HOME | DD

Description
Original by RottedStamps but it's gone now. Luckily I managed to save it.

As long as it's between consenting adults, I don't care.

"I have wanted to rant about this for a long time.

This is about consensual love between two biologically related people- not the abusive kind. I have supported incestuous romantic love for years now and I think nobody should have a problem with it. I can use the same argument for why it’s okay as gay people use to justify their love to homophobes. “We’re just two people who want to love each other.” If both are consenting adults, there shouldn’t be any problem. Love is love, right.

There are generally three typically used arguments against incest.
1) omg its sick!!!!!
2) Their children will be deformed.
3) It’s unnatural.

Number 1 has been used against many types of love, like homosexual love and interracial love, and is the stupidest worst goddamn argument, and not even really an argument at all. It’s fine if you don’t want to do your brother/mother/grandma, but what do you care if someone else does? It doesn’t affect you in the least if somewhere on the planet, probably far away from you, a brother and a sister are happily in love.

Number 2 is partially false- or at least not as bad as people often think it is. Deformities don’t usually happen until the second or third generation of incestuous offspring. Still, it’s the safer choice to not have biological children. The health and well-being of the child should come first, and you’d be selfish to take this risk.
But that obviously is not a reason for them not to be allowed to be together. Gay couples can’t have biological children, some straight couples can’t either. That’s why there’s something called adoption, or alternatively, involvement of a sperm donor or a surrogate mother.
Besides, having children isn’t even a requirement for a marriage. They might not even want kids.

Number 3: so is homosexuality, if we’re talking about how the purpose of romance is to create offspring and fill the world with more people (which we really don’t need). If we’re talking about what happens in nature however, both incest and homosexuality are perfectly fine with most if not all animals, so we’d be the only ones acting “unnatural” by being against it really.

The only reason why people are so against it is because they wouldn’t want to be romantically with their biological family, and couldn’t imagine anyone else wanting it either. That doesn’t mean you get to tell people they’re not allowed to want it, just because you wouldn’t want it. You do not get to take away people’s freedom because you think it’s “eww, gross”.

And no, I haven’t got the slightest bit of romantic interest in any of my family members. Just like being pro homosexuality doesn’t make me homosexual, being pro incest doesn’t mean I have incestuous feelings."
~myragewillendworlds.tumblr.com…

marriage-equality.blogspot.com…

Description
Original by RottedStamps but it's gone now. Luckily I managed to save it.

As long as it's between consenting adults, I don't care.

"I have wanted to rant about this for a long time.

This is about consensual love between two biologically related people- not the abusive kind. I have supported incestuous romantic love for years now and I think nobody should have a problem with it. I can use the same argument for why it’s okay as gay people use to justify their love to homophobes. “We’re just two people who want to love each other.” If both are consenting adults, there shouldn’t be any problem. Love is love, right.

There are generally three typically used arguments against incest.
1) omg its sick!!!!!
2) Their children will be deformed.
3) It’s unnatural.

Number 1 has been used against many types of love, like homosexual love and interracial love, and is the stupidest worst goddamn argument, and not even really an argument at all. It’s fine if you don’t want to do your brother/mother/grandma, but what do you care if someone else does? It doesn’t affect you in the least if somewhere on the planet, probably far away from you, a brother and a sister are happily in love.

Number 2 is partially false- or at least not as bad as people often think it is. Deformities don’t usually happen until the second or third generation of incestuous offspring. Still, it’s the safer choice to not have biological children. The health and well-being of the child should come first, and you’d be selfish to take this risk.
But that obviously is not a reason for them not to be allowed to be together. Gay couples can’t have biological children, some straight couples can’t either. That’s why there’s something called adoption, or alternatively, involvement of a sperm donor or a surrogate mother.
Besides, having children isn’t even a requirement for a marriage. They might not even want kids.

Number 3: so is homosexuality, if we’re talking about how the purpose of romance is to create offspring and fill the world with more people (which we really don’t need). If we’re talking about what happens in nature however, both incest and homosexuality are perfectly fine with most if not all animals, so we’d be the only ones acting “unnatural” by being against it really.

The only reason why people are so against it is because they wouldn’t want to be romantically with their biological family, and couldn’t imagine anyone else wanting it either. That doesn’t mean you get to tell people they’re not allowed to want it, just because you wouldn’t want it. You do not get to take away people’s freedom because you think it’s “eww, gross”.

And no, I haven’t got the slightest bit of romantic interest in any of my family members. Just like being pro homosexuality doesn’t make me homosexual, being pro incest doesn’t mean I have incestuous feelings."
~myragewillendworlds.tumblr.com…

marriage-equality.blogspot.com…