Once societal norms are broken??
They have been for many years in this liberal infested country.
None. Legal incest and polygamy are next.
From Gay Rights to Incest without passing Polygamy and collecting 200 dollars. Cool! I doubt I’ve ever seen a quicker descent into degradation by the chattering class.
I doubt I’ve ever seen a finer example of the moral bankruptcy of today’s “intellectual” class. Apparently “intellectual” actually means “the inability to tell right from wrong”.
Time for the torches and pitchforks.
I encourage the liberals to commit all the incest they wish
After a few generations of such inbreeding we sane people will triumph as they will be reduced to a sub-race slobbering retards. Inbreeding by nature is a sure way to introduce a world of ills to its practitioners
Liberals are not sane.
Not to be confused with normal people, these are liberal pukes to begin with and have no connection with American ideals of family. I expect the full range of deviance from Huffpo and Columbia staff.
That's two instances of mighty poor reasoning. "Unnatural" and "rightful" are just dropped there with their unexamined weight. Sure we all know what they mean and we all know why incest is wrong, but don't attempt to prove it logically by such circular reasoning.
Not trying to hijack this post, but I finally saw it ALL on the Today Show this week. Meredith Viera interviewed a mother and her little boy - who was wearing a pink tutu. She lets her kid dress as a little girl because it makes him “feel calm.” She’s on a campaign to let tiny little children dress in drag if they want to. Sick, sick, sick.
That's because the argument is correct. Once one extends the 'harm' argument beyond the physical or financial (force or fraud) one opens the door to government regulating every aspect of our behavior at the point of a gun.
If two adults want to engage in this behavior and no force or fraud is involved there's no reason for the State to criminalize the behavior.
It may be disgusting and worthy of societal opprobrium, and I think it is, but that doesn't mean it should be criminal.
L
Liberals truly fashion a world from the 'dark side' elements. . .they cannot help but avoid, decry. . .smear all that reps a Good, in their presence.
(No effort to small for assault. . .they use the foulest terms to degrade what is good and great - without being able to explain the hate behind their ideas - as easy a tactic as it is cheap. (i.e. the latest example that comes to mind; 'those who have a 'fetish' for our Constitution.") David Letterman positing that John Boehner's emotionalism as a 'drug induced' display. . .They MUST taint all and bring 'good' down to their level; where it is unrecognizable.)
All this stands as a direct assault upon the Moral Order of Life - and the Mind it unfolds from - while tapping into the fraudulent and inauthentic replacement of 'Good' while being authentically it's opposite.
You are correct, markomalley. One cannot rationally support a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy without also supporting a right to incest, polygamy, polyandry, and pretty much whatever else consenting adults want to do. Scalia and others pretty much wrote as much when they dissented in Lawrence v. Texas.
Scalia: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision dissent.”
Without our country’s Judeo-Christian foundation, there is literally no limit to the depravity that man will do. Want to know what Lot felt like in Sodom? Prepare yourself, because that is coming, my FRiend.
There's another alternative. Human nature as observed empirically through the millennia. It has definitive characteristics. Among them, social behavior which is absolutely necessary to our existence. Social behavior has structure, roles, rules, imperatives, taboos. And most of them are there precisely because we're so imaginative and free; what is "unnatural" can always be imagined and performed.
You can make the case entirely without religion or the word "moral." In other words you can make the case so that even an atheist or a criminal understands it.
Mind the rules, you should thrive; disregard them, you will likely regret it.
And yet these same liberal elites who think it's ok to commit incest with your daughter, think you need to be formally forbidden to procure her a hamburger over 600 calories.
Pure sickness. Normal people are not attracted to their offspring. It must be something built in. I have two gorgeous daughters and have never been attracted to either.
We are Rome...... And Rome is burning.
This is all a part of the homosexual agenda.
“Palin-Hating Columbia Professor, Huffington Post Blogger, Busted for Incest”
http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/epsteinmug.jpg
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 ]
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
There is something profound here that seems to have been missed. If you accept (1) that incest is innately immoral and (2) that there is no moral reason to oppose adult-adult incest outside of the prohibitions in God's word and in nearly universal community values, doesn't that mean that faith and values are essential in understanding morality? I don't have a logical case for adult, consensual incest being wrong, beyond God's word and the massive societal harm, but we all know that it is very wrong. We should learn from this example and stop backing down when the thugs and libs try to bully us into keeping God out of the public arena. God belongs in the public arena, as does his word, not as a method of boasting about our virtue but as a guide to living virtuously.
This is precisely why law schools and the practice of law needs Christian conservative women in it. Women in general are better able to articulate emotional issues, but need the discipline of law or some other rigorous profession in order to put their words about feelings to practical use in turning around this society. And they need to be grounded in the ancient moral law of our civilization.
So far, the preponderance of women in law appears to be secular feminists like "Justice" Kagan.
