Translate

Friday, April 26, 2024

Consanguinamorists Are Part of Society

Bigots against consanguinamory frequently bring up rare examples of individuals or an isolated family in which there has apparently been many generations of close inbreeding, and the problems these individuals or families have. This is supposed to be justification for discriminating against the consanguinamorous.

This is as ridiculous as saying something like, "Look up Scott Peterson" as to why non-consanguinamorous relationships are bad.

Most consanguinamorous relationships are between people like your neighbors, co-workers, classmates, and "ordinary" people you know. You know healthy, bright, attractive, friendly people whose parents are close genetic relatives, whether you know their true genetic parentage or not. They might not even know. Meanwhile, there are people who have inherited serious genetic diseases and their parents were not close genetic relatives.

It is also important to remember that "birth defects" can be caused by many things, including environment, abuse, substances ingested by parents, and other factors.

Two or more closely related individuals wanting to share sex, romance, a residence, or marriage is not the same thing as many generations of isolated inbreeding.

We have examples. For example, we can compare births in US states that have no criminal laws against consanguinamory to states with strict laws against consanguinamory. Spoiler: states that do not criminalize consanguinamory do not have a higher genetic disease rate than states that criminalize first cousins for having sex.

Instead of continuing the discriminate against lovers, we should be encouraging the use of modern science and technology to prevent, mitigate, and treat what is of concern.

It is also important to reject ableist bigotry that dehumanizes people with certain genetic conditions.

This blog does not encourage anyone to literally or figuratively isolate themselves from the rest of society and inbreed in perpetuity for generation after generation, so citing examples of that misses the point.

There simply is no good reason to deny 
consanguineous lovers their fundamental rights, including full marriage equality.


As always, feel free to comment below, which can be done anonymously.
— — —

5 comments:

  1. I made the mistake of looking up Scott Peterson.

    I am very happy that most of my friends and acquaintances are happy, healthy, loving people... Consanguinamorous or otherwise.

    Criminalise hate. Celebrate love. ❤️

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “A lie can travel around the world before the truth can get its pants on.” The myth of birth defects in consang relationships are the result of manipulation and lies to control people and make them believe if you have sex with your relative, you’ll run the risk of a child with birth defects. Genetically Testing today is easy, inexpensive, and not illegal.

      Delete
  2. Thank you for this article, I've never understood the logic behind this argument against consanguinamory. Of course, bigotry isn't founded in logic, but regardless, this argument has always been so obviously flawed to me even before I learned more about this topic. Arguing that a relationship is wrong because of a slightly reduced chance that the couple could have a healthy child with each other is patently ridiculous and clearly bigoted, but so many people, even otherwise progressive people, parrot that argument because of how normalized bigotry against consanguinamory is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When people mention possible birth defects, which is a rubbish argument against family relationships/sex, they assume the people want children. Some people just want sex.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The birth defect argument only makes sense if you are choosing the best genetic partner to have kids with. What women is seriously saying “oh I’m fertile again, I must choose between the following candidates to carry their child”.

    The choice of inbreeding is almost always: do or don’t. Its have a child with them or don’t have a child. Bringing new life into the world with someone or simply not. That child will always be a dice-roll, as with any pregnancy.

    I think of asking those inbred “would you rather not be born? Would you rather that had chosen not to give you life?”. Who would say yes to this? In which case who are you protecting from these exaggerated ill effects? I guarantee the hypothetical child will be happy at being given life by you either way.

    Like most, it’s nothing more than society making us feel bad for no good reason.

    If you want to inbreed, get inbred. Anything which brings forth new life can only be good.


    ReplyDelete

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.