Demand for "incestuous" civil partnerships (next-gen social justice crusades)

#1
With the exception of stereotyped hillbilly culture and urban drug/porn addicts that appear as guests in TJSS genre, these types of domestic relationships haven't historically revolved around sex-based co-habitations. In terms of children's fictional classics, Anne of Green Gables was raised by a brother and sister.

Before the onset of the nuclear family, it was not so unusual for Anglophone households to resemble the extended families of their Latin American and Mediterranean European counterparts. Various combinations of bachelor & spinster siblings which continued to live together under the same roof were infrequently sported as characters in early movies. As late as the mid '70s, Rocky Balboa got his wife from just such an asexual relationship (Paulie Pennino's very strategy seemed to consist of making his sister Adrian feel like a loser so that she'd persistently stay with him).

Overstepping things a bit, since any Liberation:Incest operation would itself still be in tentative, fragile opening salvos... But going even further down the line to future SJW phases of normalizing today's lingering extremes... Norman Bates wouldn't quite be a fictional poster-child for necrophilia marriages with corpses, but keeping his mother's body preserved and ready at hand must count for something.
Wink

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45732851

EXCERPT: Catherine Utley has lived with her sister Ginda for more than 30 years. The pair raised Catherine's daughter together and jointly own a house in south London. And they are among a number of siblings who want to be allowed to enter into a civil partnership.

When the idea was aired on Twitter yesterday by a Tory MP, he was met with huge outcry and accused of supporting incest and being "ridiculous". But civil partnerships for siblings is something which campaigners have long called for. "There's no real argument against it," says Catherine Utley, 59. "People are getting the wrong end of the stick."

[...] "She stood by me when I had my child in 1993," says Catherine. "I got pregnant and it wasn't planned and it wasn't possible for me to live with the father and so it would have been a complete nightmare. My dear sister's immediate reaction was to stand by us. We bought a house together to be close to our two brothers, and it was just a wonderful thing. She's been my rock, totally."

Catherine says there is a "special bond" for siblings who live together in adulthood. "She's like my other half, she's my best friend. I've known her since I was born. Some people don't get on with their siblings but if you do it can be a very strong relationship."

[...] Catherine and Ginda want to be able to enter into a civil partnership so they can enjoy the same inheritance rights as other couples who have formalised their relationship. "When my sister dies or I die one of us will have to sell the home to pay for the inheritance tax."

Catherine says it is a "glaring injustice" because civil partnerships are open to any two people. They don't need to be involved in a romantic relationship - they just cannot be blood relatives. Excluding siblings is pure discrimination. I could have a civil partnership with my next door neighbour, but I can't have a civil partnership with the person I have shared my home and life with."

She adds: "I'm not saying civil partnerships is the only way the inequality can be addressed, but it's the most obvious way. They could do something about inheritance tax by changing the rules."

MORE: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45732851
Reply
#2
Everything should be civil unions. Gay, hetero, siblings, best friends...anyone that wants to join into a legal contract to share responsibilities, including insurance dependents, medical decisions and visitation, etc.. The government should not have anything to do with marriage. That would even solve this lie about a Trump gay visa ban, as foreign diplomats could enter into civil unions in the US that do not presume a sexual relationship. It is not the government's job to sanction sexual relations, only to mediate contractual agreements.
Reply
#3
Ought oh! Something's off kilter when I find myself agreeing with you.
Reply
#4
Bound to find at least one subject that didn't trigger you eventually. Here, maybe this will help:

The people who don't want the government involved in their reproduction are very often the same people that cheered the Supreme Court making gay marriage legal by fiat.
The whole intent of government regulated marriage licenses was anti-miscegenation.

Up until this point in American history, around the 1920’s, there was no such thing as a marriage license. The states invented them as a way to dictate who could and could not get married for the purpose of making sure blacks, whites, Asians and Indians didn’t mix. That’s right. Marriage licenses were invented as a way to stop white people from marrying black people. Because they couldn’t get a license, interracial couples who would have been considered married before the marriage license was available, ceased to be married. They lost inheritance rights, medical rights and all other benefits of common law marriage. The issuers of marriage licenses were considered the gate keepers, charged with keeping the white race pure.
- https://mattwilson32.wordpress.com/2015/...n-america/


People have taken down Confederate flags and statues, but gays have fought to enshrine this racist creation as a fundamental human right (simply by dint of being human), instead of just the civil right (granted privilege) it had been. This is part and parcel with the left's desire to broaden "human rights" to positive rights (like healthcare, higher education, basic income, etc.) that impose a duty on others to provide...thereby growing the same government they want restricted from their reproduction. It's contradictory....or at least arbitrarily hypocritical.

Would gays be satisfied that the government no longer recognizes their "marriage" by refusing to recognize any marriage? Or would that undermine the stamp of approval an official marriage license implies? So the government using a racist creation to affirm same-sex "marriage" is fine, but the government barring murder (the intentional taking of human life...as undisputedly defined by science) is a bridge too far?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Social justice is fascism Syne 2 113 Aug 6, 2018 06:45 AM
Last Post: Syne
  The Orbit: Why Social Justice Atheism Needs Many Homes C C 0 277 Apr 20, 2016 05:04 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)