Translate

Friday, July 22, 2016

NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #18


“There is a power differential.” Power differentials in consanguineous sexual relationships do not provide a good reason to deny the rights of lovers to be in these relationships and to marry, if that is what they want. The power differential allegation applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to marry.

There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. One person is more emotionally needy than another. One earns more than the other. One is more educated than another. One has more friends and family than another. One has more life experience than another. On and on it goes. A 21-year-old woman can consent to group sex with three 40-year-old cage fighters she just met, or sex with an older man who boarded in her family home for most of her life, or the President, or a married billionaire sultan, but not her half-brother or her genetic father who she first met a year ago and has been falling in love with? To question if consent is truly possible in consanguineous relationships is insulting and demeaning. If someone her age can consent to join the military, operate heavy machinery, or be sentenced to life in prison or even to death for their actions, how can we say she can't consent to love another adult the way she wants?

There are sober, functional, healthy adults who consent to consanguineous sex with an older relative, and many of them want to marry. It shouldn’t be illegal or questioned, unless you would do the same to any intergenerational relationship between adults.

There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #17

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #19
— — —

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Guilt By False Association

This post carries a ***TRIGGER WARNING*** because we will be discussing abuse and quoting/paraphrasing hateful, bigoted, discriminatory, sexist, racist, homophobic statements to expose the tactic of "guilt" by false association long used by anti-equality holdouts.

— — —

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Three Common Misconceptions About Consanguinamory

There are three very common misconceptions about consanguinamory or consanguineous relationships, also known as consensual adult incest. These misconceptions are often invoked when someone asks why such relationships are criminalized or why laws against such relationships haven't been repealed, or when someone asks why the consanguineous freedom to marry is still denied. Clearing up these misconceptions will assist us in reaching relationship rights for all and full marriage equality sooner rather than later.


1) "The kids will be mutants!" We've cleared this up many, many times. Although most consanguineous sex does not result in children, although most sex anyone has is not to reproduce (and often the chance of reproduction is ZERO), this is the old stand-by when people want to justify their position against letting consenting adults love each other how they mutually agree. It's a very weak argument. The fact is, even when consanguinamorous relationships do create a child, it is very likely the child will be healthy. People with consanguineous parents are literally everywhere. Chances are, one of your neighbors or co-workers is such a person, maybe even someone you admire or find attractive.
— — —

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Sibling Rivalry or Sibling Revelry

I used to be active on a certain Big Online Portal's question-and-answer feature, answering questions related to full marriage equality and relationship rights for all adults, and occasionally questions about teenager sexuality. I still read what goes on there. Every once in a while, someone will ask a question like this...
I caught my siblings making out, what should i do?
I caught my 16 year old sister and 17 year old brother making out, I don't really know what to do. To be honest I'm very shocked, and a bit disoriented thinking about it. They're both pretty attractive, I don't see why they would shack up with each other when they could go out and get people who... aren't related to them.

I want to tell ma and pa, but they begged me not to, don't really know how to approach this situation, Or if I should just respect their privacy. I guess I'm just worried about their mental health, but I guess that's pretty unfair of me to assume something is wrong with them.

What do i do?
For all we know, the teens "making out" with each other are both half-siblings to the asker, and unrelated to each other, or they could be stepsiblings or adopted siblings. Or, they could be half or full-blood siblings to each other. (It might have even been a Genetic Sexual Attraction situation if the siblings have not been raised together.) Whatever their genetic, legal, and social relation, it isn't uncommon for siblings as close in age as they are, especially in their teens, to have such affection between them.

Also, we don't know where they live, and thus whether or not they live somewhere where it is legal for a 17-year-old and 16-year-old to have sex with each other.

Most therapists consider such sibling behavior, absent any coercion, force, or intimidation, to be mutual experimentation or exploration.

In general, however, my advice to someone in the asker's position is to:

1. Confirm this is a voluntary activity. If observing wasn't enough, ask the younger/smaller/less assertive/more needy sibling if they are being pressured, intimidated, coerced, or forced in any way.

2. Respect their privacy. Start by reminding them it's a good idea to be discreet and promise you will knock.

3. Protect and support them.

4. If needed, assist them in accessing contraception and health care.

(See this extensive advice at The Final Manifesto for friends and family of consanguinamorous siblings.)
— — —

Monday, July 18, 2016

Australia Needs Full Marriage Equality

From the news I've been reading, Australia is considering moving closer to actually treating adults like, well, you know... adults. They need full marriage equality. Here's a recent report from theaustralian.com.au by Jared Owens...
Pauline Hanson will push Malcolm Turnbull for a referendum to hardwire a definition of marriage into the Constitution, warning the approaches advocated by Labor and the Coalition could lead to polygamy and child marriage.
Let consenting adults marry. Simple. I'm not familiar with Australia's Constitution, but here's what I'd like to see in the US Constitution.
The Constitution does not ­define marriage and allows parliament broad scope to decide which relationships are recognised.
However, the One Nation leader wants a “fresh and clear definition” of marriage built into the Constitution, so future parliaments cannot cave into demands to extend marriage rights.
“A plebiscite simply gives the green light for legislative change to include same-sex marriage. However, that legislation could run the risk of being revoked or further altered to pave the way for reducing the marriageable age or the introduction of polygamy,” a party spokesman said.
What would be the problem with three adults being married or one adult being married to two adults?

There's no good reason to deny consenting adults their rights to their relationships.
— — —

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Revisiting the Legal Nitty-Gritty of Polygamy

This entry is getting a bump-up because it is as relevant as ever.

A very kind reader sent along a description of the legal theory by which the polygamous freedom to marry can be accomplished, and I will offer my thoughts as well. It's a long essay, Ultimately, the thing to take away is that our laws can accommodate people in any form of polyamory who want legal recognition of a marriage (polyagamy). Since as far as the government involvement is concerned, marriage is mostly about financial and "who has responsibility for whom" issues, contract and business law has already demonstrated that three or more people can have legally recognized relationships. I had previous written about this here.
There is an ongoing discussion among polyamory activists regarding a legal model of polyamorous marriage (i.e., the extension of the legal concept of marriage to include polyamorous families). One debate centers around the relative merits of an all-with-all approach to marriage (whereby three or more persons are all joined together at the same time within a single marriage) and dyadic networks (whereby existing laws against bigamy are revised such that people are perfectly free to be concurrently married to multiple other persons, provided that each such new marriage is preceded by a legal notification regarding the pending new marriage to all those to whom one is already married; failure to provide that legal notification would then constitute the updated crime of bigamy).

I think both should be offered. The basic paperwork can actually be rather simple.
Dyadic networks would result in what might be thought of as a "molecular" family structure — one which might be best represented by the molecular diagrams commonly used in chemistry. In this way, marriage would remain a dyadic relationship (i.e., a relationship between two persons), thus minimizing any changes to the existing system of legal marriage, but the introduction of concurrency would provide access to legal marriage for polyamorous families.
Dyadic networks can correctly represent any situation associated with the "all-with-all" paradigm, as well as many situations that the "all-with-all" paradigm cannot deal with. A "complete" dyadic network would take the form of a complete graph, in which every person is (pairwise) married to every other person, thus correctly representing any situation associated with the "all-with-all" paradigm.
What this is saying that if A, B, and C all want to marry as a triad, with a dyadic model that can be accomplished through A & B marrying, A & C marrying, and B & C marrying. However, the all-with-all model automatically does this with one ceremony and one piece of paper. All-with-all wouldn't be what every polycule would want, as detailed below. It would only be a desirable option for polycules in which every individual wants to be married to all of the others. It would only work for the triangle or the square below.



— — —

Saturday, July 16, 2016

NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #17


Consanguineous sex, relationships, or marriage ruins, confuses, or distorts family relationships.” First of all, this does not apply to adoptees who reunite as adults, or people who resulted from gamete or embryo donation. They already have families.

People only say this about sex and marriage. They don’t say it about friendships, working together, or any number of additional relationship dimensions family members might have with each other, or at least this objection is not enshrined in law, as it is with laws that deny marriage equality. It is as if these people think sex and marriage are bad things and about doing bad things to the other person(s). Are those who oppose equality frustrated? Are they doing sex wrong?

Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too? When someone gets married, nobody from the government asks if this will ruin their friendship or their business, and it should not ask if it will ruin their fraternity, either.

Some people do also apply this to same-gender relationships. Friendships, these people say, become potential sexual relationships; it confuses relationships because men are supposed to be friends and not lovers, they say. If that is the limitation people want to place on themselves, they can. They should not be able to place such limits on other consenting adults.

When people are functioning socially in their biological roles, sex would create an additional bond. For some who are not functioning socially in those roles (as is often the case with Genetic Sexual Attraction), that bond may not exist in the first place and this is a way to form one. It should be up to them what kind of a relationship they're going to have.

People who are related through birth, adoption, or marriage (stepfamily) may or may not get along. They may be cruel towards each other or they can be best friends. The law can't force adults to love each other, regardless of their relation, and it shouldn't stop them from loving each other however they mutually agree.


There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (and any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #16

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #18 
— — —

Friday, July 15, 2016

Are We Looking For You?

We may be looking for you. If you are someone who is described below, please contact us a fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com or http://www.facebook.com/fullmarriageequality

1) We are looking for attorneys who are willing to represent consenting adults facing discrimination in criminal and civil law for having relationships.

2) We are looking for counselors and therapists in general, and one in particular, who are willing to help adults who face prejudice, discrimination, and even hostility from family due to consensual relationships with other adults.

3) We are looking for people willing to tell their stories about the love and relationships.

4) We are looking for anyone else willing to advance the cause of civil rights relating to gender, sexuality, and relationship diversities, and included in that, we'd like to hear from graphic artists who are interested in making contributions. Also, have you joined or started a GSA or diversity club at your school?

5) We are looking for you if you've been in videos found online in which you are depicted as having consanguineous sex.
— — —

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Is Being Poly Genetic?


The Ferrett addresses, “Polyamory Genetic? Is Homosexuality Genetic?”

My thoughts on a genetic polyamory link are the exact same as my thoughts on a genetic homosexual link:

I don’t care.

Right! We have many things, including the technology I’m using to write this and you are using to read this, which are not part of our genetics. What difference does it make? See Discredited Argument #5.

Even if the gays were, as some suggest, all conspiring in one big plot to annoy us fine-thinking straight people, wincing as they sucked distasteful d--- and reluctantly chowed p---y out of some misplaced form of rebellion, it should still be allowed.

The truth is, gay sex is between consenting adults, and it hurts no one but those adults – there are way more deadly car accidents caused by beers than queers. You may consider gayness to be a bad choice, but two people should be free to make bad choices together. And what people want to do for fun in their private life is something that should be allowed, no matter how distasteful it may be to me.

Agreed. See Discredited Argument #1.

— — —

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Game of Polo?

Critics and other journalists who cover movies and television shows seem to love to write about consanguinamory under headlines mentioning "incest," even as they insist that the idea is disturbing or disgusting to them.

Over at decider.com, Meghan O'Keefe wrote about Netflix's Marco Polo.

Game of Thrones gets a lot of flak from critics for its use of sex and nudity and violence to propel its storylines. To be fair, the show’s entire meandering plot is sparked when little Bran Stark stumbles upon twins Jaime and Cersei Lannister doing it “doggy style” in a tower.
Bonus points for working in Game of Thrones. Too bad she never gets Flowers in the Attic in there.

Still, Netflix‘s Marco Polo might have just made Game of Thrones look like the moral equivalent of Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood*. In a series of flashbacks, we discover exactly why Ahmad (Mahesh Jadu) is so hellbent on destroying his adoptive father Kublai Khan (Benedict Wong) — and it’s extremely disturbing.
Yes, yes, of course it has to be disturbing.

What follows is considered a spoiler, so if you're watching the show and you're not caught up to Season 2, Episode 5, you are warned.
— — —

NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #16


“Some men will be left out as polygyny increases.” This is based on the assumption that in a culture with gender equality, polygyny would still be more plentiful than polyandry. Anti-equality people, based on this assumption, insist that this will result in unmarried men devolving into criminals.

The mistake here is assuming that the second, third, etc. wives in a polygynous marriage would have wanted one of those unmarried men rather than legally sharing the man they did marry, and that the unmarried men would in turn want to marry them. Some of those men may want to marry men, or not marry at all. Why not allow people to marry the person or people of their choice? Why try to force people to settle? Also, the system is not closed. There are billions of people in the world and more and more people are reaching the age and status of eligibility every second.

There was a study attempting to link polygny to criminal behavior in unmarried/unpartnered men based in part on nineteenth century frontier America. Things have changed a little since then. And guess what? Married men commit crime, too. Most of the men in prison have been married, were married or had at least one girlfriend at the time they were convicted.

Maybe men in the hypothetical polygynous community who don’t get married are violent people. Is it better that they have a wife to beat instead of committing crimes on the street? I don’t want to be the one who tells a woman she can’t marry the man/men or woman/women she wants; rather, she has to marry a less desirable man so that he can take his aggression out on her.

The warnings that polyamorous or polygamous freedom to marry will result in an increase of violent gangs of unmarried men committing crimes falls flat when one considers the overwhelming data revealing both that 1) Men in the US are getting married for the first time later than ever, and 2) Crime rates in the US have decreased.

There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (and any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #15 

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #17
— — —

Tuesday, July 12, 2016