Monday, April 29, 2019

NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #1

“It is disgusting.” Also known as the “ick” or “eww” factor, this explains why the person using the argument would not want to enter into the type of relationship or marriage or have the kind sex they want banned, but their own personal disgust is not a justification for preventing other people from doing something those other people want to do. Don’t want to have an (adult) intergenerational or interracial or same-gender or polyamorous or consanguineous marriage? Don’t have one. Some people are disgusted by the idea of heterosexual sex, or their parents having sex, but obviously this is not a justification to ban those things. Some people find prejudice and bigotry, a lack of marriage equality, disgusting. Meanwhile, the people in these relationships aren’t disgusted. How they love each other should be be up to them.

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 (or 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:

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #2
— — —


  1. The Westermarck effect probably has a lot to do with the 'ew' factor.

  2. This is just my opinion, but I think The Westermarck effect is just another social construct created by mainstream society to deny the possibilities that may exist between individuals if there was no such thing as stigma..

    1. Actually, there's quite a bit of empirical proof that the Westermarck Effect is real. It's just not understood how it actually works, how it can be broken, and what percentage of the population naturally lack it. For sure, though, there are people who are desperate to be in a consanguinamorous relationship, but who refrain because of shame. There are also people who tried a consanguinamorous relationship, and failed because shame corrupted it.

      I don't see why advocates would necessarily even want to go the full Freudian route. If the Westermarck Effect is valid, then that means legalizing and normalizing consanguinamory won't have much meaningful effect on the prevalence of long-term consanguinamorous relationships. It would be related to the number of reunited relatives, and the number of people who naturally lack the Effect, both of which wouldn't be affected by social or political forces. When people understand that allowing same-sex marriage won't turn their kids gay, because their kids either will or won't have same-sex attractions regardless, it's easier for them to accept it. Same-sex marriages and relationships become a negligible issue because they have no meaningful effect on genuine heterosexual relationships. The same could then be said for consanguinamory.

      That said, I still think the taboo specifically is heavily socially constructed, just like the taboo against homosexuality. However, in the same way that the general preference for heterosexuality makes homosexuality relatively rare, the Westermarck Effect makes consanguinamory relatively rare. A taboo is easier to internalize when the actuality of its violation is foreign - no-one sees anyone doing it, so the idea of doing it is that much more bizarre, and thus easier to maintain feelings of disgust against. The taboo just makes it even more rare to see, by pushing it underground. This is why the growing visibility of healthy homosexuals and bisexuals over the past few decades has lead to such a seismic shift in opinions about same-sex marriage. When a taboo is supported by the invisibility of most "offenders", sunlight becomes the ultimate antidote.

  3. What is the age of a consenting adult? Is statutory rape even real if marriage equality was allowed? Does everyone who thinks "love is love" know that they stand for all different kinds of marriages allowed or just your personal opinion? What about animals, what is there say in this? What about children seeing their parents having sex with animals? Is this okay!?

    I've worked in the sex industry, and I know for a fact that when people want to outlive they're freakiest fantasy, there would be a lot of crazy BS going on. Especially dealing with innocent children going on seeing the nonsense. What about the children!?

    1. Adults are people our broad legal system generally allows to enter into contacts, such as marriage. When it comes to sex or marriage the age of consent can vary, but I don't see any good reason to raise it higher than 18.
      As far as children, that is covered here

  4. That didn't answer any of my questions? Especially dealing with children viewing adults having sex with animals. You may say that this blog is only for incest but you stand for marriage equality so you're for beastiality. So with that being said what about the children??
    Yes children are affected and hurt by seeing a human have sex with an animal. But if a child think this is the norm what would stop them from mimicking the behavior?? Are we not influenced by our parents?
    I used to stand for marriage equality, then the sex industry opened my eyes and showed me people don't have boundaries, whatsoever. Like sleeping with puppies :'(

    So when considering changing a law like this, we have to evaluate All possibilities. . Especially dealing with maniacs out here! I could tell you soo many stories.

    1. Last I checked, other species, like puppies, we're not not considered consenting adults who could enter legally binding contracts, which is what marriage is from a legal perspective. So whether you are serious or trolling, you are wasting time with these comments.

    2. You do realize that you are the ONLY one talking about beastiality? I have never seen a single statement in this blog that condones or advocates for the right for humans to engage in any type of sexual conduct or intimate relationship with animals.
      Furthermore, ANYONE that would allow their child to watch them have sex should be charged with multiple crimes, whether that sex is with an animal or not.
      You speak about these things as if they are running rampant. Where do you live for this to be such a problem?
      As Keith said, in no way can any species other than humans consent to sex or a contract (marriage) with another human. Children cannot consent because they are minors. Animals cannot consent because they lack the capacity. Inanimate objects cannot consent because they are not living. It is not that difficult to understand the parameters in this blog. The points are clear and concise. You are arguing against something that no one here is advocating or even condoning.


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.