Human’s Irrational Sense of Sanctity

I think that legally, it is justified to outlaw gay marriage on the grounds that it violates the sanctity of marriage.

In the past, I posed a question to feminists that was related to this subject. I asked them if we should legalize incestuous marriage. Contributing writer (and assumed feminist) Emily Driscoll responded to my question.

I think Driscoll’s response was interesting. She clearly had some moral opposition to incestuous marriage, but could not come up with any rational reasons why she harbored this opposition. I find this interesting because this is the same way conservatives react to gay marriage.

When I originally posed my question, I argued that there are no logical reasons for a feminist to oppose incestuous marriage.

Sex-positive feminism (the predominant viewpoint in American third-wave feminism) posits that all norms and mores surrounding sexuality are social constructs designed to oppress women. They believe that all of these social constructs need to be eliminated as a way of liberating women from the patriarchy.

This means that all forms of sexuality need to be permitted so long as both parties are consenting adults practicing safe sex. In theory, incestuous marriage should be permitted under this system of ethics.

Driscoll never answered whether she thinks incestuous marriage should be legalized or not, despite her opposition to it. I suspect this is because the idea of incestuous marriage violates her sense of sanctity.

People become irrational when their sense of sanctity is violated; Driscoll is no exception. This is because sanctity is not rational. It is based on our subjective perceptions.

Driscoll argued that all forms of incest are rape, therefore incestuous marriage should be outlawed. She did not provide any evidence to support this claim. She even tried to change the definition of sex-positive feminism so that she would not have to answer my question.

This is similar to the reasoning conservatives use to oppose gay marriage.

I have heard conservatives oppose gay marriage on the grounds that all gays are pedophiles or that all gay marriages end in divorce. Neither of these claims are true.

If you point out all the flaws in their arguments, eventually conservatives will admit that they have no rational reason for opposing gay marriage; they just know they are morally opposed to it.

There is an important lesson behind these debates: all humans have an irrational sense of sanctity. There is a certain point when people become morally opposed to something.

Unfortunately, everyone has different, and often conflicting, senses of sanctity. I think this is the unstated cause of many human conflicts.

In addition to the gay marriage debate, some other sanctity conflicts include: drug laws, obscenity in the media, sexuality, abortion, profanity, cleanliness and eating habits.

This leads to a moral conundrum: how do we peacefully resolve these conflicts?

I do not have the answer for this; I can only point out that these conflicts exist.

I do think that liberals (in particular feminists) are handling this situation poorly. They are unfairly imposing their own irrational sense of sanctity onto everyone else and labeling all other forms as hatred.

This needs to stop. We need to come to terms with the fact that sanctity is a critical component of human morality. It is insane to act like it does not exist.

5 Replies to “Human’s Irrational Sense of Sanctity”

  1. Incestuous marriage? You really feel justified going there. Incestuous marriages can lead to children who may develop birth defects. The ancient Egyptians learned what happens when you breed your lines to closely. So what…then society has to take care of the offspring? I know you can argue to brothers or two sisters…but at least society has come up with a logical reason to prevent siblings or parents and children from risking our future generations. Now if you want to enter the bedrooms of US citizens and ban them from having sex….then I wonder what conservatives would say about that?

    1. “I know you can argue to brothers or two sisters…”
      I did argue that in my original article. So do you think we should at least legalize homosexual incestuous marriage? If not, then on what grounds do you base this opposition?
      Your hostility coupled with a lack of rationality is a strong sign that the prospect of incestuous marriage violates your sense of sanctity. In other words, you are reacting the same way conservatives do towards gay marriage. This is the point I was trying to prove all along.
      “Now if you want to enter the bedrooms of US citizens and ban them from having sex….then I wonder what conservatives would say about that?”
      It sounds like these theoretical conservatives you are describing have a very rigid sense of sanctity. As I said in the article, sanctity conflicts lead to some tough moral conundrums. I never claimed to have the answer as to how these conflicts should be solved, I just pointed out that they exist.

    2. “Incestuous marriages can lead to children who may develop birth defects… then society has to take care of the offspring””
      I covered this in my original article. High school students and casual sex partners (among other people) are not financially/emotionally/physically stable enough to raise children, but feminists permit them to have sex anyway. They just encourage them to use birth control. Why couldn’t they instruct incestuous couples to do the same thing?

    The comments section is going to be glorious!!!!

    Rights is how you peacefully resolve these issues.
    Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t marry a guy.
    Don’t like incest? Don’t f*** your sister.
    Don’t like drugs? Don’t take them.
    Don’t like obscenity? Don’t look at it.
    Don’t like excessive sexuality? Don’t associate with whores.
    Don’t like abortion?……. you could argue either way here so I’ll leave it alone
    Don’t like profanity? Don’t associate with profane people.
    Don’t like bad eating habits? Choose what food you want to eat.

    Freedom of speech allows people to say things that others disagree with. Freedom of association allows people to associate (or not to associate) with whoever they want. Individuality allows people to do what they want with their own bodies (ignore the abortion language), whether it be with drugs, prostitution, junk food, etc.

Leave a Reply