Posts
4:41 PM
Unknown
Congratulations to all LGBT couples who will now be free to marry. There are still people denied their right to marry the person(s) they love in these states, so let's keep evolving towards full marriage equality in these states and nationally!
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Congratulations to Rhode Island and Minnesota
Congratulations to all LGBT couples who will now be free to marry. There are still people denied their right to marry the person(s) they love in these states, so let's keep evolving towards full marriage equality in these states and nationally!
Posted in: 
Congratulations to Rhode Island and Minnesota
Congratulations to all LGBT couples who will now be free to marry. There are still people denied their right to marry the person(s) they love in these states, so let's keep evolving towards full marriage equality in these states and nationally!
NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #14
“What about insurance/employment benefits?” There are many simple ways to deal with this. It is dealt with when an employee has more kids than the next, isn't it? It is not a good reason to deny the polygamous freedom to marry or polyamorous relationship rights in general.. This is something the law and/or employers and unions can figure out.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #13
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #15
NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #14
“What about insurance/employment benefits?” There are many simple ways to deal with this. It is dealt with when an employee has more kids than the next, isn't it? It is not a good reason to deny the polygamous freedom to marry or polyamorous relationship rights in general.. This is something the law and/or employers and unions can figure out.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #13
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #15
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Sibling Consanguinamory Gets Steamy Novella
At Life Becomes Me, the blogger reviews Diane Rinella's Love's Erotic Flower, which is now available at Amazon!
In the novella, she lets you see how their love is explored and acted upon. It is humorous, sincere and very well written. Diane once again shows us her outstanding talent at taking a taboo topic and making us see the real issue………..LOVE.So there's a good review.
Do we as society have the right to tell someone they can’t love another person because of title, relation or to establish comfort in society? Do we have the right to tell a person they have to ignore their heart and live in a loveless marriage because that is what is acceptable?Good questions to pose to people. The more people think about this subject, the more prejudice will melt away, and that's a good thing.
Here's what I blogged about an interview that was done with Diane Rinella.
If you are in, or have been in, a consanguinamorous relationship or want to "meet" people who are or have been, I recommend joining the FREE forum, Kindred Spirits. But... be sure to read AND immediately follow all of the rules, or you'll get kicked right off.
Sibling Consanguinamory Gets Steamy Novella
At Life Becomes Me, the blogger reviews Diane Rinella's Love's Erotic Flower, which is now available at Amazon!
In the novella, she lets you see how their love is explored and acted upon. It is humorous, sincere and very well written. Diane once again shows us her outstanding talent at taking a taboo topic and making us see the real issue………..LOVE.So there's a good review.
Do we as society have the right to tell someone they can’t love another person because of title, relation or to establish comfort in society? Do we have the right to tell a person they have to ignore their heart and live in a loveless marriage because that is what is acceptable?Good questions to pose to people. The more people think about this subject, the more prejudice will melt away, and that's a good thing.
Here's what I blogged about an interview that was done with Diane Rinella.
If you are in, or have been in, a consanguinamorous relationship or want to "meet" people who are or have been, I recommend joining the FREE forum, Kindred Spirits. But... be sure to read AND immediately follow all of the rules, or you'll get kicked right off.
NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #13
“This will cause inheritance disputes.” This can’t be a reason for the continued denial of the polyamorous or polygamous freedom to marry. Again, if we're talking about children, not all polyamorous marriages will have children. But even with today’s restriction of monogamy-only for marriage, we see inheritance disputes all of the time. Widows and widowers who were married only once get in fights with their own children, who may fight with each other. Then, in some cases, there are children born outside of that marriage. There’s divorce and remarriage with or without stepchildren or making more children, there are people who were never married who have kids, there are childless people whose inheritances are disputed, "monogamous" and polyamorous people who had children with multiple people without having been married to any those partners, on and on it goes. If anything, legalizing polygamy would make it easier to sort out inheritance. There can be default rules in the law, and people can come up with their own documented, legal agreements.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #12
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #14
NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #13
“This will cause inheritance disputes.” This can’t be a reason for the continued denial of the polyamorous or polygamous freedom to marry. Again, if we're talking about children, not all polyamorous marriages will have children. But even with today’s restriction of monogamy-only for marriage, we see inheritance disputes all of the time. Widows and widowers who were married only once get in fights with their own children, who may fight with each other. Then, in some cases, there are children born outside of that marriage. There’s divorce and remarriage with or without stepchildren or making more children, there are people who were never married who have kids, there are childless people whose inheritances are disputed, "monogamous" and polyamorous people who had children with multiple people without having been married to any those partners, on and on it goes. If anything, legalizing polygamy would make it easier to sort out inheritance. There can be default rules in the law, and people can come up with their own documented, legal agreements.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #12
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #14
Monday, July 29, 2013
Diane Rinella Interviewed
[I'm bumping this up because Love's Erotic Flower is now available!]
I have much appreciation for the lovely and talented author Diane Rinella, as I've previously mentioned. She has written about brother-sister consanguinamory and continues to. So I was very happy to see Authors Helping Authors publish an interview with Rinella at authorbloggerexchange.com to talk about Love's Forbidden Flower, Love's Erotic Flower, and Time's Forbidden Flower.
But society dictates this picture-perfect adoration is the ghastliest of all possibilities.
As Lily embarks on a quest for the romance the heavens intended, her suitor turns reluctant. Desperate to uncover why Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hiding decayed from a tender-hearted gentleman into a ferociously self-serving, cocky bastard, Lily is prepared for battle when it comes to the salvation of her soul mate. However, Donovan traps Lily in a mental game of chess, leaving her to question his sanity. When Lily’s revelations about Donovan’s destructive alter ego lead to an inconceivable truth, can she help Donovan survive fate’s cruel joke?
Impassioned, witty, and deeply moving, Love’s Forbidden Flower is filled with stunning controversies that will forever haunt your heart.
I have much appreciation for the lovely and talented author Diane Rinella, as I've previously mentioned. She has written about brother-sister consanguinamory and continues to. So I was very happy to see Authors Helping Authors publish an interview with Rinella at authorbloggerexchange.com to talk about Love's Forbidden Flower, Love's Erotic Flower, and Time's Forbidden Flower.
Did you intend to write a book with such a controversial subject matter or did it just turn out that way?
When I wrote the book, I honestly didn’t realize how controversial the subject was. To me it was just another thing people got worked up over. It wasn’t until I was on the third draft that it hit me. Once I started talking about it, the huge number of people who not only have strong feelings about the subject, but also misunderstand it, became obvious. Suddenly the book became very personal. What if people said my relationship was icky and that I wasn’t allowed to be with the person I love? Now I feel totally invested in the human rights aspect.
Awesome. She grew as a person through the work. Maybe there's a filmmaker out there who'd also like to grow? I guarantee adapting Rinella's work would get buzz. If done right, it would not only help people, but it would be profitable and good for the careers of those involved. C'mon, Hollywood movers and shakers. I know some of you have real life experience with this subject. Either you or someone close to you has gone through some of the same things as her characters. You can understand how they feel what they do. Do something with that. Someone is going to make at least one breakthrough production sooner or later with the subject matter. Be that someone.
You can read the whole interview and find more here.Can you tell us about your up coming books Love’s Erotic Flower and Time’s Forbidden Flower?
While Love’s Forbidden Flower can be viewed as a standalone novel, there is so much more to tell. You can’t have two soul mates and truly end their story when they are 20. Lily and Donovan made life-altering decisions that will result in life-long consequences. Thus, Time’s Forbidden Flower will complete their journey. Meanwhile, since so many of my fans are erotica lovers and wanted more graphic scenes, Love’s Erotic Flower, a 8K word short story, was written for them. It is a stand-alone story so it can be read by people who have not read the other books. It will be free on Amazon July 29 to August 2.
Genre: Romance/New Adult
Rated: Parental Guidance Suggested
Length: 320 pages
Cover by: Indie Author Services
ISBN/ASIN: 978-0615732626
Rated: Parental Guidance Suggested
Length: 320 pages
Cover by: Indie Author Services
ISBN/ASIN: 978-0615732626
*** This is a New Adult Romance novel involving two siblings who struggle with their emotions.***
The heart cares not what society forbids.
Lily nurtures a secret love for a flawless man—the one who is her soul mate. Donovan is gorgeous, charismatic, and delights in all of Lily’s talents and quirks. Their innate knowledge of each other is almost telepathic. Together they interlock like fine threads creating luxurious silk.But society dictates this picture-perfect adoration is the ghastliest of all possibilities.
As Lily embarks on a quest for the romance the heavens intended, her suitor turns reluctant. Desperate to uncover why Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hiding decayed from a tender-hearted gentleman into a ferociously self-serving, cocky bastard, Lily is prepared for battle when it comes to the salvation of her soul mate. However, Donovan traps Lily in a mental game of chess, leaving her to question his sanity. When Lily’s revelations about Donovan’s destructive alter ego lead to an inconceivable truth, can she help Donovan survive fate’s cruel joke?
Impassioned, witty, and deeply moving, Love’s Forbidden Flower is filled with stunning controversies that will forever haunt your heart.
Coming July 29, 2013
Free on Amazon July 29 – August 3
Genre: Erotica
Rated: 18 years and over
Length: 38 pages
Cover by: Diane Rinella & Indie Author Services
ISBN/ASIN: 978-0615853635
Coming August 19, 2013
The Journey Ends
Genre: Romance/New Adult
Rated: Parental Guidance Suggested
Length: 304 pages
Cover by: Indie Author Services
ISBN/ASIN: 978-0615853024
Rated: Parental Guidance Suggested
Length: 304 pages
Cover by: Indie Author Services
ISBN/ASIN: 978-0615853024
Diane Rinella Interviewed
[I'm bumping this up because Love's Erotic Flower is now available!]
I have much appreciation for the lovely and talented author Diane Rinella, as I've previously mentioned. She has written about brother-sister consanguinamory and continues to. So I was very happy to see Authors Helping Authors publish an interview with Rinella at authorbloggerexchange.com to talk about Love's Forbidden Flower, Love's Erotic Flower, and Time's Forbidden Flower.
But society dictates this picture-perfect adoration is the ghastliest of all possibilities.
As Lily embarks on a quest for the romance the heavens intended, her suitor turns reluctant. Desperate to uncover why Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hiding decayed from a tender-hearted gentleman into a ferociously self-serving, cocky bastard, Lily is prepared for battle when it comes to the salvation of her soul mate. However, Donovan traps Lily in a mental game of chess, leaving her to question his sanity. When Lily’s revelations about Donovan’s destructive alter ego lead to an inconceivable truth, can she help Donovan survive fate’s cruel joke?
Impassioned, witty, and deeply moving, Love’s Forbidden Flower is filled with stunning controversies that will forever haunt your heart.
I have much appreciation for the lovely and talented author Diane Rinella, as I've previously mentioned. She has written about brother-sister consanguinamory and continues to. So I was very happy to see Authors Helping Authors publish an interview with Rinella at authorbloggerexchange.com to talk about Love's Forbidden Flower, Love's Erotic Flower, and Time's Forbidden Flower.
Did you intend to write a book with such a controversial subject matter or did it just turn out that way?
When I wrote the book, I honestly didn’t realize how controversial the subject was. To me it was just another thing people got worked up over. It wasn’t until I was on the third draft that it hit me. Once I started talking about it, the huge number of people who not only have strong feelings about the subject, but also misunderstand it, became obvious. Suddenly the book became very personal. What if people said my relationship was icky and that I wasn’t allowed to be with the person I love? Now I feel totally invested in the human rights aspect.
Awesome. She grew as a person through the work. Maybe there's a filmmaker out there who'd also like to grow? I guarantee adapting Rinella's work would get buzz. If done right, it would not only help people, but it would be profitable and good for the careers of those involved. C'mon, Hollywood movers and shakers. I know some of you have real life experience with this subject. Either you or someone close to you has gone through some of the same things as her characters. You can understand how they feel what they do. Do something with that. Someone is going to make at least one breakthrough production sooner or later with the subject matter. Be that someone.
You can read the whole interview and find more here.Can you tell us about your up coming books Love’s Erotic Flower and Time’s Forbidden Flower?
While Love’s Forbidden Flower can be viewed as a standalone novel, there is so much more to tell. You can’t have two soul mates and truly end their story when they are 20. Lily and Donovan made life-altering decisions that will result in life-long consequences. Thus, Time’s Forbidden Flower will complete their journey. Meanwhile, since so many of my fans are erotica lovers and wanted more graphic scenes, Love’s Erotic Flower, a 8K word short story, was written for them. It is a stand-alone story so it can be read by people who have not read the other books. It will be free on Amazon July 29 to August 2.
Genre: Romance/New Adult
Rated: Parental Guidance Suggested
Length: 320 pages
Cover by: Indie Author Services
ISBN/ASIN: 978-0615732626
Rated: Parental Guidance Suggested
Length: 320 pages
Cover by: Indie Author Services
ISBN/ASIN: 978-0615732626
*** This is a New Adult Romance novel involving two siblings who struggle with their emotions.***
The heart cares not what society forbids.
Lily nurtures a secret love for a flawless man—the one who is her soul mate. Donovan is gorgeous, charismatic, and delights in all of Lily’s talents and quirks. Their innate knowledge of each other is almost telepathic. Together they interlock like fine threads creating luxurious silk.But society dictates this picture-perfect adoration is the ghastliest of all possibilities.
As Lily embarks on a quest for the romance the heavens intended, her suitor turns reluctant. Desperate to uncover why Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hiding decayed from a tender-hearted gentleman into a ferociously self-serving, cocky bastard, Lily is prepared for battle when it comes to the salvation of her soul mate. However, Donovan traps Lily in a mental game of chess, leaving her to question his sanity. When Lily’s revelations about Donovan’s destructive alter ego lead to an inconceivable truth, can she help Donovan survive fate’s cruel joke?
Impassioned, witty, and deeply moving, Love’s Forbidden Flower is filled with stunning controversies that will forever haunt your heart.
Coming July 29, 2013
Free on Amazon July 29 – August 3
Genre: Erotica
Rated: 18 years and over
Length: 38 pages
Cover by: Diane Rinella & Indie Author Services
ISBN/ASIN: 978-0615853635
Coming August 19, 2013
The Journey Ends
Genre: Romance/New Adult
Rated: Parental Guidance Suggested
Length: 304 pages
Cover by: Indie Author Services
ISBN/ASIN: 978-0615853024
Rated: Parental Guidance Suggested
Length: 304 pages
Cover by: Indie Author Services
ISBN/ASIN: 978-0615853024
NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #12
“What about child custody and child support?” This is an especially flimsy objection to polyamorous (or polygamous) relationships. As we have noted before, adult relationships don't always involve raising children. Even so, nonmonogamous relationships between adults who are parents have always existed, and in most places, it isn't criminal to be nonmonogamous. So this issue is already being handled. Notice we could ask the same question about children from one night stands, donated sperm, surrogate mothers, affairs, brief flings, or supposedly monogamous relationships and marriages that end. What about children born to a woman whose husband wasn’t the man who impregnated her? All of these situations are entirely legal. A mediator, arbitrator, or court decides custody and child support disputes that aren’t resolved amicably. That would still be the case if polyamorous relationships had legal protections, including marriage.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #11
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #13
NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #12
“What about child custody and child support?” This is an especially flimsy objection to polyamorous (or polygamous) relationships. As we have noted before, adult relationships don't always involve raising children. Even so, nonmonogamous relationships between adults who are parents have always existed, and in most places, it isn't criminal to be nonmonogamous. So this issue is already being handled. Notice we could ask the same question about children from one night stands, donated sperm, surrogate mothers, affairs, brief flings, or supposedly monogamous relationships and marriages that end. What about children born to a woman whose husband wasn’t the man who impregnated her? All of these situations are entirely legal. A mediator, arbitrator, or court decides custody and child support disputes that aren’t resolved amicably. That would still be the case if polyamorous relationships had legal protections, including marriage.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #11
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #13
Sunday, July 28, 2013
NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #11
“It will be a legal/paperwork nightmare as our system is set up for couples.” That’s what the bigots said about same-gender marriage and the Americans With Disabilities Act and just about any civil rights laws. Of course it is easier for those who already have what they want to keep things as they are. But what about all of the people who are denied their rights?
Adopting the polygamous freedom to marry under full marriage equality will take much less adjustment than adopting the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Violence Against Women Act and many other laws necessary to for equal protection and civil rights. Contract and business law already provides adaptable examples of how law can accommodate configurations involving three or more people, including when someone joins an existing relationship or leaves a relationship.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #10
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #12
NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #11
“It will be a legal/paperwork nightmare as our system is set up for couples.” That’s what the bigots said about same-gender marriage and the Americans With Disabilities Act and just about any civil rights laws. Of course it is easier for those who already have what they want to keep things as they are. But what about all of the people who are denied their rights?
Adopting the polygamous freedom to marry under full marriage equality will take much less adjustment than adopting the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Violence Against Women Act and many other laws necessary to for equal protection and civil rights. Contract and business law already provides adaptable examples of how law can accommodate configurations involving three or more people, including when someone joins an existing relationship or leaves a relationship.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #10
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #12
Saturday, July 27, 2013
NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #10
“Polyamory/polygamy spreads sexually transmitted infections.” Unprotected sex with someone who is infected is how such infections may be transmitted. Twenty people could have group sex and a group marriage for fifty years and if none of them brings an infection into the marriage and they only have sex with each other, none of them will get a sexually transmitted infection.
We do not deny people their freedom to marry based on which diseases they have. In most places, people can legally have sex with multiple partners anyway. Polyfidelity can be encouraged if polygamy is legalized and polyamory is no longer stigmatized, which would actually reduce disease transmission. Polyamorous people tend to be more careful about prevention, safer sex, and actually talking about the issues involved.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #9
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #11
NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #10
“Polyamory/polygamy spreads sexually transmitted infections.” Unprotected sex with someone who is infected is how such infections may be transmitted. Twenty people could have group sex and a group marriage for fifty years and if none of them brings an infection into the marriage and they only have sex with each other, none of them will get a sexually transmitted infection.
We do not deny people their freedom to marry based on which diseases they have. In most places, people can legally have sex with multiple partners anyway. Polyfidelity can be encouraged if polygamy is legalized and polyamory is no longer stigmatized, which would actually reduce disease transmission. Polyamorous people tend to be more careful about prevention, safer sex, and actually talking about the issues involved.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #9
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #11
Friday, July 26, 2013
Is Michigan Arresting People For Consensual Sex?
This short article at wnem.com doesn't make it clear what is alleged to have happened, and maybe law enforcement isn't being clear either. The headline said a man was arrested after his daughter revealed a "sexual relationship." The article's text uses that same phrase. The man is 39 but his biological daughter's age is not given.
Is Michigan Arresting People For Consensual Sex?
This short article at wnem.com doesn't make it clear what is alleged to have happened, and maybe law enforcement isn't being clear either. The headline said a man was arrested after his daughter revealed a "sexual relationship." The article's text uses that same phrase. The man is 39 but his biological daughter's age is not given.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #8
“Polyamorous and consanguineous marriages are not the same thing as same-gender marriage.” So what? We’re talking about consenting adults who want to be together, and there’s no good reason to stop them. Some same-gender relationships and marriages are polygamous and/or consanguineous. A man should not only be able to marry another man, but two or more other men or his brother.
Strictly speaking, whether a marriage is same-gender or heterosexual isa different category than whether it is monogamous or polygamous; or exogamous or interracial, endogamous, or consanguineous. Some heterosexual marriages are monogamous, some are polygamous. Some same-gender marriages are monogamous, some are polygamous. Bisexuals may be in monogamous marriages or polygamous marriages. Some monogamous marriages are consanguineous, some aren’t. That monogamous/polygamous and exogamous/endogamous/consanguineous are different categories from heterosexual/same-gender is not a justification to deny the freedom to marry to consenting adults, or deny them marriage equality. Relationship rights belong to all adults.
It should be noted that when there is a poyamorous relationship, whether a "V" or a triad or more, at least two of the people involved are the same gender, even if they are no more than metamours to each other.
Something does not have to be immutable or inborn, like sexual orientation, to be legal. However, there are people (especially with Genetic Sexual Attraction) who are in consanguineous relationships who would swear to you that they couldn’t love anyone as much as they love their partner(s). They were born into their situations. There are people who are obviously unable to be monogamous, to the point of being willing to suffer loss of job, loss of reputation, loss of wealth, and figurative and literal loss of life, and they should not promise monogamy nor be pressured to pretend to be monogamous.
Some people simply arepolyamorous.
That these other categories are not the same thing as same-gender marriage does not explain why there are still laws against them or a lack of relationship protections in the law.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #7
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #9
NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #8
“Polyamorous and consanguineous marriages are not the same thing as same-gender marriage.” So what? We’re talking about consenting adults who want to be together, and there’s no good reason to stop them. Some same-gender relationships and marriages are polygamous and/or consanguineous. A man should not only be able to marry another man, but two or more other men or his brother.
Strictly speaking, whether a marriage is same-gender or heterosexual isa different category than whether it is monogamous or polygamous; or exogamous or interracial, endogamous, or consanguineous. Some heterosexual marriages are monogamous, some are polygamous. Some same-gender marriages are monogamous, some are polygamous. Bisexuals may be in monogamous marriages or polygamous marriages. Some monogamous marriages are consanguineous, some aren’t. That monogamous/polygamous and exogamous/endogamous/consanguineous are different categories from heterosexual/same-gender is not a justification to deny the freedom to marry to consenting adults, or deny them marriage equality. Relationship rights belong to all adults.
It should be noted that when there is a poyamorous relationship, whether a "V" or a triad or more, at least two of the people involved are the same gender, even if they are no more than metamours to each other.
Something does not have to be immutable or inborn, like sexual orientation, to be legal. However, there are people (especially with Genetic Sexual Attraction) who are in consanguineous relationships who would swear to you that they couldn’t love anyone as much as they love their partner(s). They were born into their situations. There are people who are obviously unable to be monogamous, to the point of being willing to suffer loss of job, loss of reputation, loss of wealth, and figurative and literal loss of life, and they should not promise monogamy nor be pressured to pretend to be monogamous.
Some people simply arepolyamorous.
That these other categories are not the same thing as same-gender marriage does not explain why there are still laws against them or a lack of relationship protections in the law.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #7
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #9
SCOTUS to Consider Marijuana Reclassification
This case, Americans for Safe Access vs USDEA, has been percolating through the federal court system for more than a decade. Now that the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit declined to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug [i.e. high potential for abuse with no verified medical benefits], the pot lobby has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the SCOTUS.
As readers of the Law Blogger are aware, one of the chief tensions between states that have legalized marijuana or have approved initiatives for medical marijuana, has been the persistent and long-standing classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug in the federal Controlled Substances Act.
The DEA's response to the pot lobby's petition for cert is due mid-August. This case will hopefully be taken-up by SCOTUS and decided on the merits. That way, those in the pot growing industry will know where they stand. Other the other hand, many legal scholars would argue that it is not for the justices to legislate but rather, that is the job of the Legislature.
Even if marijuana remains on Schedule 1 at the conclusion of this epic litigation, it nevertheless appears that plenty of entrepreneurs will continue risking their time, money and even their freedom to grow and distribute pot.
Perhaps the basic economic laws of supply and demand are among the strongest and most enduring of all. Apparently, there is an unlimited demand for marijuana out there on Main Street and a healthy supply of folks willing to satisfy that demand.
www.waterfordlegal.com
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
We Get Letters
I know what you are going through. I have being in love with my nephew since I can remember. I am 39 years of age and he is 41. His dad and I are half brother and sister same dad different mom.Wouldn't it have been better for everyone involved if these two were allowed to be together, and if they wanted, to marry? Assuming the people who became their spouses were not informed, it isn't fair to those people just like it isn't fair to the lovers. Adults should be free to love each other, and not be pressured into hiding their love, staying the closet, and taking on beards.
When we were teens my parents sent me to spent the summer at his house. That summer we fell in love. But we continue with our separate lives I got married so did he. Over the years we kept in contact and saw each other when ever we could. He is my best friend my soulmate. We are still very much in love but we decided to never say or tell our families. They would never understand our bond.
In addition to the comments left on this blog, I get email, too, from people all over the world who are looking for help because of discriminatory laws and prejudices held by their own families. It is heartbreaking that anyone should have to hide because they are adults who love each other.
This is why we need relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults.
We Get Letters
I know what you are going through. I have being in love with my nephew since I can remember. I am 39 years of age and he is 41. His dad and I are half brother and sister same dad different mom.Wouldn't it have been better for everyone involved if these two were allowed to be together, and if they wanted, to marry? Assuming the people who became their spouses were not informed, it isn't fair to those people just like it isn't fair to the lovers. Adults should be free to love each other, and not be pressured into hiding their love, staying the closet, and taking on beards.
When we were teens my parents sent me to spent the summer at his house. That summer we fell in love. But we continue with our separate lives I got married so did he. Over the years we kept in contact and saw each other when ever we could. He is my best friend my soulmate. We are still very much in love but we decided to never say or tell our families. They would never understand our bond.
In addition to the comments left on this blog, I get email, too, from people all over the world who are looking for help because of discriminatory laws and prejudices held by their own families. It is heartbreaking that anyone should have to hide because they are adults who love each other.
This is why we need relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults.
NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #7
“What’s next?” “Where do we draw the line?” What's wrong with letting consenting adults have the freedom to love each other as they want and agree? Who has a problem with that? Rather than coming up with convoluted schemes for which groups of people will get which rights, why not support the rights of all adults? It’s really quite simple:
The right to marry or to personal consortium shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex, gender, sexual orientation, ancestry, consanguinity, or number of participants.
(Adapt that to your country, province, etc.)
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #6
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #8
NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #7
“What’s next?” “Where do we draw the line?” What's wrong with letting consenting adults have the freedom to love each other as they want and agree? Who has a problem with that? Rather than coming up with convoluted schemes for which groups of people will get which rights, why not support the rights of all adults? It’s really quite simple:
The right to marry or to personal consortium shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex, gender, sexual orientation, ancestry, consanguinity, or number of participants.
(Adapt that to your country, province, etc.)
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #6
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #8
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
How Genetic Sexual Attraction is Not Incest
Imagine a man and woman meet in a bar. They've never met before. They go outside for a smoke. They get into an argument and the jerk slugs her.
That is assault. But is it domestic violence?
No? What if I told you that unbeknownst to them, they have the same genetic father, a sperm donor neither one has met?
Is it domestic violence then? No?
What if... instead of slugging her, he wasn't a jerk and instead romanced her for the evening and they ended up having passionate sex.
Is that incest?
You can say it is incest biologically, but not sociologically. They were not raised together. They aren't even aware they are related yet.
Things like this have happened. Some people who experience Genetic Sexual Attraction had no idea they were genetically related before they met, fell in love, had sex, or even had children together. Even so, people ignorant of GSA or Genetic Attraction are scoffing at the defendant's statement in this case. Granted, they were apparently aware of their relation before their relationship involved statutory rape (since the age of consent in California is 18, not 16, as it is in many US states.) But that GSA happens to people unaware of their genetic relation demonstrates that GSA is real.
Judgmental finger-waggers cite the genetic connection as to why this is incest. This is because "she raised him" is not an option for why they are upset. The finger-waggers like to use that one when, say, a man and his grown stepdaughter have sexual relationship. Some finger-waggers go even further. Let's say that instead of starting a relationship with his grown stepdaughter, his son, whom the stepdaughter never lived with, meets her as an adult and starts a relationship with her. Some of the finger-waggers still say this is wrong, even if the man is no longer married to her mother.
People would use just about any argument to condemn a relationship with which they are not comfortable. But we'd all be a lot better off if we put aside our prejudices and recognized that consenting adults should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage. Even if someone is disgusted. We'd also be better off if we recognized that Genetic Sexual Attraction does exist, and it is a mitigating factor when, say, a 32 year-old woman breaks California's age of consent barrier with a 16 year-old.
The problem with calling the Atkinson case incest is that incest conjures up images of (in this case) a woman grooming the boy she is raising to be her assault victim. This is a case of Genetic Sexual Attraction and statutory rape. She did not raise him. She was not his guardian. This was a case where one of the participants was not a legal adult, able to legally consent. When the participants are consenting adults, I prefer the term consanguinamory to distinguish loving, consensual sex from images of some vile old man raping an prepubescent girl. Rape and love are not the same things.
There is no good reason why adults who are not violating existing vows to others, who are right for each other, should feel a need to refrain from being together in whatever way they want. Unfortunately, laws and prejudices in many places still need to catch up with reality. But what about finding support from others in the same situation?
Genetic Sexual Attraction is a phenomenon that may or may not actually lead to sex. However, if sex is involved, it is not incest from the sociological perspective, but still may be considered incest by outsiders, including law enforcement, as it is incest in the genetic sense. It is very easy for people who haven't experience GSA or witnessed it happening first-hand to scoff and deny it's reality. But ignorance does not determine reality. For more, read this.
That is assault. But is it domestic violence?
No? What if I told you that unbeknownst to them, they have the same genetic father, a sperm donor neither one has met?
Is it domestic violence then? No?
What if... instead of slugging her, he wasn't a jerk and instead romanced her for the evening and they ended up having passionate sex.
Is that incest?
You can say it is incest biologically, but not sociologically. They were not raised together. They aren't even aware they are related yet.
Things like this have happened. Some people who experience Genetic Sexual Attraction had no idea they were genetically related before they met, fell in love, had sex, or even had children together. Even so, people ignorant of GSA or Genetic Attraction are scoffing at the defendant's statement in this case. Granted, they were apparently aware of their relation before their relationship involved statutory rape (since the age of consent in California is 18, not 16, as it is in many US states.) But that GSA happens to people unaware of their genetic relation demonstrates that GSA is real.
Judgmental finger-waggers cite the genetic connection as to why this is incest. This is because "she raised him" is not an option for why they are upset. The finger-waggers like to use that one when, say, a man and his grown stepdaughter have sexual relationship. Some finger-waggers go even further. Let's say that instead of starting a relationship with his grown stepdaughter, his son, whom the stepdaughter never lived with, meets her as an adult and starts a relationship with her. Some of the finger-waggers still say this is wrong, even if the man is no longer married to her mother.
People would use just about any argument to condemn a relationship with which they are not comfortable. But we'd all be a lot better off if we put aside our prejudices and recognized that consenting adults should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage. Even if someone is disgusted. We'd also be better off if we recognized that Genetic Sexual Attraction does exist, and it is a mitigating factor when, say, a 32 year-old woman breaks California's age of consent barrier with a 16 year-old.
The problem with calling the Atkinson case incest is that incest conjures up images of (in this case) a woman grooming the boy she is raising to be her assault victim. This is a case of Genetic Sexual Attraction and statutory rape. She did not raise him. She was not his guardian. This was a case where one of the participants was not a legal adult, able to legally consent. When the participants are consenting adults, I prefer the term consanguinamory to distinguish loving, consensual sex from images of some vile old man raping an prepubescent girl. Rape and love are not the same things.
There is no good reason why adults who are not violating existing vows to others, who are right for each other, should feel a need to refrain from being together in whatever way they want. Unfortunately, laws and prejudices in many places still need to catch up with reality. But what about finding support from others in the same situation?
Genetic Sexual Attraction is a phenomenon that may or may not actually lead to sex. However, if sex is involved, it is not incest from the sociological perspective, but still may be considered incest by outsiders, including law enforcement, as it is incest in the genetic sense. It is very easy for people who haven't experience GSA or witnessed it happening first-hand to scoff and deny it's reality. But ignorance does not determine reality. For more, read this.
How Genetic Sexual Attraction is Not Incest
Imagine a man and woman meet in a bar. They've never met before. They go outside for a smoke. They get into an argument and the jerk slugs her.
That is assault. But is it domestic violence?
No? What if I told you that unbeknownst to them, they have the same genetic father, a sperm donor neither one has met?
Is it domestic violence then? No?
What if... instead of slugging her, he wasn't a jerk and instead romanced her for the evening and they ended up having passionate sex.
Is that incest?
You can say it is incest biologically, but not sociologically. They were not raised together. They aren't even aware they are related yet.
Things like this have happened. Some people who experience Genetic Sexual Attraction had no idea they were genetically related before they met, fell in love, had sex, or even had children together. Even so, people ignorant of GSA or Genetic Attraction are scoffing at the defendant's statement in this case. Granted, they were apparently aware of their relation before their relationship involved statutory rape (since the age of consent in California is 18, not 16, as it is in many US states.) But that GSA happens to people unaware of their genetic relation demonstrates that GSA is real.
Judgmental finger-waggers cite the genetic connection as to why this is incest. This is because "she raised him" is not an option for why they are upset. The finger-waggers like to use that one when, say, a man and his grown stepdaughter have sexual relationship. Some finger-waggers go even further. Let's say that instead of starting a relationship with his grown stepdaughter, his son, whom the stepdaughter never lived with, meets her as an adult and starts a relationship with her. Some of the finger-waggers still say this is wrong, even if the man is no longer married to her mother.
People would use just about any argument to condemn a relationship with which they are not comfortable. But we'd all be a lot better off if we put aside our prejudices and recognized that consenting adults should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage. Even if someone is disgusted. We'd also be better off if we recognized that Genetic Sexual Attraction does exist, and it is a mitigating factor when, say, a 32 year-old woman breaks California's age of consent barrier with a 16 year-old.
The problem with calling the Atkinson case incest is that incest conjures up images of (in this case) a woman grooming the boy she is raising to be her assault victim. This is a case of Genetic Sexual Attraction and statutory rape. She did not raise him. She was not his guardian. This was a case where one of the participants was not a legal adult, able to legally consent. When the participants are consenting adults, I prefer the term consanguinamory to distinguish loving, consensual sex from images of some vile old man raping an prepubescent girl. Rape and love are not the same things.
There is no good reason why adults who are not violating existing vows to others, who are right for each other, should feel a need to refrain from being together in whatever way they want. Unfortunately, laws and prejudices in many places still need to catch up with reality. But what about finding support from others in the same situation?
Genetic Sexual Attraction is a phenomenon that may or may not actually lead to sex. However, if sex is involved, it is not incest from the sociological perspective, but still may be considered incest by outsiders, including law enforcement, as it is incest in the genetic sense. It is very easy for people who haven't experience GSA or witnessed it happening first-hand to scoff and deny it's reality. But ignorance does not determine reality. For more, read this.
That is assault. But is it domestic violence?
No? What if I told you that unbeknownst to them, they have the same genetic father, a sperm donor neither one has met?
Is it domestic violence then? No?
What if... instead of slugging her, he wasn't a jerk and instead romanced her for the evening and they ended up having passionate sex.
Is that incest?
You can say it is incest biologically, but not sociologically. They were not raised together. They aren't even aware they are related yet.
Things like this have happened. Some people who experience Genetic Sexual Attraction had no idea they were genetically related before they met, fell in love, had sex, or even had children together. Even so, people ignorant of GSA or Genetic Attraction are scoffing at the defendant's statement in this case. Granted, they were apparently aware of their relation before their relationship involved statutory rape (since the age of consent in California is 18, not 16, as it is in many US states.) But that GSA happens to people unaware of their genetic relation demonstrates that GSA is real.
Judgmental finger-waggers cite the genetic connection as to why this is incest. This is because "she raised him" is not an option for why they are upset. The finger-waggers like to use that one when, say, a man and his grown stepdaughter have sexual relationship. Some finger-waggers go even further. Let's say that instead of starting a relationship with his grown stepdaughter, his son, whom the stepdaughter never lived with, meets her as an adult and starts a relationship with her. Some of the finger-waggers still say this is wrong, even if the man is no longer married to her mother.
People would use just about any argument to condemn a relationship with which they are not comfortable. But we'd all be a lot better off if we put aside our prejudices and recognized that consenting adults should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage. Even if someone is disgusted. We'd also be better off if we recognized that Genetic Sexual Attraction does exist, and it is a mitigating factor when, say, a 32 year-old woman breaks California's age of consent barrier with a 16 year-old.
The problem with calling the Atkinson case incest is that incest conjures up images of (in this case) a woman grooming the boy she is raising to be her assault victim. This is a case of Genetic Sexual Attraction and statutory rape. She did not raise him. She was not his guardian. This was a case where one of the participants was not a legal adult, able to legally consent. When the participants are consenting adults, I prefer the term consanguinamory to distinguish loving, consensual sex from images of some vile old man raping an prepubescent girl. Rape and love are not the same things.
There is no good reason why adults who are not violating existing vows to others, who are right for each other, should feel a need to refrain from being together in whatever way they want. Unfortunately, laws and prejudices in many places still need to catch up with reality. But what about finding support from others in the same situation?
Genetic Sexual Attraction is a phenomenon that may or may not actually lead to sex. However, if sex is involved, it is not incest from the sociological perspective, but still may be considered incest by outsiders, including law enforcement, as it is incest in the genetic sense. It is very easy for people who haven't experience GSA or witnessed it happening first-hand to scoff and deny it's reality. But ignorance does not determine reality. For more, read this.
NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #6
“Your relationship will hurt children.” This is usually said by people who themselves hurt children by denying rights to the parents of those children and telling the children that their parents are wrong for loving each other, perpetuating a stigma about the children and their families.
Don’t want children of these relationships to be hurt? Then stop hurting their families.
Adults having a relationship with each other, adults reproducing together, and adults raising children together are three different things. Adults can do any one of those without doing the other two, or any two of those without doing the third. Or, to put it another way, we’re talking about sex, relationships, and marriage, not about reproduction or adoption or parenting. Most sex does not result in a birth.
We don’t deny people their right to be together because they can’t or won’t reproduce. We don’t deny people their right to be together because they won’t be good candidates for adoption. We don’t test people on their parenting skills before we allow them to marry, but if we did, a lot of the prejudiced people who want to deny rights to others would fail, while many people who are still fighting for their relationship rights would pass with flying colors.
So this reason to oppose equality already fails. But for the sake of argument let’s assume there will be children.
A polyamorous relationship generally means a child is going to have more supervision and additional role models in a cooperative environment. How is that supposed to be inferior to having bickering parents and stepparents from supposedly monogamous marriage? It is legal to reproduce and raise children alone, or with others in the home who aren't monogamous spouses. A woman can live with both fathers of her children, but can't legally marry both even though that is what everyone wants? Why deny polyamorous people protections, including marriage?
Anti-equality people claim a study shows children from polygynous families have "considerably lower" survival rates, but the data is from nineteenth century frontier areas and places in Africa where diseases and genocide are significant problems. The study doesn’t address polyandry, same-gender polygamy, polygamy consisting or multiple men and women, and other forms of polyamory. The other claim is that adolescent boys are driven from polygynous (again, just polygynous and not any other form of polyamory) societies, but there are many adolescent boys driven from their heterosexual monogamous homes because they are gay, or boys who run away for the sake of personal freedom, rather than deal with familial or peer pressure to adhere to certain rules and expectations. Or they can’t stand their “monogamous” parent’s new girlfriend or boyfriend.
In a consanguinamorous relationship, adopted or step-parented children are not going to suffer in comparison to nonconsanguineous relationships.
Many people wrongly say that any children born to consanguineous parents will have birth defects, and that this is a good reason to ban such relationships. However, most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. It is entirely legal for people with obvious or hidden serious genetic diseases to date, have sex, marry, and have children. Why should healthy consanguineous lovers be denied their rights? Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from marrying or having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry, let alone reproductive rights.
Anyone concerned about these things should have genetic testing and counseling. People who are not close relatives can pass along health problems, too. But there are people born with problems who have made great contributions to the world, and genetically healthy people born to close relatives are common enough that we all know some, whether we know their true genetic parentage or not, and whether they know it or not. It is that common. I personally know children from such relationships who are healthy and bright; adorable children and attractive adults.
Where does this knowing what is best for the children of other people stop? Should single parents lose custody? Should we compel pregnant women to get a specific kind of prenatal care? Are we going to genetically screen and then sterilize people with genetic problems? There are children being raised right now by people who want to get married, and yet are denied their right to marry.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #5
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #7
NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #6
“Your relationship will hurt children.” This is usually said by people who themselves hurt children by denying rights to the parents of those children and telling the children that their parents are wrong for loving each other, perpetuating a stigma about the children and their families.
Don’t want children of these relationships to be hurt? Then stop hurting their families.
Adults having a relationship with each other, adults reproducing together, and adults raising children together are three different things. Adults can do any one of those without doing the other two, or any two of those without doing the third. Or, to put it another way, we’re talking about sex, relationships, and marriage, not about reproduction or adoption or parenting. Most sex does not result in a birth.
We don’t deny people their right to be together because they can’t or won’t reproduce. We don’t deny people their right to be together because they won’t be good candidates for adoption. We don’t test people on their parenting skills before we allow them to marry, but if we did, a lot of the prejudiced people who want to deny rights to others would fail, while many people who are still fighting for their relationship rights would pass with flying colors.
So this reason to oppose equality already fails. But for the sake of argument let’s assume there will be children.
A polyamorous relationship generally means a child is going to have more supervision and additional role models in a cooperative environment. How is that supposed to be inferior to having bickering parents and stepparents from supposedly monogamous marriage? It is legal to reproduce and raise children alone, or with others in the home who aren't monogamous spouses. A woman can live with both fathers of her children, but can't legally marry both even though that is what everyone wants? Why deny polyamorous people protections, including marriage?
Anti-equality people claim a study shows children from polygynous families have "considerably lower" survival rates, but the data is from nineteenth century frontier areas and places in Africa where diseases and genocide are significant problems. The study doesn’t address polyandry, same-gender polygamy, polygamy consisting or multiple men and women, and other forms of polyamory. The other claim is that adolescent boys are driven from polygynous (again, just polygynous and not any other form of polyamory) societies, but there are many adolescent boys driven from their heterosexual monogamous homes because they are gay, or boys who run away for the sake of personal freedom, rather than deal with familial or peer pressure to adhere to certain rules and expectations. Or they can’t stand their “monogamous” parent’s new girlfriend or boyfriend.
In a consanguinamorous relationship, adopted or step-parented children are not going to suffer in comparison to nonconsanguineous relationships.
Many people wrongly say that any children born to consanguineous parents will have birth defects, and that this is a good reason to ban such relationships. However, most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. It is entirely legal for people with obvious or hidden serious genetic diseases to date, have sex, marry, and have children. Why should healthy consanguineous lovers be denied their rights? Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from marrying or having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry, let alone reproductive rights.
Anyone concerned about these things should have genetic testing and counseling. People who are not close relatives can pass along health problems, too. But there are people born with problems who have made great contributions to the world, and genetically healthy people born to close relatives are common enough that we all know some, whether we know their true genetic parentage or not, and whether they know it or not. It is that common. I personally know children from such relationships who are healthy and bright; adorable children and attractive adults.
Where does this knowing what is best for the children of other people stop? Should single parents lose custody? Should we compel pregnant women to get a specific kind of prenatal care? Are we going to genetically screen and then sterilize people with genetic problems? There are children being raised right now by people who want to get married, and yet are denied their right to marry.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #5
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #7
Marijuana Brownies Get An Evidentiary Hearing In Oakland County
Does the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act presume that a certified patient can only consume marijuana by smoking herb, or can pot brownies do the trick? That was the question posed by a case from the Oakland County Circuit Court that went to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Now, on last week's remand back to the Oakland County trial court, an evidentiary hearing will be conducted in the People v Carruthers case to determine whether the accused was using a "reasonable" amount of marijuana by baking the pot brownies.
Earl Carruthers was charged with illegally manufacturing marijuana when pot brownies and several ounces of "loose" pot were found in his vehicle; he possessed a medical marijuana card and a caregiver certificate at the time of his arrest. Oakland County Circuit Judge Michael Warren precluded him from submitting evidence to the jury about his status as a card-carrying medical marijuana patient and care provider. Judge Warren also ruled that the entire weight of the pot brownie mixture [some 55 ounces] could be taken into account relative to the manufacturing charge.
Even though the circuit court allowed Carruthers to appeal the evidentiary rulings prior to his trial, the Defendant elected to plunge into the trial without the ability to present an affirmative defense as to his medical marijuana use; he was jury-convicted. In appealing this conviction, the broad immunity provision and the narrower affirmative defense section of the MMA were once again interpreted by the Michigan Court of Appeals; this time in the "usable marijuana" context.
Complicating this issue is the fact that the MMA itself defines "usable marijuana" two different ways: first, the Act references the broad definition set forth in the public health code, then proceeds to promulgate its own, much narrower definition of marijuana:
"Usable marihuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, or roots of the plant.
Whether Carruthers could avail himself of the MMA's immunity provisions [case dismissed; no jury trial] hinged on the weight of the edible. Judge Warren ruled the whole pot brownie had to be weighed; Defendant asserted that only the net weight of the THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, could be taken into account. Although the prosecutor's expert stated that THC was present in the brownies, it was impossible to conclude how much.
This ruling could make it difficult for a marijuana patient or care provider to produce pot brownies in conformity with the weight limitations of the MMA. Critics within the defense bar expressed concerns that the Court of Appeals' decision limits ingestion via the lungs, i.e. with smoke. Patients that have lung conditions and cannot smoke are thus precluded from legally ingesting baked goods laced with marijuana.
The case will be heading to the Michigan Supreme Court for certain. Our High Court will once again be called upon to "fill-in-the-blanks" of the MMA.
We here at the Law Blogger must say that the ingestion of pot brownies by a legitimate card-carrying patient sure seems to be consistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of the Medical Marijuana Act. Stay tuned, as we will be following this one...
www.clarkstonlegal.com
Monday, July 22, 2013
New Episodes of Sister Wives
"Sister Wives," the TLC show featuring the polygynous Browns, is back. Are you watching? Here's an article from Ree Hines at today.com...
Some people are rude.
Some people are ignorant.
That would be nice to have sooner rather than later. Let's make it happen!
Here's what was printed at radaronline.com...
Okay, dear readers, what is your take? Are you watching?
Kyle Christy / TLC
The Brown family, from left, Christine, Meri, Janelle, Robyn and Kody.
Even though Kody Brown and his four wives — Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn — have been open about how they live their lives for some time now, there are still those who have big problems with the polygamous family and aren't shy about saying so.
Some people are rude.
While the Brown family practices a very different sort of polygamy than that seen in Jeffs' church, it's a difference that's lost on some.
Some people are ignorant.
"I just feel like we live in a world of diversity, and we've chosen how to structure our family," Kody explained. "And we are not pushing it on other people. We don’t even push it on our children."
It's a live-and-let-live attitude he'd like to see from others.
That would be nice to have sooner rather than later. Let's make it happen!
Here's what was printed at radaronline.com...
I think anything that puts a real face on consensual nonmonogamy is a good thing. We need more productions that depict the diversity withing polyamory and polygamy.
A major theme this season for the Sister Wives is the decision that Meri must make about whether or not she wants to have another child with Kody, via IVF or using Robyn as a surrogate.
Okay, dear readers, what is your take? Are you watching?
New Episodes of Sister Wives
"Sister Wives," the TLC show featuring the polygynous Browns, is back. Are you watching? Here's an article from Ree Hines at today.com...
Some people are rude.
Some people are ignorant.
That would be nice to have sooner rather than later. Let's make it happen!
Here's what was printed at radaronline.com...
Okay, dear readers, what is your take? Are you watching?
Kyle Christy / TLC
The Brown family, from left, Christine, Meri, Janelle, Robyn and Kody.
Even though Kody Brown and his four wives — Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn — have been open about how they live their lives for some time now, there are still those who have big problems with the polygamous family and aren't shy about saying so.
Some people are rude.
While the Brown family practices a very different sort of polygamy than that seen in Jeffs' church, it's a difference that's lost on some.
Some people are ignorant.
"I just feel like we live in a world of diversity, and we've chosen how to structure our family," Kody explained. "And we are not pushing it on other people. We don’t even push it on our children."
It's a live-and-let-live attitude he'd like to see from others.
That would be nice to have sooner rather than later. Let's make it happen!
Here's what was printed at radaronline.com...
I think anything that puts a real face on consensual nonmonogamy is a good thing. We need more productions that depict the diversity withing polyamory and polygamy.
A major theme this season for the Sister Wives is the decision that Meri must make about whether or not she wants to have another child with Kody, via IVF or using Robyn as a surrogate.
Okay, dear readers, what is your take? Are you watching?
NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #5
“It's not natural." Many people have been embarrassed by making this argument, because it is so easy to refute by a cursory survey of sexual, mating, and partnering habits of various animals. But invariably, the person saying that a relationship should not be allowed because they think it is unnatural constantly enjoys things that aren’t natural, from their smart phones to their toiletries to their food to their clothing to their transportation to their housing… on and on it goes. “Hey! You can’t ride a bicycle! It’s not natural!” See how ridiculous that is?
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #4
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #6
NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #5
“It's not natural." Many people have been embarrassed by making this argument, because it is so easy to refute by a cursory survey of sexual, mating, and partnering habits of various animals. But invariably, the person saying that a relationship should not be allowed because they think it is unnatural constantly enjoys things that aren’t natural, from their smart phones to their toiletries to their food to their clothing to their transportation to their housing… on and on it goes. “Hey! You can’t ride a bicycle! It’s not natural!” See how ridiculous that is?
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #4
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #6
Sunday, July 21, 2013
NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #4
“My religion is against it.” If you don’t want an (adult) intergenerational, interracial, same-gender, polygamous, or consanguineous relationship or marriage, then don’t have one. But we should all have the freedoms of religion and association and in places like the US, we have separation of church and state, so this can’t be a justification for denying marriage equality or other relationships rights.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #3
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #5
NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #4
“My religion is against it.” If you don’t want an (adult) intergenerational, interracial, same-gender, polygamous, or consanguineous relationship or marriage, then don’t have one. But we should all have the freedoms of religion and association and in places like the US, we have separation of church and state, so this can’t be a justification for denying marriage equality or other relationships rights.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #3
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #5
Saturday, July 20, 2013
NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #3
“Not a lot of people want to do it” or “I don’t want to do it.” This is not a justification for keeping something illegal. If anything, it is a reason laws against consensual adult relationships are wasteful and unnecessary. But we don’t deny minorities rights based on majority vote. Also, people would be surprised to know just how many people around them are in, or want to be in, or have been in, a relationship that is currently illegal or otherwise discriminated against.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #2
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #4
NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #3
“Not a lot of people want to do it” or “I don’t want to do it.” This is not a justification for keeping something illegal. If anything, it is a reason laws against consensual adult relationships are wasteful and unnecessary. But we don’t deny minorities rights based on majority vote. Also, people would be surprised to know just how many people around them are in, or want to be in, or have been in, a relationship that is currently illegal or otherwise discriminated against.
There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: /p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #2
Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #4
