Monday, September 12, 2016

Uh oh - "Next Up: Legalization of Incest, Necrophilia, Pedophilia, Zoophilia and More"

Bethany Blankley
Bethany Blankley has indulged in a form of discourse that I thought had died once Obergefell was on the books and same-sex marriage became the law of the land. This FoF (Friend of Fox) has gone insane. None of these crazy predictions over the last decade have ever come true but, apparently, that's no reason not to repeat them:
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.
Why is legal rights in scare quotes? Blankley seems to have missed a step. Blankley should provide some ev-i-dence that same-sex marriage has destroyed the institution. Is it so fragile that a few percent of marriages being same-sex would destroy it? I do not think so. The rest of this is just nonsense. The ruling in Obergefell applies to same-sex marriage and only to same-sex marriage. Ultimately it deemed same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. Polygamy, for example, remains illegal. I haven't the first clue what necrophilia, for example, has to do with marriage licenses.

Justice Kennedy:
Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. … States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.
But Blankley is not done. Not by a long shot. Selected passages:
Efforts to normalize sex with animals as an accepted lifestyle choice resulted in one documentary winning an award this year that idolizes a sexual relationship between a man and his bottlenose dolphin lover.
The fact that some pervert claims to have had sex with a dolphin in 1970 and the fact that someone made a film about it in 2014 do not constitute an effort to “normalize sex with animals.” Nor does this have even the most obscurely tangential connection to marriage. But Beth, do let us know when someone goes to court in an effort to invalidate anti-bestiality laws. That is what constitutes an effort.

But there is more. The turds have hit the turbines:
The 40-year movement to legalize sexual interaction with children is working. People are publicly advocating without shame: “I'm a pedophile, but not a monster;” and, “pedophilia is natural and normal for males.”
First of all “I'm a pedophile, but not a monster;” relates to how pedophiles are treated in society if they do not offend or, in the case of those released from prison, re-offend. Acceptance is conditioned on not having sex with minors. It has absolutely nothing to do with an effort to legalize pedophilia. The fact that some pervert claims that pedophilia is normal does not make it so nor does it constitute a movement. If there is a “movement to legalize sexual interaction with children” then where are the court pleadings? In what jurisdiction does this exist? What the fuck does any of this have to do with same-sex marriage?
Now, incest activists in the consanguinamorous community argue it's their turn to have their sexual preference and lifestyle choice validated socially and legally.

Because of a case in New Mexico that's making national headlines, incest activists argue exactly what homosexuals argued to normalize incest.
[…]
Incest activists maintain that all sexual preferences and acts should be legal if they are consensual and don't harm anyone. More importantly, the government should not be legislating love.
Incest is a felony. That “case” is a criminal trial. The couple were arrested. Could it result in a challenge to laws banning incest? Perhaps but that has nothing to do with gay people or marriage. Furthermore, if there is a case in federal court contesting the constitutionality of laws banning incest I have not found it.
Homosexuals, who represent less than 3 percent of the population in America, can legally marry and adopt children, why can't incestuous, polygamists, pedophiles and zoophiles?

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 answer to Blankley's first question is honestly “I do not know.” The “incestuous, polygamists, pedophiles and zoophiles” are free to challenge the constitutionality of laws banning their conduct. The percentage of the population that is gay and their right to legally marry is irrelevant to any of those issues. They must stand on their own. Polygamy, for example, was explored in oral argument re Obergefell.

The Court has accepted the proposition that polygamy must stand on its own. It must be tested for societal values as well as its effect on participants and their children. That's what legal trial is all about. Moreover, the Court accepted the proposition supported by the overwhelming consensus of science that sexual orientation is not a “personal preference.” The idea that fluidity in sexual orientation means that it is always changing is plain stupid. Some people experience some fluidity in their sexual orientation some of the time. It very rarely moves the needle on the continuum from gay to straight.
Why is having sex with dead people wrong? The corpse doesn't care. It's dead. It doesn't hurt the corpse; it doesn't even know what's happening. Granted, it can't consent to the sexual act, but that doesn't matter because there are enough necrophiliacs to argue that their sexual preference is normal.
I have no idea why nor do I care. People are free to challenge laws banning necrophilia. Have they? This is becoming an increasingly absurd adventure.
When it comes to not hurting anyone, incest activists argue that abortion is legal, so again, what standard is being used to legislate harm to another person?

They are right. If a baby has no constitutional rights, and adults do, why can't the adults, who aren't harming anyone else, be together?
In what court is this argument being made? It is irrelevant to the criminal trial in New Mexico. To tell you the truth I cannot comprehend the existence of an intersection of reproductive rights with a right to engage in incest. What does any of this have to do with marriage? This is all preposterous.
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. And I sure (expletive) have the right to love Monica. You can't tell people who to love or who not to love.”
This is all irrelevant and inadmissible in his criminal trial. One crackpot does not make a movement.

Speaking of crackpots:
Gay rights activists and corrupt politicians who chose to legalize same-sex marriage and transgender bathroom policies, have no justification to prevent the legalization other sexual behavior.
Just because someone legislates or deliberates in a way that Beth doesn't like doesn't mean that they are corrupt. Blankley wants the entire world to demonstrate the disapproval of gay people that she shouts out at every opportunity. We are all perfectly justified in criminalizing polygamy, incest and so on as most people do. On the other hand, most of our citizenry seem to approve of the idea that it is better for gay couples to make committed relationships and then marry rather than shacking up. On the other side are the superstitious fools at the Vatican. They disapprove of gay people. They certainly disapprove of gay sex. Thus, same-sex marriage is intolerable. The Church was the big loser in Obergefell.

In Obergefell we demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court that our marriages benefit society and the children we are raising. We demonstrated our fitness as parents and spouses. In the process, we successfully demonstrated through expert testimony that sexual orientation was immutable and innate. By the time the case got to the Supreme Court the core issues had been thoroughly litigated. Only two questions remained:
  1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
  2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?
To the best of my knowledge none of these other things have ever been litigated as rights in contrast to s criminal defense. Blankley offers the same nonsensical religion-based batshit that we have contended with for years. The inanity of these arguments are evidenced by the fact that Obergefell was decided in our favor. We have been marrying for over a dozen years and the sky has not fallen.

Therefore, Ms. Blankley, take your parade of perverts and horribles to your own home and make some personal decisions about what respect means in a civil society. You need to actually spend some time with gay couples and their children. Perhaps then you will be qualified to make judgments about their fitness as spouses and parents.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.