This is an issue that’s very important to me. Shawn and I have been together for 2 1/2 years now. We love one another so much that I can’t put it into words. It’s the first time in my life that I have been certain that someone loved me back. I’m very happy.
The next step, according to social norms, is for us to get married. We’ve certainly been together long enough that marriage is appropriate.
So today begins the court battle to overturn Proposition 8 in the federal court system, which will, if all goes well, lead to the federal supreme court deciding that laws banning same sex marriage are unconstitutional, and Shawn and I can walk into city hall and grab a marriage license right here in Moscow, Idaho.
There is, of course, opposition to this from people who wish to keep gay marriage illegal. Let’s see what they have to say (from message boards and comment areas at ABC News):
The voters decided, try another election, but do not take it to the courts! Why should we let the courts have full control over this issue? Also, yes, it would open the door for incest and polygamy (any multi-person relationship) Why? Because many of those people can claim its their belief or their predesposition to love a family member or multiple males/females. The gays/lesbians are claiming they were genetically wired to love their same sex, so that will be the argument for others. Also, one poster stated that she loved her brother too much to drop the issue. Would be fighting the same fight if your brother wanted multiple spouses or if your brother wanted to marry a sibling or first cousin? I mean where do you draw the line? Honestly, if a person is gay/lesbian thats his/her issue……but to me marriage is defined as ONE MAN ONE WOMAN…and nothing more.
LIFETL 2:15 PM
Okay, we’ll start with the first point:
Why should the Supreme Court be brought into this? The voters have spoken.
Mob rule is a bad idea. People aren’t required to be fair. That is, partially, why the Supreme Court exists. If we live our society by the rule of the majority, then imagine what life would be like:
- The majority of the world in the Middle Ages had no problem with killing people who’d committed adultery or homosexuality or for not practicing Christianity.
- The majority of some cultures thought that human sacrifice was a good idea.
- The majority of the US thought that slaughtering the Native Americans and stealing their land was just fine.
- The majority of the US thought that slavery was peachy keen.
- The majority of people before the civil rights movement thought that interracial marriage was abhorrent and should be illegal.
- The majority of people in some societies thought is was just fine to take a baby with birth defects (or who just happened to be female) and leave them in the desert to die of dehydration and attacks by animals.
The majority isn’t always right. The court system is here BECAUSE of this.
Second Point:
Legalizing gay marriage will lead to polygamy and incestuous relationships.
This is a classic slippery slope argument. Legalizing gay marriage will only lead to legalizing gay marriage. Period.
Also…and I hesitate to post this here, but I have an opinion on the polygamy and incestuous relationship thing…it’s separate from this argument. I will include it here…
However, and this won’t be a popular argument, but hear me out:
Incestuous and Polygamous relationships are taboo in our society, certainly. But again, what business is it of ours if someone wants to have this kind of relationship? It’s not the state, nor is it the majority’s business what kind of romantic relationship one consenting adult human has with another consenting adult human.
If circumstances align themselves in such a way that a brother and sister, or brother and brother, or cousins WHO ARE CONSENTING, FREE, ADULTS, decide to become a romantic couple then that’s NO ONE ELSE’S BUSINESS BUT THEIR OWN. If they, as fully FREE and FUNCTIONING ADULTS, decide that this is the type of relationship that they want to have, then they, as free people, should be allowed to have it.
We can be disgusted by it, we can point and sneer at them and socially shun them, but it’s not our place to PREVENT THEM from having these relationships. Societal norms do a pretty good job of keeping these kinds of relationships rare.
Polygamous relationship are the same. If a CONSENTING and FREE adult man and several CONSENTING and FREE adult women decide to have a relationship, or if four consenting adult men or 12 consenting adult women or 25 consenting adult men and consenting adult women want to have a group relationship, then they should not be prevented from doing so by law. It is their right to enter into a relationship of their choosing.
We are supposed to live in a free society, we need to stop making laws that prevent consenting adult people from doing things that do not harm other people.
Of course, we have the problem of birth defects coming from the children of incestuous male/female relationships. This is one of those societal stories that is repeated so often that people just accept is as truth. However, as with most things, it’s just not that simple: (Wikipedia: Incest Taboo)
Another theory is that the observance of the taboo would lower the incidence of congenital birth defects caused by inbreeding. This theory was first proposed by jurist Henry Maine, who did not have knowledge of modern genetics, but who did draw on his observations of animal husbandry[17] Anthropologists reject this explanation for two reasons. First, inbreeding does not directly lead to congenital birth defects per se; it leads to an increase in the frequency of homozygotes.[18] An increase in homozygotes has diverging effects. A homozygote encoding a congenital birth defect will produce children with birth defects, but homozygotes that do not encode for congenital birth defects will decrease the number of carriers in a population. The overall consequences of these diverging effects depends in part on the size of the population. In small populations, as long as children born with heritable birth defects die (or are killed) before they reproduce, the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population; over time the gene pool will be healthier. In larger populations, however, it is more likely that large numbers of carriers will survive and mate, leading to more constant rates of birth defect.
So interbreeding is not a good thing, but it’s not an automatic ticket to a baby with two heads either. The decision to have a child should be left up to the couple. I would hope that most incestuous couples would choose not to reproduce to avoid any chance of some harmful recessive gene being expressed. I know, through geneology, that I am the product of several generations of cousins marrying. I’m not deformed in any way. Many of them, because they didn’t know their own geneaology had no idea that they were marrying cousins. In fact, at that time in society communities were pretty small. It would be hard to marry from your own community without marrying someone you were related to. We all have this level of incest in our ancestry.
So, I realize that this isn’t going to be a popular opinion, but my point is that people in a free society should be allowed to make whatever decisions that they wish to make which do not harm other members of the society, regardless of the feelings of the majority. By “harm” I mean directly cause physical or financial harm. As individual members of a society we have the right to be offended by other people’s choices. We have the right to be disgusted by their choices. We do NOT have the right to control other people’s choices. If a person lives a lifestyle which you find abhorrent, but which harms no one, then it’s none of your business. You have the right to avoid that person, shun that person and even talk about that person behind their back. You do not have the right to prevent that person from doing what they’re doing.
Tell me where I’m wrong and we’ll have a lovely debate in the comment section…


















0