Another hateful article

Ladies and Gentlemen, I wasn’t going to respond to any of the incest bashing articles that have come out since the Monica/Caleb story went viral, but this one deserves a response from our community, and thus I will provide one for us. It is important that we defend ourselves and give our side of the argument so that people may make informed choices about which side they find most reasonable. Okay, this is going to be a long one, so here goes:

 

Another dispatch from Sodom.

Actually, Clovis, New Mexaco. I thought Sodom had been wiped off the map several millennia BC…

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.

The fact that they are related does not detract from the beauty of their relationship. If it wasn’t for the discrimination, it WOULD be like something right out of a fairytale, it is people like the author of this article that make it otherwise by actively persecuting them.

If you’re currently  in a place where it would be inconvenient to suddenly start projectile vomiting all over the walls, I’d advise you to refrain from clicking the link I provided.

While this might be YOUR reaction, it certainly is not everyones reaction. It’s perfectly fine if you find their relationship nauseating, it is not okay to pile on the hate.

The story is dark, twisted, and stomach-churning. It’s not necessary, nor medically recommended, that you read all the sordid details yourself.

I completely disagree, the story is beautiful, natural and sweet. On this point I will agree to disagree with you.

In an act of heroic self-sacrifice, I already endured the whole article so that I could give you a summary. It goes like this: The mother, Monica Mares, gave up her son, Caleb Peterson, for adoption when she was 19 and he was a baby. Their paths crossed again some 20 years later, and soon after that fateful reunion they decided to strike up a sexual relationship. Incest is still illegal in all 50 states, so one or both of them may wind up in prison for several months. They’ve now taken their plight public in hopes of rallying the most progressive and fearless members of our tolerant society to their defense.

Incest is NOT illegal in all 50 states, that was a mistake made by the original Daily Mail article. It is legal in New Jersey, Rhode Island and Ohio… don’t believe me? Google it. Furthermore, don’t you think that jailing people for having a love life that others find gross is a huge overreaction? This world needs far more compassion and understanding.

They make a strangely familiar case. They say they are in love.

Which they are.

They say their love is just as loving as anyone else’s love.

Which it is.

They say they aren’t hurting anybody.

Which they aren’t.

They say they’re consenting adults.

Which they are.

They say this is none of the government’s business.

Which it isn’t.

They even have the requisite sciency-sounding name for their lifestyle choice. They claim they’re experiencing “GSA,” which stands for “genetic sexual attraction.” As everyone knows, any fetish is automatically legitimate if it can be turned into an acronym.

Genetic Sexual Attraction is a genuine phenomenon, and GSA feeling can affect up to 50% of all reunited relatives. It is NOT a fetish. People are generally attracted to others with whom they share and observe similarities. Usually the Westermarck effect prevents the majority of people from becoming attracted to people who are closely related, however, in the case of adoption, the Westermarck effect has no chance to develop because of the separation. Adoptees usually experience the Westermarck effect towards their adoptive family. For those of us from the Non-GSA part of the community, the Westermarck effect is either extremely weak or absent, and so love between family who have never been separated is also possible. In both GSA and Non-GSA relationships, people experience double-love, which is a mixture of family love and romantic love, it is something completely unique to us, and is about as far removed from a ‘fetish’ as you can get.

And there’s another name, too, because just one creepy euphemism isn’t sufficient anymore. Incestuous couples are members of the “consanguinamorous” community. There are many consanguinamorous folks who want to have sex with their brother/sister/mother/father/uncle/etc., and, as the reasoning goes, if a lot of people wish to do a certain thing then that thing must be OK, even natural.

Consanguinamory is an umbrella term for both GSA and Non-GSA people. The term comes from two words ‘consanguine’ (related) and ‘amore’ (that’s a french word meaning love). So the term literally means ‘lovers of family’. Also, it ISN’T all about sex, it’s about love and the relationships as a whole. The way you go on anyone would think all we do all day is doss around having sex with our relatives. In reality, we live normal lives and only the fact that our lovers are related to us is what is different.

Whether any action is okay or not can be measured by whether or not it causes harm. Since consanguinamory doesn’t harm anyone (it might offend some peoples sensibilities but that isn’t the same harming them), it is morally okay, and yes, it is perfectly natural for some of us.

Gee, where have we heard these rationales before?

You heard them back in the days when you were busy trying to deny LGBT people their legitimate rights. You lost that debate and you will lose this one too.

The article kindly provides a reminder to anyone who needs it. An incest activist (yes, those exist now) by the name of Cristina Shy is interviewed about the Mares case. Shy is in a relationship with her half-brother, and, ironically, does not seem very shy about it.

She’s one of the main people in our movement, I am another one. Cristina is an amazing person and I am glad to count her as one of my closest friends.

She now spends her time campaigning to see that her particular brand of deviancy is normalized and accepted in the mainstream.

Think about what the word deviancy means: it simply means ‘to deviate from the norm’. In other words, anything that is not heterosexual, similarly aged, monogamous and unrelated couples could be branded as ‘deviant’. Wow… that’s a pretty narrow band of acceptable behaviours then.

Again, you should not legislate based on the fact that something is considered ‘deviant’, you should legislate based on whether something causes harm. Consanguinamory does not cause harm, therefore it should be perfectly legal even if frowned upon my the majority.

Shy may be severely deranged both mentally and spiritually,

She isn’t, I know her well, and she is perfectly mentally and spiritually competent.

but she does make a pretty salient point here:

‘Our whole community is watching this case and looking for updates. It needs to be brought to the attention of everybody in the country and people need to start thinking differently. It was the same with gay people just a few years ago and now they can get married they are accepted. Well why not consanguinamorous people like us? We are all adults. We are not pedophiles, there’s no domestic issue. We are in love, we want to be together but we are related. That shouldn’t be a deciding factor.’

For clarity’s sake Cristina’s words are in blue, and I fully agree with her point. Why should we be discriminated against when we are not harming anyone. How does giving us equality in any way affect the quality of your life? It doesn’t. If you don’t want a consanguinamorous relationship, then don’t have one. Denying others their rights because you wouldn’t want to do something is something I would describe as mentally and spiritually deranged.

It’s consensual, it’s not hurting anyone, and we’re in love. If that was good enough for gay “marriage,” why isn’t it good enough for a brother and sister or mother and son

Our point is that it should be good enough.

On what possible basis can we exclude poor Monica and Caleb if, on the strength of these very same arguments, we have declared gay “marriage” an immutable human right endowed upon creation by God Himself?

Marriage is a human invention, it has nothing to do with God. Marriage is a civil contract between two persons, and should be treated as such. Also your putting marriage in speech marks when referring to gay marriage indicates the odious stench of homophobia. Let’s continue…

It certainly seems that these justifications apply to both in equal measure.

Which they do.

Let’s go through and test them out:

Yes, what a brilliant idea.

1. It’s consensual.

Which it is… the end.

Nobody denies that two adult men can indeed consent to “marry” each other, but can we deny it in the case of Monica and Caleb? He’s 19, she’s 36. They have agency over their own bodies. Their reunion happened when the son was a legal adult. That means they both made their own choices, God help them. Nobody was forced into anything. There was consent, without question.

Okay, here we go with the homophobic speech marks again… jeez doesn’t it get old quickly. I’m glad we established that they are consenting adults… could’ve told you that ages ago.

When applying this logic consistently, it becomes immediately apparent that consent is not enough to morally or even legally justify something on its own.  Our culture says that as long as two people want to do something, then it must be OK. But we see that just because a mutual agreement has been reached does not, in and of itself, mean that whatever was agreed upon is good or ought to be legal.

This is one point on which we can agree. For instance two people can consent to be parties to a bank robbery but that doesn’t mean that it’s okay. The benchmark for when consensual activities become illegal should be when harm is caused. Robbing banks causes harm, consensual incest does not.

If mere consent were enough, then the three sickos arrested a few years ago for digging up a corpse to fulfill their necrophiliac fantasies ought to be given a presidential pardon. Sure, their victim didn’t consent, but she wasn’t alive. All of the living participants consented, yet the act was still illegal. Why?

Necrophilia is against the law not because it is sick and deranged (which I fully agree that it is, personally just thinking about that makes me want to puke), it is illegal because of the severe distress that would undoubtedly be caused to the families of the deceased. Since that is a form of harm, it is perfectly rational to keep necrophilia illegal.

Well, we can come up with some peripheral reasons — you can’t trespass at a cemetery, for instance — but the real reason, beyond any other, is that it’s just plain wrong. Morally wrong

Compared to the distress of the relatives, trespassing is a pretty minor thing. It is morally wrong BECAUSE of the distress it causes.

And despite all of the half-baked protests against “legislating morality,” almost everyone still agrees that in some cases a thing ought to be illegal primarily because it’s immoral. That’s what it means to be human beings living in a civilized society.

Immoral is anything which causes harm, so yes, we SHOULD legislate based on morality. Outlaw practices which cause harm, and legalize everything else. It is actually immoral to legislate against harmless activities… did that ever cross your mind when you wrote this? I doubt it.

This is the main reason why incest between adults is illegal: it’s wrong. Debased. Animalistic. Revolting.

It’s not wrong, it’s not debased, it’s not animalistic and it is not revolting to everyone. We share a love that goes far beyond what either romantic love or familial love could on it’s own. It’s about as far away from that description you just gave as to be laughable in its sheer inaccuracy. The real reason is that MOST PEOPLE are grossed out by the idea, and disgust is NOT A LEGITIMATE REASON to keep something illegal.

Even the most libertarian minded person in the country probably isn’t too upset about laws against incest.

Actually, some libertarians disagree with you.

And whatever practical reason they offer for their objection, the real reason, even if they won’t say it, is that they find it perverse. And sometimes that’s enough. Or it used to be.

People are waking up to the fact that disgust is NOT a good reason to deny consenting adults their rights. There are some sexual practices I find gross and disturbing, but there is no way in hell I would want to deny others their right to engage in them. It’s called live and let live, you could learn much from such a philosophy.

2. It’s not hurting anyone.

Which it isn’t.

Yes, incestuous couples have a much higher risk of conceiving babies with birth defects, but contraception and abortion are also legal. Moreover, our laws say that an unborn child is not a child while it’s still in the womb. It’s precisely in this stage of development that the non-child child, if he were conceived and allowed to live, would develop. Whatever harm done to a person would therefore occur at a point when the person isn’t a person. So that argument goes out the window.

I thought we were debating about incest, not the morality of abortion. As for the mutant babies argument, would you deny the following groups their sexual and reproductive rights:

  1. Persons who already suffer from a genetic defect
  2. Women over the age of 40
  3. People who take recreational drugs, suffer from alcoholism or who smoke heavily
  4. People who must take medications which can harm an unborn child
  5. People who have a medical condition which increase the odds of harm to the fetus
  6. People who have a learning disability

The list could go on and on, but you get my point. If rules are going to be applied equally to all members of society, then either all of the above groups should be denied the right to sex and marriage, or incest should be legalized. Anything else is a cruel double standard. Some of the above groups bear a greater risk of congenital abnormalities than the average healthy incest couple, and yet we do not seek to remove their rights, do we? No, because doing so is wrong and immoral. My point is that what society is doing to my people is also wrong and immoral.

So while nobody here is denying that incest increases the risk of problems, that is still not a good enough reason to keep this ridiculous and discriminatory legislation.

Besides, gay sexual relationships between men are physically harmful and are much more likely to lead to any number of diseases, not to mention the psychological effects manifested in sky high rates of depression, suicide, and drug abuse. If that doesn’t count as “hurting anyone,” then surely incestuous relationships cannot be said to qualify, either.

The rates of depression amongst homosexuals is higher because of precisely the kind of bigotry that you endorse, how would ANYONE feel if they are unfairly discriminated against? Think about that. Also, you are aware that sexually transmitted diseases are also spread by heterosexual sex… aren’t you? Surely you cannot be this stupid. Infections are spread around a population when people engage in unprotected sex, doesn’t matter which gender their partner is, an infection doesn’t discriminate.

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.

Actually, this is a misunderstanding on your part, and for once an understandable one, because you know nothing of our double-love dynamic. We do not break down the family relationship in order to start a romantic one, the romance is an add-on which actually strengthens and deepens the existing family bond. The two different roles are perfectly compatible and it works just fine for us. It doesn’t pervert or distort the family role at all.

Protection of the family unit is just another of the excuses that people make in order to deny us our rights, we don’t even begin to threaten the family unit.

If you’re so concerned about things that could harm a family unit, I must wonder what your views are on divorce, which by the way is perfectly legal.

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. It’s all good! Nothing matters!”

It wouldn’t harm anyone or anything. People said the same crap about gay marriage, and there has been no social cataclysm as a result of gay people having their full legal rights. The only thing that would happen is that people would no longer have to fear being locked up simply because of who they love. It is the current legislation that is causing the harm, not incest itself.

That sort of declaration would (further) undermine and subvert the family, which would indeed be quite harmful. But again, we’ve been told that it doesn’t matter if something harms society or the family. All that matters is how the people directly involved in the act feel about it. If that’s the logic, then Monica and Caleb are good to go.

Again, no subversion would take place. Take a look at France, the Netherlands, Spain, Japan, and The Russian Federation to name just a few countries… incest is legal in all of these places, and yet there is no added problems in society as a direct result.

How does there being an incest couple across the street affect your life with your family? It doesn’t. So stop butting your nose into other peoples bedrooms.

3. Love is love.

Correct, and love should not be denied just because it takes on an unconventional form.

This is really the whole crux of the thing. It’s the reason why the Supreme Court decided to pretend that a right to gay “marriage” was embedded mysteriously into the Constitution. Love is love. Two people have right to love each other. All love is equal. All love is the same. Nobody’s love is better than anyone else’s, and so forth.

They didn’t pretend anything. The constitution was made to allow for personal autonomy, and that includes the right to any activities which do not cause harm to persons or property, which by extension should include homosexuality and incest.

As the love struck Caleb put it: “This is about whether I have the right to love someone. And I sure as hell have the right to love Monica. You can’t tell people who to love or who not to love.” Just replace “Monica” with “Maurice” or “Michael,” and the left would consider his argument bulletproof. If we must accept and legitimize all love, how can we possibly deny young Caleb? He does love his mother, that much is clear. Too clear, really.

You shouldn’t be denying him the right to love Monica, it is his right. That’s my point really.

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.

Except that they aren’t expressing love in a disordered way, they’re expressing it the same way any other couple expresses their love. Just because they are mother and son does not make their love any less real or of any lesser quality. Again, you’re expressing a personal opinion which is based on your disgust, that is NOT for the millionth time, a sufficient reason to deny them their rights under the law. It’s discrimination, plain and simple.

Yes, they love each other, and nobody has ever said that a mother should not be allowed to love her son, or that a man should not be allowed to love another man, but some of us have said that those kinds of love should not be expressed through sexual intercourse and they cannot be fortified by the covenant of marriage.

How the hell does what somebody chooses to do with their genitals which does not cause harm have any bearing on their legal rights? It shouldn’t. Marriage is a civil contract which should be available to all couples regardless of whether others approve of that type of relationship or not.

The maternal love from mother to son is beautiful and good, just not when it’s turned into a fetish. That has been the logic, anyway, but it’s no longer available. We’ve been informed that love is love is love is love is love. If that’s all it takes for Adam and Steve to get married, why not Monica and Caleb?

Again, incest is NOT a fetish. GSA is a genuine phenomenon which is as far removed from a fetish as it’s possible to get. Of course Monica and Caleb should be allowed to marry, that should be their choice, not other peoples.

If you accept the progressive premise in the former case, you cannot suddenly abandon it in the latter. It makes no sense. You’re being intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

Which is exactly what activists like myself are pointing out, the arguments against incest are pretty much the same as the arguments against homosexuality (the only additional one for us is the mutant babies argument).

Of course, these are not the only rationales offered for gay “marriage.” There are others:

  • I was born this way.
  • I can’t choose who I love.
  • It’s [current year]!
  • I have a right to be happy.
  • I should have the same right as people who do not share my proclivity.
  • This kind of sexuality exists in the animal kingdom.
  • Don’t be narrow minded.
  • Stop judging.
  • Stop imposing your religious beliefs on me.

And so on.

All of which are perfectly legitimate arguments and they also apply to consanguinamory as well.  Now it’s your turn to be intellectually honest and to realize that you’ve already lost this debate before you even started, because you know full well that your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.

Under each argument, right down the line, without exception, Monica and Caleb qualify. As do folks in the bestiality and pedophile and polygamist communities.

Oh God, the slippery slope fallacy yet again. In the case of pedophilia and bestiality, I think we can safely say that animals and children cannot consent. There is well documented evidence that childhood sexual abuse causes lasting harm, and that some animals need to be destroyed if they have been repeatedly raped and cannot be rehabilitated into living normal lives as pets. This qualifies as serious harm, and so those things should NEVER become legal for that reason. You will find that the whole of the consanguinamorous community agree with me on that point.

Polyamory is a completely different subject and it also falls under the umbrella of consenting adults who are not causing harm. For this reason marriage to multiple spouses ought also be legal.

A slippery slope? No, there is no slope. It’s a straight plunge into the abyss

Only in your imagination. Remember those countries I mentioned where incest was legal. Did you know that child sexual abuse and animal rape are against the law in every one of those countries? No slippery slope there at all. Just some common sense laws, that’s all. You have nothing to fear from our community, our only wish is to be properly integrated into society as another minority group amongst many.

”Traditional marriage” was a separate and distinct thing, and could be justified using arguments that don’t apply to anything but itself. It existed on hard ground and was built on a solid foundation with walls and a roof and everything else. Once you tear all of that down and dig out the ground from underneath it, the descent into utter madness and depravity is inevitable, sudden, and unstoppable.

Nobody wants to stop the practice of traditional marriage. If you want a traditional marriage then by all means have one… you’ve got no argument from me. Legalizing incest will NOT cause a descent into madness, it will cause the many people who live in fear of the law to not have to fear any more. You’re being very overly dramatic here.

Progressives spent decades calling the slippery slope argument against gay “marriage” a fallacy, so they are now reluctant to admit that everything conservatives said in that regard was plainly true, and will soon come to fruition. But they’ll be less bashful about it as time goes on. In fact, some have already grabbed the dynamite and tried to blow open the floodgates

It is a fallacy as I have just logically proven to you.

Slate ran an article not long ago calling for the legalization of polygamy.

Polyamory in all it’s forms should be legal. Some people are not monogamous and they should not be forced to pretend that they are.

A college professor from New York released a book recently, offering a “philosophical analysis” of adult-child sex. This is another in a long line of progressive attempts to not-so-subtly normalize pedophilia.

I agree with you that this is pretty disgusting, seeing that children cannot consent to sex. Pedophilia causes lifelong harm to the victim and thus it should never be legal.

Time Magazine posted an editorial several years ago asking whether incest should be legal.

Of course it should be.

And, always on the forefront of liberal lunacy, Canada was told by their Supreme Court a couple of months ago that bestiality is permissible, so long as there is “no penetration” involved.

Animals cannot consent to sexual activity with human beings, therefore bestiality should remain illegal.

Sadly, as far as I’m aware, nobody has come to the defense of our necrophiliac friends yet, but I’m sure they’ll have their time in the sun soon enough (although I suppose they’d prefer to operate at night).

Again, the harm is in the form of distress caused to the relatives of the deceased… therefore necrophilia it should remain illegal.

This is why conservatives, what few still exist, cannot afford to compromise or give up ground. When you forfeit the truth to appease the mob, you will never get it back. If you relent and concede that the truth does not matter in one case, how can you expect to suddenly assert its authority in another?

Except that you are not having to forfeit any truth, you’re being asked to stop being so bigoted and to stop denying consenting adults their fundamental rights to be together and to marry. We aren’t asking you to like us or even to approve of us, we’re asking that you live and let live.

It may be too late to win the gay “marriage” argument now — at least for a while — but we cannot give up making the argument, however fruitless it may seem.

The argument you pose is fruitless because it is a series of invalidated arguments.

If we do, then we will not have it available to us when the left comes knocking with pleas for polygamy, pedophilia, incest, and whatever other twisted horror they can conjure in their heads.

Polyamory and incest should be legal, pedophilia should not be. It boils down to two points:

  1. Is it consenting adults? and
  2. Does it cause harm?

If the answer to point one is yes, and the answer to point two is no, then it ought be legal.

It’s clear that once they argued for one perversion, they really argued for them all. And so we must argue against them all, or else we have not really argued against any.

Not at all, I make the case for incest and polyamory, I do not and would not argue for pedophilia and bestiality.

As you can see guys, this person has not made any legitimate arguments for why we should continue to be denied our fundamental rights. He is a person who is afraid of change, a person who fears that we must have the worst of motives or who simply have a fetish. Hopefully this man will see the light and realize that his attitude is part of the problem and is not a solution for the problems of society. In truth he has already lost the debate, it just takes time for those like him to realize that truth, and to embrace change.

 

 

 

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: