Mike Huckabee “Charges the Mound” Against Michael Tracey

Pardon the following language… but:

FUCK YOU, Huckabee.

“Marriage is one man, one woman, for life, and we shouldn’t change the definition.” I hate, HATE people who say this. Not only is it homophobic, but it also reeks of anti-divorce. It’s a completely Christian doctrine and definition that needs to GO.

“… if gay marriage was legalized, it would be a gateway allowing for incest and polygamy to follow.”
If only consenting adults are involved, this is true. It’s hypocritical not to admit that. Marriage should be completely removed from the government. It should be replaced with civil unions of various types for purposes like hospital visitation, tax issues, etc. Religions can then define marriage any way they want.

@alex There is no reason any of those things should be outlawed. As long as there’s no reckless or intentional harm to an unwilling party. We already have laws for that.

Polygamy – fine.
Brother & Sister – weird (to me) but hey – consenting adults go ahead (though is there a responsibility on the government to avoid birth defects).

What about father and daughter? Is there not a limit to this…. And in that case, they might be consenting adults on the face of it – but it’s always an unequal relationship.

And, in fact, with older brother and younger sister that could also apply.

@alex;

Shhhhhhhhhh. Once we slip gay marriage past them we can each marry all of our sisters. Don’t ruin this for us!

@Victor “Marriage” and “Civil Union” are just words, although in common usage marriage is religious and a civil union isn’t. What’s important are the rights that the government bestows and who’s allowed to get those rights. The point is to remove the religious components of marriage from government and put them in the church where they belong (i.e. separate church from state). Why either side cares what it’s called is beyond me…

Dave D

A have to pretty much agree with Alex above. Certainly it is very hard to create a secular case against polygamy, and why should we? Sexual relationships amongst siblings and parents/children there is the case of increased congenital birth defect problems should the relationship result in a pregnancy, so a secular case against them can be made.

At the end of the day as long as the relationship is entered into freely by all parties involved then for most intents and purposes where is the harm?

Mind you, they’re not for me personally. I have a hard enough time holding a stable relationship with one woman never mind several etc etc. 😉

If we take the Mormon/Utah polygamists as an example of what happens when polygamy is institutionalized we can show the negative effects. Please look into it if you’re unfamiliar with the plight of young Mormon men ousted from their communities and forced into prostitution and homelessness because they can’t compete with the legacy and influence of Elders that can snatch up child brides.

Polygamy in a vacuum seems fine to me but we do have real world examples of how this plays out so lets not act like we don’t.

All the Christians believe the Bible, and that it tells them how to live. Well, Abraham and Isaac were polygamous. So were King David and Solomon. As well as a lot of other people in the book. So how do they get to approve of some things, and not others? By the way, Abraham was married to his half-sister.

Actually, the problem with polygamy is that it doesn’t fit into the legal framework of marriage. The whole idea of marriage in legal terms is that it designates a primary, that is, the person who is the closest to you.

The problem with polygamy, thusly on a secular basis is that the various rights and responsibilities of marriage are very difficult/impossible to extend to multiple people. It basically reduces it to a form of fraud.

If any of you are wondering, I’m personally not interested neither in polygamy nor in incest. However, it’s not fair to only base your reasons on personal preferences, is it?

Let me add a couple points to the arguments. First, polygamy exists and is legal in most countries, including the U.S. This fact is generally recognized in sociology; the only quirk is that it is known as divorce and re-marriage (or sequential polygamy, in sociological context). Also, nothing in U.S. laws prohibits de-facto polygamy, when several (more than two) partners cohabit and have sexual relations (in fact, being married to one person and having other relationships “on the side” is also quite common — duh). It’s simply the question of recognition of such relationships. Mind you, many people don’t object to being in open relationships, either.

As to birth defects in cases of incest, are there legal obstacles for marriage between people with hereditary disorders or drug addicts (including alcoholics)? If not, I don’t see why there should be such a concern for incest. A medical recommendation against having children I can agree with, but criminalizing it, no.

Cousins actually do not cause inbreeding either.
yes they do, it’s a matter of degree.
siblings share half their genes.
half siblings share a quarter of their genes
1st cousins share 1/8 of their genes

Most societies have determined 1/8 is still too dangerous to interbreed.

Alex it has nothing to do with drug addiction or disease, it has to do with genes when in combination produce killer combos that usually will kill it before it’s born, but sometimes result in horrible birth defects. Many species do not reproduce with siblings, because reproducing with siblings is not an evolutionary stable system (ESS). When these laws were codified it was because it’s what we already did, because it’s not about freedom it’s about the health and survival of the species.

The real question: when genetic design is affordable to avoid killer combinations of genes, that argument against sibling procreation will go away. then what?

“Huckabee knows his views are unpopular.”
Did you really mean to write that?
Have you read the polls?
One of the easiest ways to lose an election is to support gay marriage.
Huckabee’s a superstitious bigot, but politically he’s quite smart. A huge segment of the population – especially the older folks who actually vote – hate homosexuals. Huckabee knows that.

@ bill:

We the people are politics. The only way to avoid politics is to shut up and tolerate this bullshit. If you speak up, you are involved in politics.

I say it’s better to speak up.

It’s not politics that’s dirty, it’s people that are being asses.

@ littlejohn:

+1. People are bigoted, and he’s representing them. Fair enough. Except that we need to go after the bigots, which means changing public perception. Whoever said that the country needs different people wasn’t kidding.

@ plutosdad:

I’d wager that our revulsion to incest is largely cultural. It seems too complex for a genetically encoded behavior. One can similarly argue that we are repulsed by homosexuality for the same reason.

@alex

I think it is unlikely that incest is cultural, as it an incredibly pervasive taboo across a large variety of different cultures.

Therefore it is likely that incest has a biological component, which helped the survival of the species.

Arguably this can be shown by the Westermarck effect,
‘when two people live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one, both are desensitized to later close sexual attraction’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect#Westermarck_effect

what Kevin said.

“… if gay marriage was legalized, it would be a gateway allowing for incest and polygamy to follow.”

Apparently this is a ‘gateway’ through space and time that sends us back centuries to be the reason Mormons practice polygamy and the reason European monarchy spent about a thousand years keeping it strictly in the family.

And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards

I’m hopeful that Huckabee’s popularity in 2008 was mainly because he wasn’t G.W.B. I’m hoping now that his front-runner status is mainly just because of name recognition. Hopefully as other primary contenders become established, his candidacy will fade away. If not, we all need to be very diligent to work to increase the public’s awareness of the dangers of a Huckabee administration for the basic concept of liberty.

If we’re so worried about the “Gateway” stuff, how about defining marriage as this:

“Marriage is between two consenting adults who are not related by blood.”

If that missed anything, let me know, but I’m pretty sure it works. Marriage is an out-of-date practice anyway. I agree with the people above me who said that we should only have civil unions. It makes much more sense.

Just a quick point, one that’s been partially addressed by previous commenters:

Gay marriage, polygamy, and incest all, as a matter of public policy, present different issues. Gay marriage–and allowing marriage to a sibling/parent/child–are equally easy to implement: you just don’t deny the request for the marriage certificate. The problem with incestuous marriages, however, is the potential for abuse; incestuous relationships rarely represent the free choice of consenting adults. There is usually some element of psychological, emotional, or physical abuse involved. Not to mention, it plays havoc with trusts and estate law, tax regulations, etc.

Polygamy also presents the potential for fraud, for tax evasion, and abuse, as well as some other nasty effects on the greater community.

These problems are potentially surmountable through well-written legislation or whatever, but what’s important is that they are legitimate *secular* concerns about implementing such practices.

Gay marriage does not present the same problems, and is therefore easily distinguishable from incest and polygamy. Huckabee’s assertion that you can’t draw a line between gay marriage on one hand and drug use, polygamy, and incest on the other is either woefully ignorant or flat-out dishonest.

(for the record, I would certainly support legalization of incest and polygamy if I felt the legislation doing so sufficiently addressed the practical problems I mentioned above)

@ Captain Werewolf:

Thanks for presenting some secular arguments against incest and polygamy. They are, IMHO, weak, but arguments nonetheless. To overcome obstacles, perhaps, we should fix the tax and estate laws (tax brackets and will procedures are a huge WTF, in my view, but oh, well). I can see how this is currently a problem, but isn’t it what we are talking about here anyway, changing man-made laws?

One possible solution is to dispose of marriage as a special institute altogether and replace it with regular civil contracts, which already exist and work quite well in business practice. So what if 20 people want to marry each other? Call them an LLC and be done with it! J/k.

@ aStone:

Perhaps it’s the fact that I haven’t got a sister, but I don’t see anything particularly repugnant in such a relationship. Thanks for the article on Westermarck effect; I think it sheds some light on the issue. Although, going by this effect alone we still have legal siblings that are not biologically related, half-siblings, and siblings separated at birth. It seems that biological relationship doesn’t play so much of a role here as joint upbringing, which is a little different from what we are talking about here.

About taboos: cannibalism is almost universally taboo (I know there are exceptions, but they are pretty rare), but if you think about it, there’s not much “wrong” about it other than it being icky. On the other hand, incest exists in some (sub)cultures, and also in nature (albeit, often forced by circumstances — see cheetah). I mean, I see what you are saying, but it seems that incest is bad in the same sense as survival of the fittest is good: it’s just so because otherwise it doesn’t quite work. I don’t see how “genetic programming” is necessary to avoid these “mistakes”.

I’m no biologist or psychologist, though, so please correct me if I’m wrong.

but it seems that incest is bad in the same sense as survival of the fittest is good

To the evolutionary psychologist there is little difference. Those instincts are things we should pay attention to, not ignore, they are there for a reason. We don’t have to follow them but at least address them not ignore them because they are mere instinct. But yes they all originate in what results in survival, there is no other reason for those instincts to be present. Many of our ethics are a result of this, well some think so.

If you are interested I’d start with The Selfish Gene and then The Origins of Virtue, both great books.

Funny the more anthropology and evolutionary psychology I study the less libertarian I become 🙂