Yet more comparing us to perverts

Okay, time to calm down and write, today I am angry, and if you read the title to this article you will likely know why. Some moron who doesn’t know what she is talking about has decided to compare incest to pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia, thus using the slippery slope fallacy as a means of scaremongering. Oh, and she’s also a homophobe to boot. Nice lady.

It begins with a scathing homophobic attack:

By destroying the institution of marriage, the “gay rights” LBGQTI movement made possible the extension of similar “legal rights” for other “lifestyle choices,” including zoophilia, consanguinamorous relationships, necrophilia, pedophilia, polygamy, and every other “fluid” sexual preference or identification—including sologamy and trans-polyamorous relationships.  

Yes, in her opening statement, gay people destroyed marriage, uh huh… heard that crap all before. How does a gay couple having the right to marry in any way, shape, or form affect HER choice of a traditional marriage? It doesn’t. So how has marriage been destroyed. This is fail number one right there in the very first sentence. Let’s continue.

Gay people having their equal rights has made it possible for SOME other groups to jump on the bandwaggon and claim their rights too… but NOT all of the groups she mentioned.

Let’s look at this logically. Any sexuality that necessarily causes harm should be prohibited. I think we can pretty safely say that corpses, animals and children are all unable to consent. The harm caused by child molestation is well documented, as is the harm to animals who are raped. As for necrophilia… there is the distress caused to the relatives of the deceased who do not want the corpse defiled.

Efforts to normalize sex with animals as an accepted lifestyle choice resulted in one documentary winning an award this year that idolizes a sexual relationship between a man and his bottlenose dolphin lover.

That’s lamentable, and it’s animal abuse. No way should this be allowed.

The 40-year movement to legalize sexual interaction with children is working. People are publicly advocating without shame: “I’m a pedophile, but not a monster;” and, “pedophilia is natural and normal for males.”

No, it is NOT normal and natural, it is a terrible perversion that leads some people to molest innocent children and do them untold psychological damage. It is NORMAL for a man to immediately lose his erection if a child is awake in the general vicinity. Normal men do not become aroused by kids…. at all. So I agree that this is pretty fucked up.

Now, incest activists in the consanguinamorous community argue it’s their turn to have their sexual preference and lifestyle choice validated socially and legally.

Well, isn’t it about time that ALL CONSENTING ADULTS have their sexual preferences validated and accepted?  Consenting adults are able to make their own choices and should not be interfered with by the law, this is VERY DIFFERENT FROM CHILD ABUSE, ANIMAL ABUSE, AND DEFILING CORPSES.

Because of a case in New Mexico that’s making national headlines, incest activists argue exactly what homosexuals argued to normalize incest.

Well maybe that is because the same old bullshit arguments you use against us were traditionally used against gay people

“I was born this way.”

Some of us actually ARE naturally consanguinamorous, I’m in this category myself. I’ve had a few ‘regular’ relationships which felt incomplete to me because the family bond is not there, thus regular relationships have been rather unsatisfying. By contrast, when I had a relationship with my dad, I experienced double-love, the merger of romantic love and family love. So yes, the chances are I WAS BORN THIS WAY, consanguinamory is my natural orientation.

“I can’t choose who I love.”

Again TRUE. Think about your own love life, did you actually CHOOSE to fall in love with your partner, or did it happen naturally? Chances are, it happened naturally. Exactly the same applies to people of other orientations.

“I have a right to be happy just like everyone else.”

All consenting adults have that right, and it should not be impeded by draconian legislation which is based on scaremongering, misunderstanding and prejudice.

“We aren’t hurting anyone.”

How the hell are two consenting adults that happen to be closely related harming anyone? They aren’t.

“Who is the government to legislate love?”

Precisely, who the hell do they think they are? Telling consenting adults who they may and may not love is irrational, immoral and short sighted.

Incest activists maintain that all sexual preferences and acts should be legal if they are consensual and don’t harm anyone. More importantly, the government should not be legislating love.

If it’s consenting ADULTS then the above surely needs to be applied.

Christina Shy, an incest activist who runs an advocacy and support website for consanguinamorous people, and is in a relationship with her half-brother, argues that incest “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.”

Too bloody right. When I spoke to her about this idiotic article, she had this to say on the matter:




She’s right—if sex is consensual among adults in the privacy of their own home—how is it wrong or even illegal?

It might be currently illegal, but sure as hell it isn’t wrong. It’s the law that is wrong and it needs changing, and the sooner the better. The law is a poor judge of right and wrong, at best it is a barometer of public perception and prejudices.

How is consensual sex between two adult men different than consensual sex between adult brothers and sisters or adult mothers and sons? If two adult men can legally marry each other, why can’t consensual adult incestuous couples?

Our point is that incestuous relationships should be legal and that incestuous marriage should also be allowed. To say otherwise is just plain discriminatory.

Why should one consensual relationship be denied and another legal?

EXACTLY! It makes no sense. You lambast us and then you make our points for us, thanks for that, you exhibit your own stupidity.

Incestuous adults aren’t coercing anyone. They are knowingly making choices about their own bodies, so why does anyone have a problem with it? It’s really none of anyone else’s business.

Wow, just wow, you’re preaching to the choir here. So why all the fear earlier in the article?

If transgender people in America, who represent less than half of one percent of the population, can have the government dictate bathroom policies for non-transgender people in public schools and stores, why won’t the government legalize consanguinamorous relationships?

They will eventually, we will see to that. Watch this space, our people are sick and tired of being unfairly discriminated against. Also, trans people aren’t asking for anything other than to be treated with fairness and compassion, shouldn’t that apply just because they are a small minority? Talk about picking on the relatively powerless.

Homosexuals, who represent less than 3 percent of the population in America, can legally marry and adopt children, why can’t incestuous, polygamists, pedophiles and zoophiles?

Now you’re making me angry again. Homosexuality, polygamy and incest all fall under the umbrella of consenting adults, all should be allowed to marry and adopt. Pedophiles shouldn’t be anywhere near children for obvious reasons, and zoophiles… I don’t think it’s a great idea to have a household where the parent is shagging the pet dog, do you?

If morality and laws are determined by personal preferences (that are fluid and always changing) to justify societal norms, why is a different standard being used to legislate incest, necrophilia or pedophilia than that of same-sex relationships?

Morality and laws can be independently determined by whether or not something causes harm. Consenting adults = no harm = legal. Not consenting adults = harm = illegal. This equation will not fail you and will lead to a far fairer society in which the rights of consenting adults are protected whilst legislating against child abuse and defiling corpses.

Incestuous relationships are mutually consensual, therefore they should be legal. (The same reasoning can be applied to murder. Surely, if two people agree to murder someone, in fact a group of people consent to murder another group of people, their consent justifies their action, which should therefore legalize murder.)


Two people can agree to murder somebody, but the person being murdered sure as hell doesn’t consent, and harm is done when somebody is deprived of life, both to the person being murdered and to the grieving family.

How the hell does that compare to incest when both parties are consenting adults? It DOESN’T. I am aghast you even made such a ridiculous comparison. Is your head so far up your own arse that you’re unable to see daylight? I think so.

The same goes for polygamy. And necrophilia.

How about NO. Polygamy should be legal because it involves consenting adults. Sex with corpses is defiling those corpses and inflicting needless suffering on the bereaved, hence necrophilia is morally WRONG.

Why is having sex with dead people wrong? The corpse doesn’t care. It’s dead. It doesn’t hurt the corpse; it doesn’t even know what’s happening. Granted, it can’t consent to the sexual act, but that doesn’t matter because there are enough necrophiliacs to argue that their sexual preference is normal.

See my answer above, it’s wrong because of the suffering to the family. How would anyone feel about having their deceased loved ones defiled in this manner?

When it comes to not hurting anyone, incest activists argue that abortion is legal, so again, what standard is being used to legislate harm to another person?

On the abortion issue we really need to inject some common sense. If we’re talking about an early abortion when it’s a collection of cells, then it cannot yet be regarded as human yet but a set of genetic instructions for a potential human. If we’re talking about a late term abortion for reasons other than strictly medical, then that is murder.

What the fuck does that have to do with incest anyway? How does incest compare to abortion? It doesn’t, they are completely separate issues.

They are right. If a baby has no constitutional rights, and adults do, why can’t the adults, who aren’t harming anyone else, be together?

I don’t recall anyone from our community talking about comparing incest to abortion, and I’ve been with the community for several months. In that time I’ve gotten to know all of the people who run the community and I help to run it myself…. neither I nor any of the people I personally know and work with make comparisons of our sexuality with abortion.

Why is that? Because it wouldn’t make sense to, that’s why.

Practicing homosexuality used to be illegal. Now gays can marry. Times have changed, so who has the audacity to suggest that incest is not the new normal of the 21st century family? Or bestiality?

Animal rape is animal abuse, end of story. Being against animal abuse is a good thing. Being against consenting adults being together is the height of idiocy. It’s about time this incestophobic nonsense stopped.

“Non-human animals have incestuous relationships and multiple partners,” some activists argue.

Very true, which puts to bed once and for all the argument that incest isn’t natural.

Likewise, it’s well-known that kings and queens had incestuous relationships for centuries to ‘keep their bloodline pure.’

Again true, but that’s not all. Consanguinamorous marriage was extremely common even amongst the peasants in ancient Egypt, and their society never suffered any great calamity as a result of this.

So, who is the government to legislate love? Everyone has the right to love whomever they choose. All love is equal. How is heterosexual love better than incestuous love or being in love with multiple partners?

All love BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS is equal, and it’s about time it was treated as such.

As the defendant in the New Mexico case argues, as to why he should be allowed to love, have sex with and even marry his mother, he says: “This is about whether I have the right to love someone. And I sure (expletive) have the right to love Monica. You can’t tell people who to love or who not to love.”

And we’re with this couple all the way in their battle. They DO have a right to be together, and this needs to be recognized.

His mother’s name, Monica, could easily be “Matthew,” the name of a brother, father, uncle or homosexual boyfriend.

No love is wrong.

If we’re talking about consenting adults, where exactly is the wrong? You’re nearly at the end of your article and you still have not explained WHY you think that incest is wrong and why we should be denied our full rights. Oh right, I see, you ACTUALLY HAVE NO ARGUMENT, which is why you’ve spent the whole time comparing us to pedophiles, zoophiles and necrophiliacs. Making false comparisons is no substitute for an argument of any substance…. I’m still waiting, where is the real substance of your argument?

Gay rights activists and corrupt politicians who chose to legalize same-sex marriage and transgender bathroom policies, have no justification to prevent the legalization other sexual behavior.

That’s it? THAT’S your argument. The slippery slope fallacy? Really? Well, I wrote an article about that a few months ago that should one and for all put pay to that argument.

Really your arguments are so weak, and your fake comparisons so transparent that I am actually surprised by the fact you even bothered to publish this. My rating of your article: D – MUST TRY HARDER.