LNH: Legion of Net.Heroes Vol. 2 # 18: Catalyst Lass vs. the Preacher!

[martinphipps2 at yahoo.com]

Tom Russell wrote:
> "Okay, let's say that
> homosexuality is in, does that mean that that incest
> is still a sin?"
>    "Of course!" says the angel, flabbergasted.
>    "They're both in Leviticus," says Self-Righteous
> Preacher.  He reaches for one of his many bibles.
> "It's in..."
>    "I know which verse it is!" says the angel.
> "That's not the point.  The point is, J. C. wants you
> to... you know, why don't I just call Him down here?"
>    A small, tinkerbellish dot of light appears.
>    "Would you settle for the Holy Ghost?" asks the
> angel.
>    Self-Righteous Preacher shrugs.
>    "Jesus couldn't make it," explains the Holy Ghost.
> "I think Jamas Enright still has him reserved.  But
> Saint Wally the Archangel here is correct.  You see,
> SRP, as people become more enlightened, notions of
> right and wrong change.  And things that are seen as
> being wrong-- like homosexuality-- aren't really wrong
> because they don't really hurt anybody."
>    "Neither does incest," says Self-Righteous
> Preacher.
>    The Holy Ghost sighs.  "Incest and Hitler, incest
> and Hitler.  Why do they always invoke incest and
> Hitler?  Okay, look: incest is wrong because it
> corrupts the nature of familial love, and it pollutes
> the gene pool."

Look, you know me.  I have no interest in my sister.  Or any of my
cousins.  Or their cousins.  But I find it ironic that the same Bible
that discourages incest also discourages miscegenation.  I did a search
and according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation ,

"The constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws was upheld by the
U.S. Supreme Court in the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama. In 1965, Virginia
trial court judge Leon Bazile sentenced to jail an interethnic couple
who got married in Washington, D.C., writing:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and
he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the
races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

This decision was eventually overturned in 1967, 84 years after Pace v.
Alabama, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Loving v.
Virginia that

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our
very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive
all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

I think the same argument, that marriage is a basic civil right, can be
applied to same-sex marriage and, yes, even incest.  People should have
the right to be intimate with whomever they want to be intimate with,
be they the same sex, the same family or different races.

The argument that incest "pollutes the gene pool" is not accurate:
incest is dangerous for individuals because people are susceptible to
recessive genetic diseases carried by both parents, diseases that they
would not exibit had their parents not been related.  But then the
obvious counter argument would be that you shouldn't marry your cousins
either, or their cousins for that matter, for fear of having them give
birth to children exibiting recessive traits.  Most incest laws do
include provisions against people marrying their cousins.  But I think
that's taking things a bit too far.  Indeed, historically, most
European royals married their own cousins (and before that, princes of
Egypt and Sumer would marry their own sisters) and yet today's laws
would forbid such unions.

What do we mean when we say that a union "pollutes the gene pool"?
This argument is usually made against inter-racial unions: it is
claimed that the genes from the "outsider" race will pollute the
"insider" race's gene pool.  To suggest that any genes "pollute" the
gene pool is an inherently racial statement, I'm afraid, even though it
wasn't meant that way.  With the obvious exception of debilitating
genetic diseases, it really isn't up to us to say which genes should or
should not get passed on: to suggest that some genes are unworthy
pollutants ultimately brings us to eugenics, genocide and mass
exterminations.  I know.  I know.  I invoked Hitler.

But really, incest, miscegenation, none of this pollutes the gene pool.
 As long as we all get married and have children, our genes will get
passed on to the next generation.  No "pollutants" are introduced to
the worldwide gene pool, regardless of who we marry.  Genetic diseases
result from mutations and natural selection discourages the spreading
of such undesired traits.

Oh wait!  I forgot!  Religious people don't accept the idea of
mutations and natural selection because then that would require them to
accept evolution.  Ah, yes, well, I think we've come to the crux of the
problem.

Martin