February 10, 2016

We’re All Incest-Phobes Now

Recently the Scottish parliament announced it would consider a measure born of a petition from a man that is calling for the overthrow of laws that are “breaching the rights to sexual autonomy for all consenting adults that is accepted in other more developed countries.” In a world that is increasingly embracing gay marriage, this would be par for the course. Except the petition was not talking about anti-gay laws. It was not even talking about anti-polygamy laws. It was talking about laws against incest.

What’s more is that the logic behind the man responsible for the petition is very familiar.

Public fears, prejudice and bigotry about ACI [Adult Consensual Incest] are mostly due to ignorance created over many years mostly by the church and church-influenced governments and newspapers, in much the same way as public fears and bigotry about homosexuality were created.

The Scottish Parliament will no doubt reject the request to legalize incest. Furthermore, apologists for gay marriage will be quick to point out that one random person using the legalization of homosexuality as precedent to legalize incest is not enough to vindicate the warnings of people of faith who said that gay marriage would open the flood gates for other behaviors.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the legalization of homosexuality has been used to justify incest. The truth is there has been a growing campaign from the legal, academic, and cultural nerve centers of society to push for the legitimization of incestuous relations for years.

As early as 1984, Carolyn S. Bratt of Kentucky University was calling for the legalization of incest based on the Loving v. Virginia decision, which declared marriage to be a fundamental right. The gay rights activists used this same argument for their cause.

In 2010 political science professor David Epstein of Columbia University was convicted of conducting a three-year consensual incestuous affair with his twenty-four year old daughter. Matthew Galluzzo, his lawyer, argued “It’s ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different?” Galluzzo later doubled down saying,

In 2003, the Supreme Court…declared that constitutional right to engage in sodomy in the privacy of his own home, and that public opinion about the morality of such conduct was no longer a valid basis to deny…that liberty. In the dissenting opinion, Scalia countered that as a result of this logic, there is a very valid argument…that there is now a constitutional right to engage in acts of consensual adult incest. That is the argument that I am now making on behalf of my client”

Recently, during a case involving a man charged with repeatedly raping his sister, Australian District Court Judge Garry Neilson compared incest to homosexuality, saying that it too could be eventually accepted as the norm. He suggested that the risk of genetic abnormalities, which he said was the only reason it remained illegal, could be bypassed with the “ease of contraception and readily access to abortion.”

In 2014, the German Ethics Council recommended that the government abolish anti-incest statutes. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”

Academia also has a record of calling for the legalization of incest using the same arguments the gay rights activists once used.

Bioethicist Jacob M. Appel, whose writings have appeared in the Journal of Clinical Ethics, the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, and the Bulletin of the History of Medicine, has advocated for the legalization of incest and bestiality. “The state has very little interest controlling what people do in their own private lives in their own bedrooms unless it directly and negatively affects other people in a tangible way.”

Debra Lieberman, an Assistant Professor in the Adult and Health department at the University of Miami, is on record of saying that “My bottom line is this: consensual sex between two adults should always be legal, sibling or otherwise.” When pressed about the family instability that would come with such behavior, she responded,

Sure, but there are other things that mess around with family relations as well. Children of divorced parents have trouble — and you’re not outlawing divorce… [I]t might be a little more uncomfortable. But guess what? Life is hard and there are other situations that cause a lot of discomfort, like divorce. And then the big question is, ‘Are we going to let disgust dictate our moral norms?

Kenneth Eisold, Former President of the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations and a founder of the Organizational Program at The William Alanson White Institute also invoked similar arguments in his support for consensual incest.

“If you…allow for incest, but caution them or prevent them or guide them away from the idea of producing children, it’s their business. I don’t see why society should prohibit that…If we enforce laws on the subject, then we are creating a sort of fundamentalism about who people need to be. I don’t think we want to be that kind of a society. We want to be more open and free.”

Finally, cultural nerve centers such as people in cinematic arts, political commentators, think-tanks, and the blogosphere have pushed for the legalization of incest using the same arguments and tactics the homosexual lobby used to successfully overthrow traditional marriage.

While promoting his film Yellow, which featured an affair between siblings, Nick Cassavetes, director of the film The Notebook, used the pro-gay marriage logic to justify incest. “Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want? If it’s your brother or sister it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody.

Libertarian political commentator Rachel Burger, whose writings have appeared in Forbes, TownHall, PJ Media, and Red State used the “victimless crime” argument to justify her support for consensual incest “There is no reason why the state should protect people from themselves if the crime is truly victimless … Don’t regulate my body and my choices, and I won’t regulate yours. Enjoy having sex with your brother if you want to.”

Dr. Sean Gabb of the British think-tank Libertarian Alliance also argues that the state has no legitimate interest in regulating incestuous activity. “Consenting incestuous behaviour [sic] is no business of the state. It is up to individuals to make their own decisions.”

Finally, radical sexual activists have taken to the blogosphere to push for the legalization of intra-family relations. As early as 2002, the Guardian documented the existence of “chatrooms and websites that are de facto support groups for people engaged in incest” who “want … to normalise [sic] what we have long considered to be profoundly abnormal.”

Some of these activists have begun to collude and, like the gay-rights activists before them, have created politically correct terms for their sexual deviancy. Rather than call themselves “incestuous,” they use the term “consanguinamorous” because, says one activist, incest “makes a lot of people feel uncomfortable, when it is used people tend to think about child abusers and rapists, not people in consensual loving relationships.”

Perhaps most frightening is that the pro-incest crowd is already using the same hermeneutical manipulation of the scripture that the gay-rights movement employed. One activist claims “the Bible does condemn incest in Leviticus, but the same book also condemns eating pork, and wearing clothing made from more than one type of fabric.” Homosexuals routinely used this argument to silence Christian critiques of their behavior. This same activist also justifies incest using the same red-letter hermeneutics the gay lobby used to bless homosexuality.

Jesus, the living representative of God on earth didn’t have a single word to say on the subject, or about homosexuality for that matter. If gay and incest bashing was part of Gods plan, you’d think he might have mentioned it. Instead, what we do get is a general message of love for all human beings.

When one looks at each of the aforementioned arguments for the legalization of incest, the resemblance to the push for homosexuality is undeniable. Both invoke the “victimless crime” argument, both claim privacy rights trump sexual boundaries, both dismiss the opposition as fundamentalists who “let disgust dictate our moral norms,” both claim that the Loving v. Virginia decision justifies their right to marriage, both use happy language to remove the stigma of their behavior, both claim “sexual determination” is a fundamental right, both use the obsolete ceremonial laws in Leviticus to discredit the prohibitions against their sexual deviancy, and both look strictly at the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ to charge that He never addressed the subject and it is thus irrelevant to the faith.

The reason these arguments look the same is because they are the same.

Consider these two statements.

“People should not have to live in the shadows because they love each other.”

“Love is a human right.”

One of these statements was spoken in defense of gay rights and the other for incest rights. Without checking the sources, could you tell which one was which?

It is time for the church to realize an unpleasant reality. The slippery slope of legalizing incest is not a hypothetical threat. It is not a future threat. It is developing. It is here. It is now.

Those who insist that the aforementioned examples are just sporadic rants of an unorganized lunatic fringe would do well to remember that the homosexual movement began in a similar fashion. They should also heed the fact that we are not dealing with mere basement-dwelling bloggers. We are dealing with people who can shape cultural and legal climates; think-tanks, government advisors, filmmakers, political commentators.

Those who think that the appeal of incest is too small to pose a threat are ignorant of the power of a minority that has sympathy in high places. Homosexuals constitute 1.6% of the U.S. population and they overthrew 228 years of marriage law. With growing sympathy from Hollywood, political commentators, academia, and government advisors, the incest lobby will be in position to do the same.

If the church does not assert and define biblical sexuality now, it will lose more than just the fight over gay marriage, transgenderism, and bisexuality. Even now, the gay rights supporters in the United Methodist church are pushing for polyamory, or “monogomish” relations.

The church must come to grips with the fact that the logic used to justify gay marriage has provided the argumentative infrastructure to annihilate almost the entirety of Biblical sexual ethics.

We mustn’t delude ourselves into thinking that this new wave of sexual revolutionaries will not wage war against faithful Christians with the same ferocity and tactics that the homosexual lobby did before them.


69 Responses to We’re All Incest-Phobes Now

  1. Nancy Crowl says:

    O God, have mercy on us!

  2. Manuel Gonzalez says:

    … but the real goal has always been pedophilia, as we all know.

  3. cristina shy says:

    Here is a rebuttal to your post. i find it relevant since you quoted this person multiple times. https://consanguinamory.wordpress.com/religious-bigot-quotes-me-and-calls-our-community-a-threat/

    • David Goudie says:

      The writer of this ‘rebuttal’ article you link boasts of having an incestuous relationship with her dad. The rebuttal proves the original posts thesis …which is that the slippery slop is already here. That there are those arguing and promoting ‘the benefits of insest’ just shows how despicable we’ve become as a society. We do not even see the inherent danger and evil of a parent who has so much authority and influence over a child …even an adult children … let alone the genetic issue of insest prodigy. All this to say it’spinning sad we have to even debate this. There’s even no foundational ethical starting point. Look up 1 Corinthians 5.

      • cristina shy says:

        you say a parent has authority and influence over a child. But this woman is no child. And she does not specify whether her father raised her or not. So she could have met him after she was well into adulthood, which would mean there is no power play involved. We are not talking about pedophilia, which is undoubtedly damaging and wrong. They are consenting adults who both wanted to be together, so its really none of our business whether they are together or not. They aren’t hurting anyone.

        As far as your argument about genetic issues, we do not forbid other people with genetic issues from procreating, therefore we should not handle consanguinamorous relationships any differently. Many genetic issues have a much higher percentage of effecting the offspring than inbreeding does. We do not forbid women over 35 from having children. Nor do we forbid people with Down syndrome, Tay-sachs disease, dwarfism, bipolar disorder or any other genetic disorder for that matter from having children. What we do is leave that very personal decision up to the people involved. It is up to every person as an individual to get the facts, process the pros and cons and make their own informed decisions about their personal lives.

        As far as the Bible goes, nobody should just blindly follow what preachers tell them. It is up to each individual to read and interpret the bible and it’s meanings for themselves and decide what is best for them. Which is mentioned many times in the bible itself.

        Let’s not perpetuate this cycle of hate and bigotry just because there is a lack of understanding. Non judgement, respect, and Love are the important things.

        Matthew Chapter 7
        15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
        16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

        • David Goudie says:

          First, your dismissal of authority a parent has over their children (adult children are still ‘their child’) is not valid. A Parent, a teacher, a pastor, those in authority know that it is exploitation because of the inheritance power of the position, no matter what the age.

          Secondly, your argument that it is private, and does not affect anyone is a false construct of the human being completely ‘autonomous’, and creates their own value system. But how did we even start to think of the person as the sole determiner of values?… by a society that now promotes it as such In other words, the philosophy that says the individual is the determiner of values, breaks down itself.
          After all, prove using the “autonomous individual model you are using” that it has to be two consenting adults. And not an adult -child. Why? Who says? What values determine that? If it’s the individual than that individual is imposing their values on another. there is no moral foundation to determine it to stop anywhere. I can do what I want … no matter if it affects another … because I am the sole determiner of what’s right and wrong. As long as it makes me happy, who can say differently?
          After all, let’s take the instance where it’s a consenting adult who is mentally disabled does that make a difference. And how so? who determines if the adult is mentally capable of making that decision?

          Or going back to your point of what two consenting adults do in private doesn’t affect another… it is false.
          Case in point … from a scientific standpoint ..we know that small things done in one place impacts somewhere else. ie look up ‘the butterfly effect’.
          Another case in point from a social demonstration .. a man decides to look at indecent pictures privately … (not affecting anyone right)? … over time he starts to see his wife as an object and unattractive … it leads him to have an affair with another consenting adult (still their issue only right?) … they end up getting a divorce … the children of the man go to live with their single mother … economically we know children from a single mom are more likely to be poor … they are more likely to grow up to commit a crime … so this child grows up and out of anger and hurt from a broken family decides to drink (still his private issue right?) … but then say he also decides to drive home and there he crashes into my daughter … killing her. (Doesn’t Affect me though right?)

          All this to illustrate a simple point … what a person does privately affects others. so we have a stake in society to determine what is right in wrong.
          For, as I have gone on far too long… debating this point itself has effected my time and taken away from my family and work. So this will have to be my last response. and I’ll leave with you with a question then from the scripture you quoted? Are you bearing righteous fruit of the Spirit by advocating incest? (Galatians 5:16-26)

          • Keith Pullman says:

            We’re not talking about abuse or harm or molestation or assault. We’re talking about consenting adults who are NOT cheating loving each other. If you have a religious belief your church teaches you (whether or not it is actually in the New Testament), you’re free to stick with it. We don’t live in a churchocracy. Laws against consenting adults having their relationships are cruel and wasteful.

            I guarantee you that you know some people who are in relationships you’d disapprove of if you knew, but you don’t know and you see these people are happy, productive people.

          • David Goudie says:

            Why? Why are we talking only adults …prove that it is wrong using the ‘autonomous model’ why we should only talk about adults? And who determines the age of an adult.
            After all does it make a difference that according to the writer of the article posted ‘that she ‘fell in love’ with her dad when she was young… when he and her mom were having problems? .. what age would be appropriate. .. and once again …how are you going to decide based upon an ‘autonomous value system?’

          • Keith Pullman says:

            We’re talking about adults because adults are generally allowed to enter into contracts (like marriage) and consent to sex.

          • David Goudie says:

            Why? who decided that? Still imposing cultural ‘norms’ on the individual?

          • David Goudie says:

            ‘If man (the individual) is the measure of all things (including morals),than which man is it? Who can decide? BTW you (Keith) still have not answered what age makes an adult? , and which individual decides that (remember without appealing to cultural and social norms and laws)…which is the foundational starting point of your argument.

          • Keith Pullman says:

            Generally, the age of majority is 18 in the US.

            We make a distinction between adults and minors in our broad legal system, and our broad legal system has also established that adults should have their freedom of association, that sexual relationships and marriage are fundamental rights.

            You seem awfully interested in lowering the age of consent. Is there something you want to get off your chest?

          • David Goudie says:

            Go ahead try to divert the argument… by trying to falsely read into “secret motives”… so that If I argue against Incest, or pedophile I must secretly want it right?….It’s an old trick to try to divert the real question… because the real question is … where do you get your morals? What’s your ethical starting point? And you still have not answered that. You still are not getting it. You continue to appeal to ‘social norms’ only when it serves your cause….(the fact that you have to say ‘the US judicial system says 18” proves that point). Yet your whole argument is predicated upon the fact that YOU reject social norms.. and determine the Individual as the sole determiner of moral values.
            Understand, the only reason I am arguing about the age is that I’m trying to establish a starting point of where you are morally unwilling to go. Is there any place you will say is wrong… and if so what bases do you have to determine it?

            After all, a few years ago I would have asked those promoting homosexuality … if they would approve of incest … trying to see if that is a starting place of morality … and they would say “that’s not fair bringing it up…of course we don’t approve of incest, how dare you compare homosexuality with incest”. … or they would try to divert the question like you’ve done building a fallacy of applying ‘some secret motives” … so as to avoid the real issue.
            And yet here you are arguing for incest, And will not answer where your moral starting point is.
            My starting point for morals is the Bible, where is yours?.
            For do you realize our Legal system was built upon a Judeo-Christian Value … and if you start throwing away that fundamental system … you have no starting point … and thus cannot go back to ‘the US legal system”, as your moral framework.

            Furthermore, you’re constant denial of a parent’s authority over their child (adult children they’ve raised are included) is mind-boggling… have you not seen the influence a cult like the FLDS has over their children… whose to say a parent could not brainwash their child so as to have them for their own, when they become ‘adults’ as you say.

            For the only reason I am debating with you, is because I see societies value system going downhill fast… the foundation morals we were built upon trying to be chipped away. And I don’t want that for my children or grandchildren. It seems to me though no matter how many times I say it … or how many ways I ask the question about your moral starting point … you try to skirt the issue … or cannot even see where your foundational starting point lies. For once again where do you get your morals, and who says? Do you not describe it to the individual over the society? It’s a basic question. But it seems I’m wasting my time asking it of you… when it could be spent upon sharing ‘real love’ with my family… not the gross perversion that you’re advocating.
            So, while I’m sure you will chalk this up to being ‘secretly defensive’, this will truly have to be my last response to you, so I can spend my time in better places.
            I’ll simply pray for you that you might ask yourself … Where do I even get my morals? Is anything right or wrong? and if so how do I determine that?
            And I hope to God and pray that in 20 years from now … incest won’t be the legal norm and now I will have to argue with you and others about maintaining the age of consent, so as to not allow pedophilia, or bestiality, or whatever moral depravity, the sinful heart of mankind goes to … but by that time … who knows society may be so depraved that Christ will have returned. So I’ll simply conclude with what Nancy’s comment above said at first. “O God, have Mercy on us.”

          • Keith Pullman says:

            We’re talking bout law, not your sectarian dogmas. We generally recognize that adults have the freedom of association. Whether you like it or not, they can generally live together, have sex, marry each other, and raise children together whether they are gay, or interracial, or atheist, or whatever. There’s no good reason to deny consenting adults these LEGAL freedoms, even if they are close relatives. The court decisions have been made. It is just a matter of time before all of the laws catch up. Utah still criminalizes people for being polyamorous. Texas a few other states throw first cousins in prison for having sex even through they can legally marry in half of US states (a whole lot of Biblical heroes would be thrown in prison in Texas!) Meanwhile, Rhode Island and New Jersey have no laws criminalizing sex between adults who are close relatives. Has it causes those places any trouble? No, Stop peddling fear of adults actually loving each other and enjoying each other. With so many close relatives hating each other and mistreating each other, why stop people who actually want to be together?

          • David Goudie says:

            (?) You still have not answered the question.

          • Keith Pullman says:

            Yes, I have. We allow people who are the age of majority to enter into personal relationships and legal contracts (marriage) with each other. The courts have established over and over again you can’t stop consenting adults from being together just because you don’t want them to be together. It really doesn’t matter if you don’t want an African American man to marry a white woman, or whatever it is that ticks you off.

          • David Goudie says:

            I’m guessing you think you have answered the question even thought you haven’t. The question still remains where is your foundational moral framework? Simply put why? (Note all laws are built on somekind of moral framework, behind it) But I’m not sure you even know for yourself. It seems you might not, because the implications from the assumptionstatement of what appears to be your moral framework. ..you seem not to be able to see. So once again. I’ll just leave you with the question..hopefullyou for you to be able to answer for yourself.

          • Keith Pullman says:

            I don’t need to get into an argument with you about morality. You can live by whatever rules you want to on top of the law. I do notice that laws and stigmas against consensual adult relationships do more harm than any good supporters claim. My primary concern is the law. Consistency and equality in the law indicates that consenting adult should have their freedom of association. Anyone reading this comment thread can decide for themselves if it is a good idea to use the law to try to stop adults from loving each other however they mutually agree.

          • David Goudie says:

            I know it’s been a while, and I was going to leave it alone. But you do realize that every law is based on some kind of morality, right? For instance, why do we have a law against murder (because morally we believe it is wrong). (For example, go to a society though that is cannibalistic, and their laws will not be the same, because their moral framework is not the same). We have a law against stealing because of considering it morally wrong. Etc…
            Just more food for thought (as you seek to change laws) to see if you can once again ask yourself where your starting moral framework lies?

          • Keith Pullman says:

            My focus is on the law, not morality. We don’t live in a sectarian theocracy. You’re not going to get all of your moral positions enshrined in law. I highly doubt you’d really want all of your moral positions enshrined in law. I would argue that it’s wrong to treat some people as ess than equal and to interfere with love, affection, and harmless
            cooperation between consenting adults. It’s a waste of public resources and harmful to perpetuate discrimination against and criminalization against these relationships. I have yet to see a single good reason,consistently applied to all relationships, as to why these relationships would be considered wrong. You wouldn’t want a relationship like that. Fine. Your religion is against it. Fine. Don’t do it, then. Every dollar or minute you spend trying to keep consenting adults from being together how they mutually agree is a dollar or minute you can’t spend fighting abuse, such as rape, domestic violence or child molestation,and really, criminalizing consensual relationships between adults actually makes it more difficult to prosecute abusers because some victims and witnesses have reason to avoid cooperating with law
            enforcement authorities. There are people who are in prison,people who’ve had their children taken away for no reason other than being in a
            spousal relationship with another adult. If you can’t see the cruelty and destructiveness in that, you should at least recognize that it is
            inconsistent with our laws and court rulings that indicate there is a right to privacy when it comes to intimate relationships and a right to marry. It’s a matter of time before the remaining laws against adult relationships are repealed or struck down.

          • Gabriel says:

            For I contend that the degradation of the moral values of a society… will always impact all individuals in that society
            ————————————————–
            If by moral values you mean the arbitrary rules of christianity ,then yes we live in a degraded society.

          • Gabriel says:

            After all, ‘If man (the individual) is the measure of all things (including morals),than which man is it?
            —————————————————–
            Well,it is rather the human nature that is the measure of all things.It is in the human nature to want to be happy ,so every person should have a right to pursue happiness equal with right of the other persons.Personally ,I do not see how the legalization of incest denies you this right.

          • Gabriel says:

            All this to illustrate a simple point … what a person does privately affects others. so we have a stake in society to determine what is right in wrong
            ————————————————————-
            Well ,you do not have a right to not be affected.If you want this right ,you can always leave civilization.You only have a right to not be forced to do things against your will.That s why theft ,murder ,rape are immoral ,because they involve force.

          • David Goudie says:

            I’ll say it one last time … because each of your responses and those of Keith’s, indicate you have a starting foundation point of the individual over and against society as the determiner of morality/ laws/ right and wrong.
            For you say “theft, murder, rape, are immoral because they involve force”. But prove that is the case. Prov it saying that the ultimate goal is for the individual to be happy … what if it makes a person happy to steal? What if it makes a person happy to kill, or rape? Once again prove using the individual as the starting point of morality that anything is wrong. Can you even say that murder is immoral? And Why? With your starting point … can you prove that Hitler was not right? Can you prove that Stalin was wrong or immoral? Can you even talk about wright and wrong/ moral and immoral? If so, by what basis?

          • ryan ball says:

            lol you lost this argument. Christians lack logic thinking and can’t argue.

          • David Goudie says:

            You’re pretty late to the party. (This argument was long ago). Do you also show up to an appointment a couple months late too. Or are you just that slow. Try reading some CS Lewis, or Ravi Zacharias about moral law and the ability to even define good and evil sometimes. Then after that maybe get back with me. Until then, I’ve got no more time to waste on your stupid logic.

          • ryan ball says:

            Sorry. I’m not taking sides but you don’t win the logic argument here. Anyone that uses the bible to justify morals is very corrupted. No wonder churches are filled with pedos.

          • David Goudie says:

            really? “logical argument” yeah and then you go on to just throw out stupid illogical character prejudice. right?
            http://rzim.org/just-thinking/must-the-moral-law-have-a-lawgiver/ read it, maybe you’ll learn something about real logic.

          • Gabriel says:

            they are more likely to grow up to commit a crime .
            —————————————
            What could I say ?Poverty is not an excuse to commit crimes.

          • Richard says:

            You gave the ‘butterfly effect’ example of a hypothetical case of pornography leading to divorce, solo motherhood, an unhappy child, alcoholism , drink driving ( driving under the influence) and manslaughter. Surely those are good arguments for the criminalization of divorce, alcohol production and distribution, and pornography, all sources of giant profits for commercial enterprises. Yet society thinks fit to keep all of these often destructive practises legal.

  4. Sam Cat says:

    Yes, please read this rebuttal. Maybe this time you will have the balls to leave our comments up.

    https://consanguinamory.wordpress.com/religious-bigot-quotes-me-and-calls-our-community-a-threat/

  5. Keith Pullman says:

    Notice there is no actual argument presented against civil rights. The reason we’re advancing towards full marriage equality is because it is the reasonable and compassionate thing to do.

    • So it’s “compassionate” to ignore the well-documented dangers of a homosexual lifestyle? It’s “compassionate” to have a state-enforced definition of marriage that deprives a helpless child of a mother or a father? That’s not how Jesus defines compassion.

      If you tolerate homosexuality, you’re tolerating sin. If you tolerate sin, you’re rejecting God, for God does not tolerate sin.

      • Keith Pullman says:

        You have your sectarian religious dogma, and so you’re not going to be reasonable, but for anyone else reading, it is NOT compassionate to make criminals out of consenting adults or deny them their rights simply because they love each other. When anyone stops to actually THINK about it, there’s no good reason to use laws to attempt to stop love. There’s actual abuse going on out there. Law enforcement should be stopping that, not loving, kind relationships.

        • And you have your humanistic-secular dogma, and thus you’re not going to be “reasonable.” In other words, we’re ALL “dogmatic.” It’s simply a matter of who’s right.

          We make “criminals” out of “consenting adults” all across America, everyday. Prostitution involves “consenting adults.” (Of course, those with your worldview are often very much in favor of de-criminalizing this as well.) A transaction between a crack addict and his supplier involves “consenting adults.”

          This is not about “love.” This is about forcing the legitimization of homosexuality upon the American culture.

          Do you deny the widespread health risks associated with homosexuality?

          • Keith Pullman says:

            I’m talking about social relationships, not commerce. All sexual activity carries certain risks if not done carefully or done with someone who has an infection without precautions. I’ve noticed many risks that seem to be associated with trying to scare people about sex. For example, people who get paid to tell other people not to have sex but end up pregnant. Twice.

          • Gabriel says:

            We make “criminals” out of “consenting adults” all across America, everyday
            —————————————————–
            That s because we are an immoral society that despises freedom.

          • Define “immoral.”

          • Gabriel says:

            This is not about “love.” This is about forcing the legitimization of homosexuality upon the American culture
            ———————————————
            But tell me who is forcing you to accept homosexuality?If you want to remain a hateful bigot,you can do this.Sure ,you will be despised by a good part of society ,but hey you do not have a right to not be hated.

          • So who exactly was it “discriminating” against homosexuals? Who was “forcing” homosexuals to embrace Christianity? If they and their apologists wanted to remain bigoted against Christ, His Word, and His followers, then so be it.

          • Gabriel says:

            Do you deny the widespread health risks associated with homosexuality?
            ——————————————–
            I am not a consequentalist ,so I do not believe that an action with bad results is immoral.But tell me why do you believe that a such action is immoral?

          • Unlike you, I can define “immoral.” Homosexual behavior is immoral because it violates God’s moral law.

          • Gabriel says:

            violates God’s moral law.
            —————————————————–
            Is this moral law objective?My answer would be no ,because it comes from god s mind and god is a subject.Contrary to what theists believe ,there is no such thing as an objective system of morality.Morality comes from the mind of someone ,so it is by definition subjective.

          • Who says God has a “mind?” He simply is. He has used the mind and body of humans to reveal Himself and His Word. In other words, to reveal His truth.

            And, “The existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition ‘Truth does not exist’ is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth.” In other words, if there is anything, there is truth.

      • Gabriel says:

        If you tolerate sin, you’re rejecting God, for God does not tolerate sin.
        ———————————————
        Sin is arbitrary morality.

    • gui1hermegano says:

      Nothing “reasonable” about it, quite the opposite.

      Gays used the same juvenile tactics as feminists – whine and nag and finally the politicians will cave in. Homosexuals will never get what they want, they won’t be equal to heterosexuals until they become capable of love and commitment, which will never happen.

  6. MarcoPolo says:

    I lost track of how many times the author referred to “the Gay marriage agenda defense”, but he surely drove home his point of being FEARFUL !

    C’mon people, conflating pedophilia with consensual sex is just promoting misinformation. The obvious problem of incest is biological catastrophe. Surely, we must protect minors from sexual predators, but in cases of adult activity among consenting partners, we must butt-out! (No pun intended).

  7. Tiger says:

    Moderators, we need some cleanup on this thread, the vulgarity here is totally out of place on a Christian blog.

    • cristina shy says:

      I don’t see any vulgarity. Nobody is using curse words, nor is there any name calling. People are simply debating. Nothing vulgar about that. We are all adults here.

  8. aar9n says:

    Ah the Christians. Still calling LBGT pedophiles. I’m so swooned by your love and compassion.

    • DanH says:

      Nothing wrong with telling the truth.

      • aar9n says:

        Odd, the people in my life I know personally who had sex with minors were all Christians in leadership positions in their church. But it’s easier to blame the gays, huh? Don’t want to have to deal with that annoying “evidence” problem.

    • The_Physetor says:

      Speaking the truth is the most loving and compassionate thing any human being can do.

      • aar9n says:

        Just because you can thump a bible doesn’t make it true. Truth is a fact that correlates to reality. A place you don’t live in, as you believe in talking snakes and magical apples.

  9. Richard S. Bell says:

    We condemn brother-sister sexual relations in
    the same way we condemn man-man sexual relations. Incest is necessarily sin –
    fornication prohibited by the Seventh Commandment – because necessarily
    extramarital; our society does not permit a brother and sister to marry. I
    assume that almost all Christians think denial of marriage to siblings is
    right. But I would not infer that almost all Christians deem sexual relations
    between siblings per se a violation
    of God’s Moral Law, so that consummation of their marriage would be sin and so
    God would not bless the marriage of siblings. To the contrary, it is clear that
    the Moral Law does not forbid consanguineous sexual relations. They were
    consistent with the order of God’s creation before and after the Fall. Eve was
    Adam’s clone, yet God commanded her and Adam to produce children in the natural
    way. The grandchildren of Adam and Eve were issue of sexual relations between
    brothers and sisters, who must have married one another, having no alternatives.
    Also, consanguineous sexual relations were within God’s providence much later,
    as the children of Noah’s sons were almost certainly in the same kind of
    society as the children of Adam and so were married to siblings. Most
    significant is God’s blessing the marriage of Abraham and Sarah, who were
    brother and sister; Genesis 20:12.
    Nowhere in scripture except in Leviticus 18 and 20 and in the Deuteronomic code
    are any of these marriages even implicitly impugned, and it is obvious that
    marriage taboos in the Old Testament are not Moral Law. Christians (and
    non-Christians) agree that it is right to deny marriage to siblings because of
    custom and good social policy. Even primitive people know that issue of
    consanguineous sexual relations are at great risk and social scientists agree
    that exogamy is important in extending and strengthening social relations;
    national interest opposes consanguineous marriage and it has been forbidden
    more or less in nearly every organized society that is known. God had good
    nation-building reasons for giving the ancient Hebrews legal restrictions on
    marriage of consanguines (and affines), just as God had good nation-building
    reasons for giving them all other Additional Commandments. This is so obvious
    that I need not even raise the question how to reconcile various statements of
    marriage taboos in Leviticus 18:7-11 and 20:11-21 and in Deuteronomy 20:30 and
    27:20-23. I only observe that those taboos are irreconcilably different for men
    and women, which implies that they are not moral rules but political rules.

  10. Richard S. Bell says:

    We condemn brother-sister sexual relations in the same way we condemn man-man sexual relations. Incest is necessarily sin – fornication prohibited by the Seventh Commandment – because necessarily extramarital; our society does not permit a brother and sister to marry. I assume that almost all Christians think denial of marriage to siblings is right. But I would not infer that almost all Christians deem sexual relations between siblings per se a violation of God’s Moral Law, so that consummation of their marriage would be sin and so God would not bless the marriage of siblings. To the contrary, it is clear that the Moral Law does not forbid consanguineous sexual relations. They were consistent with the order of God’s creation before and after the Fall. Eve was Adam’s clone, yet God commanded her and Adam to produce children in the natural way. The grandchildren of Adam and Eve were issue of sexual relations between brothers and sisters, who must have married one another, having no alternatives. Also, consanguineous sexual relations were within God’s providence much later, as the children of Noah’s sons were almost certainly in the same kind of society as the children of Adam and so were married to siblings. Most significant is God’s blessing the marriage of Abraham and Sarah, who were brother and sister; Genesis 20:12. Nowhere in scripture except in Leviticus 18 and 20 and in the Deuteronomic code are any of these marriages even implicitly impugned, and it is obvious that marriage taboos in the Old Testament are not Moral Law. Christians (and non-Christians) agree that it is right to deny marriage to siblings because of custom and good social policy. Even primitive people know that issue of consanguineous sexual relations are at great risk and social scientists agree that exogamy is important in extending and strengthening social relations; national interest opposes consanguineous marriage and it has been forbidden more or less in nearly every organized society that is known. God had good nation-building reasons for giving the ancient Hebrews legal restrictions on marriage of consanguines (and affines), just as God had good nation-building reasons for giving them all other Additional Commandments. This is so obvious that I need not even raise the question how to reconcile various statements of marriage taboos in Leviticus 18:7-11 and 20:11-21 and in Deuteronomy 20:30 and 27:20-23. I only observe that those taboos are irreconcilably different for men and women, which implies that they are not moral rules but political rules.

  11. MarcoPolo says:

    For the record, I vehemently protest the idea of legalizing incestuous activity in every application of its intent. Bio-genetics being the primary reason, there are still enough reasons to resist this idea.

  12. Curtis James says:

    “Incest is a game the whole family can enjoy.” With the wording of the Supreme Court’s decision, I can marry my dog, my mother, my sister, and every one of my neighbors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *