A Cruel Double Standard

I might need to add #20 to the series NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love and #22 to the Discredited Arguments page, because I've heard and read people say that people in consanguinamorous relationships (or step or adoptive relationships that have gone romantic) don't need the freedom to marry because they're already family. In addition to being as senseless as telling a woman she can't marry her sister's husband's brother (which is legal and does happen) because they are already family, the statement can bring up a very cruel double standard.

In many situations involving Genetic Sexual Attraction, the lovers are not legally family for the purposes of insurance, benefits, taxes, hospital visitation, next of kin, etc. because they were adopted into or born into (via sperm, egg, or embryo donation) different families. Also, in many places, when a married woman gives birth, the child is legally her spouse's child as well. What if, due to sex with someone other than her spouse, the woman's child is genetically a half-sibling to another married couple's child, and as adults they decide they'd like to marry?

The double standard is that, while these genetically related people don't enjoy the benefits of being family, in places that still have ridiculous laws discriminating against consensual adult incest, they are considered family and thus can (and are) criminally prosecuted for consensual sex or at least denied their right to marry.

You're not family so you can't get the benefit of being family. You are family so you are going to be prosecuted for having loved each other in sexual way. That's cruel.

As an example, if something were to happen to Melissa and she ended up in a hospital, her adoptive parents could bar Matthew and Linda from even being by her side, let alone making decisions about her care, even though Matthew and Linda are, for practical purposes, her spouses. She would be married to them if she could, but the law isn't there yet.

Those who are sharing, or want to share their lives as spouses or partners often do need the same rights, benefits, and protections as any other spouses, and there’s no good reason to deny them their fundamental right to marry. Also, marriage automatically provides for next-of-kin status, which is especially important when there is some discord between at least one of the lovers and legal family members outside of the consanguinamorous relationship.



There are many cruel double standards when trying to tell other consenting adults how to love each other. GSA or not, consanguinamorous people need discriminatory laws to be done away with, and need access to the protections provided by marriage, if they want them. This is yet another reason we need full marriage equality sooner rather than later."item"'>

I might need to add #20 to the series NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love and #22 to the Discredited Arguments page, because I've heard and read people say that people in consanguinamorous relationships (or step or adoptive relationships that have gone romantic) don't need the freedom to marry because they're already family. In addition to being as senseless as telling a woman she can't marry her sister's husband's brother (which is legal and does happen) because they are already family, the statement can bring up a very cruel double standard.

In many situations involving Genetic Sexual Attraction, the lovers are not legally family for the purposes of insurance, benefits, taxes, hospital visitation, next of kin, etc. because they were adopted into or born into (via sperm, egg, or embryo donation) different families. Also, in many places, when a married woman gives birth, the child is legally her spouse's child as well. What if, due to sex with someone other than her spouse, the woman's child is genetically a half-sibling to another married couple's child, and as adults they decide they'd like to marry?

The double standard is that, while these genetically related people don't enjoy the benefits of being family, in places that still have ridiculous laws discriminating against consensual adult incest, they are considered family and thus can (and are) criminally prosecuted for consensual sex or at least denied their right to marry.

You're not family so you can't get the benefit of being family. You are family so you are going to be prosecuted for having loved each other in sexual way. That's cruel.

As an example, if something were to happen to Melissa and she ended up in a hospital, her adoptive parents could bar Matthew and Linda from even being by her side, let alone making decisions about her care, even though Matthew and Linda are, for practical purposes, her spouses. She would be married to them if she could, but the law isn't there yet.

Those who are sharing, or want to share their lives as spouses or partners often do need the same rights, benefits, and protections as any other spouses, and there’s no good reason to deny them their fundamental right to marry. Also, marriage automatically provides for next-of-kin status, which is especially important when there is some discord between at least one of the lovers and legal family members outside of the consanguinamorous relationship.



There are many cruel double standards when trying to tell other consenting adults how to love each other. GSA or not, consanguinamorous people need discriminatory laws to be done away with, and need access to the protections provided by marriage, if they want them. This is yet another reason we need full marriage equality sooner rather than later.

Posted in: consanguineous,freedom to marry,GSA,incest,lack of equality harms,law,marriage equality,myths,prejudice