smooth

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

filtherton

It's politics. It's for the same reason that anti-abortionists rarely actually call for the complete abolishment of abortion, even though that would be the most ideologically consistent thing to do. The reason they don't is simple, the majority of the american public thinks abortions should be legal in some capacity. To come out strongly in favor of the complete abolition of abortion would be to commit special interest group suicide. Politics is all about getting your way, so there's your reason. It would be similar to someone arguing against gay marriage from a traditionalist perspective. If you're going to be a traditionalist you have to acknowledge that traditionalism would have called for a continuation of slavery, segregation and white-male-only voting priveliges.

Who are you to complain about selfishness? You're selfish too, you're human aren't you? Do you think the suffrage movement was bullshit because they didn't push for the slave's right to vote?

Personally, as long as people are treated with respect and dignity i could care less if you want to fuck your sister or marry a hundred women. If they all consented than more power to you.

You make a distinction between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement, yet you provide no basis for that distinction. Then you feign insult. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why the two situations are wholly different.


You make a very compelling case for polygamy and incest(bestiality justification leaves something to be desired), perhaps it is selfish of you to not be out championing those two causes because you know that there are people who would benefit.

mrandrew2u

I am a die hard conservative but have a different opinion on this issue. Hearing the conservatives claim they can preserve the family unit by preventing gay marriage is beyond laughable. In most inner cities, there is no such thing as a family unit as conservatives call it. Men are unabashedly having children with many different women and it is considered absolutely normal and often celebrated or rather bragged about.

Contrast this to 2 loving people of the same gender who want a family and the rights that traditional family makeup implies. I think this is just the conservatives trying to control something that they are absolutely powerless over.

__________________
My wife got mad when I used the word "shit" but to me that is what her cooking tastes like.

Holo

The whole concept of a family needing marriage needs to die. This is a poison on our current society. Divorce and and out-of-wedlock parenting are showing the unnecessity of it. Long term relationships (hopefully) are about love. Families should be about love. It has nothing to do with sexes or genders of mouths that encompass certain genitalia. Marriage is no longer necessary for a family, as divorce is so easy to get, and the prevailing decision of couples to abstain from it. Marriage is not necessary to ensure property of join kingdoms or enslave women. It's an outdated custom that should be reserved for those who choose to publicly declare their love for another, and should be brought up to date to include those of the same gender to marry as well.



If I wanted to marry a guy, nobody would be able to stop me. If I loved someone enough to make that kind of commitment I'd go to Mars to get marrried to them.

__________________
I happen to like the words "fuck", "cock", "pussy", "tits", "cunt", "twat", "shit" and even "bitch". As long as I am not using them to describe you, don't go telling me whether or not I can/should use them...that is, if you want me to continue refraining from using them to describe you. ~Prince

Zeld2.0

It pains and annoys me to see so many say "preserve the sanctity of marriage!" when you look online at records and see how many hundreds even thousands get divorced a month. If you want to preserve the sanctity, start by cleaning up the current problems, not trying to prevent something that isn't a problem.

boatin

This is on the money. Make adultry a crime. What's that? You couldn't pass that law? Because it's really not about protecting marriage, perhaps?

hmmm.

boatin

Thanks smooth. I can't say I really expected anyone to answer my question, because I don't believe there IS a difference between the arguments against gay marriage, and the arguments 50 years ago against interracial marriage.

They both seem to boil down to "protecting society". I believe what each argument is/was about is protecting the status quo, and our natural resistance to change.

Whatever your civil rights issue is, the issue is the same: some people have rights others don't have. Whether it's women voting, blacks voting, interracial marriage or whatever, it's all the same. Change is hard, people manufacture reasons it's (whatever the issue) a bad idea, and 50 years later it's seen as idiocy.

No one likes to see themselves as a bigot. It's not a nice label. But the people that didn't think interracial marriage was a good idea didn't see themselves as bigots either. But they were.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, perhaps it's a duck.



And please, set aside the issues of polygamy, incest and bestiality. They have nothing to do with this issue. They do, however, muddy the water in the way that all waters get muddied. Anything to keep the issue confused.