Translate

Monday, October 24, 2011

Artificial Limbs in Official Family Trees


When someone brings up the very good question of “what’s wrong with consensual incest?” or “why is consensual incest illegal?”, there are usually several people who respond confidently with Discredited Argument #18.

The idea that consanguineous parents will produce “deformed” children is an ignorant one, as I explained.

But there is something else that should be pointed out to these people with their knee-jerk reactions, often to the happy relationships of others: the very person expressing their certainty that the descendants of consanguineous parents will be severely mentally and physically handicapped have ancestors, probably not too far back, who were consanguineous.

Marriages between first cousins have been common, and are usually documented in genealogies. But even closer than that, it has not been rare for children to have biological parents who were full or half siblings, father-daughter, uncle-niece, etc. It is less likely for it to have been recorded in treasured family-kept genealogies, but it has happened throughout history, as DNA tests are now showing.

But in years past, there were no DNA tests. Add to that the fact that in many places paternity was, legally, automatically assigned to a woman’s husband. (That practice continues in many places today). Today, it is known through DNA testing that no small percentage of men believed to be the father of a child are not the biological father of that child. Some say as low as five percent, some say as high as twenty percent, which is one in five.

There was also a lack of contraception in years past. Rapes by, and secret affairs with, close family members did produce children. Some were given up for adoption, or taken in by orphanages; some were kept in the family. The same was often true of unmarried family members who were in love, or were simply scratching an itch.

There are also certainly wives who have felt the need to birth an heir, or a child who would, in a few years, be put to work as much needed help on the family farm or in the family businesses. It wasn’t happening with her husband, and so she found someone she knew, someone who would produce a child likely to look like her offspring rather than looking obviously different from her family, and could be trusted to be discreet; a close male relative.

If you go back far enough in anyone’s ancestry, you’re likely to find consanguinity, whether the family-kept genealogy reflects it or not.

So when someone judges the happy relationships of others by insisting that consanguinamory is wrong and should be illegal because they know it produces mentally dysfunctional people, they may actually be explaining why they have such a tough time grasping the idea that consenting adults should be free to share their love. All kidding aside, there are intelligent, healthy people whose parents were close relatives, and this ignorant attack by closed-minded people is personally insulting to them.
— — —

No comments:

Post a Comment

To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE.