Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34
  1. #1
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    This is an old argument that has been edited to keep in form with our current changes in ODN policy as well as be more relevant to recent discussions about gay marriage. It's purpose is to illustrate the inconsistency in the argumentation of some gay marriage advocates. It is my position, that if one is an advocate of gay marriage, they must also be an advocate of incestuous marriage and if not, a double-standard occurs, calling for the removal of discrimination of one group, while insisting that another be discriminated against.
    __________________________________________________ _________________


    Homosexuals are discriminated against. They want the right to marry. But thus far, society has fought it apparently only due to moral issues and claimed health risks.

    What about incestuous couples though? Gay marriage advocates champion progressive thinking and removing discrimination from the platform. But it seems as if they are inconsistent in their advocacy here. In some states "progressive thinking" has lifted the ban on some incestuous relationships, but we still have a long way to go before all incestuous couples (not just cousins, but siblings and even consensual parent-child relationships - whether it be full, 1/2 or even step).

    Now many argue that the reason is due to the complications of a child being born with genetic mutations (for close family relationships). However, even a cursory review of the claim shows that it is quite invalid.

    For starters, abortion is legal in this country. The child could always be aborted. Abortion, according to "progressives", can be used as a form of birth control, thus removing unwanted pregnancies (either out of inconvenience or determined to be at risk of defects). Additional preventative care could include (and risk of harmful mutation) could be prevented by having both partners "fixed", thus ensuring that no pregnancy would result.

    Now, an obvious objection would be that no one should be forced to have an abortion or be forced to get "fixed". However, it is not the case that anyone is being forced to do anything here. Conditions exist for many laws, privileges, rights, etc... Conditions could exist for incestuous marriages as well. For example, driving a car is legal as long as the driver has met the conditions to do so (pass a driver's exam and obtain a driver's license). An individual is not forced to pass an exam and get a license....they however must do so if they choose to drive. It's a condition they must meet.

    Same for college entrance. One must meet the conditions of acceptance. Same for employment. One must meet the conditions of employment. Same for heterosexual marriage. One must obtain a marriage license. While it is true that many conditions are different in complexity, it is only true because of the nature of what is being qualified for that condition. That is, it's easier to join the Boy Scouts (just be a boy of certain age) than it is to go to Harvard (the conditions are more difficult and strenuous).

    Seem preposterous? It isn't. Some states in this country already require proof of infertility between the couple. They have conditions, by which to legalize incestuous marriage. In other words, as long as there is no harm caused in offspring, what is to prevent incestuous marriage? Anything?

    What makes homosexual marriage intrinsically different than incestuous marriage?

    How does a brother and sister (or father/daughter) getting married, affect or undermine your marriage?

    IMO, it is extremely hypocritical to champion homosexual marriage but argue against incestuous marriage. There is no difference other than "who" is involved in the relationship. And since it is a "who" issue...it is discrimination...isn't it?

    Granted, there are some who think that marriage should extend to anyone for any reason. At least they are consistent, and of course, their views are welcome in this thread.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; July 25th, 2011 at 02:56 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    In anticipation of an argument distinguishing incestuous unions from same-sex unions based on the reproductive (un-)fitness of incestuous couples, what about same-sex incestuous couples? They cannot reproduce with each other, so there must be some other justification barring their union.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,843
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    So long as both parties are consenting adults, then what they do in the privacy of their own home is completely their matter. But again, in these type discussions, there is much too much spent on the sexual acts. If there are two people who wish to live their lives together and love each other, then they should be allowed to do so. The fact of the matter is that they would be doing so anyway if they are lucky enough to live in an area that doesn't see it as a criminal matter.

    The only material concern therefore, is that they can share in the same benefits that currently only heterosexual couples enjoy: inheritance rights, visitation rights, medical rights and so on. In that, it is likely that a incestuous couple has more rights than a homosexual one!

    The one problem I see with adult/child marriages is that the child may have been molested when younger, so I'm not clear whether the adult would be liable for investigation and imprisonment if that happened.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    In reality, I'm rather dubious about your argument that the genetic damage from incestuous relationships is a non-issue, but for the sake of argument I will take the position that I used to think that but your argument set me straight.

    So incestuous marriage doesn't lead to a significant increase in genetic disease or any other problems? So there's no good reason to ban incestuous relationships? Well, if that's the case then I have to change my position since there is no rational reason to ban incestuous marriage and to do so is to discriminate for no good reason.

    And since I have to assume that you are a rational person, we can both agree that:

    1. Incestuous marriages should be legal.
    2. Since there is no reason to be concerned about incestuous marriage, there likewise is no reason to be concerned about any kind of slippery slope leading to its acceptance and legalization.

    Am I right?

    And if not, then are you against incestuous marriage for irrational reasons or is there a different rational reason to oppose it?
    Last edited by mican333; July 25th, 2011 at 05:36 PM.

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,843
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Now many argue that the reason is due to the complications of a child being born with genetic mutations (for close family relationships). However, even a cursory review of the claim shows that it is quite invalid.

    For starters, abortion is legal in this country. ...
    It occurs to me that you have missed a more critical argument against this position. We already currently allow people are guaranteed to have deformed or genetically diseased or otherwise non-healthy children to breed, including cases where the parents might have the same mental or physical defects themselves.

  6. #6
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    In reality, I'm rather dubious about your argument that the genetic damage from incestuous relationships is a non-issue, but for the sake of argument I will take the position that I used to think that but your argument set me straight.

    So incestuous marriage doesn't lead to a significant increase in genetic disease or any other problems? So there's no good reason to ban incestuous relationships? Well, if that's the case then I have to change my position since there is no rational reason to ban incestuous marriage and to do so is to discriminate for no good reason.
    No, I said that conditions could be made so that there would be none, just like some states have adopted already.

    Incestuous marriage is already legal. The question is how distant should the relationship be? I'm positing, that the under these circumstances, the left, to be consistent with their reasoning for gay marriage, must want to see fathers and daughters have sexual relations and be married, they must want to allow brothers and sisters to have sex with one another, that they must support the biological uncle to have sex with and marry his niece, etc...

    One could even argue that it isn't even necessary for marriage however (although, technically, that's what this thread is about). If all that is required is to have a blanket "If adults consent, they should be able to do it", it leaves open a pretty wide variety of allowances.

    The left then, would be arguing that "Fathers get to have sex with daughters" and "Mothers get to have sex with sons" and this is good for society, because to disallow it, would be discriminatory and discrimination of any kind, is wrong.

    And since I have to assume that you are a rational person, we can both agree that:

    1. Incestuous marriages should be legal.
    2. Since there is no reason to be concerned about incestuous marriage, there likewise is no reason to be concerned about any kind of slippery slope leading to its acceptance and legalization.

    Am I right?
    No. I don't hold that either are necessarily healthy and I don't hold that either are equitable in the eyes of the state who grants marriage benefits in order to encourage marriage. But I'm not going to debate the morality of it, I'm challenging the inconsistency of the pro-gay argument. As long as the pro-gay marriage advocates accept the logical necessity of advocating father-daughter sex/marriage (and other close relationships), I have no problems here. I'll let the position speak for itself.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  7. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    No, I said that conditions could be made so that there would be none, just like some states have adopted already.
    But if one doesn't buy your argument and still believes that the risk of genetic disease is a valid reason for banning incestuous marriage, then they are being internally consistent and therefore not hypocritical. If it so happens that you are right but they don't believe you are then they have their facts wrong but are still internally consistent and therefore not hypocritical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Incestuous marriage is already legal. The question is how distant should the relationship be? I'm positing, that the under these circumstances, the left, to be consistent with their reasoning for gay marriage, must want to see fathers and daughters have sexual relations and be married, they must want to allow brothers and sisters to have sex with one another, that they must support the biological uncle to have sex with and marry his niece, etc...
    Of course there's an irrational "ick" factor involved but if there is no rational reason to not let these people do as they want, then there should be no law against it. But again, if someone sincerely thinks that harm will result then they have a rational reason to be against this and clearly the closer the genetics, the stronger potential there is for harm.

    But I see no real valid reason to charge hypocrisy. Again, this would only apply if someone believed that there is no harm in allowing incestuous unions but wants to ban them anyway out of revulsion. I do not see how this provably applies to "the left" in general. I think many on the left believe it is harmful and therefore are internally consistent in wanting it banned. And perhaps there are others on "the left" who don't think it's that harmful and likewise don't think it should be banned.

    Truthfully, this kind of sounds like a strawman argument. I mean who specifically admitted that they believe that there is no harm in incestuous unions and yet wants them banned anyway?
    Last edited by mican333; July 25th, 2011 at 06:16 PM.

  8. #8
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But if one doesn't buy your argument and still believes that the risk of genetic disease is a valid reason for banning incestuous marriage, then they are being internally consistent and therefore not hypocritical.
    What argument against "risk of genetic disease" is it, that one may not "buy"?

    If it so happens that you are right but they don't believe you are then they have their facts wrong but are still internally consistent and therefore not hypocritical.
    This seems contingent upon an imaginary argument.

    But I see no real valid reason to charge hypocrisy. Again, this would only apply if someone believed that there is no harm in allowing incestuous unions but wants to ban them anyway out of revulsion.
    An appeal to an imaginary argument.

    I do not see how this provably applies to "the left" in general. I think many on the left believe it is harmful and therefore are internally consistent in wanting it banned. And perhaps there are others on "the left" who don't think it's that harmful and likewise don't think it should be banned.
    This is what I said that sets the universe of discourse, qualifying the target audience:

    Apok: It's purpose is to illustrate the inconsistency in the argumentation of some gay marriage advocates.


    And to this specific "some", I've asked:

    What makes homosexual marriage intrinsically different than incestuous marriage?

    How does a brother and sister (or father/daughter) getting married, affect or undermine your marriage?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    It is my position, that if one is an advocate of gay marriage, they must also be an advocate of incestuous marriage...What about incestuous couples though? Gay marriage advocates champion progressive thinking and removing discrimination from the platform. But it seems as if they are inconsistent in their advocacy here.
    Allow me to use the same arguing style:
    Deniers of gay marriage usually have 2 arms and so do most serial killers. Those who deny gay marriage and don't serial kill are inconsistent....
    ...I'm sure you get the idea.

    This arguing style is called an association fallacy. Its a type of red herring where the qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. Emphasis should be placed on the word 'irrelevant.'

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Homosexuals are discriminated against. They want the right to marry. But thus far, society has fought it apparently only due to moral issues and claimed health risks.
    Which society are you referring to? Because the society you live in oppose same-sex marriage primarily because of religion and I would guess that most or all of the debaters here know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    What about incestuous couples though? Gay marriage advocates champion progressive thinking and removing discrimination from the platform. But it seems as if they are inconsistent in their advocacy here. In some states "progressive thinking" has lifted the ban on some incestuous relationships
    And here we tie an imaginary line between incestuous relationships (which basically everybody is against) and gay relationships (which you are trying to get everybody against).

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Granted, there are some who think that marriage should extend to anyone for any reason. At least they are consistent, and of course, their views are welcome in this thread.
    Yes, because they would support your logical fallacy.

    The simplest rebuttal to the premise of this thread is to just mention that there is no good reason that supporters of gay marriage would or should also support incestuous marriage.

  10. #10
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    Quote Originally Posted by rockondon View Post
    Allow me to use the same arguing style:
    Deniers of gay marriage usually have 2 arms and so do most serial killers. Those who deny gay marriage and don't serial kill are inconsistent....
    ...I'm sure you get the idea.
    Not applicable.

    This arguing style is called an association fallacy. Its a type of red herring where the qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. Emphasis should be placed on the word 'irrelevant.'
    You have misunderstood or misused the fallacy it seems. It is not argued that "incestuous marriage is wrong because gay marriage is" or vice versa. It is not a challenge on either proposed institution. It's a challenge on the rationale behind the one and shows the inconsistency in the advocation of it. In order to avoid the inconsistency, there must be something intrinsically different between the two institutions. As of yet, there isn't anything proposed by those who advocate gay marriage.

    Which society are you referring to? Because the society you live in oppose same-sex marriage primarily because of religion and I would guess that most or all of the debaters here know it.
    The USA.

    And here we tie an imaginary line between incestuous relationships (which basically everybody is against) and gay relationships (which you are trying to get everybody against).
    You misunderstand the argument (for some reason). It is not an argument for or against any type of marriage. It is a challenge on the defense of one proposed institution (gay marriage). As of yet, there is no distinguishment between the two. And it is as i have suspected.

    If you are for gay marriage but against incestuous marriage, why? On what grounds are you? That is basically the thesis of the op. It's a very simple challenge/question...it would seem. However, it's tripped up EVERY single gay marriage advocate thus far it seems.

    Yes, because they would support your logical fallacy.
    Hmmm....no. Because they actually believe that 2 consenting adults can do whatever they like. These same liberals (who are also atheists and subscribe to subjective moral standards), have argued many times in other threads that there should be no limitations between 2 consenting adults, and some have argued that being an adult shouldn't even qualify...that being 5 yrs old and with a 40 yr old adult should be allowable. It is because of such argumentation, that I've recreated this argument in this thread.

    The simplest rebuttal to the premise of this thread is to just mention that there is no good reason that supporters of gay marriage would or should also support incestuous marriage.
    Because it's "icky"?

    Very well, there is no good reason why anyone should support gay marriage. After all, it's "icky".

    Somehow, it just doesn't seem like a very compelling argument.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NY, NY
    Posts
    670
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    If potential harm to the offspring of an incestuous union were the only, or even primary, concern with respect to incest, apok would be right.

    It it's not the only concern. Nor is it the primary (by which I mean most significant) concern. Concern over the offspring of incest is a concern about a potential secondary impact of incestuous relationships; not a concern about what the relationships are, but about what they may produce.

    The primary concern is concern over the relationships themselves, in two ways.

    First, there is concern over the true nature of incestuous relationships. Given the power dynamics and dependence involved, how likely is it for a parent-child sexual relationship to be truly a product of freely given consent, and how much is likely to be the result of coercion or abuse or undue influence? even in sibling relationships, that is a significant concern. Society's interest in preventing abuse is more than sufficient to justify a general ban on incest. (note: society has no comparable compelling secular interest in banning homosexual sex or relationships).

    Second, there's the question of the impact allowing incestuous unions would have on all families. Unlike gay marriage, opponents of which have argued will somehow devalue or harm straight marriage without ever being able to articulate how or why that should be true, allowing incestuous relationships would directly and irrevocably alter and harm the stability of the family unit. Legalizing incest would necessarily inject romantic and sexual tension, possibility and discord into every family relationship. Fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters would suddenly become potential sexual partners - and that change would bring with it a significant devaluation of the security and stability offered by the family structure. Again, legalizing gay marriage does not have any remotely comparable negative effect.

    Any argument that it would be hypocritical to support gay marriage but not incestuous marriage founders on the shoals of those two critical distinctions
    Last edited by Kivam; July 26th, 2011 at 05:36 AM.
    Ah, well - apparently my kids were too distracting to stay as a sig. I take that as a compliment

  12. #12
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivam View Post
    First, there is concern over the true nature of incestuous relationships. Given the power dynamics and dependence involved, how likely is it for a parent-child sexual relationship to be truly a product of freely given consent, and how much is likely to be the result of coercion or abuse or undue influence? even in sibling relationships, that is a significant concern. Society's interest in preventing abuse is more than sufficient to justify a general ban on incest. (note: society has no comparable compelling secular interest in banning homosexual sex or relationships).
    Except we are not allowing child relations. Age restrictions remain unchanged. We are discussing consenting adults. I don't see how it is an issue. However, even if it were a concern, it is easily remedied by adding the "condition". See op.

    Legalizing incest would necessarily inject romantic and sexual tension, possibility and discord into every family relationship. Fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters would suddenly become potential sexual partners - and that change would bring with it a significant devaluation of the security and stability offered by the family structure.
    1.) Support that all families would be subject to such influence.
    2.) Support that the family unit is incapable of teaching its own tradition and moral values.
    3.) Support that such a thing is immoral in the first place. You have a hidden premise that says that it is (therefore we shouldn't allow such influence). Who are you to say that it is immoral and on what grounds is it?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NY, NY
    Posts
    670
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Except we are not allowing child relations. Age restrictions remain unchanged. We are discussing consenting adults. I don't see how it is an issue. However, even if it were a concern, it is easily remedied by adding the "condition". See op.
    1) Even if the sexual relationship doesn't start until the kid is 18, a child can be reared to be ready to enter into that relationship at 18.
    2) Even if the government will not marry you until 18, the likelihood that a pre-marital sexual relationship would be discovered is low.
    3) What "condition" in the OP (or otherwise) would mitigate against the likelihood that incest is the product of a power dynamic and not true consent?


    1.) Support that all families would be subject to such influence.
    It's inherent. Regardless of whether particular families actually engage in incest, it will be a potential option that they cannot avoid knowing about. The mere presence of a sexual relationship as an option inherently warps the nature of the relationship between parent and child, or siblings. Even if *you* have no sexual attraction to/interest in *them*, you will always be aware that they might have such an interest in *you*. When a father tells his daughter "you look beautiful", she'll have to wonder if he is just complimenting her paternally, or hitting on her. When a sister gives a brother a hug, is it familial, or sexual? Regardless of how strong the family, some level of uncertainty would inherently be injected into the relationship. That's less true for families currently existing, who have been raised without that possibility and have an instinctive revulsion for it - but less and less true as generations go by. There is simply no legitimate question that family dynamics would change.

    2.) Support that the family unit is incapable of teaching its own tradition and moral values.
    Nonsequitur. Whether or not individual family units are capable of overcoming the challenge that would be posed by legalizing incest has no bearing on the question of whether a challenge is, in fact, posed by that legalization. The simple fact that legalizing incest would challenge the stability of family structures is, in and of itself, a purely secular and entirely justifiable reason not to legalize incest.

    3.) Support that such a thing is immoral in the first place. You have a hidden premise that says that it is (therefore we shouldn't allow such influence). Who are you to say that it is immoral and on what grounds is it?
    Nonsequitur. It doesn't matter whether it is moral or immoral. The family is the basic unit of our society, and altering the family dynamic would rightly be something to be leery of. If you want to argue that such a change would be beneficial, you can do so - but you don't mess with the structure of family without strong evidence that the change would not be harmful.

    Again, there is simply no equivalence to gay marriage here, because legalizing gay marriage does not work any change at all to family structures.
    Ah, well - apparently my kids were too distracting to stay as a sig. I take that as a compliment

  14. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    What argument against "risk of genetic disease" is it, that one may not "buy"?
    Your argument in the OP. You're saying that some states allow certain incestuous marriages if the couple can't procreate, which of course means that all fertile incestuous couples (which we can assume are the majority) are still banned from marriage so you haven't even presented an argument for the general legalization of incestuous unions due to concern over genetic disease since in your example, incestuous marriage is still generally illegal (a few exceptions are allowed but most prospects will be rejected). So you haven't even presented an argument for allowing incestuous marriage in general. I would say that your argument supports that incestuous marriage should be generally illegal but there are special circumstances where it can be allowed and as far as I know no gay marriage proponent opposes this notion. You certainly have provided no support that even one of them disagrees with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    This seems contingent upon an imaginary argument.
    it's not imaginary, it's hypothetical. And it is correct. So I will repeat it.

    If it so happens that you are right but they don't believe you are then they have their facts wrong but are still internally consistent and therefore not hypocritical.


    And the only thing that is hypothetical is your argument being correct - it's clearly a fact that people disagree with your argument. Just look at Zhav's response that follows this post if you need evidence of disagreement.



    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    An appeal to an imaginary argument.
    That's funny, because I am describing the very targets of your OP.

    To repeat:

    This would only apply if someone believed that there is no harm in allowing incestuous unions but wants to ban them anyway out of revulsion.

    So these kinds of people are imaginary? Then apparently your attack is on imaginary people and therefore you are definitely creating a straw man argument.




    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    This is what I said that sets the universe of discourse, qualifying the target audience:

    Apok: It's purpose is to illustrate the inconsistency in the argumentation of some gay marriage advocates.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that such people even exist. Show me ONE person, on ODN, or anywhere else who holds an internally inconsistent position regarding this.

    One can only be inconsistent on this issue if:

    1. They believe that marriages that "cause no harm", like gay marriage, should be allowed.
    2. They believe that incestuous marriage causes no harm.
    3. They want to ban incestuous marriage anyway.

    Again, who does 1, 2, & 3 apply to?

    Not Zhav or me, for #2 doesn't apply us.

    So who? Imaginary people?
    Last edited by mican333; July 26th, 2011 at 09:24 AM.

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    [Argument]
    So, for your argument to work, you'd need to:

    • Ignore the difference between gay people and people who have the (very likely) potential to create harmful genetic problems in offspring.
    • Require abortions and in doing so tick off both camps (those who think abortion is wrong AND those who think a woman has a right to choose). And requiring birth control isn't much better (nor is it foolproof).
    • Mandate that state governments get to choose who is allowed to get married in certain instances (because I want people who can't figure out how to fix potholes monkeying around more in personal issues...) and cross our fingers hoping they don't produce children with IQ's that make George Bush look like Einstein.


    Your argument is to downplay the harm offered by incestuous marriage. Downplaying it does not negate it. Conversely, there is no harm offered by gay marriage. So they are not the same. Incestuous marriage has the problem of inbred offspring. Requiring birth control or abortions isn't a viable answer.

  16. #16
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivam View Post
    1) Even if the sexual relationship doesn't start until the kid is 18, a child can be reared to be ready to enter into that relationship at 18.
    Same is true for having a gay parent.

    2) Even if the government will not marry you until 18, the likelihood that a pre-marital sexual relationship would be discovered is low.
    3) What "condition" in the OP (or otherwise) would mitigate against the likelihood that incest is the product of a power dynamic and not true consent?
    Psychological and background testing as a condition remove this issue.

    It's inherent. Regardless of whether particular families actually engage in incest, it will be a potential option that they cannot avoid knowing about. The mere presence of a sexual relationship as an option inherently warps the nature of the relationship between parent and child, or siblings.
    Sez you. Parents informing their children that such relationships are immoral and contrary to the value system and worldview of the family unit, doesn't necessarily "warp" the nature of the relationship.

    Even if *you* have no sexual attraction to/interest in *them*, you will always be aware that they might have such an interest in *you*.
    This is like saying "Since kids know that gay people exist, they will always be aware that their same sex friends may want to "do them". It's a silly argument. But it can likewise, be applied to gay marriage, so it's a non-issue.

    Nonsequitur. Whether or not individual family units are capable of overcoming the challenge that would be posed by legalizing incest has no bearing on the question of whether a challenge is, in fact, posed by that legalization.
    No so, you claimed that EVERY SINGLE family would be affected by it. This means that NO family would be "not influenced by incestuous marriage". But one way that the family unit remains cohesive and structured with a specific moral set, is through parental guidance and leadership. What doesn't follow, is your claim that this is impossible given incestuous relations.

    Not only have you not supported this, but we know this to be patently false because incestuous relations DO exist today. Their existence does not negatively influence the family unit (obviously).

    The simple fact that legalizing incest would challenge the stability of family structures is, in and of itself, a purely secular and entirely justifiable reason not to legalize incest.
    You have not demonstrated this to be true. You also ignore the fact that incestuous relations actually exist today in this country and are legal. First cousins for example are legally able to become married. Step brother and sister are able to do so. Neither impact the family unit. If what you claimed were true, we'd know by now (especially the latter example).

    Nonsequitur. It doesn't matter whether it is moral or immoral. The family is the basic unit of our society, and altering the family dynamic would rightly be something to be leery of.
    You have yet to demonstrate that it does alter the family dynamic. It's legal in this country for brothers and sisters to marry (as long as they are not genetically linked). But for all purposes of the family unit, they are still brother and sister. It's legal in this country for cousins to marry. Yet it does nothing to the extended family relationship (as it should, according to your line of reasoning).

    So again, I ask: How does a brother and sister (or father/daughter) getting married, affect or undermine your marriage?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    Your argument is to downplay the harm offered by incestuous marriage. Downplaying it does not negate it. Conversely, there is no harm offered by gay marriage. So they are not the same. Incestuous marriage has the problem of inbred offspring. Requiring birth control or abortions isn't a viable answer.
    What harm is done by same-sex incestuous marriage?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NY, NY
    Posts
    670
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Same is true for having a gay parent.
    1) Challenge to support a claim.On what planet and based on what research do you suggest that having a gay parent makes a child likelier to be gay or to be abused?

    2) It's also irrelevant. Regardless of whether gay marriage is recognized by civil institutions, children have gay parents. Hell, my dad is gay - something he acknowledged only after 25+ years of heterosexual marriage and 3 kids. Denying societal acceptance of gay marriage does not make it any less likely that children will have gay parents (particularly not if you're in the "give em the same rights and call it a Civil Union" crowd), nor does it make it less likely that people will be gay. In contrast, legalization and destigmatization of incest would increase the likelihood of incestuous relationships and the abuse of power that often accompanies them.

    Psychological and background testing as a condition remove this issue.
    Really? How so. Please describe the regime of "psychological and background testing" that would accomplish this. Please also explain the burden to society of establishing such a regime.

    Sez you. Parents informing their children that such relationships are immoral and contrary to the value system and worldview of the family unit, doesn't necessarily "warp" the nature of the relationship.
    I'm sorry, but what? That parents inform their kids that things are immoral and contrary to their family's world-view and value system does not eliminate the impact of the option. How many kids do you think do drugs, smoke, have sex, etc. after being told that those things are "contrary to the value system and worldview of the family unit"? That parents will teach their kids "don't do this" does not mean that its availability will have no impact on the family unit.

    I mean, come on, Apok. Are you really arguing that it is unreasonable to believe that legalizing incest and allowing incestuous marriage will have a negative impact on family dynamics?

    This is like saying "Since kids know that gay people exist, they will always be aware that their same sex friends may want to "do them". It's a silly argument. But it can likewise, be applied to gay marriage, so it's a non-issue.
    That's ridiculous. For one thing, you are talking about "same sex friends." Knowing that a same-sex friend might be sexually interested in you (which they might) does not impact family dynamics. More, I'm well aware of which of my friends are heterosexual and which homosexual (or, at least, I think I am - enough to be able to make a reliable judgment about who might be having sexual thoughts about my incredible body ). There's no comparison.


    No so, you claimed that EVERY SINGLE family would be affected by it. This means that NO family would be "not influenced by incestuous marriage". But one way that the family unit remains cohesive and structured with a specific moral set, is through parental guidance and leadership. What doesn't follow, is your claim that this is impossible given incestuous relations.
    The level of the influence would vary from family to family. But there would be some influence on every family.

    Not only have you not supported this, but we know this to be patently false because incestuous relations DO exist today. Their existence does not negatively influence the family unit (obviously).
    They do exist today - but they are uncommon, criminal, and viewed with disgust. Hence, incest isn't really considered a possibility within typical family relationships. Legalize and accept such relationships, and as attitudes change, the influence will grow, to the point that it is viewed as a viable choice, even if not one "you" would make.

    Or are you suggesting that families are immune to outside influences? That culture doesn't influence attitudes and present challenges to family dynamics and morals?

    You have not demonstrated this to be true. You also ignore the fact that incestuous relations actually exist today in this country and are legal. First cousins for example are legally able to become married. Step brother and sister are able to do so. Neither impact the family unit. If what you claimed were true, we'd know by now (especially the latter example).
    Who says cousin marriage (or step-sibling marriage) is incest? Frankly, I'd bet that sexual tension within step-family units (particularly at the beginning) is not uncommon, particularly if the children are of similar age. Step siblings and cousins, btw, are not the typical family unit.

    You have yet to demonstrate that it does alter the family dynamic. It's legal in this country for brothers and sisters to marry (as long as they are not genetically linked). But for all purposes of the family unit, they are still brother and sister. It's legal in this country for cousins to marry. Yet it does nothing to the extended family relationship (as it should, according to your line of reasoning).
    The only way to "demonstrate that it does alter the family dynamic" would be to actually allow incest and then see the results. So opponents of incestuous marriage don't need to conclusively demonstrate that it "does" do anything - only that there is a rational and significant reason to believe that it would do so.

    I don't think anything you have done suggests that it would be irrational to expect allowing incest to alter the nature of family dynamics. In fact, I would say it would be irrational to expect it to have no impact on family dynamics.

    So again, I ask: How does a brother and sister (or father/daughter) getting married, affect or undermine your marriage?
    It doesn't affect or undermine my marriage at all. Not in any way, shape or form. (Of course, I'm recently divorced, so that may not be all that relevant ). Or anyone else's.

    What it would affect is the family dynamic: how brothers and sisters, generally, relate, how parents and children, generally, relate. Even granting for argument's sake that some families may be able to essentially feel no impact at all (and I don't think that's right), you cannot conceivably argue that would be true for all families (or even most).

    ---------- Post added at 03:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    What harm is done by same-sex incestuous marriage?
    See above re power dynamics and the inherent changes allowing incest would work in the family dynamic
    Ah, well - apparently my kids were too distracting to stay as a sig. I take that as a compliment

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    See above re power dynamics and the inherent changes allowing incest would work in the family dynamic
    Can bosses not marry subordinates? And since when is a relationship between two consenting adults criminalized because of how it could have possibly started?

    If a man was 18, and knew a girl who was 12, and they eventually met again later in life when she was 25 and he was 31, should their relationship also be criminalized because he could have abused her?

    You should actually disallow all marriages, because it's always possible that one partner abused the other before they got married.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NY, NY
    Posts
    670
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Can bosses not marry subordinates?
    Nonsequitur. Bosses do not raise the subordinate from childhood. They are not entrusted with molding the personality and beliefs of the subordinate. They are not supposed to be acting in the best interests of the subordinate. Comparing the boss-subordinate relationship with the parent-child relationship is absurd.

    (And yet, with all that, many, many companies do prohibit boss-subordinate relationships, and power dynamics in the boss-subordinate relationship are what underlie many sexual harassment suits. Similarly, teachers are not allowed to sleep with their students)

    And since when is a relationship between two consenting adults criminalized because of how it could have possibly started?

    If a man was 18, and knew a girl who was 12, and they eventually met again later in life when she was 25 and he was 31, should their relationship also be criminalized because he could have abused her?

    You should actually disallow all marriages, because it's always possible that one partner abused the other before they got married.
    Excellent equivocation, Clive. "Could", "might" and "possible" aren't the issue. "Likely" is.

    ---------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

    You've also entirely ignored the impact of allowing incest on the family dynamic itself
    Ah, well - apparently my kids were too distracting to stay as a sig. I take that as a compliment

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •