After Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ the Sky’s the Limit

March 31st, 2011

LGBTweekly.com:
The Irish edition of tabloid news magazine The Sun recently covered the story of Penny Lawrence, a 28-year-old woman suffering from Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) who is now pregnant with her father’s child.

If you seriously don’t think there are folks waiting in the wings for same-sex ‘marriage’ to set the legal precedent they need to make what is described above legal – along with absolutely anything else you could imagine – then check out a website called Full Marriage Equality. (They refer to this father and daughter’s relationship as “consanguinarmory”.)

Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Bob Barnes
    March 31st, 2011 at 12:47 | #1

    So when I look up GSA, I find no symptoms such as a desire to marry a relative. It’s about condition of being sexually attracted to a relative. And the most common cause is when an adopted child meets an unknown blood relative and is oddly attracted.

    The article you link suggests that some people would confuse this issue, funny how some people would confuse sex with love.

  2. April 1st, 2011 at 10:48 | #2

    That couple is not allowed to marry, and that couple is not allowed to procreate. Does anyone think that the two issues are separate? Does anyone think they should be allowed to marry, but not procreate, or procreate but not marry?

    They procreated anyway, and I suppose are facing incest charges. According to the story, she says they plan on aborting the child if a scan reveals any birth defects, but the higher risk of birth defects are not the only reason they are not allowed to have sex together, and neither is the possibility of pregnancy the only reason – there is no “only reason” there are many reasons, and both of those reasons are among them.

    Prohibiting them from marrying doesn’t prohibit them from procreating, obviously. But allowing them to marry would allow them to procreate, it is always an intrinsic expected right of marriage. We never allow a couple to procreate while at the same time prohibiting them from procreating, and we should never allow that, because it would strip procreation rights from marriage. (Rob Tisinai recently brought up the infertile first cousin exceptions in some states, but when they allow first cousins to marry they do allow them to procreate, but just expect them not to. There is no actual prohibition on them procreating while they are married, because the incest law is written in such a way as to only prohibit sex and procreation by related couples prohibited from marrying, which they aren’t, if they prove they’re infertile. They are poorly written laws that lead to confusion, and if the state truly wants to prohibit them from procreating but give them access to the benefits of marriage, then Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus conception rights” are the way they should do it, so that they don’t strip procreation rights from marriage.) Marriage always allows sex and procreation. When couples are prohibited from procreating, they are never allowed to marry, and vice versa (though there may not be a punishment for procreating even though they’re ineligible to marry, but that’s not the same thing as being officially allowed to procreate).

  3. April 1st, 2011 at 10:59 | #3

    There is a thread going on at FamilyScholars about this, about how this story relates to sperm donation and same-sex marriage. Some people there object to this story being used to argue against same-sex marriage, pointing out that this story had nothing to do with same-sex marriage or sperm donation, as the father here simply abandoned the woman he got pregnant and moved to the States. But I’d like to point out that fathers have been abandoning daughters for millions of years, and presumably GSA has been a constant force all this time, but it’s only recently that they have thought it was perfectly OK to have sex and want to marry each other anyway. In the past, no one would make the argument that it wasn’t anyone’s business, they are in love, and that is all that matters. In the past, if they discovered they were related, they’d feel disgusted and split up immediately, and the state would certainly take their child away to be raised free from the knowledge and ridicule.

  4. Sean
    April 4th, 2011 at 15:23 | #4

    Associating uncomfortable reproductive situations with same-sex marriage is nothing but a smear. Same-sex couples already have the right to procreate, as does any adult couple. Being married doesn’t grant procreative rights; you already have those by virtue of being a human being.

  5. Ruth
    April 9th, 2011 at 07:37 | #5

    The sky is not the limit.
    We’re going the other way.

Comments are closed.