Combined PING! and DANG!
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.
All you need to marry nowadays is that you “love” each other.
Up next delusionals will want to marry their dogs.
I don't think that's accurate at all. Government has been involved in marriage in this country since at least 1629, when the Massachusetts colonial legislature passed its first law governing divorce. Even earlier if you consider the legal treatment of marital property, or common-law dower and curtesy rights for surviving spouses.
And during and before that time there was an established Church, and so government could not "intrude" into the "sacred arena of religion," because there was no dichotomy between the two.
Just due to marital property rights alone, I don't think there is any realistic scenario where government does not have some involvement in marriage.
The media push the musings of the mentally ill as the cutting edge of an avant garde and hip society.
I agree. I think it’s about the money.
We were told this would never happen.
Yes, but the rest is after the fact, dealing mostly with property division. It was the Church, in Judeo-Christian tradition, that authorized and sanctified marriage. It probably varies from culture to culture. But in Christianity, it is a religious rite, not a legal right.
The Jim Crow licensing of marriage by the state was a critical turning point in US legislative history.
Well, if there was no intent to consummate the marriage, then that would be the case.
Love is love.
This, of course, was one of the obvious consequences of that inane movement.
And there may not be, regardless of what is claimed in the filing.
Are they going to be adding an “I” to the LGBTA acronym, or have they already?
One way to beat inheritance tax.
Why not. The sodomites were crowing about “marrying the person you love” and demanding the same benefits, their strongest argument. Well?
Probably a Cloward-Piven move with no intent of consummation. Just messing with the IRS.
“Their” in the context of the article is used to avoid indicating what the sex of the parent is in this situation. Rather than being specific, they’re being arbitrary...
Instead of: “Parent in New York sues to ‘marry’ parent’s adult child,”
they say: “Parent in New York sues to ‘marry’ their adult child.”
Also eligibility for healthcare past 26 and a tax related deduction past 16.
Leviticus 18:6 - None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
Reminds me of the last episodes of Boston Legal. William Shatner was starting his slide into Alzheimer’s. James Spader was Shatner’s best friend. Shatner wanted Spader to have full end-of-life decision making authority, tax free inheritance, as well as spousal privileges protecting their communications, so in the final episode they got married by (an actor playing) Justice Scalia.
Combined PING! and DANG!
First thought was health insurance coverage.
So what, exactly, is wrong with a Hapsburg lip?
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.