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.
I love it when something gets between the government and it’s illegal taxing schemes. Apparently, all perversion is not equal. I love the examples of sodomite brothers in love or Islamic child brides for that matter. People do indeed get all the the government they will tolerate.
Ready to burn in hell?
I have thought this since the same-sex marriage decision came down from SCOTUS and not just for incest reasons. Tax law protects assets passed from one spouse to another in death.
Many small businesses and farms are lost because of tax burdens generated by handing the business down to the children. If marriage is no longer about procreating and rearing children, consanguinity no longer matters. Family assets can be protected by the surviving parent legally marrying the chosen inheritor and thus the inheritance taxes are avoided and the business stays within the family. No one wants the government going into bedrooms to make sure the “marriage” is actually consummated, so actual incest is not necessary.
Frankly I am surprised someone hadn’t done this years ago, like immediately after the decision.
Talk about a loophole. What next, Somali's marrying their brothers to gain entry into the US?
Built into the human psyche is the ‘’incest prohibition’’, ingrained by nature and nature's God to prevent a species to prevent the ''muddying'' of it's gene pool and ensuring it's continued survival. And just to remind the masses the Lord spelled out clearly his profound injunction against it.
Gross.
I didn’t read the sex of parent or child in the article. Did I misread, or do you have more info?
**Columbia University professor** David Epstein no wonder kids in University’s and colleges are in moral decline liberalism at it’s finest and it only costs you thousands of dollar for it what a deal huh.
thank you!!!
(that third person plural used for the singular idiocy drives me nuts!)
Soon to be a Hallmark Movie!
Maybe you should re-read the Bible.
In Sodom gang rape was a family friendly event and there were not even ten people who would not participate.
I share your disgust at this but it is important to be truthful.
You've obviously never been to Iowa ...
Well that was unsettling. 😐
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.