|
First of all, I already urged deeper study on incest.
The research I have read points to incest taboos primarily being a function of ensuring the stability of the nuclear family, not genetic issues.
In support of my contention, I would submit that incest taboos have been around millenia longer than understanding of genetic disorders, and that incest rarely results in visible genetic disorders (while not addressing whether dormant genes may reside in the offspring). Incest does not result in a high probability of genetic disorders and it certainly does not result in a high probability of visual disorders (which would be most important if we are tracing the function of incest taboos in pre-contemporary times and civilizations.
Rather, incest taboos preserve the hierarchy within nuclear families. For example, in a nuclear family that still functions in some way "in the wild" (say, living together on a farm or gathering fruits; as opposed to in urban dwellings that have less need for a familial hierarchy given the mobility of spouses and offspring), if a husband/father is sleeping simultaneously with mother and daughter, that present a fundamental authority challenge to the mother. It may even preclude the brother from a 'natural' place in the family (given that we are most likely speaking about a patriarchal society). If a brother is sleeping with the mother, that presents a fundamental authority challenge to the father (who for all intents and purposes of this example is otherwise considered the head of household--HoH; gotta love media!). Furthermore, we can also understand that a brother sleeping with a sister would present an unteneble problem to the father who would otherwise use his daughter to form closer kinship ties with distant clans.
In summation, incest taboos function to maintain hierarchy within nuclear families and relate more to kinship ties with outside clans than genetic issues.
It can be argued that incest taboos do threaten the familiar order, but possibly less so in urban and high mobility areas than previous eras and economic structures.
I don't see how polygamy threatens the current social order, and I do not support it being prohibited. I also don't agree that the majority of cases involve underage or brainwashed girls (additaionlly, the latter issue of whether brainwashing is even a true phenomenon is contested in the most current social journals).
I think you have a good point that it ought not to be written out of the discussion, except for the fact that I don't think the people opposed to homosexual marriage on religious grounds would support the legalization of polygamy--so that presents a conundrum to you.
I don't know what I think regarding sex with animals. On one level, we could argue that it does not affect society and certainly people are entitled to engage in personal behaviors in their homes. However, one could argue from an ethical perspective that animals are non-consenting actors, unless it could be established that they are consenting to the acts somehow. And one could further argue that animals ought to have indidividual rights to be protected, as well.
Yet, none of that is relevant to the discussion as laid out by boatin because he does not ask what the analogies are, he specifically states that the arguments are similar between homosexual marriage opposition and interracial marriages. He wants to know how you see the two differently--not whether you see incest, polygamy, or bestiality as relevant or not. As such, those issues are red herrings to his question.
He may concede that they ought to be legal, or ought not to be. We don't know and it doesn't quite matter in the manner in which he framed his question.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|