Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Support for the Consanguineous Freedom to Marry

Teddy Papes makes the argument for the consanguineous freedom to marry.

The argument that it is gross certainly has no bearing. Many people are bothered by homosexual relationships and consider them unnatural or depraved. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that should not give these opinions any legal credibility. Our sensibilities changed for interracial marriage, our sensibilities are changing for gay marriage and our sensibilities should, and most likely will, change for incestuous marriages.

An anonymous response support full marriage equality…

I like the article and have often felt the same way. I would ask the author, and suggest as well, that this same concept should be applied to polygamy. Again, it would ONLY APPLY TO CONSENTING ADULTS, but if that caveat is fulfilled, I've never understood why some people can be so hypocritical, or at least, insensitive, while advocating gay marriage rights, and not those of other minority groups who are of legal age, and able to consent, but cannot get married.

Another anonymous comment was ridiculous, referring to same-sex marriage…

If it was supposed to happen, then homosexuals would be able to reproduce with each other. If any species is entirely homosexual, it could never survive.

This comment is based on the idea that marriage can only be about reproduction through sex. One must wonder if this person would prevent all people who are unable or unwilling to reproduce by having sex with each other from marrying. Cancer survivors, post-menopausal women… who else gets left out?

And, finally, another anonymous comment…

brothers marrying sisters? mothers marrying sons, fathers marrying daughters? at what age are they allowed to court?

The age of consent, of course, or in the case of minors who are close in age, whatever is allowed.

at what age, if this were a common practice, would they begin to find interest in the other?

The same as they do now. What does it matter? Minors find interest in each other all of the time, and aren’t of legal marrying age.

this completely breaks down a society and relationship structures and its ramifications would be insidious.

This is a form of Discredited Argument #19.

The fact is, there are consanguinamorous relationships. There is a good chance anyone reading this who is not involved in one themselves has known someone who is or has been in one, whether you know it or not. Some live as spouses, and they should have their marriages legalized if that is what they want. Others would marry if they could do so without the risk of prosecution or persecution. They should have that right.
— — —

No comments:

Post a Comment

To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE. If your comment includes graphic descriptions of activity involving minors, it's not going to get published.