Date: January 04, 2017
01) Next Up: Legalization of Incest, Necrophilia, Pedophilia, Zoophilia and More
“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.”
This coming from the Oral Roberts University…it should be pointed out, that it’s skewed towards religious and conservative viewpoints.
A few thoughts on this:
“LBGQTI”…
…I find it ever intriguing, how this collection of letters has splintered off into different collections, to the extent that even I don’t know what all the letters stand for…Lesbian…Bisexual…Gay…Queer…Transgendered…and I’m guessing Incest.
I don’t really know how “the destruction of marriage” plays into legalization of pedophilia, and the author doesn’t really explore this direction of thought to deeply. Marriage isn’t a pedophile issue…is it? I mean…I get that it broadens social acceptance of relationships, when something like marriage is broadened to include more diverse people…I just don’t see where that is throwing pedophiles such a meaty bone.
It should be noted…gays and lesbians did not destroy marriage…They expanded it…Which is an important distinction.
Many people have argued that those truly deserving the honor of such recognition, are heterosexuals themselves…who have driven the institution of marriage to record levels of divorce.
“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?”
The author is forgetting one thing…the “two consenting adults” talking point and slogan, which is tossed out as a wedge to separate “the good perverts” from “the bad perverts”, and to act as a roadblock to MAPs.
There is a tremendous amount of dogma, intolerance and hostility aimed at MAPs, even from within the broader LGBTQ community.
However…I do appreciate that, yes…social attitudes ultimately guide social norms, and social laws.
I cannot speak for all the things named, regarding how hard or easy it would be…but, if societal attitude changed enough…I could see any of them being legalized…respected and valued, even.
Necrophilia [on a very limited level], is currently a respected practice in some middle eastern cultures…In addition, I’ve seen it argued that a person could will their body to a loved one, for just such a purpose…So, there is a potential framework for it…
…I’ve only found necrophilia interesting…in that it is part of the broader range of sexual interest, amongst humans.
“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?
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…”
I agree…
…Just who is the government [or anyone within it] to legislate love?…
…They are nobody, to be legislating love.
This is one area, where the government has no rightful place…People who share love, share it between themselves…It is not a matter of direct public consequence [except that the public benefits, from the greater stability these relationships offer]. The government does not own the concept of love, nor any of the sensations, benefits and consequences of it…Nobody owns those things…And those things are all unique, to the couples [or groups] involved in these loving relationships.
…It is those relationships, which define what love is…Nothing and no one else.
Is heterosexual love better?…How?…How is it any better?…And how is something that does not fit an individual, “better for them”?
It seems to me…aside from taking public control of our own identities, and public personas [reputations, etc.]…the biggest fight for MAPs, centers around the question “Do we have a right to love someone?”…
…And I don’t mean that in a general sense [Of course you can have familial love, or seek common heterosexual love]…I mean, can the truly meaningful experiences be realized, which make your life complete and whole, with those who you share a loving bond?
…Can MAPs, or children, adolescents and teens love naturally?…Or are we forever forced to contort ourselves, to the small and rigid box most people try to imprison love in?
“Normal” people do not own love…
…Love belongs to all of us…no matter what makes us us.
Nobody has the right to take that away from you.
