I’m waiting to hear from those same-sex marriage advocates who assured me this was a phony fear 15 years ago.
From Jon Brown, on the Daily Wire,” Advocates Push For Consensual Incest To Be Decriminalized, Laugh Off ‘Grooming’ Allegations.”
However, I won’t hold my breath waiting for progressive activists to come to the defense of what remains of the institution of marriage for two reasons. First, this development was obvious back then, based simply on the logic of their argument. Here’s Australian pro-incest activist Richard Morris:
“It is absurd to say that an adult can’t consent to marry their parent,” Morris continued. “That same adult can be sent to war, take on six or seven figures of debt, operate heavy machinery, be sentenced to death by a federal court, and consent to sex with five strangers (and marriage with one of them) but can’t consent to marry someone they love? In some of these cases, the genetic parent didn’t raise them and they met for the first time two years ago. Allegations of ‘grooming’ are laughable attempts to deny someone their rights even though it will have no impact on the person objecting.”
Love is love, and the decisions of individuals have no effect on anybody else. (It will be interesting to see how that second assertion interacts with the imperatives of cancel culture.)
The second reason I won’t hold my breath is that the assurances that this was not inevitable were always insincere, because they were as laughable as the idea that no demented parents will ever groom their children for sex. In fact, we can be sure that the next activist along this evolution will proclaim that grooming is actually a positive thing.
[…] More broadly, if marriage is just a statement of affection and mutual care, of course the standard of sexual intimacy would disappear along with the standard of being of opposite sex, the standard of being limited to two people, and the standard that the spouses cannot be closely related already. […]