|
Hmm. A couple of generations ago, it was generally accepted that first cousins marrying was immoral and that their children had a greatly increased chance of birth defects. We know better now, but many states still prohibit cousin marriage outright, and others permit it only when both are past child-bearing age. It's still a big joke to most, due to the misunderstanding behind the cause of inbred genetic defects. Isolated populations that develop widespread genetic defects do so over a very long period of time; it's generational, not related to any one couple and their offspring.
A century or two ago, when there were a lot of small, isolated populations, it made sense to have strict restrictions regarding marrying close family, because such behavior, do to isolation and immobility, was much more likely to be repeated over time from generation to generation, and that did pose a threat. There was a compelling reason in such a situation to encourage the mixing of gene pools.
Because we no longer live in such small, isolated, immobile communities, the threat of repeated intermarriage within the same family is greatly reduced, and thus the threat of genetic reinforcement is no longer a compelling state interest.
Yet we remain with a general populace that misunderstands the genetics, and which has a moral objection, on top of the "ick" factor, so it's unlikely we'll see much, if any change on this soon. And I think we underestimate the "ick" factor. There are people out there who do believe things they find disgusting should be illegal, even in the absense of any harm being done to anyone.
So why don't we see more social liberals up in arms about this the way we are about gay rights, using the same arguments? Practicality. The predjudice against siblings having sex, marrying, and having children is much, much stronger and more prevelant among the mainstream than the disapproval of gays having sex with each other. Linking the two with the same type of argument would, in practical terms, be counterproductive.
I can see two possible outcomes to using the same argument for both. People who object to both gays and siblings getting married are going to have that attitude reinforced by such a comparison, and equating them would make the cause of gay rights more difficult. People who favor gay rights, but not sibling marriage are the ones that would be problematic. If we convince them that the two are equivilent, would they be more likely to move in favor of more rights for siblings, or fewer rights for gays? I think the latter to be more likely.
As a moral issue, I find it disturbing. As an ethical issue, I don't think I should have the right to dictate to others how to live their lives, and for that reason, jailing these people is something I disapprove of strongly. As a practical matter, I think we'll see more progress more quickly on sexual freedoms for all consenting adults if we concentrate first on those that are likely to be best recieved by the mainstream.
Think about the children. A few years ago there was a southern California anchorwoman with a genetic disease that caused her to be born with a birth defect of malformed hands, what used to be called lobster claws in freak shows. It's a rare genetic mutation, but once it manifests, it has a 50-50 chance of being passed on to children. She decided to have children anyway, and was severely criticized for this. How dare she inflict this on a child?
I look at her situation, and though I'm not sure I would make the same decision she did, my ultimate conclusion has to be that it isn't my decision to make. I think the same way about siblings marrying, having sex, or having children together.
Gilda
__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.
~Steven Colbert
|