Skip to comments.Parent in New York sues to ‘marry’ their adult child
Posted on 04/12/2021 9:01:33 AM PDT by ebb tide
April 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — On April 5, 2007, Time Magazine asked the question, “Should Incest Be Legal?” Three years later, when Columbia University professor David Epstein was arrested for a three-year, consensual affair with his adult daughter, his attorney noted, “It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.” Not surprisingly, some Columbia students asked why any sexual acts committed by consenting adults should be considered a crime.
Today, that question is being asked again, this time in the context of a lawsuit reported by the New York Post on April 10. Specifically, “A New Yorker who wants to marry their own adult offspring is suing to overturn laws barring the incestuous practice, calling it a matter of ‘individual autonomy.’”
“‘Through the enduring bond of marriage, two persons, whatever relationship they might otherwise have with one another, can find a greater level of expression, intimacy and spirituality,’ the parent argues in the Manhattan Federal Court claim filed April 1.”
Really now, in light of the prevailing logic that love is love, since this is consensual and between adults, why not?
One immediate answer, aside from the obvious revulsion and horror which quite naturally greets this request for “marriage,” is that it is biologically dangerous. Any children produced as a result of this union could have serious genetic issues.
In this case, however, we are told that this is not an issue. According to the filing, “The proposed spouses are adults. The proposed spouses are biological parent and child. The proposed spouses are unable to procreate together.” The lawsuit even uses the acronym “PAACNP,” standing for “Parent and Adult Child Non-Procreationable.”
So, this would either refer to a same-sex parent and child who cannot, therefore, procreate, or to an opposite sex parent and child, one or both of whom is unable to procreate because of age or biological problems. Why say no to them?
As their argument goes, “Parent-and-adult-child couples for whom procreation is either virtually or literally impossible can aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning.”
Indeed, they claim that it would “diminish their humanity” if they were unable to marry. Why would anyone want to do something so cruel to them? Wasn’t it diminishing to the humanity of gays to forbid them the ability to “marry”? (For those who are unfamiliar with my own views, I’m simply playing the devil’s advocate here.)
After all, who are we to tell people who they can and cannot love? Haven’t we been told that love is love? That love wins? That we have the right to marry the one (or ones) we love? Why draw the line here?
For some years, I have been documenting the increasing acceptance of adult, consensual incest in our culture, including these articles:
“Here Comes Incest, Just as Predicted” — posted September 14, 2012, with documentation going back to 2007 and including reference to GSA (Genetic Sexual Attraction) along with actual cases in the courts in other countries.
“Next stop on slippery slope: Incest” — posted July 23, 2014, adding a surprising statement from a judge in Australia along with the latest celebration of incest in pop culture.
“Why Can’t Two Gay Brothers Marry?” — posted October 27, 2015, citing a pro-incest argument from a gay politician in Ireland.
“Legalizing adult incest — here we go again” — posted January 27, 2016, including further cultural updates.
Normalizing the abnormal. Welcome to the left’s version of our future.
Biden voter. In a few years it will be 16, then 10
The IRS (estate tax) isn’t going to like that idea.
What about marrying farm animals?
The only reason this hasn’t become a lefty “thing” is because there are not that many crazy lefties working on farms....
Makes me sick to read the article. I’m pretty sure I won’t be surprised by the content.
This all started with the Jim Crow law that redefined “marriage” as a legal contract instead of a religious rite. Once govt. intruded into this sacred arena of religion, it then progressed to a social engineering experiment including tax benefits and social security.
Marriage is inherently a religious rite, not a legal right.
And all of it is calculated to destroy religion. Let’s not let that happen. Remove all marriage laws as unconstitutional because they infringe upon religious freedom. Then, society can sort itself out.
There have always been and always will be social/sexual/etc. outliers. They are not a threat to overall society. However, these efforts to normalize and legitimize them are the magic bullet the left has identified to introduce division, distrust and hatred into society and break it down as a precursor to total subjugation. It’s as simple as that. Don’t fall for it.
There is no need to go into the weeds or debate it at all.
Ahhh...the old ‘slippery slope’.
And the left always says you shouldn’t be punished “for who you love”.
The "genetic issues" argument was always a fig leaf. We don't regulate marriages or procreation based on genetic issues: Eugenics went by the wayside as long ago.
The real reason incestuous marriage is illegal is the same reason gay marriage was illegal. It is morally wrong. But when the liberals convinced Anthony Kennedy in Romer and Lawrence that the government had no legitimate interest in public morality, they had to invent some other answer to the question "Why can't I marry my daughter, then?"
“If anyone here knows of any reason why these two should not married, speak now, or forever hold your peace.”
As a bolt of lightning crashes thru the roof of the church, splits in two, and strikes the man and his daughter dead. The Preacher says...
“And God has spoken.”
They don’t do this in the nations I’m told I should hate. I don’t hate them.
We are done as a nation. Sodom & Gommarh didn’t do the satanic things we are now doing.
“Parent in New York sues to ‘marry’
their his adult child.”
So the wokesters at LifeSite are now disregarding gender and number? Where was the editor on this one?
And yet the leftists will scoff at the even mention of the “slippery slope” argument.
Recalls learning that Christ elevated marrriage to a sacrament. Was it a secular or secularized institution previously?
‘My own Grampa’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.