Wednesday, June 27, 2012

The Evolving of an Ally

Chandrasekar Ramesh, Guest Columnist for, wrote about "Incestuous Myths."
You support gay marriage, so you must be gay, right? A person asking this question would be laughed out of most conversations. Nonetheless, I’ve often been asked a very similar question whenever I discuss another facet of marriage equality — incest. Even jokingly, if I take a devil’s advocate position of legalizing incest, the conversation becomes hushed, and people begin wondering if I’m dating my cousin. However, incest is a serious issue, and the most commonly cited reason for banning incestuous marriages — that children born to incestuous parents have a significantly increased risk of genetic mutations — does not hold up to empirical scrutiny.

Ramesh dismantles some of the typical Discredited Arguments.

Washington University medicine professor Robin Bennett and his colleagues published an article titled “Genetic Counseling and Screening of Consanguineous Couples and Their Offspring” in the Journal of Genetic Counseling on this very topic. They explain that cousin relationships are “not infrequent in the United States and Canada, and these are preferred marriages in many parts of the world.” The article states that the offspring of first cousin unions have an approximately 1.7 to 2.8 percent increased risk for genetic defects above the general population’s risk of 3 to 4 percent. At what point does the government have a compelling interest to intervene in the private lives of citizens to govern marriage? Is 2.8 percent a significant enough threshold to warrant such an intervention?
Good questions.
If prohibition and the war on drugs have proven anything, it is that making an act illegal does not necessarily prevent people from engaging in it. By nearly all estimates, legalizing incest would not increase the number of incestuous marriages by much. Would you be compelled to marry your sibling simply because it is legal? Instead, the ban forces incestuous couples into the closet and prevents them from seeking medical advice or attention for children they plan to have or have already had. Screening is the single most effective solution to genetic problems. By thoroughly examining a family history, the doctor and the parents involved could assess the risk in order to make responsible decisions. However, since incest is illegal, social stigma causes a chilling effect that prevents that conversation from ever taking place.
Very good points, although I want to clarify that there are US states and countries where consanguinamory between relatives closer than cousins is not illegal. And we have not seen those places collapse as a result.
Even worse, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention publicly acknowledges that it does not know the cause for over 70 percent of all genetic birth defects, and even for the known ones, it becomes extremely difficult to pinpoint an exact cause. Numerous environmental factors, parental health and family histories all make proving causality a nearly impossible task. If a 2.8 percent increase in the risk of birth defects warrants a ban on marriage, where do we draw the line? The sickle cell trait affects one in 12 African-Americans. Furthermore, one in 25 Ashkenazic Jews have the Tay-Sachs gene. Should we stop Ashkenazic Jews and African-Americans from marrying? Furthermore, if we are really so concerned about our children, why is it legal to smoke and drink alcohol while pregnant?
It is great to see intelligent discussion of this.

Incest is a complicated issue. It’s one on which I have not yet reached a decision, and there are many good arguments, such as potential for abuse and unequal power dynamics, for why incestuous relations should not be condoned.
Those considerations have already been made. Chandrasekar Ramesh, please evolve towards full marriage equality and relationship rights for all consenting adults.

JP commented...
The primary reason incestuous marriage isn’t a priority is that family members already have legal rights by virtue of being family. Marriage is neccessary to establish kinship through law, but these people already have kinship through blood. They aren’t lacking something.

We can't have "separate-but-equal." This is like saying people should be happy with domestic partnerships.

Incest is illegal to prevent people from taking advantage of their dependents. Incest rarely takes the form of two cousins falling into forbidden love like Romeo and Juliet. More often, incest takes the form of sexual abuse or rape which results in emotional trauma more then 2.8% of the time.

Uh, abuse and rape are separately illegal. We're not talking about those things. We are talking about sex.

It is good to see more people questioning the prejudiced laws and stigmas against consanguinamory.
— — —

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 protonmail 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. If your comment includes graphic descriptions of activity involving minors, it's not going to get published.