Addressing a Discredited Attack on Consanguinamory Again

Do you follow this blog's sister Tumblr? There's all kinds of good stuff posted and shared there that doesn't make it to this blog. So if you haven't done so already, follow the Tumblr blog from your Tumblr account, or bookmark it in your browser.

In response to a couple of questions/asks, these two entries were posted in defense of consanguinamory.

http://fullmarriageequality.tumblr.com/post/171105805896/inbreeding-is-hella-real-and-causes-some-real-big


http://fullmarriageequality.tumblr.com/post/171108386106/if-inbreeding-is-the-problem-then-cis-same-sex

Many consaguinamorous relationships will never produce children. But like it or not, some do. Most of those children are healthy. You probably know some people with consanguineous parents even if you don't know their true genetic ancestry. You may have even admired such people as kind, intelligent, accomplished, or attractive. They may be your good neighbors, your helpful coworkers, your memorable teacher. They don't deserve bigoted ridicule.

You can reach me (Keith) through Tumblr, but you can also comment below (including anonymously) or email me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com

Here are some entries here dealing with consanguinamory, reproduction, and parenting...

Consanguinamory and Reproduction

What Genealogists Know

For Consanguinamorists Considering Parenting

Living Consaguinamorously - What to Tell the Children

Read More »

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.



One common response says that there were other people aside from Adam and Eve, even claiming that Genesis 1:26-27 describes the creation of people other than Adam and Eve. That may work for someone who can find some other explanation for Genesis 3:20, which calls Eve the mother of all living, and other passages which indicate Adam and Eve were the parents of all humans.

Romans 5 says that sin and death came into the world through one man, Adam, and 1 Corinthians 15 says that in Adam all die. These passages imply that the Bible portrays every human as a descendant of Adam.  There’s a mention of Eve in the Apocrypha that agrees with this, in the prayer of Tobit (Tobit 8:6): "Thou madest Adam, and gavest him Eve his wife for a helper and a stay; of them came the seed of men…"

That the Bible portrays Adam and Eve as the ancestors of all humans is the interpretation publicly affirmed by a diverse group of Bible enthusiasts, who often vehemently disagree with each other on other matters about what the Bible says. For a few examples, see here, here, here, here, and here. Some of those sources disagree very much on other aspects of Genesis, especially the first few chapters, but agree as to the Bible teaching that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all humans (and please note that Genesis 5:4 says Adam, in addition to the named sons, had other sons and daughters), and so it appears that the Bible portrays the origin of human beings as the result of consanguineous (incestuous) sex. Adam and Eve’s children reproduced with each other, if not also Adam and Eve.


It is also of note that the Bible portrays Noah, his wife, their three sons, and the sons' wives were the only human beings left (at least in that part of the world) after The Flood. (Genesis 6:18, 7:7, 9:1,7,18-19). Whether or not the Bible allows for a “local” Flood and other human beings in other parts of the world, Genesis 6:19 portrays least the people in that part of the world as all descended from Noah’s family. That would mean that the area (or the entire world) was repopulated through pairing up people who were no more distant than first cousins, coming from a pool of no more than eight total ancestors (Noah, his wife, and the parents of each of Noah's three sons), most perhaps even just six (the sons and their wives), three of whom were first-degree relatives.

In the Biblical narrative, it wasn’t until much later that the first prohibition was placed on incest, in Leviticus, along with many other prohibitions (prohibitions on mixing fabrics, for example) that may have been listed to distinguish Israel from the other nations/tribes surrounding it. The narrative describes tribes who have left Egypt, where incest was common and accepted, and surrounded by other nations/tribes where incest was common and accepted. These were laws for the ancient theocracy of Israel. Also of note is that the concept of rights for women and children was very different than it is now; same goes for protecting the elderly. There was no domestic violence shelter, no secular county or state department with social workers attempting to protect people against child abuse or elderly abuse.  Children were literally the property of their parents to do with almost anything they wanted (note that the Torah says that parents must get permission from an authority to kill a disobedient child; presumably, there was no such requirement before.) As such, prohibitions on incest could have often been about preventing sexual assault or molestation.


However, applying the Biblical prohibitions to consensual sex, very few people who consider the Bible as an authority in their lives actually live by Mosaic law, nor want Mosaic law as national or state/province law. Secular laws should not keep any consenting adults from having sex or getting married.

Incest has always been a theme in literature and storytelling. See: Greek mythology. The fact is, incest has always been a part of life, in all socioeconomic and geographic areas. Even though a majority of people don't get involved, enough people do get involved in consensual incest that you know people who are involved.

Marrying a first cousin is legal and common in much of the world today, and for thousands of years most people married a first, second, or third cousin, once or twice removed or not.

From the perspective of science, DNA reveals inbreeding, and thus incest, in our past. In some cases, it might have helped to spread helpful characteristics.

Read More »

Petitions for Civil Rights

Our friend Richard has three new petitions going and if you care about civil rights and equality, please add your support to them.

First is the Petition to the UN High Commissioner.

Second is the Petition to the Australian Senate.

Finally, there's "Attorney General of North Carolina: Release Katie Pladl from police custody. She married the man she loves!"

Please, check them out and help the cause of full marriage equality.

Read More »

Sorting Out Relation

Sometimes people, especially young people, aren't certain of how to describe their relation to someone else. It doesn't help that legal relation isn't always the same as genetic (blood) relation.  People can legally be siblings, but not be close genetic relatives, for example. Or two people can be genetic siblings but not legal relatives. Relation by blood/genetics is referred to as consanguinity and relation by marriage or law is may be referred to as affinity.

Generally, the law recognizes that people are related through birth*, adoption, or marriage (or civil union or domestic partnership.)

I hope this provides clarity to people who are uncertain.



Cousins: This is explained in detail here, so I will just be brief and say that your parent's sibling's child is your first cousin. Your first cousin's child is your first cousin, once removed. Your child would be a second cousin to your first cousin, once removed. Also, your first cousin is your child's first cousin, once removed.



Full sibling: A brother or sister whose biological/genetic parents are the same as yours.

Half sibling: A brother or sister who shares one, not two, biological/genetic parents with you. Because people can have half-siblings, they can also have half-uncles, half-aunts, half-cousins, half-nieces, and half-nephews. For example, your parent has a half-brother. He would be your half-uncle (although many people choose to simply say "uncle".) Note that someone can have two half-siblings who are not closely related to each other genetically.


Adopted/Adoptive: When legal arrangements were made to become legally recognized family, which otherwise happens through marriage or birth*. For example, if your parents adopted an orphaned boy, he would be your adopted brother and would be legally as much your parents' child as you. Or you could both be adopted by the same parents. It isn't just minor children who are adopted. Adults have adopted other adults.


Stepsibling, Stepbrother, Stepsister, Stepparent, Stepmother, Stepfather, Stepchild, Stepson Stepdaughter: A relation through marriage and is usually someone who is not a close biological relative. Someone is your stepsibling/-brother/-sister because their parent married your parent. Your stepsibling is the child of your stepparent. Someone is your stepparent/-father/-mother because they married your parent. Someone is your stepchild/-son/-daughter because you married their parent. For some purposes in some places, some laws treat steprelations like biological/genetic or adoptive relations. Sometimes, a steprelation becomes an adoptive relation, such as when a stepparent adopts their stepchild.



In-law: Someone who is related to you by marriage or custom (but usually this person is not a steprelation) and may be recognized as such by law or socially. The parents of your spouse would be your mother-in-law or father-in-law. Your spouse's siblings would be your brother-in-law or sister-in-law.  Your sibling's spouse would also be your sister-in-law or brother-in-law. Your child's spouse would be your daughter-in-law or son-in-law.



People generally refer to other people by their closest relation. For example, if you married a second cousin, you would generally call them your spouse, not your second cousin, as spouses are legally next-of-kin and second cousins rarely are (all closer relations would have to be deceased). Or, if your parents adopted your cousin, it would be customary to call your cousin your sibling.


*The term "birth" is often used in place of "genetic" or "genetics" but it should be noted that:

1) Surrogate mothers often give birth to children to whom they have no close genetic relation, and they will not be the legal mother of that child.

2) Some women give birth to, and raise, and are the presumed and legal mother of children to whom they are not closely genetically related because the child was conceived using a donor egg or was a donated embryo.

3) In many places, parental designation (such as paternity) is automatically assigned under the law to a spouse of the woman who birthed the child even when the child has no close genetic relation to this "birth father/parent" because the child was a donated embryo or conceived by sperm donation, or sexual intercourse with someone outside the legal marriage, regardless of whether or not the sexual intercourse was something this spouse knew about.






More terms used frequently on this blog are explained here.

Read More »

Guilt By False Association

This post carries a ***TRIGGER WARNING*** because we will be discussing abuse and quoting/paraphrasing hateful, bigoted, discriminatory, sexist, racist, homophobic statements to expose the tactic of "guilt" by false association long used by anti-equality holdouts.


Over and over again, those opposing rights have tried to tie consensual adult relationships to assault and abuse, playing on fear and prejudices along the way.

• When we were debating interracial marriage, the fear mongers tried to equate interracial marriage with "n-----s are going to rape and steal your white women!" This is still done in some ways.
• The fear mongers said "homosexuals" were child abusers looking to victimize children playing in parks or that same-sex marriage was just a cover for people to adopt and abuse children. This, too, is still going on. They also said people would lose their spouses to "turning gay" if people who weren't heterosexuals weren't forced to stay in the closet. "You son or husband will turn into a f----t!"
• Polyamorous, group, plural, or polygamous marriage is currently presented by fear mongers as a way to have old men "marrying" multiple underage girls and keeping control of them for life, subjecting women to domestic abuse and forced servitude.
• Consanguineous relationships and marriage are still associated by the fear mongers with grown men raping children.
  

Rape, assault, molestation, or abuse of any kind has nothing to do with consensual sex and relationships. An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (or any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults, without fear of prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

We must take both consent and lack of consent seriously. People in consensual relationships should not be smeared by trying to associate them with abusers.

There are people who've experienced both abuse and a consensual relationship that the fear mongers try to associate with abuse, and they can speak powerfully to the profound difference.

When someone tries to pull such a move, it can be helpful to say, "Abuse is a terrible thing, but what about consensual relationships, which are something entirely different? Why should consenting adults be denied their rights to be together?" They're not going to have a good reason.

We are not talking about abuse. We are talking about adults who want to be together, as friends and/or lovers, perhaps as spouses, in a romantic or recreational relationship, whether on a casual basis or for life. Shame on those who stoke prejudices and fears to try to deny people their rights.

If someone really, truly wants to fight abuse, they should stop wasting public resources and social energy trying to stop consenting adults from being together, instead putting that time and money and energy into fighting actual abuse. Also, lifting criminalization and stigmas placed on consensual relationships will make it more likely that abuse victims and witnesses will cooperate with law enforcement in stopping abuse, because they won't have to fear they'll be in trouble for their consensual relationships.

Read More »

Alcohol and school functions: Do they go together?

As the school year comes to an end it is not unusual for me to receive a flurry of emails from parents regarding the provision of alcohol at school functions. Last year was no exception, so I thought I'd share a couple of these and let you know how I responded.

"At my son's school's Awards Night, which all parents and their sons were encouraged to attend, both my wife and I were surprised to see alcohol being served. As we entered the school's auditorium, prior to the actual ceremony, we were both offered a free glass of champagne. A bar had been set-up where you could purchase alcohol throughout the night, including spirits, and it seemed as though most of the adults present were drinking. Our son is 14 and has only recently joined the school and we were quite taken aback. What was most concerning to us was that we saw a number of parents either pass a half glass of champagne to their son (in school uniform) to finish off and, in one case, actually purchase a beer for them. By the end of the night (drinks continued to be served after the ceremony), there were a number of parents who were obviously intoxicated. We're not prudes (we both like a drink but didn't drink that night because we had our son with us) but found the whole thing quite bizarre. Is this usual practice at other schools?" 

Here's another one ...

"We recently attended a primary school 'Year 5 dinner' with our 10-year-old daughter at a very expensive Melbourne private school which was, in effect, primarily an adult cocktail party where free champagne was served at the start and alcohol was being sold by the bottle throughout the night. The only other available drink was water and cordial for the children. By the end of the night all adults who drank (my estimate 95%, excluding myself and a couple of others) seemed at least a bit tipsy and a few inebriated. I would be grateful for your view on this topic ... "

I must admit that I find both of these a little shocking ... If I had received these in the 90s I most probably wouldn't have batted an eyelid but to get these in 2017 is a bit bizarre! Attitudes around the provision of alcohol at school functions have changed greatly in the last decade, with many of the schools I have a relationship with significantly changing their policies in this area. That said, however, I've sent both of these anecdotes through to a number of principals across the country and asked for their response and the majority of them have got back to me with something along the lines of 'Welcome to my world!"

My first experience with the whole alcohol and school functions issue was in the late 1990s. A group of Year 12s from a Catholic boys' school had apparently 'gone on the rampage' after drinking too much at an end-of-year function and it had all been caught on CCTV. The tabloid press grabbed the story and the school found itself in the centre of a PR nightmare. The principal was quick to react and contacted a number of 'experts' in the area of adolescent behaviour and alcohol and other drugs (myself included) and asked us to help them with a response. We surveyed the school community - students, staff and parents - to try to find out what was going on with alcohol, looked at their policies and procedures and a report was provided with a series of recommendations. One of those was around the provision of alcohol at school events.

What became glaringly obvious when looking at the school's social calendar was that alcohol was at the centre of almost every event, regardless of the time of day or whether students were present or not. Presentation nights, sporting events, information evenings and even parent-teacher meetings - alcohol was provided. To promote good role modelling and to try to send a positive message to the students (i.e., you can socialize without drinking alcohol), one of the recommendations suggested that the school consider making those parent functions where students were present alcohol-free. For some reason (and I've never worked out why), the principal decided to take this one step further and ban alcohol at all school functions (even those not held on school property) - completely! About two months later I had a phone call from a friend of mine who worked at the school to tell me that the ban had been lifted. Apparently, they had to reverse the decision as they had had two parent functions since the ban had been implemented and no-one had turned up - not even the Organising Committee! Extremely sad, but true - alcohol wasn't available so no-one came!

Over the years I have seen a number of principals almost lose their jobs as a result of their decision to try to make changes in this area. But change has occurred for the most part and many schools have now tightened their rules around the provision of alcohol on school property and, most particularly, at any event where students are present. This all came to a head in 2013 when the national media ran a story about teachers at primary and secondary schools in Melbourne reporting 'drunken parents' assaulting a staff member at a school activity and disrupting a valedictory function. As a result of the incident, the school banned alcohol at all future events. Around the same time, one of the schools I visit narrowly avoided similar media attention when an ambulance was called to their Year 12 Graduation Night after one of the mothers became so drunk she was found unconscious in the toilet. Hopefully things have moved forward since then ...

Unfortunately, the exception appears to be in primary schools. I have emails from parents from Independent, Catholic and state primary schools who talk about Mothers' Groups who go through bottles of wine on school property, school fetes which have a number of bars running through the day, Mums and Dads who take champagne to the Swimming Carnival and the list goes on and on. I was recently speaking to a primary school principal who told me that when she had recently tried to change the culture and make events held at her school 'alcohol-free', she was told in no uncertain terms that if she moved ahead with the plan that would be the end of seeing any fathers at events!

So do alcohol and school functions go together? 

I think this is a fairly simple and straightforward issue to deal with and find it hard to understand why parents have so much of a problem with it. Firstly, if there are students present, regardless of age, that event should be alcohol-free. Awards nights, graduation dinners, information evenings, mother-daughter breakfasts, sporting events during school time or on the weekend - it doesn't matter - if kids are there, alcohol isn't! If the parents don't show up, it's their loss, no-one else's. If they really are not going to show up to one of their child's key milestones because there's no alcohol, they have a problem plain and simple ... And to anyone who says that providing alcohol at these events can demonstrate 'responsible drinking', I simply ask them to attend one of these events and see how much alcohol some of these people drink! There are very few Parent Information Evenings that I present at now where alcohol is provided but on the rare occasion when it does happen it astounds me how many glasses some people can 'down' before the talk begins ...

For parent-only events I see no problems with alcohol being provided or sold. Alcohol is a legal product and it plays a key role in many Australian adults' socializing. Why shouldn't alcohol be made available? The only proviso I have in this area is when these functions are held on school grounds. There have been a number of times over the years where I have rolled up at a school on Monday morning to find literally crates and crates of empty bottles piled up against a wall, all left from a weekend event. That is not a 'good-look' and what message does it send to the students? Years ago, I would have suggested that all school functions that provided alcohol be held off school grounds but that's just not the reality anymore. So many schools, particularly those in the private sector, have now built function centres for such events. Once again, it's quite simple, if alcohol is going to be made available, make sure it's cleaned up afterwards ...

So what about primary schools? As an ex-primary school teacher, the stories I am now hearing about what is happening across the country simply blows my mind! I hate to sound like my Dad but 'you wouldn't have seen that in my day!' The idea of any parent bringing a bottle of wine to drink at a primary school's Mothers' Group or a sporting or swimming carnival during the day is just abhorrent! What must these people be thinking? If you want to meet up with a group of other women and share a bottle of wine at 2pm in the afternoon - go for it, you're an adult and you can do what you want - but do it off school property and away from children. 

As a parent you are your child's most important teacher. Every word and action, especially during the primary years, helps shape their ideas in all sorts of areas. They will mimic your behaviour, both good and bad, so positive role modelling is vital. Alcohol is a part of our culture and any non-drinker will tell you that it's extremely difficult to avoid social situations which don't involve drinking. It would be wonderful if schools, particularly primary schools, were able to provide events or functions that were alcohol-free - to allow our kids to see for themselves that it is possible to socialize and have a good time without drinking. Even though we've come a long way, it seems as if we have a way to go yet before we see real change ...

Read More »

Has Your Partner Experienced Consanguinamory?

I used be active at a certain Big Internet Portal's Question and Answer service, until someone who couldn’t handle me answering questions truthfully when it comes to certain romantic or sexual topics decided to get me "suspended" using a weakness in their automated system. After that, I'd still check to see what questions were being asked there, even though I couldn't participate in any way or even contact anyone there unless they had somehow provided an email address in their question or answer. I will not link to the service, but I will quote it. Someone named Lauren asked this question...

Ok.....complicated one, recently found out my husband and his younger sister had sex for a number of years between the ages of 10-12, this is what he's telling me tho I'm aware this may have more to it? We are a young couple married with two children (boys) my relationship with his family has never been great and this hasn't helped! Can anyone give me any advice or your thoughts on how you would deal with this news? I'm up and down and so confused.....

Questions like this come up more than people might think. Person A is dating or married to Person B and Person A suspects or has found out that Person B has been sexually involved with a sibling or other family member. Person A usually wants to know what they should do.

It is important to clarify the situation by determining the answers to some questions.

1) Is this something that is suspected or has it been confirmed?



Not all families have the same behaviors and boundaries when it comes to physical affection, personal space, joking, and otherwise talking. As such, Person A can look at how Person B interacts with a sibling and think, “I wouldn’t interact with my sibling that way, only a partner” and so think that Person B must have sexual experience with their family member. It isn’t necessarily the case, though. On the other hand, with as common as consanguineous experimentation and sex is, it isn’t unreasonable to wonder.

Unless someone comes right out and makes a clear, credible statement either way, there probably isn’t an easy way to get the truth that will not cause some embarrassment.  One way of handling it could be in expressing needs and negotiating boundaries. Even if someone is monogamous, they should never assume their relationship is monogamous unless that has been explicitly discussed. So perhaps one oblique way of trying to determine if there’s anything current is to say, “I need monogamy. Is that going to be a problem?” Or, if polyamorous, saying “I need to know exactly who else you are going to be having sex with.” Trying to determine if anything happened in the past is going to take being a little less vague. It might be helpful to say something like this, in a nonjudgmental tone: “I was reading that a surprisingly high percentage of people have had sexual experiences with a close family member, enough that everyone knows somebody who has. But I’m not aware of anyone I know who has. Are you?” Depending on how serious the relationship is getting, the questioning can get more direct, because if someone is going to be creating a family with someone else, they should be talking about the dynamics and family history of both families.


2) Was this something that happened in the past or is it ongoing?

If confirmation is obtained, it is important to know whether the sexual aspect of the relationship is likely over for good or if it is ongoing or could easily resume. If it ended, when, why, and how did it end?


3) Was this consensual activity or was it assault/molestation?

I don’t classify assault or molestation as sexual activity or experimentation, as I think those are entirely different things. But as far as abuse or molestation goes, there is a difference between a 12-year-old grabbing his 10-year-old sister once to upset her and realizing it was a terrible thing to do and a 14-year-old forcing themselves on a 7-year-old repeatedly and trying to excuse it with “kids will be kids.” If someone is planning to raise kids with their partner, they should not ignore a history of child abuse.

Some kids engage in mutual exploration or experimentation. Most therapists don’t consider it abusive if minor family members close in age explore by mutual agreement. A 13-year-old and a 12-year-old might be curious. A 20-year-old and an 18-year-old might be in love. And that brings us to another question.


4) If this was a consensual thing in the past, was it a one-time event, a casual family-with-benefits thing, a love affair, or what?

They may have engaged in everything from a one-time instance of playing doctor or some other game, or had an ongoing love affair that they thought was going to last forever. Or perhaps there was something in between. That matters.


Discovering that your partner is cheating on you, deeply in love with a sibling, is a different matter than finding out that your partner used to masturbate in front of a sibling when they were teens, for mutual enjoyment, and both are different than finding out that your partner assaulted three relatives.

Going back to the question that prompted this entry, it wasn’t clear whether both of the siblings were "10-12" or not. Assuming they were close in age, it was not a matter of abuse, and everything ended before they were even teenagers, then there’s nothing for Lauren to do, unless she thinks it is causing ongoing problems in her marriage, in which case she should seek marriage therapy and perhaps individual therapy. If he is a good father and a good husband, she should be happy knowing that he chose to marry her and loves her. That should outweigh what happened in his childhood, even if she thinks what happened is wrong.

All of the above refers to interaction with siblings, cousins or even aunts/uncles who are close in age. There is a different dynamic if the involvement was with an older aunt/uncle, parent, or grandparent (or, in the case of someone who is older, an adult child). Again, abuse is a whole different matter than consensual sex between adults. But consensual adult intergenerational sex does happen, perhaps not as often as intragenerational, but it happens.

If someone is not in a committed relationship, but is rather just dating someone, and they think the other person is “too close” to a family member, they are entirely free to stop seeing them. A casual outsider is not going to change family dynamics, and trying to do so will likely make everyone unhappy. Who wants to be suspicious that their partner is cheating with anyone, let alone a family member? A consanguinamorous bond can be an especially powerful one, and if someone suspects they are dating someone who is has such a bond, issuing an ultimatum will likely mean the dating will end.

Like anything else about a partner’s sexual history, it comes down to knowing what you’ll accept and what you won’t (and what you need to know to begin with). While you may be missing out on a great partner if you “can’t” accept some of the consensual sex in their past or that they will not tell you something, it isn’t a good idea to get in deeper with someone if you’re going to end up holding that aspect of their past against them.

Conversely, if you'll love them and let them know they can be honest with you about their past and whether or not it (still) holds an erotic charge for them, you can have a great time or a great life together, especially if you are willing to sometimes play off of that history in fantasies.

Read More »

Valentine's Day

Valentine's Day is here again. Many people will be getting married. Married people will be celebrating their anniversaries, or simply having a night out, as will other people hoping to get married someday, or maybe just enjoying being together in public.

If you are in such a situation, good for you and enjoy it.

Whether you are or not, take a moment to think about all of the people who can’t marry the person or person(s) they love, or can’t so much as hold hands in public without being accosted. Think about the people, consenting adults, who have to completely hide their relationships because they could be sent to prison for simply having sex in private. Think about the people who have to hide who they are because, where they live, they could be killed for being who they are. Think about the people who can’t accept gifts from their their lover(s) at work, or even a loving comment on their Facebook wall, because it would out them and get them fired.

This is what goes on because some people are being denied their rights to share sex, love, residence, and marriage. The US has had the limited monogamous same-gender freedom to marry nationwide, which was a great step forward, for years now, and it hasn't hurt anything. Other victories for that freedom to marry since February 14, 2017 have included...

Finland ...March 1, 2017
Osage Nation  ...March 20, 2017
Prairie Island Indian Community ...March 22, 2017
Falkland Islands ...April 29, 2017
Guernsey ...May 2, 2017
Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin ...June 5, 2017
Faroe Islands ...July 1, 2017
Chiapas ...July 11, 2017
Puebla ...August 1, 2017
Tristan da Cunha ...August 4, 2017
Malta ...September 1, 2017
Germany ...October 1, 2017
Ak-Chin Indian Community ...October 25, 2017
Baja California ...November 3, 2017
Australia ...December 9, 2017
Saint Helena ...December 20, 2017



In most of the world, a man can’t marry both of the women he loves, despite both women being in favor of such a marriage.

The people in most of these interviews can't have legally recognized marriages anywhere in the world, with perhaps one or two exceptions, and we need full marriage equality before people like Linda, Melissa, and Matthew can tie the knot.

So enjoy Valentine's Day if you are able, but think for a moment about the people who will only be able to fully enjoy theirs when we have full marriage equality so that an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, persecution, or discrimination. Help make it happen sooner rather than later.


Do you have special plans? Or, if you're reading this after Valentine's Day, do you have anything special to report? If so, comment below. Remember, you can comment anonymously. Or, if you prefer, send Keith an email at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com

Read More »

We Get Letters From Haters

Poor "CB" was so angry and full of hate. This person tried posting comments to one of our most popular entries, which debunks myths about sibling consanguinamory. Unfortunately, CB either didn't bother to read instructions about comments or was too agitated to care.  We usually don't post hate-filled comments with words that aren't allowed on terrestrial broadcasts in the US. So we had to edit this bigot's comments, which is why they are being posted here instead of and the end of the entry.

Here's the first attempt...

Wow we need a new plague most of you are a bunch of sick f---s and should NOT BE PROCREATING because all you are causing are sever genetic deformities this post was like reading a post from a nazi trying to convince themselves and others what they are doing is normal and healthy.

Sigh. First CB calls for genocide. We all know that genocide is morally superior to letting consenting adults love each other, right?



Then CB invokes Discredited Argument #22.

Then CB invokes Discredited Argument #18.

Then CB, who called for genocide, tries to paint us as Nazis because we think people should be allowed their love lives without being thrown in prison. Um, yeah.

Not paying attention to the part of the instructions that says it can take a while for comments to appear, CB tried again...

Yea, this is all so sick and toxic it’s like reading a blog post from a pedophile trying to rationalize irrational and unhealthy behavior or a blog post from a nazi trying to make concessions for their twisted and warped beliefs.

What part of consenting adults does CB not understand?

But to be most clear of all, YOU SHOULD NOT PROCREATE SINCE IT CAUSES GENETIC DEFECTS! Like some blog post has more facts than years of scientific evidence and research you are all very mentally ill people who need heavy duty therapy.

CB ended up trying to post that comment at least twice!

Frustrated (probably in more than one way), CB finished the hatefest with...

How come I can’t report this for spreading false and misleasdif information

Notice CB never said what exactly was false about the original posting.

Antiequality bigots have no good arguments. This is why we will have full marriage equality. When someone thinks through the issue calmly and rationally, they realize that it is destructive and ridiculous to deny consenting adults their basic rights to love each other how they mutually agree.

Read More »