H 23°, L 4° | Tomorrow: 
H 21°, L 6°When professor Peter Munz suggested earlier this year that incest be legalized, people throughout his native New Zealand were shocked. The notion of allowing consenting adults, who just happen to be related, to engage in sexual relationships proved appalling.
Of course, there have traditionally been two formative arguments against the legalization of incest. The first, and by far more relied upon, is that insofar as sexual activity is inherently procreative, the potential for genetic birth defects exists at too great a level for comfort when persons deriving from the same gene pool are the parents. The second argument, and certainly the lesser employed, is that incest is simply a violation of morality and ergo unacceptable in civilized society.
But now that the United States Supreme Court has declined to review the Massachusetts high courts’ controversial 4-3 ruling that opened the door for gay marriages in the New England state, there may be hope at last for those just dying to go to bed with a relative.
After all, the clear message behind the gay marriage movement is that the legislation of morality is thoroughly unacceptable. This claim, when cross-applied to the governance of incest, leaves only the procreative objection standing. But since homosexual couples are incapable of natural procreation, it would seem that there is no longer a decent rationale for the barring of marriage between gay, incestuous couples.
This of course sounds morally reprehensible on nearly every level and surely is. In fact, it is far more reprehensible than the notion of gay marriage, something accepted by a large number of Americans, but not by the crucial majority. Ergo, though one concept may be horrifically more perturbing than the other, both enjoy minority support in a democracy governed by the intellectual majority.
Further complicating matters, the framework for much of the gay marriage movement’s rhetoric has been a partial employment of the 14th amendment, essentially claiming that to only allow marriage on sexually selective grounds is a wanton violation of equal rights. And supporters are correct in noting that the famed post-slavery amendment surely should extend to homosexuals in nearly every regard — it would seem patently wrong to allow discrimination against gays in any context except for a marital one.
Of course, this poses yet another problem: if equal rights are to be extended to marriage, and we realize that there are no logical grounds for the banning of gay incestuous marriage, then isn’t it also a violation of equal rights to deny heterosexual incestuous couples marriage licenses? After all, such would be the ultimate manifestation of reverse-discrimination.
But once we consider heterosexual gay marriage, we return to the potentially procreative harms that have led incest laws for time and memoriam.
Or do we?
Since the Supreme Court — the same body that is now refusing to rectify the Massachusetts fiasco — ruled in Roe v. Wade that there is essentially no protection for a fetus in the first stages of pregnancy, how can the law justify protecting the interests of incestuous sperm? Such would be the sort of recognition of a potential-life that the pro-choice movement fears so deeply (a movement, ironically, largely ideologically overlapped with the pro-gay marriage movement).
The answer to all of these supremely ironic contradictions is the sort of compromise that is all too often lacking on Capitol Hill these days.
Homosexuals deserve equal rights. There is not a valid reason to deny them the right to visit partners in the hospital, enjoy tax benefits (or penalties, for that matter) and receive treatment equal to that granted to heterosexual couples.
But one chief difference will remain, and it is not that of morality, but rather the simple dilemma of an inherent incapability to naturally procreate. And insofar as marriage was established as a largely — albeit not exclusively — procreative tradition, the solution for homosexual couples must lie somewhere outside the flowery formalities of marriage but inside the necessary equality of civil unions.
And while gay marriage activists may cry that civil unions do not confer all the rights of traditional marriage, such is merely an argument to reform civil unions, not to commence issuing marriage licenses.
Perhaps most importantly, though, the homosexual rights movement must realize that such civil unions are not a legal proclamation declaring that morality cannot be legislated, but much the opposite: a legal proclamation declaring that it would be immoral to not try to reach the most compatible of reasonable compromises.
After all, the day we declare that morality cannot be legislated, we open the door for brothers and sisters to legally wed.
Mac VerStandig ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in rhetoric.
IP hash: 8a96a42a
This is an irresponsible attempt to link homosexuality to incest. The simple fact is that the vast majority of cases of incest in this country occur between one male and one female. You might as well have tried to throw in beastiality as well, but in your sick mind, that’s probably also related. Yob tvoyu mat, you sick freak!
IP hash: 0c16a0a0
So one advocate of homosexual marriage is also an advocate of incest and that means that anyone who thinks gay people should be allowed to get married is also a supporter of incest? Sounds like an overgeneralization to me. How does society make the jump from justifying gay marriage to justifying gay incestual marriage?
IP hash: 0c16a0a0
Allowing for gay marriage does not mean an end to the legislation of morality. Every law that a society enacts is a legislation of morality. They haven’t stopped legislating morality in Massachusetts just because homosexuals there can get married. What is morally rephrensible though, is the attempt here to associate supporters of gay marriage with the supporters of incest.
IP hash: e3a4f722
Dear Editor and Mr. VerStandig, As Mr. VerStandig is an expert on LGBT individuals, I’m sure he’s more than qualified to condemn homosexuality and the uphill battle for equal rights on the grounds of incest, which I, along with all of my friends, constantly engage in. In fact, my entire goal in life is to uproot straight, “moral” society and cause our stable democracy to spin wildly out of control.
It’s fine that you say these things because gay people aren’t a minority. We don’t have to constantly fear for our lives while walking down the street and justify our existence to religious zealots and comfortable, judgmental conservatives who feel they understand us and our “agenda,” even when it’s clear that they have had little to no exposure to LGBT individuals. You are more than entitled to your opinion, Mr. VerStandig, as I am to mine.
However, I would advise you to not make such gross generalizations of a group of people that you clearly don’t understand. If I were to write an article about how privileged middle to upper class American conservatives are similar to the the Nazi Party, I would never hear the end of it. And I hope you get many appropriately offended responses to your article. It’s so difficult to be proud of who you are and where you come from when your peers (and country) have such blind and casual disrespect for you.
Eric Grob Co-president, Ten Percent Society
IP hash: 70be308a
wow..this article will prove to be one of your most embarrassing Mr. Verstandig.
IP hash: 0f2c6843
you’re an asshole. and you shouldn’t be allowed to write in the herald after spewing this trash.
you fucking bigot.
IP hash: 9c27885a
"So one advocate of homosexual marriage is also an advocate of incest and that means that anyone who thinks gay people should be allowed to get married is also a supporter of incest?"
Where did you find that argument? What Mr. VerStandig argues is, quite simply, that the very same logic used to justify a legalization of homosexual marriage can also be used to legalize incest. What does that have to do with advocacy of either issue? The above posters are clearly offended by the article, but can any of you refute the logic?
IP hash: 0eac977b
A couple in Virginia in 1959 were found guilty of violating a ban on interracial marriages. The judge at the time declared, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
My question for everyone is, “How are the arguments for/against interracial marriage from the past similar or different from the arguments for/against gay marriage now?”
IP hash: 57e06029
this is an embarrassment. i know mr verstandig almost always has opinions that differ to my own, but this is down right offensive
IP hash: 2c49bcc2
This kind of writing is of the same stuff that makes UW-Madison a truly frightening place to be. Logic means NOTHING when you don’t take into account people’s emotions and feelings. That you would believe in VerStandig’s hate-filled argument for the sake of it making sense obliges you to engage in more critical thinking before accepting such an opinion.
IP hash: 290c4cdf
My only fear is that anyone will actually take seriously your inane arguments. It is the frightening backbone of neo-conservative thought in general to disguise absurdity and hatred with a thin veil of reason, in the standard 2+2=5 format. Assuming you may possess the capacity for reason, how can you not be embarrassed to promote such moronic ideas? -Adam Arnold
IP hash: d6555ec3
There are two glaring problems with Mac verstandig’s opinion piece. The first one is that there are only two arguments for banning incest. The problem with this is that the two he proposes are incorrect. Just having a societal taboo against it isn’t sufficient. Many societal taboos, I’d even venture to say most, are eventually shown to be irrational fear or hatred.
The other argument is also weak. While its true that immediate family incest does increase he chance for deformities, it also increases the chance for reinforcement of good traits. It’s usually only in leter generations of exclusive incest that problems arise (ie. the royal families in old Europe), and when the familial connection gets looser, such as cousins, there is study to show that the benefits may even begin to outweigh the potential problems. In WI in fact, its legal to marry your second cousin, and in many cultures around the world where incest is accepted there is no more instances of deformities or congenital problems than in other cultures, provided the gene pool doesn’t get to shallow for too long.
That being said, there is another very large reason to ban incest, at least between immediate family members: emotional coercion. The most obvios example of this is a parent taking advantage of a child’s natural love and corrupting it into sex, especially if the child is too emotionally immature to understand. This also happens between siblings. Familial emotions already run high, and love is a natural part of it. Some people, for whatever reason, may decide to exploit this. For these reasons, incestr should be illegal, and these have nothing to do at all with same-sex marriage.
The other problem with Mac’s piece is that it’s a thiny veiled “slippery slope” argument. “If we allow gay marriage, we have no justification for disallowing incest, or polygamy, or bestiality, and soon people will be marrying roto-rooters and society will crumble.” This type of argument is a logical fallacy. Allowing gay marriage does not automatically mean we’ll have to allow anything else. The other reason slippery slope arguments are weak, is that they can just as easily be turned the other way. “If we start telling people what gender they can marry, what’s to stop us from saying what race, or religion, or scoio-economic class, or political party, or what state, or community you have to marry in?” See how easy it is?
To refute his other claims, the Supreme Court has ruled that seperate is not equal, and that our country was founded on equality. If you’re going to allow one group a privelege, or impose on one group a penalty, it has to be on all. In America, marriage is not for procreation, nor is it based on some religious philosophy, marriage is a legal binding contract. If you allow one group to enter into it, you have to allow all groups to. If some religion or church wants to discriminate among who it will allow to marry, they have that right, but we’re talking about legal marriage, not religious. Legal marriage is a governmental institution, and so can not discriminate on a religious basis.
The argument that marriage is for procreation is absurd. If that were so, than any people who could not procreate, any one who is infertile, impotent, has had a vasectomy or a tubal ligation, or is menopausal should not be allowed to marry. If the condition arises after marriage, the marriage should be annulled. I don’t believe this should happen, and neither do most Americans, belying your allegation. All these ideas, procreative or religious, may have been the origianl basis for marriage millenia ago, before America was founded, but since then the definition of marriage, despite what some may say, has consistently changed to reflect society’s needs and beliefs.
Providing civil unions for homosexuals and marriage for heterosexuals is just the same as a segregated bus with whites in front and blacks in the back. Separate MEANS unequal.
-Micah Ross (Junior) http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
IP hash: 95446601
Mac, does button pushing without helping anyone or anything do you any good? Seriously? If you want attention go spray paint this message on a cop car. Rebellion with no success is just acting out. I imagine that the people that read and react to this column are taking it seriously than you do. Incest is a subject that directly hurts a very large percentage of American families and homosexuality, or the forthright acceptance of homosexuality has strengthened families. Not across the board, but in more cases than incest.
IP hash: aa3e2f57
Worst. Column. Ever.
Simply retarded. Mac is a fucking moron. This argument isn’t even worth the bird cage lining it’s printed on.
You’re so full of shit Mac it’s amazing you can even walk.
IP hash: b943aec7
You can’t have it both ways. If Gays can be married or have a civil union than all people can do the same regardless of what their relationship is to the other. Mac VerStandig is correct.
Thank you for your well thought out arguement.
IP hash: d6450605
“After all, the day we declare that morality cannot be legislated, we open the door for brothers and sisters to legally wed. “
Its your quote unquote morality, buddy. And I find it quite immoral. Stop trying to control everyone with fear and lies.
IP hash: 0e2e7aa9
In response to Micah and some of the others that have posted…
Everyone, including those with homosexual preferences, can get married- as long as it is to someone of the opposite sex. Marriage is NOT a constitutionally guaranteed right, and the state has the right to make whatever requirements it wishes in defining marriage.
Also, contrary to what many academics (particularly on this campus will tell you) the movement to pervert the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions is not analogous to the civil rights movement that sought equal rights for black Americans, and many civil rights leaders have expressed disgust in the comparison. Marriage is a decision and choice, being born a particular race is not.
Racism and bigotry are powerful charges used by the left to advance various agendas. In this case, the ultimate goal is secularization of society. Pushing for same-sex marriage just happens to be the most convenient tool that the left has found to suppress Christianity and those who practice it religiously. "You oppose same-sex marriage- you're a bigot!" In fact, if you are preaching against it or otherwise attempting to influence public opinion, you might even be guilty of hate speech and face criminal punishment.
That's already happened in Europe and Canada, and it could happen here.
Anyone who reads some of the homosexual publications out there knows that the ultimate goal is secularization and silencing counter-cultural (particularly Christian) religious beliefs on human sexuality. The tax benefits, hospital visitation, etc. arguments are smoke and mirrors to distract from the true motivations of the militant homosexual movement.
IP hash: 4c04649f
“Its your quote unquote morality, buddy. And I find it quite immoral. Stop trying to control everyone with fear and lies.”
What about those who find homosexuality immoral? Does their opinion not matter?
“The argument that marriage is for procreation is absurd.”…
This is the very basis on which incestual marriage should be legal. If a brother and sister choose not to wed outside the family but wish to enjoy the same benefits a married couple receives. Why the hell not?
Those of you that disagree need to step back and take a look at your charges. Its like the pot calling the kettle black.
Those who choose incest deserve every right given to those who choose homosexuality…Say you believe homosexuality is not a choice then you can argue that you can’t help who you love even if it is your bother or sister.
IP hash: 95446601
Hand in hand it’s Baumgardner and VerStanding. Cowboy boots on and Hannity books in hand like a couple of Alex P. Keatons with shining smiles and closed eyes. Punks. The original colonists split from Europe so they could make a little cash and (maybe this is a little naive) pick which church they wanted to build and attend. This country is secular. Talk about smoke and mirrors, more than 70% of the electorate, and a MAJORITY of democratic voters and those even further to the left would consider themselves Christians. Read the book. It says nothing about keeping people down. It says nothing about limiting choices and it says nothing about killing people for business profit. This is an emotional and futile argument, but if you don’t want to be called a bigot, don’t tell people how to live. I love having the Baumies and Versties of the world around. It’s what makes it vibrant and interesting. Keep it coming fellas. Push buttons and smile. Sadly, someone will take you seriously and give you some power. Hats off to yas.
IP hash: 95446601
oh, when the hell did Christianity become a “counter culture”? Are you writing this from another country Baumie? And who wants to “Silence” the message of Christ? Are you serious? Even non christians love Christ. What’s wrong with you? Did some Slayer fans beat you up at school? Slayer fans vote Republican because they vote for war. So don’t be mad at them. Jeeze Louize!
IP hash: 3405be98
Here’s what I don’t understand…
If you’re gay, and want to marry somebody…get a civil union and then TELL EVERYONE THAT YOU’RE MARRIED!!!! Who gives a shit what some piece of paper says. Rent out a hall, hire an authority figure (it might be hard to find a minister, but a judge could perform the ceremony), invite your friends, throw a big party, pronounce yourselves “husband and husband” or “wife and wife”, and drive off in a big limo that says “Just Married” on the back!
If the legal rights granted (tax breaks, hospital rights, etc.) are the same, why in the hell does it matter if the document says the word “marriage” or “union”? Go out and buy rings and say that you’re married! Nobody is going to arrest you for it! This isn’t some Orwellian state where the thought police will come and throw you in jail for saying that you’re married to a same-sex partner. It’s just a word. That’s it.
I can see both sides of this argument and have refused to take one. However, it seems like homosexuals are wasting a lot of time/energy/emotion on something that in the end doesn’t mean a lot, as long as the legal definition is the same under the terms of a civil union as it would be under a legal marriage.
IP hash: 0c16a0a0
“The tax benefits, hospital visitation, etc. arguments are smoke and mirrors to distract from the true motivations of the militant homosexual movement.”
Do people really think this? I can see why so many people are afraid of granting marriage rights to homosexuals if they think there’s a militant homosexual movment. I don’t think it’s very fair to compare the US to Europe and Canada, which as far as I know are much less religious places. There are too many people here who would stand up for the freedom of religion for complete secularziation-and rightly so. But at the same time, your religion and beliefs shouldn’t get to play a role in deciding whether or not someone else should get the same rights and benefits as you. The great thing about America is that we’re supposed to be free from a rule of law based on religion. And even if it’s not religion that you’re basing your argument on, unless you can come up with a reason why allowing homosexuals the right to marry would dammage all of society, then you still don’t get to deny other people rights even if you find what they’re doing to be wrong. And yes, this article is trying to present just that sort of argument, this isn’t a very good argument in my humble opinion. There are many reasons not to allow incestual relationships, not just the procreation argument, but for the potential for abuse to occur as well. This doesn’t make a legitimate argument that allowing for homosexual marriage will be of harm to the whole of society.
IP hash: 0c16a0a0
If the legal rights granted (tax breaks, hospital rights, etc.) are the same, why in the hell does it matter if the document says the word “marriage” or “union”?
Until the rights accorded to married couples and those accorded to couples in a civil union are equal it will matter.
IP hash: 59c01aeb
The difference between homos and race is that race is an immutable characteristic. People don’t choose their race. Queers CAN choose to not stick things where they don’t belong.
IP hash: c44929a6
In response to Marek Baumgartner, as I said, marriage is not a religious institution (legally) and so religious grounds cannot be used to discriminate. America is not a Christian country and never has been, at most the founding fathers were Deists, and Jefferson even wrote a Bible without any supernatural events at all (ie. miracles). As you said, being born of a race is not a choice, neither is sexual orientation. The argument you used to say that marriage between races is ok, is perfectly fine for sexual orientation. And claiming that changing marriage to allow this is “perversion” is exactly the same rationale people used to try to continue banning interracial marriage. This is very much in line with the civil rights movement.
IP hash: 991cdcd3
Aside from all the banter, which I enjoyed, I have some advice for Mac.
LAY OFF THE THESAURUS! Using big words does not prove, or even imply, that you are smarter than anyone else.
IP hash: 95446601
this is lovely debate. no one moved, somebody used the phrases “homos” and “queers” on a higher education message board in late 2004, and said “stick things where they don’t belong.” lovely discourse. That goes for the “mac is a dooshbag” and “eff you shizz icehole dirty basket” and all the other stuff said. The election came down to this, congress is stooping this low and the people who have the current power will always win. If the Democratic party could find an identity this would me more interesting. Until then President Frist or President Rudy or President Terminator will keep telling you what to do until you stop whining and start getting backing. I’m guilty as well. Mac’s throwing bags of shizz and I’m catching them. Baumgardner’s flying the flag high for the neo-cons and nobody can touch him because he’s bright and pissed and motivated. Put the bongs down liberals. All of us. If we want the power we have to stop getting bothered. That’s a lecture to myself as well.
IP hash: 7f45c6eb
“In this case, the ultimate goal is secularization of society.”
This is something that’s been happening for 500 years, man. Luther and Calvin and everybody else found out that having a theocratic state made for bad theology and a bad state. This isn’t just limited to Christianity. If you’re against secularization, there are plenty of people in Iran who agree.
But a strange thing happens with secularization: church attendence GOES UP. That’s because people are free to make the choices they want. If you want to read the Bible and go to Mass, fantastic. No one’s stopping you. If you want to marry and have a religious ceremony, fantastic. No one’s stopping you. It’s common courtesy to offer that to everyone else.
But back to the first point: you claim that homosexual marriage is just smoke and mirrors to divert attention away from the coming secularism. How you make the logical leap from homosexuality to militant athiests burning Bibles is what puzzles me. Why not preach the Gospel instead of legislate it? It works better.
IP hash: 59c01aeb
Calvin? Like Calvin and Hobbes? Whatever happened to that tiger?
IP hash: 4dd5bd48
Mark Baumgardner and Mac VerStandig are what is wrong with America. Too bad the state you live in is blue you fucking bigots.
IP hash: 4c04649f
Cheers to Mark and Mac!
Its very funny and very ironic that those demanding equal rights for homosexuals are the same poeple on this forum arguing against equal rights for another human who happens to prefer incest over homosexuality. What happened to freedom of choice?