This post is not so much to propagate my views as to simply ask the question: why do so many people consider incest to be objectively wrong?
I'm opposed to incestuous couples having children as I gather they are likely to have genetic diseases, and I would obviously only endorse a consensual marriage (not with minors etc.) but beyond that I really don't view it as a problem. However I know this is controversial and I would like to fully understand the arguments by people who are against incest; so please could people explain their views to me? This is not me trying to be challenging particularly, I would just like to get a better picture. So thank you.
Also I have no interest in people using religion to justify their beliefs, as I do not believe religion to be an adequate objective justification for anything.
If this whole so called "equality" movement must exist and tinker with the social system, our values and ethics, then it needs to be completely unbiased. I personally don't agree with gay marriage, transgenderism or any of these other perversions as an acceptable, let alone "equal" option in our society and social system. These are conditions, psychological, social and possibly genetic defects, which should be treated as such. Cures, treatments and therapies should be available to cure these unnatural conditions, or at least be given an equal philosophical stance should we chose to accept that some people may be comfortable identifying themselves with these conditions. In which case, if people are to be true to the cause of equality then all forms including polygamy, incest and anything else should be accepted and tolerated.
That's not to say however that certain people are very much biased, either for political or agenda purposes, or that these are the beliefs that have been imprinted on them. However, if someone purports to support gay marriage on a stance of equality and compassion for all, then by default that must include all CHOICES and human concepts of marriage and social relationships. That is, providing all concerned parties are in agreement, as forcing marriage against someone's will is universally wrong,
If the government wants to get involved in marriage, they must allow equal rights among all kinds of marriages. So if you support the government making it mandatory that all institutions, government or otherwise, allow gay marriage, then you cannot just say that it is not okay to do tat for polygamy or incest because you think it's wrong or unnatural.
Traditional marriage between a man and woman is the most natural, normal, stable, and productive relationship that can exist for humans. Other relationships may attempt to model or copy this basic unit of society but without success. In order to deviate from the basic standard of traditional marriage, which is based on the most fundamental relationship, it must be argued that other relationships like homosexual, incestuous, bestial, etc are equal and deserve fair treatment under the law. It does not follow logic or reason to allow one form of deviance to copy traditional marriage without allowing other forms as well. This holds true despite the reasons that the pro-gay marriage community may stand upon to justify their position.
You should probably consider not using evolutionary principles to dispute incest while yet defending homosexual relationships. Evolutionary concepts support incest at least to a small degree, while completely rejecting homosexual relations.
Incest- Offspring with *CHANCE* of genetic deformity
Homosexual - No offspring whatsoever
Now.. Which is supported by evolutionary theories? Please think on that.
But after giving it more thought, I can't find a good argument to support equality that doesn't also extend to polygamy and incest. As long as 2 or more people love each other and aren't hurting others, what business is it of anyone else? There would have to be some ground rules for incestuous couples to prevent offspring (that would count as hurting others), but every other objection is based on social constructs and learned biases.
...Enthusiastic consent is not more valid than other people's, nor deserving of more rights and recognition. While certainly I have issues as a queer anarchist with *any* state recognition of relationships and the associated reward for particular forms of them, the othering of polyamorous and related lovers in mainstream media narratives is extremely disturbing.
Now, I don't support any of these forms of marriage. But if you support one and not the others, you are being hypocritical. On one hand you say love is love and if two people love each other than we shouldn't stand in their way. So you then have no reason, according to your logic, to not defend polygamy and incest. What I'm seeing isn't that people truly believe what they are saying. They are just using this statement to try to win their case. This along with smearing the name of all who oppose gay marriage is the entire plan for getting it legalized. Far more hate and bigotry exists on the pro gay side. They say love and tolerate all, yet they have absolutely no tolerance for those who oppose their views. The lie of tolerance is that it is tolerant of all. This is an impossibility as there are going to be contradictions on different sides. You cant agree something is wrong and right at the same time.
I still haven't heard any arguments for so-called gay marriage that would deny polygamy and incest. Most of the arguments seem to be around the theme of equality and suggest that all love is equal or love is love. We are told that it is about equality and fairness. So if all love is equal then gay love must be treated equal and any other type of love (not just limited to polygamy and incest) must also be equal. Therefore all the types of love that are currently excluded from marriage would need to be just as valid as gay love otherwise the equality argument is a lie? This is a very slippery slope. There was a time not that long ago when almost everyone considered homosexual behavior wrong, indecent, immoral etc it would never have been thought reasonable that society would ever consider gay marriage as a remote possibility. If society can allow gay marriage then it is not inconceivable that the future will allow any type of relationship (any type of love). How do we limited it without discriminating? So yes polygamy, incest and any other type of relationship you can think of no matter how wrong, indecent or immoral we may think it now must be allowed if we allow gay marriage.
Obviously its like saying as long as there is consent, anything is possible. They just have to both be adults and consenting. Next thing you know, animals and Im not joking. Morality has eroded within our society and thats the truth of it. Wars, gun shootings, apathy, growing gap between rich and poor, gays, next thing is polygamy and then incest.
Polygamy should be looked at a little closer, because if the group are all consenting, it shouldn't be anyone else's business who they love or have sex with. Incest however should not, because it can be harmful the the child. So polygamy yes because it's not hurting anyone, but incest no because it could potentially hurt offspring.
Really if you look at it from a marriage standpoint than yes, all of these things should be allowed along with gay marriage. If you look at it from the children's standpoint then incest can harm the child. I personally believe that while polygamy should be reviewed incest should not be allowed to have natural children because of the scientifically proven detriment to the child's health.
1- There is genetic evidence that supports the fact that gays are born that way.
2- Incest creates a huge amount of genetic illnesses which would put their kids at great danger of being disabled for their entire lives.
3- I have seen many polygamous relationships during my traveling and I have found that it results to a lot of drama and it also degrades women as human beings.
Science does not say that it is not okay but it's probably not the best idea.
My definition of marriage is between two people, no matter what gender or any other factors. But having multipule wife's or such is just weird and not normal for american society. Gay marriage is between two people of the same gender. Polygamy is multi people of different genders. I support gay marriage but polygamy is to far.
Its so complicated because from a legal stand point it could go either way and from a moral standpoint it could too because of the ties to religion. Personally I would have to say no because gay marriage is done out of love for eachother but polygamy and incest are not. Incest is simply rape within a family 99.99 percent of the time and Polygamy is simply done for religious reasons. I personally say nay, but truly it could probably go either way in this messed up country.
The short answer:
No. To promote stability in a community, defending a stabilizing factor such as gay marriage does not require one to also defend the unstable practices of polygamy and incest.
The long answer:
Marriage, in one form or another, has existed long before our current religions were established. No one organization has the right to claim that their idea of marriage is the proper one and therefore impose laws defining or limiting others rights to marriage.
By defending gay marriage, one may presume that the debater is pro-marriage. However, opponents of gay marriage argue that it would undermine the institution of marriage, but it's hard to see how more marriages would be bad for marriage. If anything harms marriage, it is bad marriages where people don't take the institution seriously... An already too common practice with heterosexuals. If gay couples in committed relationships are able to formalize their unions as marriages, that can only serve to improve marriage overall by providing more positive role models.
Stable families are a cornerstone to a stable society. Families are the smallest social unit in society and trends in the family inevitably affect trends in society as a whole, and vice-versa. Allowing gays to marry will help better integrate them and their relationships into society. Ensuring that gay relationships are stable and receive support will benefit the stability of society overall.
Married couples can help and support each other in a variety of ways because laws and regulations are written to help that happen. For example, people are able to take time off to help their hospitalized spouse. Gay couples who cannot marry don't receive the same help, so much of what gay partners would do for each other must be shouldered by the community at large, unnecessarily draining resources. By solidifying relationships, gay marriage can help stabilize a community overall.
Polygamy and incest do not help to stabilize a community. Polygamy is a lovely idea if it is entered into by consenting adults. But in the United States, although illegal, this is not often the case. In researching fundamental Mormonism one finds that girls who reach the age of 12 are removed from school and married off to older men. In man cases if they try to escape their condition, they are hunted down, beaten, brought back into 'the fold' and/or are killed (for further reading on this subject see 'Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith by Jon Krakauer (ISBN 1-4000-3280-6).
Incest, for scientific reasons, is obviously not beneficial to society as the results of said union almost always produce offspring with serious genetic flaws.
Defending gay marriage and equal rights does not require you to defend polygamy and incest.
No they should not HAVE too. That said I support all three to the fullest (As long as those participating in incest do not allow themselves to birth a child.) So I honestly believe that everyone SHOULD support them to some extent. I dunno. It's kind of a hard question.
Gay marriage and Polygamy are two very different things. Yes I think legalizing Gay Marriage could cause to legalizing Polygamy and other untraditional relationships but if you support Gay Marriage that doesn't mean you automatically support Polygamy as well. That is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard to be honest.
Were women obliged to support the rights of donkeys to vote, when they gained their rights? NO!
Were black people obliged to support the rights of donkeys to sit at the front of the bus when they got the right to do so? NO!
So, why are gay people obliged to support any form of marriage other than same sex marriage? It is illogical.
Both polygamy and incest have been banned for very logical reasons:
1 polygamy would create a financial nightmare for a government that cannot figure out how to dole out money for two persons, let alone six.
2 polygamy has been shown to be harmful to women on many levels, emotionally, as well as physically and psychololgically.
3 incest is redundant because marriage creates kinship between previously unrelated individuals. There is no need for a father to marry his daughter, as they are already related by blood, and share the same last name. Under law, she would be entitled to inheritance rights, and marriage would be redundant.
4 incest harms the progeny of those involved, and homosexual incest has deep pyschological issues involved. Every major health organization has spoken against incest. And, it is illegal in most countries around the world. So, legalizing incestuous marriage is a definite HELL NO!
I cannot believe that any sane person would vote yes to this argument. It just shows that people aren't using their brains, and most of the commentors who insist that gays must support polygamy and incest do so out of spite and hatred for gays. How disgusting...
The question presented is, on its face, a logical fallacy. Are "polygamy and incest" like things? (Fallacy 1). Then is gay marriage the same as those? (Fallacy 2). What is the root of the grouping? Marriage? If so, the question should not single out gay marriage. The question should be "Does defending marriage require..." Because a substantive response requires that the logical fallacy in the question be disassembled before we can even start reassembling it into a reasonably answerable question, the answer is no.