DebateOut.com Covers Consanguinamory

A journalist by the name of Katie Dupere politely contacted me a little while back to invite me to participate in what has turned into this, a debate about consanguineous sex and relationships at debateout.com. The title is "Falling for Family: Should Consensual Incest Be Legal?"

There in input from Dr. Michael Brown, who gives an anti-equality view. Of course to Brown, all sex other than Christians in a heterosexual closed monogamous nonconsanguineous marriage is wrong, and if I had to guess I'd say his position is primarily based on his religion.

In saying consanguinamory should not be legalized, he says...

You don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.

We have a pretty good idea why it was put up. And we have US states and countries where it is not criminalized and there haven't been problems as a result.

And it is so critically important that family members do not look at each other in a sexualized or romantic way. It opens the door for all kinds of abuse for children.

That's like saying heterosexual marriage opens the door for all kinds of abuse of children. After all, if a man can legally marry a woman, it will be easier for him to legally marry an underage girl, right? Well, no, not when we have other laws about minors and consent and such.

Then he threw in Discredited Argument #18 and statements like this...

There is something sacred within the family. There is something where children must feel safe with parents. Where parents must have a special view of their children as children.

None of that is changed when consensual adult sex is decriminalized.

If kids are raised separately and meet later in life and experience what some call Genetic Sexual Attraction, you really open a Pandora’s box.

So what are the problems? He doesn't say.


Again he says...

The biggest issue is once the home and family relationships are no longer protected and sacred, anything is possible.

Notice that he says "protected" and "sacred" but never explains what that means, or how that is damaged by letting consenting adults be together without fear of being thrown into prison.

Kenneth Eisold, Psychoanalyst is also consulted...

So if it is two people who are cousins or a brother and sister are wanting to get married or engage in a sexual relationship, I don’t think that should be prohibited, but I think they should be fully aware about the danger of having children, given the genetic consequences.

And Debra Lieberman, Assistant Professor at the University of Miami...

“A person might then say, ‘Forget about the disgust. Let’s think about the genetic effects.’ That’s a very bad argument. First, a brother and a sister having sex doesn’t automatically guarantee that you are going to have offspring with some deformity. It increases the chance, sure. But it is not a reason to fine and punish and jail people for it. There are other conditions — many other conditions — that can lead to genetic mutations in offspring.

From our favorite fiction writer, Diane Rinella...

“Could you have controlled your birth circumstances? Did you choose your blood relatives?
“In some states, the penalty for consensual sex with someone you share cells with is life in prison. Yes, LIFE. Example: In Alabama, the highest penalty for rape is life or 10-99 years. Theoretically you could serve only 10 years for ruining someone’s life through rape, but get life in jail for consensual sex if you share genes with that person. It’s the same in Georgia. In South Carolina rape is a maximum 30-year sentence. In Tennessee we are looking at 15-25 years. Again, these figures are for the most brutal cases of rape imaginable that do not result in death. They are also in states that convict those in consensual incestuous relationships for life. This makes zero sense to me.”

Thanks again, Diane!

And finally, there's my contribution as well as excerpts from this blog from people who are experienced in consanguinamory.