouldn't be, "what about incest?" Because that's not where the destruction of marriage leads. The question is, "do you think it's okay for women to exist solely as targets for casual rape by any man physically able to overpower them?" Because that's what history has demonstrated to be the alternative to marriage.
Thanks, Chiu. Always a well-reasoned comment.
ReplyDeleteI cannot disagree with your analysis. My point was less about incest itself. It was meant to blow a gaping hole in the argument that same-sex marriage is necessary to address a fundamental inequality. It will remove one inequality, while introducing another. The only way to avoid the new inequality would be to drop the prohibition against incest.
Rather than lose the argument, I expect the proponents of same-sex marriage will begin (and indeed have already, if you search for it) the process of arguing to rid society of the bigotry against those who would prefer to pursue incestuous relationships and probably even argue in favor of those couples to be recognized as married.
While that will not be all that alarming to those already predisposed in favor of same-sex marriage, I do not believe the average person who has gradually become sympathetic to the same-sex marriage agenda has considered the implications. If they thought about what I am trying to bring to their attention, the sympathy would very likely begin to evaporate, as well it should.
(Apologies for the extreme tardiness of my reply. I gave up hope too soon that anyone would reply, apparently.)