Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Hating on Stuebing

Here are a couple of more reactions to the case of Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski. Stuebing was the man who was prosecuted for having consensual sex with Susan in what appears to be a case of Genetic Sexual Attraction.These reactions show that bigotry and ignorance are alive and well.

Sasha Brown-Worsham at says they deserve sympathy, not sentencing, but I say they only reason they need sympathy is because of the hateful bigotry applied to their relationship by outsiders. SBW makes it clear hos she feels from the start...
Want to know what is really, really unsexy? Incest.
Many, many people would beg to disagree.

But the laws that make it illegal are there for a reason. Clearly someone thought it wasn't very gross at all.

And why would it need to be discouraged in the first place?
The reason incest is illegal is usually for the children, and in this case, their decision to have children did result in disabilities. So while their relationship itself isn't wrong, their decision to have children is.
Discredited Argument #18.  Does SBW tell people who carry certain genes not to have children? Does she tell women over 35 not to have children?

The fact is 99.9999999 percent of us are utterly repulsed by the idea of incest and those who aren't are not criminals.
Wrong on both accounts. A sizable minority of the population has engaged in some form of incest and enjoyed it. Consangunamory is still illegal in many places, though it shouldn't be. So many of the comments left are full of ignorance and hate.

Meanwhile, over at the Dienekes Anthropology Blog, this case prompted the question, "Should incestuous marriages be allowed?"

The blogger appears to want to exclude not only consanguinamorous people from marriage, but poly people and LGBT people.
In recent years, the trend has been one towards laissez-faire in the regulation of human affairs. This has been most evident in the case of same sex "marriage", whose advocates actively frame the question in terms of the "rights" of consenting persons.
Oooh, scare quotes!
Those who hold to this view, however, often promote the "right" to marriage of their own particular interest group (mostly of the homosexual community), but downplay similar claims to marriage of other groups (e.g., prohibition against polygamy, incest, young marriage, etc.)

No, we support the the rights of all consenting adults. I don't throw others under the bus here.
To conclude: questions such as "should incestuous marriage be allowed?" force us all to think about who decides the "should."
How about the participants, rather than outsiders? The blogger thinks priests should do it. Okay, from which religion? Religions that allow consanguinamory, or polygamy, or same-gender marriage? What about in countries where we have separation of church and state and a constitution that guarantees equal protection?
— — —

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.