Blind to the Elephant
Like everybody I have psuedo-friends on Facebook – psuedo because they were people I went to high school with 10 years ago and haven’t seen since.
One of them is a girl who now works with autistic children doing something or other. I don’t know the details, only that she constantly posts autism awareness crap on her wall.
But apparently she also loves gay people because she posted a piece of propoganda designed to make us feel … well, something. I presume it’s guilt. It was a map that showed the states that allowed gay marriage in one color and the states that allowed first cousins to marry in another. Her accompanying comment was something along the lines “our country is messed up!”
…to which I commented, “Yes, really. Look at all those gay marriage states!”
She replied saying something like, “Gee, we should be more forward thinking like those states that allow cousins to marry.”
Well, I’m always a big fan of using my own opponent’s arguments against them. The gay marriage people make it so easy.
“How dare you tell me who I can and can’t marry! Why can’t I marry the person that I love?!”
However, not to be fooled, she threw this at me in response:
“Are you really drawing a paralell between gay civil righs and incest? Hard to believe we were both raised in the north!”
Wow!
First, let me tell you about the high school we both went to – it’s about as white bred as it can possibly be. We had fewer than 5 black people in our graduating class of over 500. It is overwhelmingly conservative and it is also the biggest high school in a county which ranks comfortably in the top 10 counties by household income nationally. There were also fewer than 5 (openly) gay people in our graduating class, although that number is probably closer to 20 in adulthood. One of my best friends as a child came out late in college, for example.
After we graduated from our incredibly progressive and diverse high school, I went to a university in one of the most liberal states in the entire country. She went to a Christian university in a state further south than I did, where she still currently lives, and is in a relationship with someone in the army.
If you didn’t know anything else about me or her, most people would call me the liberal and her the conservative, but this entire tangent only speaks to her ridiculous comment about being raised in the north. Who does she think she is?
Anyway, this is a classic example of why the gay marriage argument is stupid. One of her idiot liberal friends chimed in and said something like, “yeah, you’d think the conservative types would be against first cousin marriage too!”
Well, personally, I am against both gay marriage and cousin marriage. I think marriage in general is pointless if you’re not going to have kids. The only other reasons you’d get married are for things like power of attorney and visitation rights etc. etc., but those can all be setup in legal agreements outside of marriage. No, one of the real reasons is because there are tax incentives for married couples, so, in other words, the reason is greed. But I digress.
The only reason that cousin marriage (and in theory sibling marriage) is illegal is because it increases the likelihood of producing children with genetic disorders, because double-recessive conditions are more likely to express themselves.
But what about gay marriage? Gay couples have no chance of producing children with genetic disorders, but they also have no chance of producing children at all!
And while you might argue that the only thing that matters is the chance to produce retarded babies – since gays have zero chance, their marriage is okay, but since cousins’ have a significant chance, their marriage is not okay.
In other words, it’s better that a child not be born at all rather than be born with a handicap. Woah. That’s a pretty crazy sentiment, isn’t it?
Okay, problem solved: cousins who love each other can marry all they want; they’re just not allowed to have babies. Woah. That’s a pretty crazy sentiment, isn’t it? What’s next? I think I recall a social experiment called eugenics about a hundred years ago that force-sterilized retarded people to prevent new generations of retards. Eerily similiar social policies, aren’t they?
What about first cousins where one cousin is adopted?
You might be bold enough to claim that genetics don’t matter and that it’s familial ties that do, but frankly, who are you to judge who a person loves? Isn’t that the argument I hear when I suggest it’s not natural or right for a man to love another man? Can you explain to me why your assertion that a cousin who falls in love with her cousin is aberrant, but a man who falls in love with another man is not? I didn’t think so.
I find it particularly ironic that a girl who works with disabled children would discriminate against couples with an increased chance of producing disabled children (e.g., the people who employ her). I could pose this question:
Given a child, Derpy, who has a genetic disorder, whose parents were first cousins, what could you have changed to prevent Derpy from being born with a genetic disorder?
One possible answer is to change the fact that Derpy’s parents are cousins and make it so they aren’t genetically related.
One thing that is NOT an answer, however, is to change the gender of one of Derpy’s parents. If Derpy’s parents were gay, then Derpy never would have existed in the first place!
Or how about this one?
Global warming cooks alive everybody except 5 people: you, and two couples. One is a gay couple and one are first cousins, a man and a woman. You can only save one, and you’ll die in the process. Which couple do you save?
If you save the gay couple, you’ve doomed humanity to extinction. If you save the first cousins, you’ve doomed humanity to the possibility of a lot of genetic problems, which may or may not result in eventual extinction.
People who are pro-gay-marriage hate these examples and don’t like to even bother with them because they’re “sensationalist” or “straw-men” or whatever other invalid criticism they like to throw at them. The truth is that deep down in places they don’t like to go, they know perfectly well that there is no good biological basis for allowing gays to legally marry, so in order to be pro-gay-marriage, they have to ignore any biological arguments entirely. In so doing, they open up the incredibly simple counter-argument, namely, “If gays, then why not also cousins?”
They are then faced with their own hypocrisy, because they cringe at the idea of cousins marrying, or the idea of Warren Jeffs marrying 90 12-year-olds, in the same exact way that the opponents of gay marriage cringe at the idea of gays marrying. They are then forced to admit that they have no actual argument for or against any kind of marriage. They have no argument at all, in fact – all they have is a moral belief that gay marriage is okay.
Well, gues what? The people who strike it down in their own states have a moral belief that gay marriage isn’t okay, and you can’t possibly ask them to change their beliefs because they have equal justification to ask you to change yours. You are not morally superior, or rationally superior. You’re nothing and you have nothing, so please, shut your damn mouths.
I guess the entire point of the picture was to suggest that if cousin marriage is legal then shouldn’t it be legal for gays to marry too? In other words, shouldn’t two wrongs make a right?
NO, STUPID! Cousin marriage should be stricken from the books, not gay marriage added!
Come on, people. This isn’t that hard.
No, I disagree.
I would never dare to intrude into other people’s lives by denying them the right to LOVE each other! And if two grown-ups want to marry: who am I to judge upon their reasons to do so?
Besides that: Today’s medical techniques allow prenatal analysis, so no one is forced to give birth to a disabled child if he or she doesn’t want to take the risk.
In a free country, people must be allowed to live the life they want to live, as long as they do no harm to others!
I don’t mean “he” gives birth…, I mean: … if the mother and/or father doesn’t want to take the risk!
Sorry, I don’t mean fathers give birth…. ;o)
Emily says: “In a free country, people must be allowed to live the life they want to live…” Unless someone chooses to end that life for them right? See your above comment regarding prenatal analysis “so no one is forced to give birth to a disabled child”.
“…as long as they do no harm to others!” Right, because killing an unwanted disabled child is totally harmless.
Really Emily? Really? Maybe you want to re-think your logic.
I have never spoken of killing of a child. I have spoken about legal (!) abortion in case of severe genetic defects. If you are against abortion: Okay, that’s your personal opinion, based upon your religious belief. But we live in a secular country, and your, my and everyone else’s religious – or non-religious – opinion is a private affair. So if it comes to abortion, the law protects grown up persons to make their own decisions. And – again! – who am I to judge upon other peoples’ moral principles?
I see nothing wrong with cousins marrying each other.
As part of our society, as contributing tax-payers, gay couples want the same rights as straight couples. If they make a commitment to each other, there are many benefits and protections of marriage that solidifies that commitment that have no relation to greed. Hopefully the rule of law will one day protect the rights of the few against the prejudices of the many.
I agree from my very heart! Most of my gay friends take their marriage more seriously thn the straight ones!
The rule of law is whatever the majority says it is. That’s how democracy works, in case you hadn’t noticed. That’s one of democracy’s flaws.
If gay couples were recognized from a legal standpoint as a “couple” — but not “married” — and have the same legal benefits as a “married” couple, would we be arguing anymore?
I personally believe that marriage itself means a union between a man and a woman. I don’t care if two women or two men want to play the same role as a married man and woman. I also have no problems with gay couples getting the same benefits as married couples. Just don’t call it marriage. Leave the current definition of marriage as is, and come up with a new term for a union between two same-sex parties.
Even with such a policy, I have a feeling that both sides aren’t being completely honest and the debate would continue to rage on.