Incest: The flying spaghetti monster in the debate on marriage

Marriage equality is when each gender and child receive equal recognition of their rights and responsibilities in how each child is created. This can only happen with a commitment from each party that has real follow through from each person who combined to create the child. That commitment is so important in enshrining our rights in our very human capacity to procreate that there is an institution built around that purpose -- Marriage.

Recently in history (meaning the past decade or so) people have contemplated destroying the direct recognition of that purpose, and replace it with recognition of their own purpose. While no doubt a noble cause in and of itself, it doesn't justify the replacement of what marriage means.

And no doubt it is noble. When many conservatives are asked to state their argument for such a replacement they note that children exist in these relationships and point to how it is a great benefit to children if their parents are married. Therefore, we are told, their parents should have marriage available to them.

First, I don't disagree with the argument though I find its application in this matter self-contradictory. Since it takes a man and a woman to create a child, and marriage is available to each man-woman combination, marriage is not being denied to the parents that matter most to a child. But for now lets get to know the great Flying Spaghetti Monster, created(?!) in an effort to illustrate why intelligent design should not be taught as science in schools:

[Read on...]

Henderson stated that both his theory and intelligent design had equal validity, saying

I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Equal time, because the Spaghetti Monster is just as valid as Intelligent Design in its scientific application. One of the key elements here is that no one really believes in the FSM, and its use is purely academic. However, its argument is clear, if "then a miracle occurred" is pervasive in scientific application then it allows in a number of ideas that are clearly unwarranted.

Whether or not this is a good argument against the teaching of Intelligent Design can be discussed in many forums on the Internet, and even in this comment section if the readership wishes. However, one recent commenter demanded that "Unless you can explain why you bring up incestu[o]s marriage, it just sounds like a ugly desperate smear, since few people believe that incestuous marriage is going to be made legal anywhere, and aren't worried about it even if it does."

Incest may seem like a smear for two reasons, the first is that obviously incest is considered taboo, something a number of groups are working to change. Second, probably not as obvious but even more important is that neutering marriage for the sake of homosexuality is all about making marriage into a club of who is cool enough to enter and who is not. Rather than the fact-based approach which recognizes equal rights for everyone who engages in the human mating practice, neutered marriage draws a line which is only as strong as the taboo against the practice denied marriage.

Other Flying Spaghetti Monsters in this debate are Polygamy and even singles, as well as polyamourous marriages (marriage with more than one spouse). There are a number of groups ready to argue that their mutual trust and dependency on each other and the presence of dependents in their care justify their inclusion to get equal access to all of the protections of marriage. Not all of them (including people who are already related but are non-intimate) are taboo, and yet all have the same need for recognition.

Nothing about recognizing that important purpose of marriage equality means that these groups should be denied recognition of their mutual trust and dependency. But should their needs mean that marriage equality -- the quality of each gender's contribution to a child's life and upbringing -- should go unrecognized any more? Marriage may be more than procreation, but that does not mean it is less then the institution which promotes the primal in-tact preservation of family ties.