Myth: People in GSA Relationships Don’t Need the Freedom to Marry

Reality: Some people in Genetic Sexual Attraction relationships need and want the freedom to marry, and there is no good reason for them to be denied their right to marry if they’re consenting adults.

Because people experiencing GSA are close genetic relatives, some people argue that they don’t need their right to marry because they’re already family. However, they might not be considered family under the law, although in a loathsome double-standard, they may still be subject to discriminatory laws based on their genetic relation.

Those who are already sharing their lives as spouses, or want to, often do need the same rights, benefits, and protections as any other spouses. Also, marriage automatically provides for next-of-kin status, which is especially important when there is some discord between the lovers and others who are legally recognized as family. For example, if brothers Adam and Steve have been living as spouses for years and Steve winds up in a coma in the hospital, Steve’s estranged, bigoted, adoptive parents would likely be able to usurp Adam’s rights to make decisions.

An adult should be free to marry any and all consenting adults.

See Myth: Acting on GSA Needs to be Criminalized, Prosecuted, and Stopped

See Myth: I Don’t Know Anyone Who Has Experienced GSA

NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #10

“Polyamory/polygamy spreads sexually transmitted infections.” Unprotected sex with someone who is infected is how such infections may be transmitted. Twenty people could have group sex and a group marriage for fifty years and if none of them brings an infection into the marriage and they only have sex with each other, none of them will get a sexually transmitted infection.

We do not deny people their freedom to marry based on which diseases they have. In most places, people can legally have sex with multiple partners anyway. Polyfidelity can be encouraged if polygamy is legalized and polyamory is no longer stigmatized, which would actually reduce disease transmission. Polyamorous people tend to be more careful about prevention, safer sex, and actually talking about the issues involved.

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: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #9 

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #11

NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #19

“There are so many people outside of your family. Go marry/have sex with one of them, instead. It creates friendships between families.” There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. I have many friends outside of my family to whom I’m neither married nor married to a relative of theirs. On the other hand, don't we all know unrelated married couples who actually drive their relatives apart from each other? Let adults marry the consenting adult(s) of her or his choice.

Telling someone who is happy with their lover that they should dump that person (or even be prosecuted for being with that person) and should be denied their right to marry because there is someone else they can be with instead is an arrogant and usually, very much a cruel intrusion into someone else's life. How would the person who says this like it if someone told them they had to drop their lover (if they have one) and go find someone else, even though they are consenting adults who want to be together and are happy together?

There are people in consanguinamorous relationships who could never find as much love and happiness with someone else, and trying to force them to do so isn't fair to anyone, including the person for whom they "settle." There are people who are consanguinamorous in their orientation.

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 (and 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: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #18

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #20

Lies and Damned Lies About Polygamy

[Note: I am bumping up this previous entry because it is as relevant as ever. Polygamy is not something to escape from, fear, or prosecute. Abusive people are. Polygamy doesn't harm women, children, or teen boys, abusers do. The same goes for monogamy.]

Good ol’ tool of anti-equality forces, Professor Joe Henrich of the University of B.C., is back in the news. This article comes with a picture of Bountiful, B.C. (which is NOT the picture shown here) along with this text…

New research says that polygamy, which is practiced in Bountiful, B.C., leads to increased crime.

Right. Everyone avoids driving near Bountiful because of the high crime rate.

Prof. Joe Henrich found that when rich men take more than one wife, it leaves a deficit of women leading to increased fighting and competition for the remaining women.

Got that? You non-wealthy or unmarried guys are just a bunch of criminals.

Henrich is taking about women as though they have no minds of their own and are nothing but property, akin to cars.

Rich men can “take” more than one woman, marriage or not. Shall we ban all nonmonogamy? Or, since it might lower the crime rate according to this line of thinking, shall we require a woman to find an unmarried man and keep him busy so he won’t go around being a violent criminal?

"You have low-status men who are desperate for resources," said Henrich, a professor in the departments of psychology and economics. "More polygamy leads to a greater proportion of unmarried men, which leads to increased crime."

How does Henrich explain “low status” men who marry a woman and support her decision to not earn income as she tends to the children or earn less income than she and their children will spend? Wouldn’t it make sense, in Henrich’s view, for such men to never marry and have children, so as to be less “desperate for resources?”

Henrich and his co-authors studied societies where polygamy is prevalent, trying to discover the consequences.

Did they also conclude that polygamy causes high amounts of melanin?

"The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried women," said Henrich. "The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behaviour to gain resources and women."

I wonder why the article doesn’t cite examples?

I also wonder how much funding for this, or how much of Henrich’s pay, comes from the very government that has banned the polygamous freedom to marry and is actively attacking polygynous families?

We’ve already debunked all of this here, here, here, here, here, and here. We will need many more dung beetles to clear this pile up.

An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults. These excuses to deny full marriage equality are flimsy masks that fail to hide festering bigotry.

Ten Myths About Sibling Consanguinamory

I’ve noticed some common myths expressed about sibling consanguinamory. In this instance, by consanguinamory, I mean everything from curious exploration and experimenting to erotic romance, including masturbating in front of each other, erotic kissing, sexual touching or rubbing, oral sex, intercourse, etc.

This entry is NOT addressing molestation, assault, or abuse.

I’m referring to adult siblings, or minor siblings who are close in age, engaging in mutual affection or experimentation, without coercion, force, or intimidation. It may be two siblings alone, it may be three or more siblings, or it may be two or more siblings involved together with one or more people outside of the immediate family.

These myths need to be addressed, because they perpetuate inequality, discrimination, hardship, confusion, stigmas, ignorance, and fear.

Myth #1 “It doesn’t happen” or “It happens very rarely” or “I don’t know anyone who has done this.” Just because one person hasn’t been involved or doesn’t remember being involved with sibling doesn’t mean it isn’t happening with others. It is, and it always has. Ongoing sexual relationships between siblings are common enough that everyone knows someone who is, or has been in, such a relationship, and far more siblings than that have had an encounter or experimented, explored, or played doctor. Reality: We all know people who've been involved, whether we know it or not.

NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #5

“It's not natural." Many people have been embarrassed by making this argument, because it is so easy to refute by a cursory survey of sexual, mating, and partnering habits of various animals. But invariably, the person saying that a relationship should not be allowed because they think it is unnatural constantly enjoys things that aren’t natural, from their smart phones to their toiletries to their food to their clothing to their transportation to their housing… on and on it goes. “Hey! You can’t ride a bicycle! It’s not natural!” See how ridiculous that is?

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: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #4

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #6 

NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #16

“Some men will be left out as polygyny increases.” This is based on the assumption that in a culture with gender equality, polygyny would still be more plentiful than polyandry. Anti-equality people, based on this assumption, insist that this will result in unmarried men devolving into criminals.

The mistake here is assuming that the second, third, etc. wives in a polygynous marriage would have wanted one of those unmarried men rather than legally sharing the man they did marry, and that the unmarried men would in turn want to marry them. Some of those men may want to marry men, or not marry at all. Why not allow people to marry the person or people of their choice? Why try to force people to settle? Also, the system is not closed. There are billions of people in the world and more and more people are reaching the age and status of eligibility every second.

There was a study attempting to link polygny to criminal behavior in unmarried/unpartnered men based in part on nineteenth century frontier America. Things have changed a little since then. And guess what? Married men commit crime, too. Most of the men in prison have been married, were married or had at least one girlfriend at the time they were convicted.

Maybe men in the hypothetical polygynous community who don’t get married are violent people. Is it better that they have a wife to beat instead of committing crimes on the street? I don’t want to be the one who tells a woman she can’t marry the man/men or woman/women she wants; rather, she has to marry a less desirable man so that he can take his aggression out on her.

The warnings that polyamorous or polygamous freedom to marry will result in an increase of violent gangs of unmarried men committing crimes falls flat when one considers the overwhelming data revealing both that 1) Men in the US are getting married for the first time later than ever, and 2) Crime rates in the US have decreased.

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 (and 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: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #15 

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #17

Consanguinamory is Not Sick

As this blog and others have repeatedly shown, there is no good reason to keep laws, discrimination, or stigmas against consanguinamory (consanguineous or consensual incest sex or relationships) that is consistently applied to other relationships. One of the grasping-at-straws assertions that one might make when all of their justifications for denying rights fails is "people who do that are sick" or "those relationships are dysfunctional."

Before we do anything else, let's make it clear that we're talking about consensual sex and relationships, not abuse. It's not fair to point to abuse, assault, child molestation, etc. by a close relative as an example of how "incest" is "sick".

Alleging psychological problems or mental illness is something best left to mental health professionals, such as a psychiatrist (a medical doctor) or a psychologist. The opinion of someone without such credentials and some experience should be suspect. So, if someone makes the claim that we should criminalize or otherwise discriminate against consanguinamory because the behavior is based on mental illness, they should be asked 1) for their credentials; 2) if they have personally conducted an evaluation of the individuals involved and the dynamics of their relationship, and; 3) if all relationships they personally think are based on mental illness should be likewise criminalized or discriminated against. Usually, calling consanguinamory "sick" is just a thinly veiled variation on Discredited Arguments #1 and 3.

Is Polyamory Just a Renamed Swinger Lifestyle or Open Marriage?

No. This is a common misconception.

Swinging, open marriage, and polyamory are all forms of ethical, disclosed, or consensual nonmonogamy, meaning none of them are cheating, but they aren’t the same thing as each other.

Swingers have casual sex at clubs, events, or parties, usually ones that are mainly there or being held for the swinging element. Couples (and triads, and...) who swing have agreed with each other to do so.

Polyamory involves having a dating, romantic, partner, or spousal relationship with more than one person in a way to which those involved have agreed. For example, three people might live together as partners with each other in a triad. Or, one person might have ongoing dating relationships with three different people, none of whom spend time with each other, but all three of them are aware and agreeable to the fact that the person they are dating is seeing other people, not for the purposes of “picking” one of them, but on a continuing basis. Each of them may or may not be seeing or living with other partners. Polyamory can take many different forms.

An open marriage or open relationship is a marriage or relationship that isn't closed to new partners. The people in the marriage or relationship have agreed that one, both, or all of them are open to finding new partners, whether separately or together, whether those partners are for casual sex (like with swinging, or hookups, or threesomes) or a spousal relationship (like with polyamory), or some other way.

People in an open marriage or open relationship might swing, or might be polyamorous, or might look for casual encounters that aren't part of swinging. But many polyamorous people are in closed relationships and aren't open to having new partners. Some swingers consider their marriage or relationship only open for swinging and not anything else; it's not a generally open relationship and neither or none of them are looking for anyone outside of the context of swinging.

So...

Swingers may or may not consider themselves polyamorous.
Polyamorous partners may or may not swing.
Swingers might be in an generally open relationship or only be "open" for swinging.
Polyamorous relationships can be open or closed.

Whether you know it or not, you know people who are in consensually nonmonogamous relationships. You know people who are, or have been, swingers. You know polyamorous people. You know people in open relationships. People of all walks of life find these forms of ethical nonmonogamy suit them and their relationships. Some of them are health care providers, firefighters, accountants, airline pilots, military personnel, engineers. lawyers, educators, clergy, or stay-at-home parents.

Nonmonogamous people shouldn't be discriminated against or denied their rights. Let people have the relationships to which they've mutually agreed.

Frequently Asked Question: Why Is Incest Illegal?

It shouldn’t be illegal anywhere, as you’ll see. As always, we note that we are talking about consensual incest (consanguinamory), such as between consenting adults, and between minors close in age. We are not talking about anything involving coercion or force or molestation. There are laws against rape, assault, and molestation, and they should remain. We are talking about consensual incest, consanguineous sex and marriage, and consanguinamory, whether initiated through Genetic Sexual Attraction or not.

Short answer: It isn’t illegal everywhere, but where it is, it is the lingering result of sex-police holdovers, superstition, prejudice, and legislative inertia.

Long answer:

NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #4

“My religion is against it.” If you don’t want an (adult) intergenerational, interracial, same-gender, polygamous, or consanguineous relationship or marriage, then don’t have one. But we should all have the freedoms of religion and association and in places like the US, we have separation of church and state, so this can’t be a justification for denying marriage equality or other relationships rights.

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: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #3

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #5 

A Cruel Double Standard

I've considered adding another entry to the Discredited Arguments page, because I've heard and read people say that people in consanguinamorous relationships (or step or adoptive relationships that have gone romantic) don't need the freedom to marry because they're already family. In addition to being as senseless as telling a woman she can't marry her sister's husband's brother (which is legal and does happen) because they are already family, the statement can bring up a very cruel double standard.

In many situations involving Genetic Sexual Attraction, the lovers are not legally family for the purposes of insurance, benefits, taxes, hospital visitation, next of kin, etc. because they were adopted into or born into (via sperm, egg, or embryo donation) different families. Also, in many places, when a married woman gives birth, the child is legally her spouse's child as well. What if, due to sex with someone other than her spouse, the woman's child is genetically a half-sibling to another married couple's child, and as adults they decide they'd like to marry?

The double standard is that, while these genetically related people don't enjoy the benefits of being family, in places that still have ridiculous laws discriminating against consensual adult incest, they are considered family and thus can (and are) criminally prosecuted for consensual sex or at least denied their right to marry.

You're not family so you can't get the benefit of being family. You are family so you are going to be prosecuted for having loved each other in sexual way. That's cruel.

As an example, if something were to happen to Melissa and she ended up in a hospital, her adoptive parents could bar Matthew and Linda from even being by her side, let alone making decisions about her care, even though Matthew and Linda are, for practical purposes, her spouses. She would be married to them if she could, but the law isn't there yet.

Those who are sharing, or want to share their lives as spouses or partners often do need the same rights, benefits, and protections as any other spouses, and there’s no good reason to deny them their fundamental right to marry. Also, marriage automatically provides for next-of-kin status, which is especially important when there is some discord between at least one of the lovers and legal family members outside of the consanguinamorous relationship.

There are many cruel double standards when trying to tell other consenting adults how to love each other. GSA or not, consanguinamorous people need discriminatory laws to be done away with, and need access to the protections provided by marriage, if they want them. This is yet another reason we need full marriage equality sooner rather than later.

NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #3

“Not a lot of people want to do it” or “I don’t want to do it.” This is not a justification for keeping something illegal. If anything, it is a reason laws against consensual adult relationships are wasteful and unnecessary. But we don’t deny minorities rights based on majority vote. Also, people would be surprised to know just how many people around them are in, or want to be in, or have been in, a relationship that is currently illegal or otherwise discriminated against.

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: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html


Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #2

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #4

NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #2

“It goes against tradition.” So did the abolition of slavery. In reality, (adult) intergenerational, interracial marriages, same-gender marriages, polygamous or polyamorous marriages, and consanguineous marriages are nothing new. Some of these were entered into by prominent religious leaders and historical royalty. Regardless, a tradition of inequality is not a justification for continuing to deny equality.

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: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #1

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #3 

Answering Arguments Against Polyamory

People who insist monogamy is the only acceptable relationship model, or that polyamorists should not have the same rights for their relationships as monogamists, almost always cite a few often-repeated reasons as to why. If you're polyamorous, you’ve probably heard most of these reasons, whether from coworkers, family, or complete strangers. Although I’m going to focus on polyamorous relationships, most of these are also applicable to open relationships, swinging, swapping, nonmonogamous sex, and ethical nonmonogamy in general whether the people involved identify as polyamorous or not.

Just about any objection people have to polyamory or other forms of ethical nonmonogamy fit into these common arguments, perhaps with different wording. Just so that you know, when I use the term “polygamy” I am referring to a subset of polyamory that involves marriage (whether by law, ceremony, or declaration of those involved), involving three or more spouses, whatever the structure of the relationship or the genders involved, as long as all involved are consenting adults.

1. “It is disgusting.” Also known as the “ick” or “eww” factor, this explains why the person using the argument would not want to have a polyamorous relationship, but their own personal disgust is not a justification for preventing other people from having a polyamorous relationship. Some people are disgusted by the idea of heterosexual sex, or their own parents having sex, but obviously this is not a justification to ban those things. Obviously, the consenting adults who want a polyamorous relationship aren’t disgusted by it. An effective response to this is “Don’t want a polyamorous relationship? Don’t have one.”

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: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #2

Intergenerational Relationships Can Work

Are you in or considering an intergenerational relationship? Are you against such relationships?

By “intergenerational,” I’m talking about ADULT generations. I’m talking about CONSENTING ADULTS. I just wanted to get that out of the way. I’m not talking about adults preying on minors, pedophilia, etc.

The Bad

Although not illegal, nonconsanguineous relationships between adults with a sizable age difference do face prejudice and discrimination. Stereotypical assumptions, expressed as though they are automatically negative, are made about both the younger and older people involved in such relationships.

The older person, depending on age/gender, is often said to be:

What Genealogists Know

With each previous generation you trace back, the maximum possible number of your genetic ancestors doubles. You can have 2 parents, up to 4 grandparents, up to 8 great-grandparents, up to 16 great-great-grandparents, etc.

On average, there are about four generations per century. For people born in the year 2000, their 8 great-great-grandparents were probably born around 1900. Sometime around 1800 their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents were born (there may be up to 128 of them). About 29 generations back, or roughly around the time of 1250-1300, the total number of your possible ancestors for that generation equals or exceeds the total population of the planet, which was about 500 million people.

What gives? Well, first of all, if all 500 million of those people were your ancestors, they would also be the ancestors of all of the rest of us, too.

Secondly, you probably don’t have every person alive back then as your ancestor. There wasn’t a lot of interracial or intercultural parenting going on back then. People were more isolated, more people lived in rural countrysides rather than dense urban areas, and people were not nearly as geographically or socially mobile as they are today. It was very common for a person to be born in and to die in the the same village or town, having lived all of her or his life there.

This means that for many, many, many, many generations, there was a lot of what most people would call today “inbreeding.” If your spouse wasn’t your first cousin, your spouse was likely a second or third cousin, or a second cousin-once removed, or even your double-cousin, etc. And as I’ve noted before, even if they weren’t marrying them, people were having children with siblings, aunts or uncles, etc. (Even if not having children together, what do you think went on, given that pubescent teens, like most children, were usually sharing a bedroom?) Not only did these things not destroy humanity, but in Europe, the Renaissance was birthed in these conditions.

Coming back to around 1800, very few people are likely to have 128 great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, just like very few of those people in 1800 had 128 of them in 1600. Because chances are, some of your recent ancestors were cousins, if not closer. If you marry your first cousin, you have no more than six genetic grandparents between you, instead of eight. If your parents are first cousins, you have six great-grandparents instead of eight.

If “inbreeding” was as detrimental as common misconception says, none of us would be here.

 

Tale as Old as Time

This blog is about relationship rights for all adults, especially the right to marry any and all consenting adults. It is not about criticizing nor promoting any philosophy towards religion, spiritual considerations, superstitions, the paranormal or supernatural, any religious text or writings/traditions/beliefs/practices/systems/organizations considered sacred, inspired, of authoritative by some, nor skepticism when it comes to such things.

There are both allies and opponents of relationship rights and full marriage equality in just about every religion and among those who claim no religion, and I welcome allies no matter what tradition, if any, they prefer or reject.

With that out of the way…

Considering the Bible as literature, which anyone can do whether they are a devout Christian, a Deist, a Hindu, an Atheist, or an Antitheist or take some other path, one can see that the Bible implies, outright portrays, and further addresses consanguineous sex.

Frequently, someone will ask “Where did Cain get his wife?” or “Did Adam and Eve’s children have sex with each other?” or some variation. Whether someone considers this speculation about fanciful myths or actual history is irrelevant to analyzing what the text itself says.

Adults Having Their Basic Rights Isn’t Child Abuse

When someone advocates for all adults to have the right to be with any and all consenting adults, or specifically for the rights of polyamorous or consanguineous adult lovers, someone who hasn't bothered to think it through or is being deliberately dishonest might respond with “So, you’re advocating for the abuse of children?”

If this is your response to someone advocating the rights of all CONSENTING ADULTS to be together, something is wrong with your reading comprehension. Adults are not children. Consenting means voluntary, not an abuse situation. Consenting adults being together has nothing to do with abusing children.

Trying, but failing, to avoid looking like ignorant bigots, they might try something like “Yeah but, if we allow polyamorous, polygamous, or plural marriages, or we allow incestuous relationships or marriages, doesn't that make it more likely children will be abused by normalizing it? Isn't the next step moving on to children?”

This is an attempt at guilt by false association. It is something LGBTQ+ people have been dealing with forever. “If you allow gay people to be together, it will make it easier to molest children!” It simply doesn’t follow. It’s a lie that most LGBTQ+ people want to abuse children, and it is likewise a lie that people who are ethically nonmonogamous or consanguinamorous want to abuse children. Child abusers are going to try to abuse children. Children will be more likely to be abused and to keep quiet about it the more taboo we keep sex in general.

There are places where consanguinamorous relationships between adults are not criminalized, including a couple of US states. This has not caused an increase in child abuse in these places.

When it comes to ethical nonmonogamy, citing a few isolated villages or compounds where women don’t have equal rights and children are treated as property as proof it leads to child abuse is dishonest. Children are abused by professing monogamists every day, while most parents involved in ethical, disclosed, or consensual nonmonogamy are great parents who are not abusing children in any way.

Keeping unjust discrimination in place is wasting resources vitally needed to prevent and stop actual abuse. It makes it less likely victims and witnesses of abuse will cooperate with authorities if their own relationships are criminalized. Every bit of time and money wasted on trying to stop consenting adults from being together how they mutually agree is time and money that isn’t being spent to help people who are actually being abused.

There is no good reason to deny consenting adults their rights to be together how they mutually agree.