Thursday, August 11, 2016

Horror: Letting Some Adults Love Each Other Might Lead to More Love

With news of Monica and Caleb's love and unjust prosecution (and Genetic Sexual Attraction) going viral, it was expected that the professional columnists and bloggers who make their living repeating how important they think it is it is for everyone to live under their particular religious rules would pile on along with the knuckle-dragging haters.

Here are just two examples.

Matt Walsh, if I have it right, is a Roman Catholic, probably one of those who, unlike most American Roman Catholics, thinks using condoms or contraceptive pills is a really bad thing to do. And he writes as though everyone else needs to live under his brand of Roman Catholicism. He writes at right-wing site

The Daily Mail reports on the controversial romance of a New Mexico couple who reconnected after many years apart and fell instantly in love upon meeting again. It would be like something right out of a fairy tale, if not for the fact that the two lovebirds are related. Not just related, but mother and son.
You'd never know from what Walsh wrote there that Caleb was adopted at birth and raised by others, only reconnecting with his birth mother as an adult. He gets to that later, when people have stopped reading.
The story is dark, twisted, and stomach-churning.
Only in that they are being persecuted by their own government for loving each other.
Incest is still illegal in all 50 states, so one or both of them may wind up in prison for several months.
It is NOT illegal in all 50 states. But Walsh apparently doesn't research.
They say they are in love. They say their love is just as loving as anyone else’s love. They say they aren’t hurting anybody. They say they’re consenting adults. They say this is none of the government’s business.
And Walsh doesn't demonstrate otherwise.

They even have the requisite sciency-sounding name for their lifestyle choice. They claim they’re experiencing “GSA,” which stands for “genetic sexual attraction.”
Which is a real thing, as some people who've thought like Walsh have found out for themselves.
and, as the reasoning goes, if a lot of people wish to do a certain thing then that thing must be OK, even natural.
The reasoning goes that sex is not a bad thing between consenting adults and that it isn't anyone else's place to interfere.
Gee, where have we heard these rationales before?
These anti-equality types who are professional columnists/bloggers... they don't have a good argument. All they do is jump up and down and say "See! I told you it would be like this!!!" Yeah, when desegregation came around plenty of people "warned" that "n-----s are going to steal our white women!" And yes, there are more interracial marriages now AS THERE SHOULD BE!!!

They are simply counting on their readers' "eew" reaction.

Walsh then admits this is consensual, but likens it to graverobbing. Uh, OK.
This is the main reason why incest between adults is illegal: it’s wrong. Debased. Animalistic. Revolting.
We're still waiting for a real argument, not Walsh repeating that he finds it to be disgusting.

Walsh then admits it isn't hurting anyone.

It could be argued — accurately, in my view — that aside from the birth defects, legalized incest would hurt society by fundamentally perverting the institution of the family.
Discredited Argument #19.
Yes, people who harbor incestuous fantasies may act on them regardless of the law, but it would be incredibly damaging for the State to officially declare, “OK, the relationship between son and mother, brother and sister, uncle and niece, is now a legitimate forum for sexual exploration. Also, you can get married."
How would that be damaging? Wash simply repeats Discredited Argument #19.
Now, I happen to believe that they’re expressing their love in a severely disordered way, and that their particular brand of love should not be turned into a legal institution, nor should it be considered a good enough reason to allow the institution of marriage to include mothers and sons.
Walsh appears to be starting from the position that nobody has a right to their freedom of association unless he approves.

If that’s all it takes for Adam and Steve to get married, why not Monica and Caleb?
Walsh repeatedly bashes gays in this piece as well as consaguinamorous people, but offers no justification for his discrimination other than long-discredited arguments.

Walsh goes on to try guilt by false association, also taking swipes at polyamorous people along the way.

He finishes up with Discredited Argument #7.

Thus, he never provides a single good reason why anyone, whether gay, polyamorous, or consanguinamorous, should be denied their fundamental rights.

Here's Jane's take on Walsh.

Let's move on to another Religious Right guy, Michael L. Brown, who, like Walsh, has consistently written against relationships that don't fit the narrow hetero-monogamous nonconsanguineous mold. Like Walsh, he asks at his own website why they can't marry, and then never gives a good reason to support his position that they shouldn't.

Why not? If the relationship is adult and consensual, especially if the relationship does not produce children who could have genetic defects, then what’s wrong with adult, consensual incest?
He never answers the question.
For the long term good of our society, then, we need to keep this wall firmly in place while rebuilding the wall against homosexual “marriages.” And while we’re at it, let’s rebuild the wall against no-fault divorce, since a true wedding vow does not say “as long as we both shall love” but “as long as we both shall live.”
Next he'll be back to banning sex toys.
And so, we say to this mother and son, “You might well be experiencing the most intense feelings you’ve ever had for another individual, and you might feel that your love is absolutely pure. But your relationship is not what God intended, and as a society, we cannot condone it.”
So our laws should impose what Brown claims to be a message from God? That's Discredited Argument #4.

Brown's column is very much like Walsh's.

Sometimes people like this strike me as frustrated. They've stuck to the rules (if they are to believed) their church teaches and by golly, how dare anybody else enjoy themselves and each other??? Only heterosexual monogamists should be able to be in love, and only under certain narrow conditions!

If that's the way they want to live, fine, but imposing it on others by throwing people in prison and denying them their fundamental rights isn't the way to go. We'll all be a lot better off with relationship rights and full marriage equality for all. GSA should be decriminalized at part of that.

People are making death threats against Monica and Caleb. For what? Because they love each other. If you want to talk about what is sick, it is hating someone and threatening their lives because they love each other.
— — —

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.