Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The Plasticity of Gender...
...is yet another reason why outlawing civil gay marriage is stupid. Since my interest and passion for equal rights issues began, I had always wondered about the legality of transgendered marriages. This NY Times Op-Ed piece nicely lays out the confusing quagmire of legally defining gender. The inconsistencies among states is so silly. It seems to me that things would be so much simpler - not to mention fairer - if both our state and national governments would legally recognize marriages between any two consenting adults (more than two might be too problematic for the current laws to accommodate, but perhaps some day). In terms of marriage as a legal contract (which is all that a civil marriage is), the gender of those consenting adults is mutable, unimportant, and irrelevant. On a related subject, the relationship between those adults is also unimportant and irrelevant. People should be allowed to marry their sibling, cousin, etc. Just because some people think it's gross, immoral, or whatever doesn't mean it should be illegal!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think when philosophizing about the marriage law issue, one needs to contemplate why the state should have an interest in promoting marriage (through tax benefits, etc.) in the first place. I am fairly certain there is no reason the state would want to promote incest.
-CG
Allowing people to marry whomever they love is NOT at all about "promoting incest" any more than it is about promoting sodomy! There was an article in the Washington Post recently about two people living in MD or PA (I forget which) who were in love and wished to marry, but couldn't because the state law did not allow marriage between first cousins. There is absolutely no good reason to not allow these people to marry. Such laws are based on outdated, discriminatory, and incorrect (regarding the genetic abnormalities of possible offspring) views. There is absolutely nothing wrong with CONSENSUAL incest.
Let me finish that thought: it seems to me that the original and still current theory behind the benefits of civil marriage is that it provides the foundations for strong families, which then provide the foundation for a strong, peaceful, well-rounded society. I argue (and I'm sure many agree with me) that the strongest marriages are based on mutual love and genuine desire for a lifelong commitment. Why, then, should our society deny civil marriage to two people who express such a desire when it would only strengthen their families, and hence, society as a whole? I could also ask why heterosexual, unrelated people in Las Vegas are allowed to enter a civil marriage on a drunken whim (ahem, Britney Spears), but loving, committed cousins or partners are not allowed to enter a civil marriage when it's something that they've desired for literally decades in some cases. In many cases there are children involved who would clearly benefit in so many ways if their parents were legally married at the federal level. It just makes no sense - if our government were really about strong families they would not treat certain families as second-class citizens.
Sandra...you've really given me some food for thought with this post. I read it and went, "Whoaaa," because I've never stepped so far out of my box as to consider state-sanctioned incest.
In the case of first and second cousins, I agree with you that these individuals should be allowed to enter into state-sanctioned marriages; however, with respect to siblings marrying, would that not put their children at much higher risk of genetic defects? Take a look at this:
www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=243
It would seem to be that biology has designed siblings not to marry based on the facts set forth in the article. Your thoughts?
Another concern I have in allowing incestuous marriages is the propensity for power abuses. Granted, I know you are speaking of siblings who respect and love each other; however, where does the line get drawn? What if a father wishes to marry a daughter? It's the abuse of power (and in all families, there are power dynamics as some figures are more powerful than others) that has the propensity to cause great damage. It's well documented that children have been coerced, out of fear, into sexual relationships with more powerful family members (not just parents). What if the person in a position of power convinces the other family member to marry? In such a case, both parties may believe they're in love, but with power dynamics at work, it may not always be possible to differentiate between true love and pathological codependence.
Granted, unhealthy dependence and abuse of power occurs in marriages all across the board, so I guess the difference boils down to whether the state is willing to sanction marriages that will result in a much greater incidence of diseased children.
Happy trails,
Connie :)
can it be healthy for 1st cousins to procreate? I don't know the stats, but I always figured that is what leads to things like you'd see in the movie "Deliverance" (insert dueling banjos theme music)
-CG
CG,
Talk about a frightening movie - Deliverance is it! I just assumed those characters were the products of sibling relationships, but maybe it was first cousin offspring being depicted in the movie? I'd have to read a synopsis to refresh my memory.
With regard to actual disease transmission from first cousin parents to children, if the information in article I cited in my previous post is accurate, then there's a 2-3% higher incidence of genetic defects in the offspring of first cousin parents. I found essentially the same figures (1.7-2.8%) in this article:
www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/04-02archive/K040302a.html
Granted, it's a dated article, but the 2008 article doesn't list a higher probability range than the 2002 article. I'm no biologist to know the real facts, and I imagine Sandra's education better qualifies her than I to speak on the biology of the issue.
According to the article I cite in this post, first-cousin marriage is common and encouraged in many cultures outside the USA. A good point is made in this article, too, that genetic counseling (for those who have it at their disposal, of course), surely will be of value since it's possible to determine if a parent is a carrier of disease. Non-related couples make uses of this technology already.
Happy trails,
Connie :)
I looked up the synopsis for "Deliverance" and it just says it's about "close relative" breeding...but it's rather obvious that, given how it's about a family that has no contact with outsiders, the procreation that has occurred is repeated with family members, which has made the effects more damaging, so we're not just talking about first cousins here. Repeated first-generation pairings results in more defects along the line, apparently, if I'm not mistaken. So if we take an isolated case of first cousins whose children or cousins don't procreate, the 1.7-2.8% increase in genetic defects applies.
Here's an interesting Wiki article (although to be taken with a grain of salt since we know how unreliable Wiki is not being peer-reviewed):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbred
I'm curious if inbreeding plants produces defects as it does in humans.
Happy trails,
Connie :)
Post a Comment