Link to the full-text Free Republic thread.
Posted on 07/10/2014 12:33:49 PM PDT by wagglebee
A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.
Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.
He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I believe you use a broad PAINT BRUSH. What, pray tell, is your definition of a "Libertarian"? Someone not a Republican?
FMCDH(BITS)
What’s next. A brother marrying his sister? Oh, wait. That’s been happening for years in Arkansas.
The ancient Egyptians thought so, too. Look where it got them...................
Link to the full-text Free Republic thread.
“This is beyond sick.”
But not surprising. I’ve been telling my family all along that this would happen. Once we’ve crossed the line, there’s no going back. The super sick will continue pushing for more and more deviancy to be accepted.
Ping!
Just keep appointing gay/queer, transgender, lib commie judges and that’s what you get. Look at the judges in this country who legalized gay marriages going against state laws. The ultimate goal of these freaks is to legalize pedophilia.
Like everything on the left, it’s all relative. Pun intended.
“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; (...) The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional ‘morals’ offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. ‘The law,’ it said, ‘is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.’ “
~Justice Scalia, Dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas
“Row faster, mate. I hear banjos.”
It ain't gonna be missing for long. Just sayin'.
“What’s next. A brother marrying his sister? Oh, wait. That’s been happening for years in Arkansas.”
“The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was 33 sons and 23 daughters.”
doing it with wallaby’s will be his next decision.
Amazing that wackjobs like this can become judges.
This is an appointed judge, making "law" via his personal preferences and dictates.
Not a very libertarian concept.
I’d like someone to explain to me exactly what Libertarians believe in, other than small government. I know the wags on here will say they believe in drugs, especially marijuana.
I might just want to identify with them, I’m for sure not a republican anymore, not since McCain as republican nominee.
A few years back, I voted for the Libertarian in the U.S. Senate race here in Illinois, as I refused to vote for republican baby killer Kirk or the democrat baby killer either. The Libertarian was at least pro life.
Camels nose under the tent.
Slippery slope...
Yeah right. Gay marriage advocate’s attack on traditional morality is only about love and not normalizing perversion.
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.