Apparently, Uncle Sam prefers inbreeding to gay marriage.
I ran across this poster on BuzzFeed this morning:
19 U.S. states allow residents restriction-free access to marrying a first cousin and starting a large, genetically limited family. Meanwhile, only five U.S. states currently allow citizens to marry someone of the same sex.
I know what you’re thinking: what’s wrong with cousin marriage?
I had a crush on my second cousin Randy who I still think was pretty good-looking for a 12 year-old. I never confessed my love though. He lived 2,000 miles away, which may as well have been from here to the moon at that age, and it didn’t help that he was the family’s black sheep, drug-smoking and car-stealing by age 14.
But the real deal-breaker came in 6th grade Social Studies when I learned about the Spanish Monarchy. Apparently, Charles II sprung from 150 years of incestual propagation (his mother was his father’s niece). He wound up with an estimated I.Q. of 70, and reportedly he was so physically challenged that he couldn’t sit up, walk or eat without assistance.
Cousin-love, once practiced rampantly among Europe’s Royal families to preserve royal blood lines, was actually found to do the opposite—muck up royal blood lines, creating a likelihood for recessive, “bad” genes to surface down the line. Many famous people have done it— Einstein married his cousin, which I didn’t know about until now, as did Jerry Lee Lewis and Darwin, in a particularly ironic move. But now in most parts of America, cousin-marrying is pretty taboo.
Somehow, however, based on state law it’s still not as taboo as gay marriage, which doesn’t lead to future generation birth-defects and is thus a no-brainer.
This does make me think about the term “freedom of marriage,” though. Should loving cousins who can’t have children be prohibited from tying the knot? A few states, including Arizona and Maine, make that stipulation. And what about cousins who agree to not have children and adopt instead? If adult, consenting, genetically-similar lovers who have agreed to not make babies want to marry, should U.S. law really stand between them?
I really don’t know. But for now, I think a special shout out should go to Vermont and Massachusetts— the only two states in the nation that allow gay cousin marriage. It may sound funky, but it’s nice to know there are two states that really don’t give a shit who you walk down the aisle with.
May 31, 2011 at 11:57 pm, Anonymous said:
This seems consistent with anti-gay, Christianist, legal arguments against same-sex marriage. “19 U.S. states allow residents restriction-free access to marrying a first cousin and starting a large, genetically limited family.” According to the Christianists facilitating same-sex marriage bans, the purpose of marriage is for pro-creation. While they fuck members of their own family, it is Okay for them to stop the gays from marrying each other.
June 02, 2011 at 2:25 am, Stanley J said:
the procreation argument with need for a mother and a father. Well the worst case is the millions of single parent households. I ask our christian friends whether we should take away children from these households, because obviously two parents are much better then one. Raising children is one hell of a horror job, been there, done tthat.
June 02, 2011 at 11:28 am, FactChecker said:
I am sure conservatives would be well heeled to know that single parent families are poorer due to money and time issues usually, not because of single parenting, many wealthy holly wood stars who divorce have fine kids, in the bible timothy for example did not have two parents but this was uncommon in older.
June 02, 2011 at 11:28 am, FactChecker said:
See Response above.
June 01, 2011 at 12:55 am, Tehlonelymon said:
looks like 3 states allow both. Hooray for gay cousin marriage.
June 01, 2011 at 2:33 am, Ted said:
Inbreeding comes from generations of incest, and more likely from siblings marrying, not one dude who marries a girl who just happens to be his cousin. (I don’t think cousin-marriage is even illegal in most European countries.) And gay groups have no business casting judgment on any marital union, if you want to know the truth. Insisting on equality for yourselves while implying it should be denied to others is the very height of hypocrisy.
June 02, 2011 at 2:15 am, Stanley J said:
depends on why marriage is denied. BTW, in general, there is zero risk of gays creating defective children, since they have to either adopt or have a donor of some kind.
June 02, 2011 at 12:32 pm, Guest said:
I don’t think they saying it should be denied to anyone else, I think they are just making a point.
June 01, 2011 at 11:34 am, FactChecker said:
Cousin Marriage legislation was based on faulty and bias reasoning that cousin couples have a much higher of genetic defects, we do not ban folks with genetic disorders such as down syndrome from marrying, given that 1 out of 5 human beings has parents who are cousins, if defects were that high, populations would be wiped out, all human beings are related to each other, its in our dna, einstein ,ted roosvelt, and many others have married their cousin, during jim crow laws enacted laws came.
Now, for the anti-cousin marriage side, its a great reasoning, why not allow uncle/aunt marriage or even of half-blood since the consanguinity is the same , its true that your cousin is not your sibling, you don’t have the same parent, and chances are you don’t live each other also note that there is a difference between “legal marriage” and “religious marriage”.
Did Abraham get state permission to marry his niece, no, the government does not determine if you are married, it assigns legal rights and responsibilities, however pre-nups , common law marriages, and alternate contractual arrangements as well as the alternatives to marriage project indicate that “marriage” is more of a legal term, in nevada you can divorce after a few days.
The danger of gay marriage proponents is that where you can give a right, you can take it away, many liberals object to gay “marriage” but not due to conservatism, its because the name of “marriage” is changed by the state, if the governor of the state pronounced you married to his son or daughter and he/she was a dictator and you did not know that individual, would it be “marriage”, legally yes. So there is no difference between a “civil union” and marriage other than the name, if every right is available, what about a foreign language, the word marriage in other languages could be termed “wedlock” “joint union”, in other languages.
So gay marriage proponents need not be offended, by that concept, what if the state had a half-marriage law?
In New Jersey you can consensually have sex with your parents,siblings,aunts/uncles, CO AND MN allow uncle and aunt custom marriage, some states on the other hand restrict sex even with children of a cousin removed.
Liberals should also stop defending the muslim religion, because while its tempting to use it as a wedge issue against conservatives, since the US law cannot favor one religion of the other, muslim religion has more in common with Christianity on this and similar issues, as does orthodox Judaism.
June 02, 2011 at 12:04 am, Stephany Mahaffey said:
“given that 1 out of 5 human beings has parents who are cousins”
Where did you get that fact?
“So there is no difference between a “civil union” and marriage other than the name, if every right is available”
Every right is not available to civil unions ( see http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html for a brief list).
I say that everyone should be allowed ‘civil unions’ and be recognized equally in the court of law. Leave it to the churches/synagogues/temples to join people in ‘marriage.’
I don’t care what you call it, but you can’t call it equality when heterosexual couples are given tax benefits, federal benefits, reciprocity of those rights in any state, and are able to offer their partner US citizenship.
June 02, 2011 at 2:22 am, Stanley J said:
bulleseye. Lets make marriage a church event only. Zero legal contractual benefits. Churches free to marry whoeveer they want without restriction, and also free to refuse to marry whoever they want with out restrictions.
And all the legal etc benefits – make that all under civil unions for str8s, gays etc. Basically same rules as now re relationship, age, etc.
The whole mess is mostly because marriagte has two different meanings, one religious, one secular
June 02, 2011 at 11:31 am, FactChecker said:
I somewhat agree, but in a practical sense most common religion marriages could be accepted, then again what about certain sects and religions, since you cannot favor one of the other, a civil union is precisely what is should be a law governing a union. The term marriage is translated into different languages/custom, for instance in the muslim world zawaj and nikkah both mean marriage in different aspects.
The cousin marriage post is a red heering, since few countries restrict it, in fact if it weren’t for miscengation laws and misunderstandings all states would allow.
June 03, 2011 at 4:24 am, Nathan R said:
i think you kind of ignorant … the big issue is “church and state” which should never be combined . period . you cant always put religion in everything because it is completely irrelevant these days. So you sir are the reason we even have this issue. open your and realize that when you say things like “fag” “queer” those are derogitory terms towards the gay community and we arent going anywhere, if anything we will keep fighting and get what we one truly deserve and youll get to sit there and pout about how you didnt get what you want.
June 02, 2011 at 11:24 am, FactChecker said:
Easy, check out the countries where cousin marriage is common, you will find hundreds of millions of marriages that total up, since not every human is married or has a parent who is currently married, the 20% figure sounds right, aj bittles has a consanguinity chart , you are misleading steph by quoting federal law vs. state law, even if a state allowed gay marriage the federal law would not change
June 02, 2011 at 11:24 am, FactChecker said:
Easy, check out the countries where cousin marriage is common, you will find hundreds of millions of marriages that total up, since not every human is married or has a parent who is currently married, the 20% figure sounds right, aj bittles has a consanguinity chart , you are misleading steph by quoting federal law vs. state law, even if a state allowed gay marriage the federal law would not change
June 02, 2011 at 12:04 am, Stephany Mahaffey said:
“given that 1 out of 5 human beings has parents who are cousins”
Where did you get that fact?
“So there is no difference between a “civil union” and marriage other than the name, if every right is available”
Every right is not available to civil unions ( see http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html for a brief list).
I say that everyone should be allowed ‘civil unions’ and be recognized equally in the court of law. Leave it to the churches/synagogues/temples to join people in ‘marriage.’
I don’t care what you call it, but you can’t call it equality when heterosexual couples are given tax benefits, federal benefits, reciprocity of those rights in any state, and are able to offer their partner US citizenship.
June 02, 2011 at 2:19 am, Stanley J said:
muslim religion has more in common with Christianity on this and similar issues, as does orthodox Judaism. Quote
Yes, common hatred. many christians, most orthodox Jews and of course Islam hate gays.
In Israel back in early 2009 acouple orthodox members of the Knesset said gays were like bird flu. A call for the geneocide of gays. By the very people whose close relatives shared hitlers ovens wiht the gays of germany and elsewhere
While there are good and loving religions, in general it has been the curse of humanity from day 1.
June 01, 2011 at 6:00 pm, john charles webb jr said:
Regardless of the ‘gay marriage’ or ‘cousin marriage’ issues ….
our government is into bondage .
“Thou shalt not . . . . . . . ???
June 01, 2011 at 6:00 pm, john charles webb jr said:
Regardless of the ‘gay marriage’ or ‘cousin marriage’ issues ….
our government is into bondage .
“Thou shalt not . . . . . . . ???
June 01, 2011 at 6:39 pm, Rahil_101 said:
In Massachusetts you can get married at like 12 (with parental permission)
June 01, 2011 at 8:24 pm, James said:
You obviously need to do some research on the biology of children from closely-related people…there is a slightly higher risk overall of inheriting genetically-transmitted diseases, such as hemophilia (as was common in one European royal house) but unless the parents are both carriers there’s nothing especially bad about kids from closely-related people. The stigma is far more a social one than a biological one.
June 01, 2011 at 9:58 pm, Dyonatan Muhl said:
looks like 3 states allow both. Hooray for gay cousin marriage.
June 02, 2011 at 2:12 am, Stanley J said:
look at the map. A significant number of the 1st cousin states are in the south, the home of religious hatred.
Maybe this map is telling us somehting – why those people are so dumb that the believe in the religious bull droppings
June 02, 2011 at 7:23 am, crystal evans said:
This is crazy. It would cost the states more money in the long run because of all of the public assistance payments made to cousin parents and their disabled children. On the other hand, gay married couples would be an asset because they would work and pay taxes like heterosexual couples do.
June 02, 2011 at 4:36 pm, Serena said:
This is disgusting…
June 02, 2011 at 4:38 pm, Serena Knierim said:
This is disgusting…
June 02, 2011 at 11:13 pm, guest said:
Queen Victoria’s mother and her husband Prince Albert’s father were siblings making Queen Victoria and Prince Albert first cousins. Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip are third cousins through their descent from Queen Victoria and second cousins through their descent through Christian IX of Denmark. Thank heaven that Catharine Middleton is only about a 15th cousin to Prince William.
June 03, 2011 at 4:15 am, Nathan R said:
Ill be honest i kind of take offense to some of the things said about the “south” being slow and retarded. I am a gay and live in the south and i am here to tell you that it is nothing like tv portrays. Unless you have truly lived here keep your negative comments about it to yourself. As far as religious hatred im not sure about all that either … did you know that there are more churches in the state of California than in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, south Carolina, and Louisiana combined? just a tid bit from and religious retarded southerner. I am openly gay and i live with my partner and have for 6 years … when we go to dinner we may flirt or hold hands in front of you. We dont give a shit about close minded individuals like yourself…bc if you can hold hands and kiss the person you love in public why cant i? So with that said you can take your southern stereotypes and stick them up your ass *no pun intended*
June 05, 2011 at 5:24 am, Wulfw said:
I think folks are responding to the South’s voting patterns as things that, electorally, speak for themselves.
The population of the states you list is 23.5MM. California is 37.2MM; it’s going to have more houses of worship, and they aren’t as likely to be congregations that are members of the Southern Baptist Convention, either. The religion-based bigotry in the South is strong relative to the other large multi-state regions of the US (e.g., New England, Great Plains, Southwest, etc.). That’s simply a fact supported by opinion poll results.
June 08, 2011 at 5:39 pm, Deborah Mac Arthur Aldegarie said:
When did California become a southern state?
June 03, 2011 at 9:21 pm, Matt Brodrecht said:
WTF!?!?!?!
June 03, 2011 at 9:23 pm, Matt Brodrecht said:
wtf!?!?!?!?!?!?
June 04, 2011 at 2:10 am, Adam said:
Don’t forget Connecticut! We allow gay cousin marriage as well!
June 08, 2011 at 5:35 pm, Deborah Mac Arthur Aldegarie said:
really messed up.