Monday, August 6, 2018

NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #6

“Your relationship will hurt children.” This is usually said by people who themselves hurt children by denying rights to the parents of those children and telling the children that their parents are wrong for loving each other, perpetuating a stigma about the children and their families.

Don’t want children of these relationships to be hurt? Then stop hurting their families.

Adults having a relationship with each other, adults reproducing together, and adults raising children together are three different things. Adults can do any one of those without doing the other two, or any two of those without doing the third. Or, to put it another way, we’re talking about sex, relationships, and marriage, not about reproduction or adoption or parenting. Most sex does not result in a birth.

We don’t deny people their right to be together because they can’t or won’t reproduce. We don’t deny people their right to be together because they won’t be good candidates for adoption. We don’t test people on their parenting skills before we allow them to marry, but if we did, a lot of the prejudiced people who want to deny rights to others would fail, while many people who are still fighting for their relationship rights would pass with flying colors.

So this reason to oppose equality already fails. But for the sake of argument let’s assume there will be children.

A polyamorous relationship generally means a child is going to have more supervision  and additional role models in a cooperative environment. How is that supposed to be inferior to having bickering parents and stepparents from supposedly monogamous marriage? It is legal to reproduce and raise children alone, or with others in the home who aren't monogamous spouses. A woman can live with both fathers of her children, but can't legally marry both even though that is what everyone wants? Why deny polyamorous people protections, including marriage?

Anti-equality people claim a study shows children from polygynous families have "considerably lower" survival rates, but the data is from nineteenth century frontier areas and places in Africa where diseases and genocide are significant problems. The study doesn’t address polyandry, same-gender polygamy, polygamy consisting or multiple men and women, and other forms of polyamory. The other claim is that adolescent boys are driven from polygynous (again, just polygynous and not any other form of polyamory)  societies, but there are many adolescent boys driven from their heterosexual monogamous homes because they are gay, or boys who run away for the sake of personal freedom, rather than deal with familial or peer pressure to adhere to certain rules and expectations. Or they can’t stand their “monogamous” parent’s new girlfriend or boyfriend.

In a consanguinamorous relationship, adopted or step-parented children are not going to suffer in comparison to nonconsanguineous relationships.

Many people wrongly say that any children born to consanguineous parents will have birth defects, and that this is a good reason to ban such relationships. However, most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. It is entirely legal for people with obvious or hidden serious genetic diseases to date, have sex, marry, and have children. Why should healthy consanguineous lovers be denied their rights? Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from marrying or having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry, let alone reproductive rights.

Anyone concerned about these things should have genetic testing and counseling. People who are not close relatives can pass along health problems, too. But there are people born with problems who have made great contributions to the world, and genetically healthy people born to close relatives are common enough that we all know some, whether we know their true genetic parentage or not, and whether they know it or not. It is that common. I personally know children from such relationships who are healthy and bright; adorable children and attractive adults.

Where does this knowing what is best for the children of other people stop? Should single parents lose custody? Should we compel pregnant women to get a specific kind of prenatal care? Are we going to genetically screen and then sterilize people with genetic problems? There are children being raised right now by people who want to get married, and yet are denied their right to marry.

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:

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #5

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #7 
— — —


  1. I really like your views. Relationship is the main part of our happily life.

  2. Some of us are gregarious enough to like being in a tribe, and I believe there is resilience that is not achievable with traditional insurance.

  3. You read my mind. Thanks for the post. You said it perfectly. "Dont want children of these relationships hurt? Then stop hurting their families!" Thats what these people dont understand. They are the ones hurting the kids. I wish they would stop drinking the haterade!

  4. Why dont people understand that children from a polyamorous relationship will have more people loving them which means that they will be taken care of better. Is it because they cant undrestand or dont want to understand. Love should be multiplied.

  5. What scares me most, is where does knowing whats best for children stop. And who is it that gets to decide? Why do other people think they have a right to tell us how we can live!

    1. nobody has a right to decide who to love right? so its not about child marriage except its about adult marriage.

  6. My question is, why do people think that children born to consanguineous parents will have birth defects? Where does that come from? I know children from such relationships and they are some of the happiest, healthiest, and yes attractive people.

    1. Because up until this last century royal families practiced inter-marriage purly as a way to keep the bloodline "pure." After several generations of this, the children began to develop deformities because they had many, many copies of the same genes. The Hapsburgs are probably the most noted, as are the ancient Egyptians (look up King Tut).


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.