CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

In Praise of Incest

Dec 15, 2010

I know it can be grating to say, “I told you so”. But sometimes that is simply the case. For years now I have been telling you that once we go down the road of legalising same-sex marriage, then the floodgates will open, and any and all forms of sexuality will be fair game for legalisation and promotion.

For over a decade I have warned where all this is heading. Homosexual marriage is simply the thin edge of the wedge. Once this full-frontal assault on the institutions of marriage and family is allowed, then there is no logical reason to prevent other deviant types of sexuality from being recognised and legitimised.

Thus I have written often about those pushing for the legalisation of polyamory, or group love. The logic of group marriage is identical to the logic of homosexual marriage. And of course the same logic can be found in the push to legalise incest.

However, whenever I suggest these next steps in the slippery slope, the other side ridicules me and mocks me, claiming no one is arguing for polyamory or incest. That is why I have to keep writing articles like this. There are people all over the world pushing for these very things, and they are happy to ride on the success of the same-sex marriage movement.

Let’s consider another clear cut example of this. Here is how one news item reports the story of a push for incest:

The upper house of the Swiss parliament has drafted a law decriminalising sex between consenting family members which must now be considered by the government.
There have been only three cases of incest since 1984.
Switzerland, which recently held a referendum passing a draconian law that will boot out foreigners convicted of committing the smallest of crimes, insists that children within families will continue to be protected by laws governing abuse and paedophilia.
Daniel Vischer, a Green party MP, said he saw nothing wrong with two consenting adults having sex, even if they were related.
“Incest is a difficult moral question, but not one that is answered by penal law,” he said.
Barbara Schmid Federer of The Christian People’s Party of Switzerland said the proposal from the upper house was “completely repugnant.”
“I for one could not countenance painting out such a law from the statute books.”
The Protestant People’s Party is also opposed to decriminalising the offence which at present carries a maximum three year jail term.
A spokesman for the party said: “Murder is also quite rare in Switzerland but no one suggests that we remove that as an offence from the statutes.”

So now the Greens want incest legalised. Why are we just not surprised? Why should any of this come as a surprise? Those intent on destroying society will never stop with just same-sex marriage. They want the whole hog: complete sexual anarchy.

Indeed, there have been plenty of homosexual activists who have long argued for the removal of most, if not all, legal restrictions on sexuality. Way back in 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations in the US demanded the “repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.”

Also in this 1972 Gay Rights Platform was the call for the abolition of all age of sexual consent laws. These proposals were endorsed wide and far in the homosexual community. Indeed, lesbian activist Judith Levine argued for all this and more (even pedophilia) in her famous Village Voice article, “Stop the Wedding! Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough”.

So if we are stupid enough to grant the homosexual activists their wishes to marry, then please do not express shock or outrage when all the other contenders for “marriage equality” come crawling out of the woodwork. Anything goes in such a world.

The truth is, all boundaries are smashed when we redefine marriage. There are even groups arguing for the right to marry one’s pet! Called petrosexuality, this new sexuality group insists that a person’s love for his or her pet, including sexual relations, should be made official. Thus one Dutch web site encourages people to marry their pets.

But hey, at least you can’t say I haven’t told you so.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html

[723 words]

33 Responses to In Praise of Incest

  • Thanks Bill

    I would like to add to the comment I made in your previous article “Defending marriage now means being hateful.”

    I wrote that the trauma this family has gone through is horrific.

    Let me correct this, that the trauma this family is going through still, is horrific.

    Let me warn all men who may harbour a thought to harm your children in this way that God ALWAYS forgives, men SOMETIMES forgives, but nature NEVER forgives.

    And as this is a sin against human nature, you will not have to wait until judgment day to be judged. It will come to light in your lifetime, sooner or later. And the so called “gratification” is not worth putting your mortal soul at risk, let alone the harm done to your child and perhaps her/his soul.

    Anne Van Tilburg

  • I said on your blog that I feared our children would be fighting the legalisation of paedophilia. Now I’m thinking my timing may have been optimistic. Creation Ministries have also said that the homosexuality argument could be used for all other kinds of sexual depravity. I must say without God’s law most of the arguments against sexually sin come down to “it’s gross” or “it’s just wrong” and we all know how movable right and wrong are without the anchor of the scripture.
    Kylie Anderson

  • It’s hard to take this nonsense seriously. Yet we must because the move is before the Swiss parliament. It would be interesting to identify all of those behind the move along with their organisational links and histories. Do any have a history of mental disturbance? Or maybe they are sexual sociopaths? This couldn’t possibly be the work of mature, sane adults.
    John Snowden

  • That’s stunning, Bill. Sodom and Gomorrah goes mainstream. The slippery slope never ends and it makes you wonder just where it will end up if Jesus doesn’t come and end the madness. What constantly gobsmacks me are the utterly naive reactions from people who say X, Y and Z will never happen; who scoff at the slippery slope arguments and, despite the evidences of history, believe that somehow society is so inherently good and well-intentioned that it will stop at the right place and go no further. Three words: ostrich, head and sand.
    Dee Graf

  • Though not directly related to incest this case going through the British courts should cause us all to wonder how long we can control even what goes on in our own homes.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338232/We-set-claim-Christian-B-amp-B-owners-sued-refusing-let-gay-couple-share-double-bed.html

    It is significant that Mr and Mrs Bull are not at the moment being dragged into court by heterosexuals who might have felt offended by their Christian view on marriage and sexuality. It is possible that apart from refusing to allow men and women who are not married into their B&B, they would also refuse married couples who engage in sodomy or sado-masochsim and other exotic sexual behaviour. However, if as has already been noted that heterosexual practice per se, unlimited by convention marriage, is now a protected orientation along with the LGBts on the single Equality Act, it is likely therefore that Mr and Mrs Bull would soon be likely to being dragged into court by liberated heterosexuals, unhindered by traditional morality. It will no longer simply be refusing a room to their unwed relatives. There are developments, using exactly the same arguments as used by the gays, in Canada and elsewhere, for the legal recognition of polygamy and polyamory – not to mention those involved in incestuous relationships. Mr and Mrs Bull might soon have to accept not just two men or two women sharing a room but a group made up of a combination of straights, gays, transgender and bisexuals and the incestuous.

    David Skinner, UK

  • There’s a case going on in New York City right now about a Columbia University professor having sex with his daughter. His lawyer just issued the following comment: “It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home,” he said. “How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.”

    As for pets, well there’s the case of Sharon Tendler getting married to a dolphin in Eilat, Israel. Maybe she just wants to live a porpoise-driven life.

    John Hughes

  • Many thanks indeed John for drawing this to our attention. And thanks for the quote from the PC lawyer. His remark also very nicely makes our case for us.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Hi Bill

    After reading both of your last articles, which are excellent by the way, I have been, maybe call it, meditating on marriage.

    I am sure that God had a definite plan and order for marriage. That is procreation and unity. I think those two go together in that order. He definitely created marriage between a man and a woman.

    If there was not meant to be procreation our world as in population would have only survived the first generation.
    That to me is only common sense.

    If there is no unity in the marriage act the spouses are using one another.

    So I think if we step out of the order which Our Creator ordered for marriage, we are asking for trouble.

    And this is what is happening with selfish spouses, but also with same-sex marriages, where there is no procreation or unity in the sense it was meant to be.

    What do you think?

    I know this is not commenting on your article.

    Anne van Tilburg

  • Anne, Romans 1 describes how we don’t need to quote scripture to defend the truth for it is plainly before our very eyes in the created order. The following might sound a bit crude and unromantic but there is nothing romantic about men committing shameful acts with other men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error – AIDs and HIV.
    Only the marriage between a man and woman results in the marriage of their semen and eggs; the marriage of their chromosomes and genes, the marriage of the their physical and personality traits to create new life: children. Only marriage between a man and woman results in the fusion and unity of their entire personalities, body, mind, soul and spirit.
    To call the joining of semen with excrement to produce disease and possibly a visit to the genitourinary department of the local hospital or undertakers…to call this marriage, becoming one flesh, is a grotesque abomination.

    David Skinner, UK

  • Thanks Anne

    Catholic thinking has especially emphasised the procreative and unitive functions of God’s purposes for human sexuality. And I think they are on to something here. Many people, including many Protestants, tend to think sex is only about pleasure. It may well contain that, but it is far more than that. So some of us need to think about this much more carefully.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Anne van Tilburg writes, “I am sure that God had a definite plan and order for marriage. That is procreation and unity….”

    More than that, God wanted people and homes to operate by His Word, Law, Precepts. Homes to be schools where the Law and Faith are taught, where parents to be teachers, priests, healers and guardians of the Faith and Worship. God wanted to create a nation who would love Him, thrive under His Good Dominion and reveal Himself to the rest of the nations.

    Sibyl Smith

  • Thanks Bill, David and Sibyl

    Sibyl, you are correct. There are three persons in a marriage, husband, wife, And God. And if God is present we should live as He commands.

    Anne Van Tilburg

  • Dear Bill,

    This issue is far more complex than can be dismissed by simply comparing incest to marriage equality for people of the same gender – or reducing love to the level of violent acts such as pedophilia or the abuse of animals. Or to the limits of one group of people’s definition of a legal contract called marriage.

    Also, the use of the word “deviant” used by some of those leaving comments here raises concerns for me – concerns that those applying the word to gay people do not know the first thing about the people they are defaming.

    In another instance there is the assumption that marriage is designed solely for the purpose of producing children. Well I think it is obvious that anyone who does not have reproductive problems can do that, with or without being married. Animals do it all the time. But silly comments implying that marriage is solely for reproductive purposes are short-sighted and attempt to invalidate the unions of those couples who cannot reproduce, even those who happen to be of opposite genders.

    Furthermore, such a restrictive and invasive line of thought tends to disregard the only valid reason for entering into such a contract at all – love.

    For instance, if you wish to make an issue of incest, I think the royal families who have ruled Europe for the past thousand years and are themselves largely the products of incest, would have something to say about it. Like I said, complicated.

    Be that as it may, it is an interesting world we live in – and while people of the same sex may marry in some places so far, nobody is forcing those who do not approve to marry a person (or multiple people) of the same gender – nor to celebrate their unions.

    Christina Engela

  • Thanks Christina

    Ah, here we go again: another lefty trendy trying to defend the indefensible. ‘It is all so complex…’ Yeah right. There is nothing complex about this at all. It is only complex to radical activists and moral relativists that wouldn’t recognise evil if it bit them on the face.

    And I have to – as usual – call your bluff here. Please point out to all of us just one person here who has said marriage is only about procreation. But having said that, historically that has been one of the two major functions and purposes of the social institution of marriage: providing the very best environment for any children who are produced by the sexual union of a man and a woman. Sexuality and procreation have always gone together. That I even have to state this obvious fact is quite telling.

    And forget the baloney about this being about nothing other than ‘love’. The truth is, your side doesn’t have a clue what genuine love is. Love is not about adults demanding instant gratification of their lusts, but it is about willing the highest good for the other person. There is nothing loving about the encouragement and promotion of the dangerous and high-risk homosexual lifestyle, nor is there anything loving about depriving a child of the fundamental right to be raised by his or her own mother and father.

    And let me slightly alter this howler of yours: “nobody is forcing those who do not approve of rape to engage in it”. Please spare us this utter foolishness. You just make your side look completely ridiculous by offering such logical fallacies.

    And let me call your bluff once again. All over the Western world, special rights for homosexuals, including marriage rights, are taking away rights of ordinary citizens, forcing them to accept and celebrate those changes, or face the consequences. Thus those not bowing down to the homosexual agenda are losing their jobs, being fined, and being sent to jail. I document dozens of such cases on this website.

    The fact that you want to turn moral evils like incest into “complex” issues simply tells us all about your total lack of a moral compass, and just how far down the gurgler you folks have gone in your radical social activism.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Mr. Muehlenberg,

    I am thankful for your blog, and I am on your side. But I would like to know what you would say to those who think the slippery slope from homosexuality to incest might be resisted because incestuous relationships ‘destroy families’, and homosexual relationships don’t. William Saletan in http://www.slate.com/id/2277787/ makes this argument.

    Joseph Tang

  • Thanks Joseph

    But of course homosexuality fundamentally destroys both marriage and family. I document this on my site in many articles. But take just one crucial issue: the most fundamental right of every child to be raised by his or her biological parents is obviously stolen away from them in any so-called homosexual household.

    And of course heterosexual marriage is the very heart of the institution of family. When we destroy marriage by redefining it out of existence by seeking to include same-sex relationships, we destroy family as well. And the very arguments used for homosexual marriage are the ones used for group marriage, bestiality, incest and so on. But that too I have often written about on this site.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks Bill
    You are a pillar of the Truth! In season and out of season!

    Anne Van Tilburg

  • Bill,

    The Greens policy on sexuality includes a move towards nationally uniform age of consent laws in Australia. I looked at what the laws actually are, and they are already uniform across the states and territories (16 years old), with one exception: that Qld mandates an age of consent of 18 years for anal sex.

    While we could speculate that the Greens *might* want to try and lower the overall age of consent, it’s obvious that in the first instance they’re wanting to decriminalize sodomy with minors (16 and 17 year-olds) in Qld.

    Just wanted to highlight that point specifically, as a case in point of what they think matters enough to be in their policy.

    Alister Cameron, Melbourne

  • Last week, a Columbia University Law professor was arrested for having a four year (consensual, it says) incestuous relationship with his daughter. What was REALLY startling were the comments on Huffington Post. Most of them really didn’t see anything wrong with it since they were both adults after the “affair” began. They just don’t see it as a moral issue at all.
    It’s the comments that are most troubling: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/10/david-epstein-incest-char_n_794864.html
    Kendra Mallock, US

  • Western society is getting sicker by the day, the outcome of having everything without having to work too hard for it all. Its all about “the devil finding work for idle…… in this case minds.
    Pat Abrahams

  • Alister, age of consent might be uniform but the exceptions differ. For example in Vic sex with a 10-15 year old is acceptable as long a the parties are within 2 years of age of each other. I don’t think any other state has an exception as low as 10.

    I am not catholic but I have spent some time on a catholic Natural Family Planning forum and it gave me a far greater understanding of the catholic stance on sex and contraception.

    The longer I spend reading about abortion and sexual deviancy the more I agree with them. I see the separation of pleasure and procreation as one of the greatest causes of abortion. People want the pleasure of sex without the commitment of bringing children into the world. Contraception encourages this behaviour and abortion is the ‘solution’ when contraception fails. Instead of sex being God’s gift to a married couple it is treated as a responsibility less pleasure that is everyone’s right and right in every form.

    Kylie Anderson

  • What is third-degree incest? Is it to do with relationship or consent?
    Kylie Anderson

  • Hi there Bill
    I must say that you are always ahead of the main stream Churches in your warnings on such monstrous behaviour as incest. Most of the clergy join the battle when the horse has, not only bolted, but unable to be caught. Even if they took a leaf out of your book and acted immediately, there is still a big worry for me. The worry is the state of the electoral rolls in this country. A former conservative investigative journalist, told me that the results of an intensive study by him, convinced him that there would be at least 18,000 phony names listed over six marginal seats in Queensland alone. There we have the potential for 6,000 “people” to vote numerous times in each electorate -and I ask everyone would that be counteracted by some bored official, behind a desk at a polling station asking a voter, what would win any contest to discover the most asinine question of the year “Have you voted before in this election?” A smarter question would be “Do you have your driver’s license?” I believe the polls do not reflect the correct wishes of the voting public.
    Sweden, for all its faults, has a system whereby you may vote only at YOUR polling station, you show your identity and a check is made through a computer to see if you’ve voted before. Great idea, what do some politicians have to lose by introducing such a scheme? The answer is – possibly an election.
    Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld

  • People will argue over the difference between complicated and complex. Anyone who has tried to fathom the mind of God in moments of disaster would suggest that the world was not only complex and complicated but incomprehensible. However, one thing is certain, we are not God and He knows that we are not God either. In such a world He knows that left to our wisdom we would destroy ourselves and hence he has given us a Captain, charts, compasses and instruments simply for getting from A to B. We will never know the big picture, we are not God, but he gives us only that information that will enable us to reach our destination. We are without excuse.
    There are those who claim that the world has no rhyme or reason, cause or effect and thus any ideas about it are incommunicable. And yet there lies a deep dishonesty here, for when a piece of engineering such as a bridge is designed, the idea that everything is random becomes untenable. Purpose, reason and ideas of true and false have to operate. However when it comes to personal relationships, people like yourself, maybe, claim that life is so complex and meaningless that it is incommunicable. But in your comment above you have beautifully used syntax and grammar to communicate the idea that life is incommunicable.
    In other words we are all very selective as to when the world is complex and when it as clear as the end of one’s nose. When we wish to deprive and control others the world is complex but when we want something for ourselves it suddenly becomes clear and obvious.
    Perhaps one of the most dishonest of these philosophers was Bertrand Russell who admitted that he had peddled atheism and materialism because uncertainty and doubt allowed him to sexually exploit others.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/200010090052

    Families that come in all shapes and sizes:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/feb/07/family4
    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/my-weird-wonderful-family/4od#3117440

    David Skinner, UK

  • Joseph, the article you posted above was doing alright, until the writer, William Saletan showed the most appalling ignorance about homosexuality being immutable and gays not being able to have children. Me thinks that if he is not already queer, he is well on the way to becoming queered.

    David Skinner, UK

  • Hi Bill – Good article. I was reminded while reading it of a chorus we would sing back when I was a communist:

    “Smash family structures,
    Liberate the people.”

    Let no one doubt that that is their goal – the destruction of the family as we know it. In their view that is necessary for the true liberation of humanity from its chains. Of course, we know that it only forges real chains, leaving the individual naked and helpless before the power of the state. And broken as individuals.
    Ed Sherman

  • Ed Sherman, John Adams, the second president of the United States of America put it well when he said:

    “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other….Our Founders had a better answer than government or even education. God is the answer. God is the moral compass of America. Or He should be, if we ever want to restore morality in our homes and civility to our land. Our Founders believed morals flowed from one’s accountability to God, and that, without God, immoral anarchy would result.”

    The self interest and cost to the tax payers, when budgets for essential services in Britain are already at breaking point are not only smashing marriage but the economy as well. How much longer will the public remain paralysed whilst we watch queers, in all their varieties of perversion, free to ransack our families, communities and nation for goods and services that their human rights tell them they are entitled to? Where oh where is Oliver Cromwell?

    http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/having-your-cake-and-eating-it/

    David Skinner, UK

  • Christina, you say that the only valid reason for entering into sexual relationship such as marriage is love; or as the Beatles used to sing, “All you need is love, love.”

    C.S. Lewis in “ The Four Loves” says: “Most of our ancestors were married off early in youth to partners chosen by their parents on grounds that had nothing to do with Eros. They went to the (sexual) act with no other “fuel”, to speak, than plain animal desire. And they did right; honest Christian husbands and wives, obeying their fathers and mothers, discharging to one another their “marriage debt”, and bringing up families in the fear of the Lord.“

    He goes to point out that adultery does not have to be physical relationship, but merely a platonic one: “Conversely, this act, done under the influence of a soaring and iridescent Eros which reduces the role of the senses to a minor consideration, may yet be plain adultery, may involve breaking a wife’s heart, deceiving a husband, betraying a friend, polluting hospitality and deserting your children.”

    Frances Schaeffer, talking about Dante, the Italian poet who fell in love with a young girl called, Beatrice at first sight, said that he loved her with a spiritual passion all his life. Then he married another woman who bore his children and washed his dishes but he never forsook his love for Beatrice. Schaeffer said that It has not pleased God that the distinction between a sin and a duty should turn on fine feelings. This act, like any other, is justified (or not) by far more prosaic and definable criteria; by the keeping or breaking of promises, by justice or injustice, by charity or selfishness, by obedience or disobedience.

    And how much charity and love will you show Christina to those who confess to their adultery and breaking of God’s laws? Not much I wager. Instead you will hasten them to the nearest lunatic asylum for re assignment.
    http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/12/16/the-dangers-of-reparative-ex-gay-therapy-a-response/

    David Skinner, UK

  • Dr. Albert Mohler has also written a pertinent article on incest this week:

    http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/12/15/so-why-is-incest-wrong/

    Sibyl Smith

  • Hi David

    Is the whole world going nuts? I just belatedly read your above article. Makes you wonder where it will end!

    Anne Van Tilburg

  • I agree with Kendra about looking at the comments made on a website regarding the Columbia University professor’s incest, because I’ve studied public opinion all my adult life and think it’s the very corruption of that which is the cause of all our sexual pandemonium and the resulting rise in crime and psychological dysfunction. As Lincoln said, those who write the songs are more influential than those who write the laws; it’s cultural influence that is determinative.
    John Hughes

  • Bill,
    I too am appalled at the very notion that someone can even consider proposing giving “legal” approval to incest. Just stating this is revolting.
    But all is not lost, do remember that Switzerland is the only nation on this planet that is governed by a real direct democracy that the people of Switzerland granted themselves well over 150 years ago!
    So, what some loony Greenies may propose in the National Assembly has first to be approved by that body. Assuming that such an event could occur, at once an essential tool firmly embedded in the Swiss Constitution would become available, namely: the right to demand a veto referendum. If, within 100 days of that proposed legislation being approved by the Swiss assembly, 50,000 registered electors sign a demand for a referendum on that legislation then such a referendum *must* be held and its result is *binding* on both the government and the parliament.
    And it is precisely because of that basic democratic right being so firmly entrenched in the Swiss Federal Constitution that most such foolish proposals never get approved in the Swiss Parliament, most members being level-headed pragmatists!
    Dominic Baron, NZ

  • Recently Oprah had a programme about a “happy family” with one husband and multiple wives. The wives admitted to jealously but said they just had to get over it.

    Katherine Fishley

Leave a Reply