If all human beings should have the right to marry (or simply be with) the one they love, as proponents of same-sex marriage constantly tell us, then why shouldn’t adult, incestuous couples enjoy that same “right”? Hollywood director Nick Cassavetes is the latest to say, “Why not?”, and I for one am not in the least bit surprised.

Simply stated, with the public endorsement of same-sex relationships, the endorsement (or at least acceptance) of consensual, adult, incestuous relationships is the next step. Consider the following:

• Already in April, 2007, Time Magazine featured a major article entitled, “Should Incest Be Legal?” The article noted that critics of the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas ruling in 2003, which struck down Texas’ anti-sodomy law, argued that the ruling would lead to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage and polygamy. “It turns out,” Time noted, “that the critics were right,” adding that plaintiffs were now “using Lawrence to challenge laws against incest.”
  
  
• In December 2010, when Columbia University professor David Epstein was charged with one count of incest because of his three-year, consensual affair with his adult daughter, his attorney Matthew Galuzzo remarked, “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.”
  
  
• In May 2010, Salon.com ran an article on “Gay Porn’s Most Shocking Taboo,” namely “Twincest.” As expressed by one of the twins, “My brother is my boyfriend, and I am his boyfriend.” One commenter wrote, “I have total moral and legal integrity here: no sexual act that results from the consent of both parties should be illegal or immoral. These boys apparently consented to do this: there is no possibility of deformed or retarded children: therefore it is not a crime or your business.” But of course. Not surprisingly, a colleague reported to me that on other gay websites, the same argument was frequently raised in support of the twins.
  
  
• Even more shocking news was reported in May, 2010. A 72 year-old woman and her long estranged grandson in England were going to have a child together through a surrogate mother. Said the grandson, Phil: “You can’t help who you fall for.” Said his grandmother, Pearl: “Phil’s going to be a great dad. I never in a million years thought at 72 I’d be ‘pregnant’ and in love with my grandson. I make no apologies and I believe God’s given me a second chance.”
  
  
• In February of this year, Emily Yoffe (aka Prudence) responded to a question in her column on Slate.com. Male, fraternal twins who had been living together as lovers for many years wondered if they should come out and tell their family. After discussing legal and family matters, she closed with this counsel: “When people ask when you’re each going to go out there and find a nice young man, tell them that while it may seem unorthodox, you both have realized that living together is what works for you. Say no brothers could be more devoted or compatible, and neither of you can imagine wanting to change what you have.” Gay activist Dan Savage seconded her advice.
  
  
• In several countries, incest laws are being challenged, most notably in a major case in Germany involving a brother and sister who did not meet until later in life, only to fall in love and have children. Their attorney used the precedent of same-sex marriage to argue on his clients’ behalf.
  
  
• Some scientists now speak of GSA, genetic sexual attraction, which “occurs between two adults who have been separated during the critical years of development and bonding and are reunited years later as adults.” When they are finally reunited, “they become captivated with one another, sharing similar physical features, likes and dislikes.” Perhaps they could say, “My genes made me do it!”

In light of the above, which could be multiplied almost ad infinitum (and ad nauseam), Nick Cassavetes’ comments shouldn’t be so shocking: “I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids – who gives a d-mn? Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want? If it’s your brother or sister it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.” Yes, isn’t that what “we say” these days?

Promoting his new movie “Yellow,” which features an adult incestuous relationship, he said, “We had heard a few stories where brothers and sisters were completely, absolutely in love with one another. You know what? This whole movie is about judgment, and lack of it, and doing what you want.” Exactly. Who are you to judge?

A gay man and his partner once asked me, “But how can you say our relationship is wrong? We’re not hurting anyone and there is no victim.” I asked them, “Would you approve of two adult gay brothers having a relationship?” They both replied, “But that is so wrong!” Yet when I pressed them further, they could not say why their relationship was fine but that of two consenting brothers was not.

So, what’s it going to be? Do we hold the line on marriage as the union of a man and woman only, or do we eventually open the door to incest too?

Michael Signorile, a homosexual activist, wrote a piece on Huffington Post about recently deceased astronaut Sally Ride’s homosexuality.  Here’s an excerpt from his post:

Ride’s posthumous coming out is a wonderful gift to America’s youth. And it’s what we needed right now. If astronauts are among the ultimate heroes and examples of American ingenuity, fortitude and bravery, then with that one line in her obituary — survived by “Tam O’Shaughnessy, her partner of 27 years” — Sally Ride dispeled [sic]all the ugliness foisted on this country in recent weeks by the Boy Scouts of America [and] Chick-Fil-A…. The Boy Scouts, which claims to value “good conduct, respect for others, and honesty,” believes gay kids and gay and lesbian adult leaders don’t measure up. But with her service to the country, not just as member of NASA’s space program but with her dedication to educating American children, and particularly young girls, about science, Sally Ride shows the Boy Scouts to be running purely on the fumes of bias.

Signorile is known for being a pioneer in the “outing” of homosexual journalists and other public figures. He’s also notorious for his escapades with the radical homosexual group ACT-UP, which included pointing at  then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) in a church and shouting, “‘He is no man of God—he is the devil!’”

Just a few random thoughts about Signorile’s post:

• Just as Sally Ride’s homosexuality does not diminish her impressive accomplishments and should not diminish our respect for them, her accomplishments do not mitigate the immorality of volitional homosexual acts and should not affect our understanding of those acts as immoral. But homosexual activists use the accomplishments and good character traits of homosexuals as a non-rational means of transforming how society thinks about homosexuality. 

Do the accomplishments of Franklin Delano Roosevelt render adultery moral? Do the accomplishments of Martin Luther King Jr. render plagiarism or philandering moral? Do the academic accomplishments of former Columbia University political science professor David Epstein render his consensual sexual relationship with his adult daughter moral? Do the accomplishments of Father Robert Drinan (Leftist Jesuit priest, partial-birth abortion supporter, and former Democratic congressman from Massachusetts) render his fondling of Slate magazine writer Emily Yoffe when she was 18 years old moral? 

Sally Ride’s “posthumous coming out” is not a wonderful gift to America’s youth if they are snookered into believing that her accomplishments tell us anything about homosexuality. Her homosexuality is a very sad fact about her personal life. 

• According to deep thinker Michael Signorile, the Boy Scouts of America “foisted ugliness” on this country when this private organization voted to retain their historical policy regarding homosexuality.  So now any policy—even that of private organizations—that reflects the belief that volitional homosexual acts are immoral constitutes foisting ugliness on America. Does that proposition hold true for polyamory? If a private organization bans open polyamorists from leadership roles, is it guilty of foisting ugliness on America?

• Signorile tries futilely to make the case that the Boy Scouts of America believes that “gay kids and gay and lesbian adult leaders don’t measure up” in regard to standards of “good conduct, respect for others, and honesty.” Well, the Boys Scouts of America have never claimed that kids or adults who identify as homosexual are disrespectful of others or that they’re dishonest. The policy narrowly reflects the belief that volitional homosexual acts do not constitute good conduct, which does not reflect bias. There are a plethora of reasons for the belief that homosexual acts are disordered and immoral—both religious and secular. I wonder if Signorile actually knows what “bias” means. And I wonder, do Signorile’s moral claims, especially those that reflect moral disapproval, smell of bias? 

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

Perhaps we can be forgiven for remaining blithely ignorant of just how depraved societies that abandon true faith can become. Until today, I did not know that incest between consenting adults is legal in China, France, Israel, the Ivory Coast, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain and Turkey. In Spain the age of consent is 13.

In Switzerland, where consensual incest between “second-degree” relatives like aunts and nephews or between cousins is already legal, the Upper House of Parliament recently proposed a law decriminalizing consensual sex between “first-degree” relatives (e.g., between fathers and daughters or between siblings). The age of consent in Switzerland is 16.

Columbia University political science Professor David Epstein probably wishes he lived in one of those countries: He was just arrested and charged with having a three-year consensual sexual relationship with his 24-year-old daughter.

The question is not whether a movement to legalize incest between consenting adults is coming to America; the question is simply when. Incestuous relations between consenting adults is no more depraved and perverse than sexual relations between two men or two women, which we now celebrate in our streets and our public schools.

Oh, and don’t forget, accompanying this effort to normalize yet another manifestation of sin will be a fight to lower the age of consent.

And when it arrives, we will be left devoid of justifications for opposing it because all the same reasons used to normalize homosexuality will be used to normalize adult consensual incest:

• Who are you to impose your personal or religious beliefs on others?
• Opposition to adult consensual incest is motivated by puritanical provincialism and prejudice.
• What goes on between closed doors is no one’s business but the two (or more) people involved.
• All that really matters is that those involved love each other.
• How does the incestuous relationship of Mr. Brown and his daughter Susie affect your relationship?
• It is unjust to deny any adults the freedom to love whomever they please.

The central reason offered to prohibit incestuous relations is that their offspring are at increased risk for genetic disorders. But this is not a compelling moral reason to oppose consensual incest.

First, not all children born to close relatives suffer from genetic disorders. Second, laws permitting incestuous marriages between “first-degree” relatives could include a provision requiring genetic screening.

If the only reason for prohibiting fathers from being in sexual relationships with daughters is the increased possibility of passing on a genetic disorder, then why do we permit marriages between Jews who may pass on Tay-Sachs disease or blacks who may pass on sickle cell anemia?

The reason that we don’t prohibit Jews from marrying Jews or blacks from marrying blacks despite the increased risk of passing on genetic disorders is that these types of relationships are not inherently morally flawed whereas incestuous relationships between fathers and daughters are.

Furthermore, if the possibility of passing on genetic disorders is the only reason for opposing legalized consensual incest, then what possible reason is there to oppose a father being in a sexual relationship with his adult son?

If fathers can be in sexual relationships with their daughters or sons, and if marriage — as a public, government-sanctioned institution — is severed from gender and procreation, will fathers be able to marry their adult sons?

How will the legalization of consensual incest affect family life? How will the weakening or eradication of the incest taboo affect how mothers and fathers physically interact with their children or teens?

Will the loss of the incest taboo diminish trust within families? Will it make parents apprehensive about interacting affectionately with their children? Will it make parents suspicious of the nature of their marital partner’s affectionate interactions with their children?

And are these concerns compelling enough to defeat the next phase of moral corrosion in a society in which so many have rejected the idea of all moral absolutes except one: absolute liberty?

As Neil Postman warned, we no longer think; we feel. So, all we need is a big Hollywood tearjerker about a star-crossed brother and sister who because of society’s bigotry are prevented from openly expressing their love and from accessing the benefits and social validation that come with marriage, and the incest taboo will fall.

We need to heed the portentous words of Professor Epstein’s attorney Matthew Galluzzo who said that “there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms. 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.”

I hope and pray that the church — that is to say, church leaders and the people they lead — will do a far better job opposing this and all other forms of sexual perversity than they have done so far.