little_tippler

Well I read an article by a portuguese lawyer, in a reputed magazine, where he commented that if one is open to the idea of same-sex marriage (civil marriage, not necessarily in a church), then one should also concede that incest and polygamy could be considered within that same bracket.

I'd show you the article but a) it's in portuguese and b) it's in print.

Though I found it disturbing and I am disgusted by incest for several reasons (social conditioning, survival of the species, ingrained reaction of disgust and what have you), I am forced to grant the idea some thought.

Maybe I'm just stupid and can't see the error in the analogy, even though I can think of a few reasons why it's a bad idea. I'd love to hear what you think on this, maybe you can put my mind at ease.

The idea really irks me. I am in favour of same-sex marriage, or rather, I'm not against it. I don't believe in limiting someone's freedom to commit to another to show their love, if it doesn't harm anyone.

Like has been spoken about in the thread about incest here http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...est-wrong.html
incest is a social construct, we believe it to be wrong because of a question of survival of the species, and of social order (clarity of that order), and our reaction is one of disgust because we have been taught that it is wrong. Disgust is a reaction we have to things we shouldn't do, usually that may cause harm to us physically. Of course, the harm can be relative or only in our heads, but disgust is a defence mechanism.

Problems I can see with opening the door to incest are:
Increase of health problems within the population, related to genetics - though it can be argued that with medical and scientific advances, this may soon no longer be such an important factor. Loss of social and familial structure, though it can be argued that new structures can be created. Abusers could take advantage of such a situation, which could get out of control, if there is no longer legislation or social convention on the matter. This is the scariest thing for me.

As for polygamy, I don't see why not, if all those involved are aware, consenting adults.

What do you think about this odd analogy? Is it odd to you? Does it make you feel sick? Do you think it's ridiculous? Do you think it's worth thinking about? Why or why not?

__________________
Whether we write or speak or do but look
We are ever unapparent. What we are
Cannot be transfused into word or book.
Our soul from us is infinitely far.
However much we give our thoughts the will
To be our soul and gesture it abroad,
Our hearts are incommunicable still.
In what we show ourselves we are ignored.
The abyss from soul to soul cannot be bridged
By any skill of thought or trick of seeming.
Unto our very selves we are abridged
When we would utter to our thought our being.
We are our dreams of ourselves, souls by gleams,
And each to each other dreams of others' dreams.

Fernando Pessoa, 1918

Jinn

As is always the case, there's more to it that one example. For every example of incest between brother and sister, there are examples of father and daughter, mother and son, etc. My reaction of disgust is not really to brothers and sisters, but parents and children. In this case, even if it's not "forced", it's a position-of-power abuse. The 'adult' is supposed to know the difference between right and wrong, and shouldn't be using their power as the adult to make the child do something they don't want / can't consent to do.

Even as I'm in favor of same-sex marriage, I have to agree that brother-sister incest is not terribly different from same-sex ...sex. Both have been historically shunned, and both prevent effective reproduction of the species. In the case of same-sex sex, no child can be created by the intercourse, and in the case of brother-sister sex, the progeny created by intercourse is very likely to have defects or die before / during birth.

I don't think that "Can this result in a viable child?" should be a good litmus test of whether we allow or disallow a sexual relationship to exist; after all, pedophiles and their victims can create successful offspring, but that doesn't make it right. And men and women chose to participate in things like anal sex, which also don't represent successful offspring.

Whatever we decide to do with either, we shouldn't be basing our decision on whether it 'furthers the species'. As I showed above, it's not an effective test, and quite simply, we're not exactly in a population shortage at the moment. If anything, we should be encouraging activities which DO NOT result in children.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Glory's Sun

I can't really give any form of validation towards incest.. it's just wrong.

However, the polygamy thing is a slippery one..but one that is feasible. I was just having this discussion with someone the other day. They proposed that if the government is redefining the idea of marriage (same sex), that in his view, polygamy is no different in it being a different form. He doesn't condone it, and worries about how the children in such a marriage could operate, but he's just saying it seems far to allow that definition as well.

For my own thoughts, I'm kind of on the fence about it. Sure if they are all consenting adults then they should be allowed to do what they want; but the polygamist lifestyle seems archaic and from what I know (which is very very little) seems to enslave children and women.

SO while I'm for same sex marriage.. I think that ultimately I would be opposed to polygamy and most certainly against incest, but I'm not so blind to see that if you change the definition for one group, another group is going to want the same treatment.

dippin

This is the common slippery slope fallacy. Logically, either gay marriage is wrong in itself, and thus we dont need to discuss incest and polygamy, or gay marriage is right but leads to undesirable consequences, in which case we shouldnt be discussing gay marriage, but the consequences.

Now, as far as the analogy goes, it is nonsense any way you look at it. The fact that all three are social constructs do not make them equivalent. Incest, for example, is a taboo in most known societies, even those that tolerate or even fully accept homosexuals. As you pointed out, there are a number of different consequences to it, from the genetic, to the impact on family structure, psychological processes and so on. And what is more, several forms of incest are already accepted. It is only the more extreme, and thus damaging, forms of incest that are taboo (intergenerational, siblings, etc). Intragenerational incest that doesnt not include siblings has been accepted for a long time (i.e., cousin with cousin is a relatively normal occurrence).

With regards to polygamy, it would be a wholly different type of union, one that from every aspect would change the legal aspect of marriage in many ways. There would need to be significant changes in how property, child rearing, legal spousal rights, inheritance and even divorce rules are managed. Now, some might defend this, but regardless of that the fact remains that it would require some pretty sweeping changes.

Meanwhile, gay couples are a reality, are no more a taboo in several places, would not require any significant changes in the legal aspects of marriage, would not alter family structure, etc.

Baraka_Guru

This really comes down to the idea of Other. Anything outside of the commonly accepted (e.g. Judeo-Christian) construction of "coupling" (i.e. mating and long-term relationships) is deemed wrong. Furthermore, what is classified as Other are relational (i.e. homosexuality is akin to incest, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia in that it is "not normal or healthy").

This, of course, is a fallacy. Especially when you consider that most incestuous relationships are probably heterosexual. Wouldn't that make incestuous relationships more akin to heterosexual marriages?

Seriously.

But on a more technical note: incestuous relationships would have problems in some cases of procreation. Cousins have fewer problems than other more closely related incestuous couples. Though I suppose certain couples could adopt or get sperm donors or surrogate mothers from outside, as do homosexual couples.

Socially, homosexual marriages should not be compared to incest where the incest in question is criminal or morally questionable (as inter-generational, etc. was mentioned above). Homosexuality is a natural occurrence that should not be forced into social abjection merely because others feel it's unnatural, dangerous, damaging, or a threat to the status quo. That's ridiculous.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Plan9

Marriage is so sacred.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Anormalguy

I can partially see the analogy between same-sex marriage and polygamy--If it works for the consenting adults involved, go for it.

The analogy between same-sex marriage and incest is ridiculous.

__________________
In a society where the individual is not free to pursue the truth...there is neither progress, stability nor security.--Edward R. Murrow

777

I believe that our portuguese lawyer was trying to prove is that a domino effect would happen if same-sex marraige was made legal, then it's only a matter of time before marraige between siblings or a man having more than one wife or a man who marries all his siblings becomes legal as well.

Personally, I don't buy into it. Little Tippler already mentioned why incest is wrong. Regarding polygamy, I don't see it morally wrong, but it would be inconvenient to society it's self. Like a lion and it's pride, only the most powerful will have many wives. The rest of the average men will have to be single for the rest of their lives, since the rich men married all the women.

__________________
"I don't know that I ever wanted greatness, on its own. It seems rather like wanting to be an engineer, rather than wanting to design something - or wanting to be a writer, rather than wanting to write. It should be a by-product, not a thing in itself. Otherwise, it's just an ego trip."

Roger Zelazny

Strange Famous

As I understand the main reasons for the proibition of incest are to (1) protect children from their parents (2) children born of parents who are related are more likely to have serious genetic health problems.

Homosexuality does not have any more or less reason to consider the first point than heterosexuality, and homosexuals can of course not have children together.

Therefore the analogy seems to me to be completely false.

It is beyond my understanding why a non homosexual should object to a homosexual's right to marry. I cannot understand any way in which it effects them. Certainly the denial of marriages rights to some adult citizens on the basis of religious prejudice is considered a human rights abuse - and I would expect the UN to take a hostile position to any state which denied homosexual citizens human rights (unfortunately this includes my country, where homosexuals can have "civil unions" but not exactly marriages)

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

ColonelSpecial

First off, dippin, you had a great post. You eloquently put what I have been trying to put into words for several months.

Second of all, gay civil unions and gay marriages occur everyday in quite a few countries. I have yet to hear of legislation come from those countries asking for incest to be made equal to gay unions. These countries that have full rights for gay people aren't falling into the sea like some say will happen if we legalize gay unions/marriage here in the United States. Polygamy as a pure social construct isn't wrong to me. It is when one leader shifts it to controlled Polygyny (one man, many wives) that is begins to break down. It isn't fully consenting adults at that point. It becomes controlling and tyrannical in nature.

__________________
"Mommy, the presidents are squishing me!"

"Using the pull out method of contraceptive is like saying I won't use a seat belt, I'll just jump out of the car before it hits that tree."

Sara

inBOIL

This isn't true. There is a slight increase in the likelihood of a child born from incest having problems, but the real danger is in repeated generations of incest.

As for the OP, I don't see any clear difference between these different forms of taboo mating. They all have different effects which vary in severity depending on the situation, but overall I think they're no more harmful to society than Big Macs or marijuana.

__________________
And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

MSD

In addition to genetics, incest raises the issue of mixing sexual relationships with power relationships and raises the question of consent, especially when young. Same-sex marriage is taboo because half of our population is brainwashed into thinking that a bunch of paper from thousands of years ago represents the will of some invisible sky wizard. Polygamy is taboo for the same reason as same-sex. Both are stigmatized because people feel it's their moral obligation to do so, and because of misunderstanding. Bestiality is wrong because there is no way to obtain consent from an animal with sub-human intelligence.

Incest has demonstrably negative consequences. Bestiality is unethical. Gay marriage and polygamy are just things that most people don't understand or want to understand.

pig

Well, in my opinion, same-sex marriage and polyamorous marriage are no-brainers. If we can come up with legal code and policies that allow same sex siblings to inherit wealth from their parents and otherwise be considered a family, and if we can construct policies to allow a company to be legally represented as an individual, I fail to see why we can't allow same-sex couples and/or polyamorous relationships to have legal status. The tricky part is with incestuous relationships, and I have to say that from a purely hypothetical viewpoint I don't really have a problem with it. In my little imaginary world, it would require a lot of paperwork and checks to be considered (how many years of generational incest involved, age of the people wanting to enter into the contract, history of abuse, combination with polyamorous links within the same family, etc), but I don't really have an "ethical" problem with it. I think it does go into defining what state-sanctioned marriage means. Is it a state-sanctioned opportunity to have "real sex," or to strictly reinforce childbirth? If so, then all this seems perhaps relevant to me, perhaps not (particularly in the cases of same-sex and polyamorous)...if it's about recreating a family structure with all the benefits of being in the "same family," for medical insurance, tax assessment, hospital and medical decision reasons...I really don't see the issue.

At the root, I separate the issues of sex and marriage. While for me personally, they may be linked in my own relationship...I don't presume that's always the case. I think there are a number of reasons people choose to get married, and I don't have any real problem with that. The Sacred Institution can easily mean different things to different people, and I know a number of people who have decided to get married for reasons having nothing to do with the classic fairy tale. People don't seem to go out of their way to judge these instances when they happen in heterosexual couples who are not direct blood relatives, so why should they do so in other instances?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Nimetic

Why is incest wrong?

One thought on it is because there is a conflict of interest there.... between being a parent and being a boyfriend/girlfriend.

Most of us would expect the parents to vet a potential suitor or to step in if there was violence in a marriage. Can't occur in the case of incest. Instead it tends to look like the parent has put their own interests ahead of those of the child.