Please realize that if you are in favor of legally recognizing same-sex marriage in the name of “marriage equality”, you might have to also be in favor of dropping the prohibition against incest–or you may find yourself unknowingly promoting marriage inequality.
How do I support this claim?
I once got to thinking about this a few years ago. My question was “If same sex marriages become legal, is there any valid reason to prohibit, say, identical twins from being married?”
The usual prohibition against siblings marrying is at least in large part due to inbreeding concerns. With identical (i.e., same sex) twins, those concerns are moot. With fraternal, opposite sex twins, the old concerns remain.
So is an identical pair in a marriage-like relationship committing incest? A fraternal, opposite sex pair certainly is.
This creates a dilemma. Or even perhaps a trilemma. You either (a) allow traditional couples and same sex couples to marry, while restricting said fraternals or (b) allow all three types to marry or (c) keep the traditional approach in place.
If your highest value is on the ever trendier idea of “marriage equality”, you cannot opt for either (a) or (c). That leaves you with (b), which now would put you in the position of allowing incestuous marriages. Obviously, to preserve equality, you would need to open it up for non-twins. At that point how do you justify prohibiting mother and consenting adult son or father and consenting adult daughter?
So is it possible to have “marriage equality” without allowing for incest? What if we allow those marriages to take place as long as at least one marriage partner gets sterilized? Doesn’t that introduce a sort of inequality in the name of achieving equality?
Believe it or not, there are some people who say the prohibitions against incest are antiquated taboos and should be done away with. The only remaining question I have is, “Are you willing to be one of them?”