"The conservative view is that all sexual deviance—homosexuality, polyamory, adultery, bestiality, incest—violates the natural order. Families depend on moral structure: Mom, Dad, kids. When you confound that structure—when Dad sleeps with a man, Dad sleeps with another woman, or Mom sleeps with Grandpa—the family falls apart. Kids need clear roles and relationships. Without this, they get disoriented. Mess with the family, and you mess up the kids.
That’s a pretty fair summary. Of course, the Christian argument goes much deeper than the merely conservative argument, affirming the fact that, with exacting precision, God has spoken to the sinfulness of such behaviors — specifically condemning both homosexuality and incest. In other words, Christians move the question from mere wrongfulness to sinfulness and place all issues of sin within the biblical account of sin and redemption."
Thank you to Dr. Mohler for concisely addressing this issue. Sadly, America will be forced to confront this abhorrent and debauched behavior more in the coming weeks, months, years as this becomes common in mainstream society.
May the Lord have mercy on us.
May G_d have mercy on our souls. I can not believe that tis is even debatable.
ping
We all have choices...we can be men, or we can be creatures of the field...
.
.
. CASTRATION IS THE CURE.
If you have to ask, you probably will not understand the explanation.
I didn’t see anywhere in the article about
the risk of inbred mutations. Other than
the obvious deviancy of incest, isn’t genetic
mutation the reason God forbids it?
I just threw up a little in my mouth...
This appeals to the progressives because it will eventually weaken our society to the point where they can impose their totalitarian goals
We are trading true freedom for government license of hedonistic gratification..
This link comments on it:
http://www.thequietconservative.com/12132010.html
Basically it says that it is the moral state of not caring about right and wrong. It is the goal of liberalism and it seems to have quite a few sign on. That includes ‘fiscal conservatives’ that try and stamp out social conservatives, as if you could separate the two. However, the author here gets the conservative view nicely.
It’s like kissing your sister, yuck.
Seems to me when the people involved are consenting adults it remains wrong but I’m not sure putting anyone in jail is the answer.
The real problem is the left absolutely is multiplying these behaviors, while lying that it is not.
Normal parents aren’t sexually attracted to their offspring. Must be a trait we have built in.
Because there just aren't enough banjos to go around.
Who's growing toothless banjo pickers now?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
There is a war on between Good and Evil, and it is heating up. There are many reasons why homosexual acts are wrong that can be enumerated, if the person you're talking to is not religious and doesn't believe in moral absolutes. The "taboo" against incest (aside from scriptural condemnation) is "well, recessive genetic traits can manifest that are harmful". That is an extremely weak argument because if someone is going to commit incest, they would likely have no problem with abortion. Or not everyone is fertile, or two blood relatives of the same sex could commit incest, etc.
So, why is incest wrong?
Because every monotheist religion (and Buddhism as well) teaches that sex is for marriage. Beginning, middle and end of it. Marriage and children. Once a culture decides that sex is perfectly fine before marriage, outside of marriage, without marriage; then between two people of the same sex, then orgies and group grope, and then of course you have to add contraception and abortion - then you have the perfect recipe for destruction of human civilization.
Human civilization is based on intact families. Sex is a powerful urge that all healthy human beings experience. It is like fire. Fire can cook your meal, heat your house, forge your metal. It can also kill, burn and injure, destroy forests and houses, and entire cities. It's all in how it is used. What do we teach children about fire? "Don't touch!" "Be careful! Don't play with matches!" Only when the child is mature enough to be aware of the danger potential of fire can they be trusted with matches or the gas stove.
The fire of sex desire is even more destructive than the flames of fire that burn wood and fuel.
We now are seeing the results of "free sex" - one thing leads to another, since all rules are now evil - here on FR people who stand up for traditional - aka "real" - morality are called prudes, Taliban, wanting to pin red "A"s on people, closet homosexuals, etc. Intense vitriol here on FR is thrown at people standing up for moral absolutes. Just the other day a porn supporter (now thankfully banned) said something like "so what if there are victims from the porn industry. That's the price we pay for freedom."
Here's what Edmund Burke says about freedom:
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites--in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;--in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;--in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
-- Edmund Burke
If the authority of God is thrown away, civilization is doomed. This is the war we're in.
God said it is sin, and it just so happens that the chance of mutations manifesting is minimized by not mating with relatives.
If homosexuality is OK, is there anywhere we cannot extrapolate?
If homosexuality is OK, why cannot incest with a consenting adult be OK? Then why set the age of consent arbitrarily at 21, or 18, or 16, or 13 or 5. Who is to say? Why bother with ages of consent? And what's so special about consent?
If incest is OK with another person of any age, why not sex in general with any person of any age, independent of genetic relationship? And why not polygamy, if group sex and swinging is OK? Why limit it to persons? Why distinguish between humans and any other species? Why not sex with any other species? Why not drop the entire prejudicial “species” and taxonomy thing?
Why define relationships or roles within relationships at all? Why define marriage or family at all? If 19 people, some genetically related, some not, of various ages and genders, some living together but some not, some intimate together, but some not, some having pets or barnyards full of various animals of many species, genders, ages and genetic relatedness that some or all of them are intimate with or not, and the various animals intimate with each other of not - why cannot this entire collection of life forms get a common P.O. Box or something, and be allowed by society to declare themselves a “marriage,” or a “family,” and then be allowed to produce or adopt children or adults or animals, declaring them as dependents for tax purposes, and enrolling the entire system in the best health-care plan available through the employer of any one of them?
Or why not just scrap the whole tax and health-care shtick and not define themselves at all, in any way? No labels. No men or women; no child or adult; no relatives or non-relatives; no human and animal. No marriage. No family. No responsibilities. No society.
Mai I suggest forgoing, for the moment, theological, sociological, ethical and other arguments against incest and instead concentrate on the serious, irrefutable, and unavoidable argument against incest.
As proof, I offer the Saudi Royal family - where first cousin marriage has been practiced for many generations. First cousin marriage is common in the rest of the Arab world.
The Saudi Royal Family physician published an article on the genetic diseases of that family, resultant from many generations of first cousin marriages.. Arabs don’t just have an inferiority complex - they are inferior.
Inbreeding did that to them.
Incest is a taboo for genetic reasons! The rest are justifications for the enforcement of the taboo.