Did anyone see this coming? Well, actually, some of us did.
When we started tinkering with the definitions of marriage, and began chipping away at their traditional foundations this was only a matter of time.
When we began to ask “who’s to say that ______?” filling the blank with myriad doubts about old taboos concerning proper boundaries of marriage, this conversation was inevitable. I knew it. Probably, you did, too.
But the questioners laughed. They thought we were stupid to say this conversation about same-sex marriage (you could include “open” relationships, serial divorce, shacking up or whatever else) would eventually denigrate marriage, cheapen it, and lead us down “slippery slopes”.
Since then, we’ve seen same-sex marriage used to bludgeon businesses in court cases. We’ve seen the Telegraph report a conference in Cambridge discussing Paedophilia as “normal” among males, and that “hebephilia” (attraction to children in early puberty) is entirely acceptable. Someone’s tallied a list of 10 weirdest marriages (including “marriage” to a cat, the Eiffel Tower, a dolphin, and an anime character).
We warned that Bigamy would be coming. We warned about polyamory. I wrote a piece introducing us to the term “zoophile” (yes, that means what it sound like it means).
Well, this week, in Australia, another taboo is falling. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what passes for progress today.
An Australian judge is on the vanguard of a cutting edge new “freedom”. If his thinking catches on — as it likely will [face it, the argument is based on is exactly the same as the “logic” that’s felling other taboos] it may soon be perfectly acceptable to marry your brother, sister or mother.
Of course, I expect this will mean that Leftists will need new insults to call our side, since “inbred Redneck” would become a protected group.
What was the Judge’s rationale for his ruling? Simple.
In his way of thinking, a deformed child was the *only* reason to forbid marriage of close relatives. Now that we have birth control and abortion, we needn’t worry about this! Yes, ladies and gents! Abortion, and birth-control, those Progressive Wonder-drugs have finally made it possible for dear old Dad to give away his daughter to her brother.
Lovely legacy, that; Sandra Fluke must be proud. I’ll give you a few words from the judge:
“A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner,” the judge said.
“If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you’d invariably have, they would say it’s unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone.”
(Did you catch that? Man interested in boy is not unnatural… says a JUDGE. The rationale — at least in this instance — for the acceptability of homosexuality, incest, and paedophilia all stems from the same argument, because, uh, well, because it isn’t the 1950’s anymore.)
But there’s more… and for context, the particular case this judge is hearing involved a brother who had raped his sister, when she was 10 or 11. And then, some years later, sexual contact between them resumed when she turned 18 (and he was 26). This later contact was acceptable in his ruling. Quoting him again:
“The complainant has been sexually awoken, shall we say, by having two relationships with men and she had become ‘free’ when the second relationship broke down. The only thing that might change that is the fact that they were a brother and sister but we’ve come a long way from the 1950s – when the position of the English Common Law was that sex outside marriage was not lawful.”
See the original article with the judge’s ruling, here.
If you feel any horror about this ruling, or that it violates an inviolable moral code and boundary — as you might with paedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, or others that probably don’t even have names yet — remember that it wasn’t so very long ago that precise reaction was the majority view of homosexual sex.
There are only two possibilities: (1) that there are actual, real moral absolutes that such behaviours violate, whether people agree with them or not. Or that (2) the “morality” depicted in such programs as “Game of Thrones” should not shock us at all. They should not even raise an eyebrow, as they are “morally neutral”.
I will close with a quote by same-sex advocate Masha Gessen:
‘It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry,’ she said. ‘But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … ‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’
And if that’s the goal, then it looks like you’re charging in that direction at a dead run, consequences be damned.
