A broken record can sure become tedious, and I realise that the constant flow of evidence that I offer about the slippery slope can become tiring after a while. But truth matters, and as long as the activists lie through their teeth about these issues, I will keep taking a public stand to get truth out there.
It seems like just two days ago that I pointed out more cases of paedophile rights being championed because of the success of homosexual rights. Well, it was indeed two days ago. Then I spoke about English academics pushing paedophilia because of past homosexual wins, and now I have to speak about Australian judges who are also making this connection.
A Sydney judge has rightly connected the dots and said that if homosexuality is now fully acceptable, then why not incest or paedophilia. Yes he actually said that. It seems on a daily basis now the slippery slope I and others have been warning about keeps on playing itself out right before our very eyes.
Here is how the story goes:
A Sydney judge has compared incest and paedophilia to homosexuality, saying the community may no longer see sexual contact between siblings and between adults and children as “unnatural” or “taboo”. District Court Judge Garry Neilson said just as gay sex was socially unacceptable and criminal in the 1950s and 1960s but is now widely accepted, “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”.
He also said the “only reason” that incest is still a crime is because of the high risk of genetic abnormalities in children born from consanguineous relationships “but even that falls away to an extent [because] there is such ease of contraception and readily access to abortion”.
His remarks drew a lot of attention, but for varying reasons. Some folks got mad at him for daring to compare homosexuality with incest and paedophilia. In their eyes, homosexuality is just fine, but the other two are not. But they are missing the point here.
The judge was not so much comparing these things as saying – rightly and logically I think – that if we as a society embrace homosexuality, then the same arguments can be used to embrace these other things. He is simply telling it like it is in this sense. There is indeed a slippery slope in action, and it is hard to argue for the criminalisation of these other things when we have already “progressed” on matters like homosexuality.
So he is simply spilling the beans here, and saying what many of us have been warning about for decades now: once you normalise, legalise, and grant special rights to one type of aberrant sexual behaviour, it is hard to say no to other forms of sexual deviancy.
Whether this judge actually wants to see incest and paedophilia accepted as normal and made fully legal may not be clear. But what is clear is that he rightly sees the connection that so many others refuse to accept. When we warned about granting special rights to homosexuals, including marriage rights, and how it would open the door even wider, the activists poured scorn and contempt upon us.
They accused us of scare-mongering and lying. Well, how many more Australian judges, how many more English academics, and how many others need to say exactly the same thing before we start realising that the door sure is wide open, and Pandora’s Box may now be impossible to close?
My forthcoming book will have dozens more such examples of this very thing. The whole hog of sexuality is now being argued for, be it incest or bestiality or group marriage or paedophilia. And all this is now happening because the homosexual militants have been so successful in promoting their war on sexuality, morality, marriage and family.
Theirs was among the first domino to fall, and the rest seem to be well and truly on the way. When we even have sitting judges and professors making the case for the normalisation of these things, then we can no longer dismiss folks warning about this as nutters and panic merchants.
All we can do, sadly, is say, “We told you so”.