Disabled Rights: Couple Fights for Right to Live Together

[FollowerofOdin]

Okay, this steams me off. If Gays and Lesbians can live together then why can't these people. Oh and don't even get me started on the comments. Adolf Hitlers views are alive and well in New York, the suppose state of marriage equality. So before we cheer these morons that run a state, lets make sure that they are really giving equality to all and not to those that give them a ton of money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/disabled-rights_n_3231452.html

[Snowdrop]

Okay, this steams me off. If Gays and Lesbians can live together then why can't these people. Oh and don't even get me started on the comments. Adolf Hitlers views are alive and well in New York, the suppose state of marriage equality. So before we cheer these morons that run a state, lets make sure that they are really giving equality to all and not to those that give them a ton of money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/disabled-rights_n_3231452.html

 
If you're an adult who's legally able to get married, surely you've been defined as someone who's capable of consenting to sex.  I find this really bizarre.

[MadZealot]

Okay, this steams me off. If Gays and Lesbians can live together then why can't these people. Oh and don't even get me started on the comments. Adolf Hitlers views are alive and well in New York, the suppose state of marriage equality. So before we cheer these morons that run a state, lets make sure that they are really giving equality to all and not to those that give them a ton of money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/disabled-rights_n_3231452.html

 
This is a bit more complicated than any SSM wherein two fully competent adults can enter into a lawfully binding civil contract.  There are other concerns at play here, none of them very Hitleresque.

[MadZealot]

If you're an adult who's legally able to get married, surely you've been defined as someone who's capable of consenting to sex.  I find this really bizarre.

Makes one wonder why any marriage other than symbolic was allowed in the first place; even though the state considers them biologically adult, they're functionally children.  
A thorny situation, indeed.

[Snowdrop]

Makes one wonder why any marriage other than symbolic was allowed in the first place; even though the state considers them biologically adult, they're functionally children.  
A thorny situation, indeed.

 
It does raise questions.  I will say though that I'm uncomfortable with the idea that people who have (as far as I can tell from the article?) adult sexual desires should never be allowed to act on them because they're disabled.  

I mean, I don't really think the comparison to children is that fair.  For one thing, children grow up.  I'm uncomfortable with the idea that people should be perma-virgined when they clearly are intelligent enough to express a rational, coherent  desire to have sex.

[MadZealot]

I will say though that I'm uncomfortable with the idea that people who have (as far as I can tell from the article?) adult sexual desires should never be allowed to act on them because they're disabled.

Agreed; I'd never suggest such a thing.  

I mean, I don't really think the comparison to children is that fair.  For one thing, children grow up.  I'm uncomfortable with the idea that people should be perma-virgined when they clearly are intelligent enough to express a rational, coherent  desire to have sex.

 The comparison may not be fair, but perhaps a better term might be childlike.  We house disabled people like them because they are incapable of functioning on their own, instead requiring supervision and care.  Regarding the desire to have sex, I'd say that is an instinctual thing, whereas rationality and coherence belong more to an adult who can consent.  Is mental health or awareness necessary to give consent?  If a mentally normative adult engaged in sex with a mentally disabled adult, wouldn't someone call that predatory?

[mandrina]

Agreed; I'd never suggest such a thing.  


 The comparison may not be fair, but perhaps a better term might be childlike.  We house disabled people like them because they are incapable of functioning on their own, instead requiring supervision and care.  Regarding the desire to have sex, I'd say that is an instinctual thing, whereas rationality and coherence belong more to an adult who can consent.  Is mental health or awareness necessary to give consent?  If a mentally normative adult engaged in sex with a mentally disabled adult, wouldn't someone call that predatory?

 
It is predatory and can land the normative adult in jail.  However, I would class this more along the lines of two juveniles, so if it fit anywhere it would be under the Romeo and Juliet laws.  My concern here would be children and those issues.

[Sophia C]

It is predatory and can land the normative adult in jail.  However, I would class this more along the lines of two juveniles, so if it fit anywhere it would be under the Romeo and Juliet laws.  My concern here would be children and those issues.

These people are not children. Disability rights activists have been fighting for the right for disabled people (including those with learning disabilities) to live together and have sex for a long, long time. I have colleagues who work and do research with many, many people with learning difficulties and other disabilities who are still denied the right to have sex, get married and do all the things that the rest of us accept as intrinsic to our human rights (Article 8: the right to a family and private life).

Yes, there are issues of consent here. However, one of the worst ways to conceive of consent issues is to start comparing disabled adults to children. A better way is to work with each disabled adult who has a (normal, healthy) desire for sex, marriage and family life, assessing their ability to consent. I can't comment on the specific situation in this newspaper story, though, because I have no idea what their ability levels actually are (IQ points mean very little and are not helpful for understanding someone's real capacity to consent). But the 'they are children' approach is offensive, unhelpful and denies people their agency.

Here's an article I wrote for the Guardian a few years ago, on a related-but-not-the-same issue. The stuff on disability and sex is the relevant stuff that I wanted to highlight - the prostitution issue is a slightly different one.

And yes, many of today's social attitudes towards disability and sex/marriage are an inheritance of the eugenics movement - which didn't only exist in Nazi Germany, but was an ideology and associated practice accepted across Europe and North America. If it hadn't been for the horrors of Nazi Germany, it is likely that eugenics would have taken root as a widespread practice across the 'democratic' world. Sometimes, it takes seeing things at their worst extreme for society to understand what's wrong with those practice.

Finally, the term 'normative' used for non-disabled people *really* pisses me off. Just wanted to add.

Oh, and if anyone wants to read more about real people with learning difficulties and their real opinions on being denied their rights to sex, sex education, marriage and family life, read the accessible report by the CHANGE project. I know the researchers who worked with people with learning difficulties on the research project. It was fantastic research, and I hope it will make some policy-makers give this issue more thought than they would have done otherwise.

[Tana]

And yes, many of today's social attitudes towards disability and sex/marriage are an inheritance of the eugenics movement - which didn't only exist in Nazi Germany, but was an ideology and associated practice accepted across Europe and North America.

I think, that this is really the core of the problem.

It's not: OMGS we can't have them let sex because they don't understand it!
It's: OMGS we can't let them breed!

[MadZealot]

Yes, there are issues of consent here. However, one of the worst ways to conceive of consent issues is to start comparing disabled adults to children. A better way is to work with each disabled adult who has a (normal, healthy) desire for sex, marriage and family life, assessing their ability to consent. I can't comment on the specific situation in this newspaper story, though, because I have no idea what their ability levels actually are (IQ points mean very little and are not helpful for understanding someone's real capacity to consent). But the 'they are children' approach is offensive, unhelpful and denies people their agency.

You are right, working with each individual person to assess ability to consent is probably the best solution.

I apologize, Sophia, for causing you offence.  The words I chose (and the thinking behind them) are clearly incorrect and offensive.  Thank you for challenging my thinking and calling BS when it was needed.

[mandrina]

These people are not children. Disability rights activists have been fighting for the right for disabled people (including those with learning disabilities) to live together and have sex for a long, long time. I have colleagues who work and do research with many, many people with learning difficulties and other disabilities who are still denied the right to have sex, get married and do all the things that the rest of us accept as intrinsic to our human rights (Article 8: the right to a family and private life).

Yes, there are issues of consent here. However, one of the worst ways to conceive of consent issues is to start comparing disabled adults to children. A better way is to work with each disabled adult who has a (normal, healthy) desire for sex, marriage and family life, assessing their ability to consent. I can't comment on the specific situation in this newspaper story, though, because I have no idea what their ability levels actually are (IQ points mean very little and are not helpful for understanding someone's real capacity to consent). But the 'they are children' approach is offensive, unhelpful and denies people their agency.

Here's an article I wrote for the Guardian a few years ago, on a related-but-not-the-same issue. The stuff on disability and sex is the relevant stuff that I wanted to highlight - the prostitution issue is a slightly different one.

And yes, many of today's social attitudes towards disability and sex/marriage are an inheritance of the eugenics movement - which didn't only exist in Nazi Germany, but was an ideology and associated practice accepted across Europe and North America. If it hadn't been for the horrors of Nazi Germany, it is likely that eugenics would have taken root as a widespread practice across the 'democratic' world. Sometimes, it takes seeing things at their worst extreme for society to understand what's wrong with those practice.

Finally, the term 'normative' used for non-disabled people *really* pisses me off. Just wanted to add.

Oh, and if anyone wants to read more about real people with learning difficulties and their real opinions on being denied their rights to sex, sex education, marriage and family life, read the accessible report by the CHANGE project. I know the researchers who worked with people with learning difficulties on the research project. It was fantastic research, and I hope it will make some policy-makers give this issue more thought than they would have done otherwise.

 
My concern with the children is not "omg the children", but rather the legal issues involved.  As in, this couple has 'guardians' and a pregnancy is not going to change anything about their abilities to make decisions.  On the other hand, the legal work needs to be done some time, now is as good as any.

[Sophia C]

You are right, working with each individual person to assess ability to consent is probably the best solution.

I apologize, Sophia, for causing you offence.  The words I chose (and the thinking behind them) are clearly incorrect and offensive.  Thank you for challenging my thinking and calling BS when it was needed.

 
I appreciate you thinking about it.

[Sophia C]

My concern with the children is not "omg the children", but rather the legal issues involved.  As in, this couple has 'guardians' and a pregnancy is not going to change anything about their abilities to make decisions.  On the other hand, the legal work needs to be done some time, now is as good as any.

 
This couple are aged 30 and 36. Why do you keep comparing them to children? They are NOT. This situation has nothing to do with children. Children are too physically and emotionally immature to have sex and be married. Just because these people are intellectually disabled does NOT mean they are not adults. They are fully mature, grown-up individuals, with all the sexual needs, love needs and family needs that all the rest of us grown-up individuals have.

I may have missed a reference that you saw, but I can't see any reference to this couple having 'guardians'. They have support to live independently. So do millions of disabled people around the world, myself included.

There are many people in this world who have difficulty raising children on their own - "it takes a village" and all that. But there is no reference in this article to the couple wanting children. They just want to live together. The 'but they might get pregnant!' argument, in these situations, is a straw man (and is at least partly about 'ugh, they might breed', as Tana points out). They may be entirely capable of using birth control, especially with the right sex education (made fully accessible to them and designed to suit their levels of understanding. Because, yes, it is possible to make sex education accessible to people with learning disabilities). And even if they are judged not capable of raising children, that is no reason to deny them marriage. We don't deny it to non-disabled people who can't have children for whatever reason. This young couple, if they are judged able to consent to marriage and sex, should be supported in their right to live together as a family.

The reasons they give for being in love are similar to mine. I love my partner because she's funny and she helps me, too. Put yourself in the place of this young couple. Would you be willing to accept that there aren't enough support services for you to live with your spouse? Because this is something that many disabled people are told.

Seriously, read the CHANGE report I linked to. There are lots of people there sharing their stories, all with learning disabilities, who have difficulty with everything from managing their financial matters* to living independently**. They all still have the right to sex, sex education, marriage and family life. As they all assert, clearly and with authority and dignity, in that report.


*Which is something that I couldn't do without my partner, being on the autistic spectrum. Thank gods no one has (yet) decided this means I don't have the 'capacity' for the things that I want to do.

**I can't do that either.

[mandrina]

This couple are aged 30 and 36. Why do you keep comparing them to children? They are NOT. This situation has nothing to do with children. Children are too physically and emotionally immature to have sex and be married. Just because these people are intellectually disabled does NOT mean they are not adults. They are fully mature, grown-up individuals, with all the sexual needs, love needs and family needs that all the rest of us grown-up individuals have.

I may have missed a reference that you saw, but I can't see any reference to this couple having 'guardians'. They have support to live independently. So do millions of disabled people around the world, myself included.

There are many people in this world who have difficulty raising children on their own - "it takes a village" and all that. But there is no reference in this article to the couple wanting children. They just want to live together. The 'but they might get pregnant!' argument, in these situations, is a straw man (and is at least partly about 'ugh, they might breed', as Tana points out). They may be entirely capable of using birth control, especially with the right sex education (made fully accessible to them and designed to suit their levels of understanding. Because, yes, it is possible to make sex education accessible to people with learning disabilities). And even if they are judged not capable of raising children, that is no reason to deny them marriage. We don't deny it to non-disabled people who can't have children for whatever reason. This young couple, if they are judged able to consent to marriage and sex, should be supported in their right to live together as a family.

The reasons they give for being in love are similar to mine. I love my partner because she's funny and she helps me, too. Put yourself in the place of this young couple. Would you be willing to accept that there aren't enough support services for you to live with your spouse? Because this is something that many disabled people are told.

Seriously, read the CHANGE report I linked to. There are lots of people there sharing their stories, all with learning disabilities, who have difficulty with everything from managing their financial matters* to living independently**. They all still have the right to sex, sex education, marriage and family life. As they all assert, clearly and with authority and dignity, in that report.


*Which is something that I couldn't do without my partner, being on the autistic spectrum. Thank gods no one has (yet) decided this means I don't have the 'capacity' for the things that I want to do.

**I can't do that either.

I understood that they couldn't make all their own decisions legally,  I never said they shouldn't get married.  Possibility of pregnancy shouldn't make them not get married, I'm not worried about what kind of child they would produce, and from the sound of it, there is enough support, so that if things really went shief, the child would still be taken care of, but rather the legalitys of making decisions for one's child when one can't take care of themselves, that what I mean about the legalitys, they have to be dealt with.  



as for them living together, the issue is the group homes and what they can or have to provide. One of them is single gender, and the other says they aren't trained for it, while there are no other ones nearby that have room. Sounds like part of the problem is a need for more group homes or care providers, which I can get behind.  

The other question is what a home can be retroactively ordered to provide.  They claim they don't have to ability to deal with the needs of a married couple.  So if the state orders them to acquire it, is the state going to give them the extra money to do it?  or will they shut down and everyone will be worse off?  Honestly, the nursing home I worked for is neither staffed nor trained for ventilator patients, nor do they have all the safeguards that one needs, like a generator for power backup and it will take a good chuck of money to get it to a proper state to take a ventilator patient.  If the state ordered them to take one, they'd be in serious trouble, both the home and the patient.

[FollowerofOdin]

If you're an adult who's legally able to get married, surely you've been defined as someone who's capable of consenting to sex.  I find this really bizarre.

Oh, I agree. And someone actually said that you should steralize them both. I don't think it was in this article, which really burned me up. And what really got me mad was the fact that the United States use to do this, make mentally challenged men and women unable to give birth or to get a woman pregnant. These people said that the man should have their thing snipped and give the woman either birth control or tie her tubes because of some stupid belief that they produce more mentally changed people. Oh and this one man said the following 'There are no mentally changed gays and lesbians.' Oh what, being mentally challenged is only for straights.

Bigot like I don't know what. If someone is born with a brain, they can be born mentally challenge and even more without a brain. Anything can happen when a woman's is pregnant. Nothing is 100% certain. Does this make me a bigot?