Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Adam Fejes's avatar

Just one more addition, if I may — and let me be absolutely clear upfront:

I am not equating same-sex marriage with incest or any family-based relationship. This is not a moral comparison.

What I’m pointing to is a logical inconsistency in the way arguments around legal recognition are often structured.

My hope is that, by surfacing this, we might open the door to a more honest and coherent conversation.

Because if the core principle behind marriage rights is that “two consenting adults should be allowed to marry,” then we’re obligated to ask:

– Why not two consenting adult siblings?

– Why not a consenting parent and their adult child?

– Why not three or more consenting adults in a shared union?

The moment I replace “my dog” with “my brother” or “my mother,” the consent-based argument loses its force.

Not because those relationships lack consent — but because we, as a society, have decided they fall outside what we consider worthy of legal or cultural validation.

That’s the point of the analogy: not to shock, not to insult, but to highlight that the law doesn’t just follow love or consent — it follows selective cultural judgment.

This is why certain relationships are granted full recognition, others partial, and many none at all — even when consent is present. Which means: we can’t pretend the issue is simply about fairness or inclusion.

We must ask instead:

Who defines what’s worthy of legal recognition? And on what basis?

These are difficult questions — but avoiding them doesn’t make us more compassionate, just less clear.

And clarity is what we need, if we’re serious about having a conversation that actually moves forward, rather than looping endlessly around moral reflexes and rhetorical landmines.

Thank you again for being part of that conversation.

– JPB

Expand full comment
Adam Fejes's avatar

Thanks for your engagement — and allow me to gently add one more reflection.

One of the core reasons I wrote this piece at such length was precisely to avoid superficial takes or accidental misreadings. I wanted to create space for deeper reflection — not to provoke, not to offend, but to step back from the emotional charge and observe the structure of the debate itself.

So I must ask:

Why is it so hard to consider the entire argument as a whole?

Why does our attention so easily narrow down to the one analogy that “feels wrong,” instead of engaging with the full architecture of the point?

When we zoom in on one example — especially one that was clearly marked as a legal thought experiment — and frame it as morally offensive, we risk doing exactly what the essay warns about:

We reduce the debate to victimhood reflexes, and label dissent as provocation.

But provocation only happens if the truth provokes us. And if that’s the case, we should be asking why.

This wasn’t written against anyone. It was written for anyone who’s tired of chasing ghost-enemies and wants to understand the machinery that keeps us distracted, divided, and rhetorically weaponized against each other.

That requires curiosity, nuance, and a willingness to look beyond the surface — even when it’s uncomfortable.

So again, thank you for engaging. Even when we disagree, this is the kind of dialogue that still gives me hope.

– JPB

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts