Posted by
Tom Kummer on Saturday, November 15, 2008 2:36:42 AM
In Thomas Sowell’s column of November 5 - http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/11/05/affirmative_action_and_gay_marriage - Dr. Sowell mentions the length of time that marriage has existed for a long time, and that the rules and laws have evolved over that time based on that union being between one man and one woman:
“Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman. Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.”
One of the circumstances is the potential to produce children. In my previous post, Ken The Playful Walrus made a comment, and posted a link to one of his blog entries: http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/23/neutering_marriage_devalues_and_discourages_marriage.thtml. Ken discusses here the connection of marriage to children, and I agree that the connection is strong, and I also agree that this connection has the potential to be undone by allowing same sex marriage. In addition to the points Ken makes, there is one other point that I haven’t heard or read mentioned, but it’s a point that has to be considered.
In many cases, there are prohibitions on who can marry. A brother cannot marry his sister, for example. A reason for this is the concern about recessive genetic disorders being passed to children and becoming active. If a brother and sister were to marry and produce children, there is the increased risk of genetic disorders being passed to the children.
For same sex couples, this is not a concern, because offspring cannot be produced. So this raises the question of, if same sex marriages are made legal, will a brother be allowed to marry his brother? If not, what will be cited as the rationale? If they will be allowed to marry, then will the prohibition on brother and sister marrying each other be allowed to stand? After all, if two brothers can marry each other, I can see the argument being made that a brother and sister should also be allowed to marry.
Admittedly this probably isn’t a huge concern, because I think the taboo on incest is so ingrained in American society that I can’t imagine siblings, whether same or opposite sex will ever want to marry in large numbers.
In my next entry, I’ll discuss the potential ramifications on the freedom of religion aspect.