Quote:
Originally Posted by KCBUTCH
I am so livid right now due to the opening sentence in an article I am supposed to read for class
"When cousins do more than kiss"
by Anthony Layng
"NOW THAT same sex marriage increasingly is becoming acceptable in the U.S., might not incestuous marriage be next? Both have been condemned by legal sanctions and religious beliefs. However, since these are subject to change, what is to prevent first cousin marriage from gaining popularity?"
I sent a message to my professor stating it's offensive, insensitive, prejudice and verging on hate speech and I am considering reporting her to the board at my college for allowing such an article to be a required reading.
ANY THOUGHTS?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by always2late
While I agree that one of the purposes of higher education is exposure to opinions one might not agree with, I think the issue here is not the fact that this is a disagreeable opinion. I think it is more that this is an egregious comparison. It is, albeit in a circuitous way, linking same-sex marriage to incest. The fact that the article goes on to speak of the appropriateness of familial relationships and has NOTHING to do with same-sex marriage only highlights the point that the comparison needn't have been made at all. How is it relevant to the subject? It isn't. It is basically taking the worst of same-sex marriage opponents' talking points and misinformation and using it as a jump off point to start an article.
|
Any comparison between the rights and wrongs of a same-sex marriage and an incestuous one would clearly be wrong. However, and without reading the piece in its entirety, I wouldn't be at all certain that's necessarily what the author is trying to do.
Rather, could the article not simply be demonstrating that societal views to what constitutes a marriage can change significantly over short periods of time?
Whilst still not ideal, the same-sex marriage debate has made significant leaps and bounds in recent generations and there is a tidal wave in favour. In a relatively short time in history, we'll be in a position where same-sex marriage has equal legal authority to heterosexual marriage in almost all of the "western world".
However, until relatively recently, same-sex marriage would have been viewed with absolute disgust by the "moral majority" and as something as "awful" as a marriage of family members. In fact, in many instances, it would have been viewed as worse. I only knew one of my four grandparents and by all accounts, all four were fantastic and loving people. However, I do wonder what their reaction would have been if, say in 1950, they had been asked their views on gay marriage? I would be astonished if it would been anything other than "no way".
Similarly, what is right or wrong as a marriage has changed more generally. Not long ago, it would have been frowned upon for a widow to remarry as she was meant to grieve for her dead husband for the rest of her life. That's a much less commonly accepted view or practice these days.
The fact that the commonly held view of what is a justified marriage is changing reiterates that marriage, and what should be allowed to constitute a marriage, is societal. Many parts of the world have marriage customs and traditions that are, to me (and presumably most others on this site) revulsive i.e. forced marriages, often incentivised by the prize of a dowry and typically involving a young girl and a much older man. Also, not only a significant age gap, but it's not nor meant to be a marriage of equals.
And, yet, such marriages are the norm in parts of the world and in those same parts of the world, same-sex relationships can lead to imprisonment or worse.
So, based solely on that opening, I wouldn't be certain that the article is linking same-sex marriage to marriage of family members - rather, it could very well simply be demonstrating that society's views of the acceptable boundaries for marriage are prone to significant change over short periods of time and dependent on prevailing cultural norms.
In my view, it potentially lends itself to a good debate in the classroom.