February 14, 2004 - Gay Marriage Will Allow Incest and Other Idiocies


Here is a conversation I had with "Aesaesop" and others on the Yahoo news discussion board for the story "Groups Fail to Block S.F. Gay Weddings":

Discussion Name (Started by Aesaesop): Gay Marriage Permits Incest

Aesaesop: Since of course two sisters may marry each other. Or three for that matter, the rule of one man-one woman being null and void. Since of course two sisters may marry each other. Ha! Nobody will touch that! Because nobody can.

Insaneliberal (me): By your logic straight marriage allows the marriage of a brother and sister.

Aesaesop: Not even a nice try. Marriage is an institution within a reproductive context. Now that context has been removed. Gay marriage permits incest.

deconstruct2000: Going by what you say, infertile couples should not be able to get married.

Aesaesop: The law is a vast simplification, like deciding on traffic directions, left or right. Man/woman is all it really entails, with restrictions where appropriate. But reproduction is the starting context of the marriage contract. Gay marriage breaks that context. Gay marriage permits incest.

Insaneliberal: A brother and a sister can reproduce. I don't understand your point. You might want to check your logic on occasion.

Aesaesop: Oh, there is an inner flaw to this statement of mine, but to expose it would mean invalidating the premise of gay marriage. Ha! Do you dare? Gay marriage permits incest. An unassailable fact, at least to the mental giants on THIS board.

Insaneliberal: Perhaps this board doesn't have than many mental giants on it as I still don't understand why gay marriage would permit incest while straight marriage does not. In any case, the equal protection clause is not intended to create complete lawlessness. It is perfectly within the bounds of the clause to allow marriage between any two people but disallow incest (between anyone) as both situations would be applied equally.

Aesaesop: Since a brother and sister may still NOT marry under law but a sister and sister MAY, this certainly does violate the equal protection clause, allowing incest for gay couples but not for straight couples. And of course who said "couples"? There is nothing magical about the number 2. If the one man-one woman rule is discarded, anything goes. Partnerships can then take the form of corporations, ie, polygamy.

Insaneliberal: Lordy lordy lordy. Let me simplify it for you: 1) To allow any non-related, adult, and consenting couple to marry does not violate equal protection. 2) To disallow all incest does not violate equal protection since it is equally applied. Remember, the law, under the equal protection clause, only needs to be equally applied. The equal protection law does not specify the actual laws.

Aesaesop: ??? So you would explicitly prohibit same sex siblings from marrying. One question: WHY?

Insaneliberal: Because I don't think we should allow incest on moral grounds. I never said, or even implied, that I do not believe in laws based on moral concepts. I am simply stating that laws must be applied equally.

Aesaesop: Moral grounds? Incest BECAME immoral because of the PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES. Remove the consequences, remove the immorality. Gay marriage permits incest. Necessarily. Period. You may not like it. But on moral grounds, I don't like gay marriage either.

Insaneliberal: I still don't understand your logic. You keep saying that gay marriage would allow incest and yet you offer no rational or logical grounds to back your assertion up. Let's walk through a gay marriage. Say Adam and Steve get married, why in the world would that mean that the brothers George and Phil would be permitted to have sex? I just don't get your point.

Aesaesop: You're being obtuse now. Same sex marriage means same sex marriage. Brother with brother or sister with sister is therefore logically permissible, no reproductive consequences to prohibit it, no concern for genetic diversity in any way involved with it.

Insaneliberal: Look, I am not basing my argument on genetic diversity or any other eugenics like argument. I am simply pointing out what is fair and proper under our constitution.

Aesaesop: As morons_signs_of_the_apocolypse points out [in another thread], this goes deeper than you perceive. You should address his points, too. You're avoiding mine.

Insaneliberal: Perhaps I am avoiding your points since you really don't have any. You are simply repeating the same illogic over and over again.

..There's more, but you get the idea.





Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.