« Return to the Lord | Main | A Perverted Distinction »

March 11, 2009

Comments

In my several debates on Prop 8, I inevitably end up asking, "on what basis would you not recognize incestuous marriage?" (or words to that effect). I have yet to receive an answer.

I asked that question once, Naturallawyer. The guy I was arguing with said he'd object to it because inbreeding leads to birth defects.

The liberal pot sure loves to call the Christian kettle black.

Naturallawyer,

Same sex marriage could legitimize incest only in part. Incest is still a different idea although yes, there could be an incestuous homosexual relationship, and there would be no chance of it leading to birth defects. Go figure, maybe same sex couples will be allowed to be close blood relatives. This will depend on just how many people are in favor of it (i.e. the number of votes to be had).

What I do see is that same sex marriage serves to legitimize polygamy/polyamory, no longer must anyone heed the approximately equal proportion in which the two sexes are born. Same sex marriage has the potential to distort the proportion of single men to single women. The question then arises, "Why should anyone arbitrarily impose a limit on the number of consenting adults allowed in a marriage?" There is no point in making an appeal to natural if homosexual marriage is allowed, the state would be saying that the proportions of the sexes don't matter. This would easily allow legislation "from the bench."

The reason I ask the incest question is generally in response to the "what do you care?" argument. I note the incest example and ask if the other person has any interest in that relationship, anymore than I do in a homosexual "marriage". Then I ask for the distinction.

If someone I was speaking with brought up the "birth defects" argument, then I would note that the person assumes that birth defects are inherently bad, and makes the judgment that incestuous marriage would lead to more of them (not necessarily true, especially in this day and age). But if the inherent badness of birth defects justifies eliminating marriage for all incestuous couples (even infertile ones), then why doesn't the inherent badness of homosexual acts become relevant to the discussion? That's a discussion I'm willing to have, but most of the people I've discussed this with don't care to discuss whether homosexual sex is morally appropriate. They'd rather call me a discriminator, even though they've done the same thing against the incestuous couples.

How can any proponent of same-sex marriage establish any definition of marriage at all?

They have no precedent to fall back on, no biological function nor societal purpose to appeal to. They cannot defend limiting marriage to two people, to consenting adults, to non-relatives, or to any other criteria. If marriage is a basic civil right, then by definition, this right cannot be abridged by society for any reason at all. No one thinks this way about marriage - not even homosexuals. But they want the social status that marriage conveys, so they talk about it like is an unabridgeable natural right.

Naturallawyer,

"But if the inherent badness of birth defects justifies eliminating marriage for all incestuous couples (even infertile ones), then why doesn't the inherent badness of homosexual acts become relevant to the discussion?"

To what "inherent badness of homosexual acts" are you referring?

The comments to this entry are closed.