The Good. The Bad. The Asinine.

So what’s the lesson here?

Now, I’m not an expert, but I think the lesson is that a relationship suffering from a full-on bout of gayness is grosser than one with a mild case of incest.

Or, maybe it’s that it’s better to have an aunt for a mother-in-law than a dad for a mother.

On the other hand, the lesson could be that the slippery slope actually runs backwards, i.e., we don’t want to allow same-sex marriage because it might lead to people not being able to marry their relatives.

Or maybe it’s just an accident of history that is crying out for correction.

Category: Bad, Homophobia


5 Responses

  1. JR says:

    Hi Tim,

    Interesting maps. Do you keep stats like this for Australia?


    • Tim says:

      Sadly, the situation in Australia is much worse. Marriage is a federal matter, so all states allow marriage between first cousins. And, for some reason, between aunts and nephews, and uncles and nieces. No states currently allow same-sex marriage.

      I guess the equivalent Australian map would have a much greater visual effect!

  2. JR says:

    Jimbo says:
    September 8, 2011 at 08:56
    Don’t you think that there should also be a third map which documents the number of states that allow two rangas to marry? Surely this is the true measure of tolerance?

    Jimbo – thank you for introducing me to a new word: ranga.

    I would like to suggest this ranga relationship map also overlay the population density for each ranga pair, by state, in direct comparison to the gun law for that state – for example, Texas, where each ranga is likely to be openly armed … and New York, where they would also be armed, albeit illegally.

  3. JR says:

    New York state also passed a same-sex marriage law in June, 2011.

    The discussion about gay marriage here (we live in NY) centered on partner’s rights – health insurance benefits, pensions, ownership of property and the ability to make medical decisions. The term used was less important, marriage or civil union, and it was ultimately called the Marriage Equality Act. The law in effect makes all unions equal under the law.

    The NY law also provides some protection for religious groups if they choose to discriminate against any particular union (one would assume this discrimination could apply not only to gay unions, but also to uncle/niece or aunt/nephew pairings.)

    The terminology, however, was of importance to those in New Hampshire. Purposely leaving the word “marriage” out, gay rights advocates were willing to dash the bill because, as a “civil union” the law would give religious institutions (of most concern was hospitals) the right to refuse to recognize the relationship. (see New York Times article here:
    NH ultimately passed the bill and joined the now 18 states that recognize same-sex unions either wholly or in part.

    There is still a majority of states with laws banning same-sex unions.

    As for uncle/niece, aunt/nephew, cousin/cousin unions? Well, I guess I’m just glad to see that the U.S. isn’t alone in this practice…

    • Tim says:

      Thanks for the info mate… I was cheering when you guys legalised same-sex marriages. Especially in light of the ridiculous campaign waged by the Catholic Archbishop, Timothy Dolan, and others. We have similar campaigns being waged in Australia (see here), but I think we’ll get equality sooner rather than later.

Leave a Reply