You know that notorious slippery slope that sexual anarchists mockingly dismiss as a figment of conservatives’ hysterical imaginations? Surely, you remember when conservatives argued that public approval of homoeroticism would lead ineluctably to public approval of other forms of sexual deviance. Well, here we are slip-slidin’ down that phantasmagorical slope all greased up with deviant sexuality.

“Trans”-cultism is ubiquitous, poisoning our professional medical and mental health communities; our public libraries; our schools, and children’s bodies.

Public school teachers in metaphorical trench coats eye five-year-old children with bad intent and throw hissy fits if they can’t teach children that sodomy is making America great.

Polyamory—known euphemistically as “consensual non-monogamy”—is spreading like gangrene on the necrotic tissues of a dying marriage ethos.

Sensing the softened ground, seeded and watered by boundary-free sexual libertines, creeps who feast on the flesh of minors and call it “intergenerational love” or “Minor Attraction,” are poking their ugly heads up in dark alleys, TED Talks, and cartoons. Diverse incarnations of “Minor Attraction,” including pedophilia (sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children), hebephilia (sexual attraction to pubescent children ages 11-14), and ephebophilia (sexual attraction to mid to late adolescents, ages 15-19), will be showing up more and more, just as hebephilia did in the original version of The Vagina Monologues.

Incest is not far behind. What’s my evidence, you ask? My evidence is that the left has given it a name: “Genetic Sexual Attraction.” For now, this phenomenon is defined as a strong sexual attraction between relatives who meet for the first time as adults, but how long will it be before relatives raised together will start ruminating on whether they would like to have sex with their siblings or parents? Remember, “love is love,” and ideas have consequences.

And the next nightmare we see on our careering hurtle down the slope is bestiality, renamed “zoophilia” and “zoosexuality.” Kathy Rudy, Duke University Professor of Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies authored a scholarly essay titled “LGBTQ … Z,” for which she provides this abstract:

In this essay, I draw the discourses around bestiality/zoophilia into the realm of queer theory in order to point to a new form of animal advocacy, something that might be called, in shorthand, loving animals. My argument is quite simple: if all interdicts against bestiality depend on a firm notion of exactly what sex is (and they do), and if queer theory disrupts that firm foundation by arguing that sexuality is impossible to define beforehand and pervades many different kinds of relations (and it does), then viewing bestiality in the frame of queer theory can give us another way to conceptualize the limitations of human exceptionalism.

In a trenchant critique of the dangerous ideas of Rudy, Dr. Devin Jane Buckley, points out that Rudy “seems uncertain as to whether she is sexually attracted to her own dogs.”

Rudy writes,

Queer theory has schooled me in ways that make the question of what counts as sex seem rather unintelligible. How do we cordon off sexual desire from all the other desires that move our lives? What does sex mean? Do I think I’m having sex with my dogs when they kiss my face? How do we know beforehand what sex is?

Leftists no longer know how to define “woman” or “sex.” And these are the people who want to teach the nation’s children about sexuality.

Rudy explains how queer theory has advanced social acceptance of bestiality:

Put differently, both animal rights and psychosocial perspectives [which view desire for animals as mental illness] do not believe that borders can be crossed. Queer theory, on the other hand, tells us that few of us have stable identities anymore, that borders are always crossed. We’re all changing, shifting, splitting ourselves up this way and that. It labels these processes ‘hailing,’ ‘suturing,’ and ‘interpolation’; where once we saw ourselves affiliated in one way, a new interpretive community emerges to capture our passions and move us differently. I am asking the reader to entertain the possibility that the same kinds of shifts and disruptions happen with categories like ‘human,’ ‘rabbit,’ ‘ape,’ or ‘dog.’

There you have it: bestiality, the new transgressive identity slowly emerging from the slimy goo pooling at the bottom of the fictitious slope.

Alexis Tsoulis-Reay, writer for New York Magazine’s The Cut, has twice written about a married man who has a “zoosexual” relationship with his horse. Her first article was “What’s it Like to Date a Horse?” In her follow-up article, “About That Interview I Did with a Zoophile,” just published a month ago, Tsoulis-Reay described her anger when a friend characterized the man into bestiality as having a “horse fetish”:

When one of my friends, an attorney who is married and straight, asked me how my “horse fetish” reporting was going, my first thought was, STFU, you normative bitch! I was genuinely annoyed that she’d described his entire sexual identity as a kink. “It’s a sexuality, not a fetish!” I earnestly texted back to her in all caps.

Leftists invented the idea of “authentic identity,” conflating all phenomena that are associated with or affirmed by an individual as integral parts of authentic identity and beyond moral judgment. Fetishes will become “authentic identities.” Moral disapproval of fetishistic “identities” will become hate speech. Fetishistic “identities” will develop political lobbies that will insist that their fetishes are “sexual orientations,” and voilà, fetishes will become protected under existing anti-discrimination laws.

Here are two of the leftist claims that applied consistently helped create the non-fallacious slippery slope:

1.) Marriage has no inherent connection to either sexual differentiation or reproductive potential, thereby nullifying the requirement that marriage be limited to two people or to people not closely related by blood.

2.) “Love is love,” thereby nullifying any restrictions, taboos, or prohibitions related to erotic relationships. If love is love, then who’s to say the love between adult siblings or men and horses is wrong. Some leftists argue that it’s wrong to have sex with animals because animals can’t consent. But that hardly seems a rational justification for prohibiting sex with, for example, cows since cows can’t consent to be caged, owned, branded, or eaten, which seem far more onerous than being sexually penetrated, and humans perform all of those acts.

While conservatives have been gullibly playing Candyland, sexual anarchists have been playing chess. Sexual anarchists have strategy; conservatives have strategery. The strategery of Christians in America is notable for its lack of discernment, lack of spine, and a bloated desire to be both in and of the world. Pallid, neutered “niceness,” severed from an understanding of sin has supplanted the love of Christ.

The slippery slope exists all right, but it’s not surprising that the “love is love” crowd can’t see it.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Its-All-Downhill-When-Fetish-Becomes-Identity.mp3

If you haven’t been called it yet, surely, you’ve heard it: the ubiquitous epithet “transphobe.” It’s the evil spawn of “homophobe.” I don’t mean those accused of being “transphobes” are evil spawns of “homophobes.” I mean the term “transphobe” is the evil spawn of the spurious term “homophobe.”

In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, British writer “Juliet” Jacques, a 38-year-old man who pretends to be a woman, claims “Transphobia … is a respectable bigotry in Britain, shared by parts of the left as well as the right.”

Jacques claims that there are two virulent strains of “transphobia”: One strain “rejects … the idea that gender might not be determined only by biological traits identifiable at birth,” and the other strain, “argues that trans women’s [i.e., biological men’s] requests for gender recognition are incompatible with cis women’s [i.e., normal women’s] rights to single-sex spaces.” Jacques claims that both strains “rely on the conceit that trans and nonbinary people should not determine their own gender identities.”

Translated from “trans”-tortured Newspeak into plain English, Jacques is describing two groups of people still tethered to reality. The first group rejects the idea that biological sex is subordinate to subjective feelings about sex in importance and in how it’s treated in society. The second group believes women have a right to private spaces free from the presence of biological men.

For those not fluent in Newspeak, “gender identity” refers to the subjective internal (or is it infernal?) feelings of reality-untethered people about their maleness, femaleness, both, or neither. Jacques errs when claiming that both reality-tethered groups believe “trans” and “nonbinary” people should not determine their own “gender identities.”

Generally speaking, reality-tethered, biocentric people have no opposition to the reality-untethered determining their own “gender identities.” The problem is the reality-untethered are demanding that society treat their subjective feelings as if they are more important than biological sex and accommodate their subjective feelings in radical ways that rob the reality-tethered of their right to privacy and free speech.

The reality-untethered are demanding that in shared spaces, their subjective feelings about maleness and femaleness supersede biological sex. Those who believe that spaces like locker rooms and activities like sports should correspond to biological sex are being denied their right to determine their sex identities. And the reality-untethered bio-rejectors are demanding that others use language that denies biological reality. They’re demanding that others use language that affirms an imaginary worldview. They’re demanding that their “hurt feelings” determine how others must speak. While they demand that I respect their “reality,” they ignore that my reality includes not just me but everything in the world.

To advance a reality-untethered social and political universe requires the silencing of rational and moral arguments, and that, in turn, requires cultural oppression, known colloquially as bullying.

“Transphobe” is the term of bullying art used to shame and silence anyone who believes biological sex has meaning and that it is more important than subjective, internal feelings about one’s maleness, femaleness, both, or neither.

• A “transphobe” is anyone who feels it is a good thing for humans to identify as the biological sex they are and ever will be.
• A “transphobe” is anyone who believes that females are entitled to be free of the presence of biological males to whom they are unrelated by blood or marriage in places where they undress, shower, sleep, and engage in bodily functions. A “transphobe” is anyone who believes men are similarly entitled to be free of the presence of unrelated biological women in those same kinds of places.
• A “transphobe” is anyone who doesn’t want to have a romantic or erotic relationship with a person or persons of the same sex who pretend to be the other sex.
• A “transphobe” is anyone who believes cross-dressing is wrong.
• A “transphobe” is anyone who believes harm is done to children when they are allowed to cross-dress, adopt opposite-sex names, and be referred to by opposite-sex pronouns.
• A “transphobe” is anyone who believes the medical profession should not prescribe cross-sex hormones to anatomically and biochemically healthy persons to treat their disordered feelings.
• A “transphobe” is anyone who believes the medical profession should not lop off the healthy body parts of teens or adults as a way to treat disordered and often fluid feelings about their maleness or femaleness.
• A “transphobe” is anyone who believes that cross-dressing men should not be reading stories to or twerking in front of toddlers in public libraries.

The chief tactic of sexual anarchists to crush their ideological opponents is to attach the word (or forms of the word) “phobe” to any moral claim they, in their ignorance, detest. They detest the moral claims that homoerotic acts are immoral; degrade those engaged in them; and harm children, families, and society. So, anyone who makes these claims is called a “homophobe.”  Even if these claims are expressed out of love for individuals, children, families and society,  the “LGB” community calls those who express them “homophobes,” haters, and bigots because bullying works.

“Trans” cultists detest the claims that biological sex is profoundly meaningful; that private space-usage should correspond to biological sex; and that cross-dressing, cross-sex hormone-doping, and elective amputations of healthy body parts to treat immaterial feelings is harmful, so anyone who expresses these claims is called a “transphobe,” because bullying works.

While “LGB” and “T” activists and their collaborators claim to worship at the altar of inclusion, tolerance, and non-judgmentalism, and claim to loathe all shaming, marginalization, and taboos, they don’t.

They seek to shame, marginalize, and exclude anyone who doesn’t affirm their sexuality dogma.  They judge theologically orthodox Christians as sinners for rejecting sexual insanity. And they justify their judgmentalism by asserting that they have no obligation to “tolerate intolerance.”

What taboos will cultural regressives next seek to shame and eradicate? Polyamory/Sexual non-monogamy? Consensual adult incest “Genetic Sexual Attraction”? Pederasty and pedophilia “Minor Attraction”/intergenerational love? Bestiality Zoophilia?

Soon all those ignorant, hateful, exclusionary bigots who don’t understand that “love is love” will be called polyphobes, kinphobes, pedophobes, and zoophobes. “Shaming” polys, kin-lovers, child-lovers, teen-lovers, and animal-lovers will be deemed analogous to racism.

Next to arrive on the already defiled cultural scene will be activists for other even fringier paraphilias. Those who identify as sadists, masochists, infantilists, and voyeurs will claim that to live authentically requires no one disapprove of their peculiar habits. Normal people who yet have a moral compass and spine will be called sadi-phobes, maso-phobes, infanti-phobes, and voyeur-phobes.

(A word about voyeurs: If no offense has been committed by men who through cross-dressing, hormone-doping, and surgery are able to conceal their sex from women in women’s locker rooms, then surely no harm is committed by men who through technology are able to conceal their presence from and peep on women in women’s locker rooms. If deceiving women about the presence of men is hunky dory in the case of opposite-sex impersonators, then surely deceiving women about the presence of men is hunky dory in the case of voyeurs.)

Exclusion per se is not intrinsically bad, and inclusion per se is not intrinsically good. Disapproval per se is not intrinsically bad, and approval per se is not intrinsically good. Shame is not intrinsically bad, and shamelessness is not intrinsically good. The goodness or badness of exclusion, inclusion, disapproval, or approval depends on what is being excluded, included, disapproved, or approved.

Likewise, social taboos—renamed “phobias” by “progressives” and pagans when they enjoy the taboo acts—are not intrinsically bad. Every society has and needs taboos. Taboos are nothing more than volitional acts that society deems wrong and harmful. Neither “progressives” nor pagans seek to eradicate taboos, shame, exclusion, or marginalization. Rather, they seek to impose and enforce their views on who should be excluded or marginalized, and what should be deemed taboo and stigmatized.

No society will or should eradicate all taboos, stigmas, shame, or marginalization. Therefore, the questions every civilized or primitive society has to answer are, 1. On what basis will some members of society be marginalized, 2. What will marginalization look like, and 3. What volitional acts will be taboo and stigmatized.

The “trans” cult is a solipsistic cult in which the self determines—or imagines—the world, and nothing outside of or in conflict with this self-imagined world matters. This self-determined, imaginary world is also an anti-Christian world in which evil is deemed good and good evil. In this world, expressing biblical truth about sexuality is taboo, and theologically orthodox Christians will increasingly and brazenly be shamed and pushed to the margins of society where they will be denied their right to speak freely, assemble freely, and exercise freely their religion.

Don’t surrender to the morality-phobic monster that prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/The-LGB-and-T-Mobs-Unleash-the-Morality-Phobic-Monster_audio.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

I was part of an extended Facebook conversation with Chuck Colbert, a homosexual journalist from the Boston area who graduated from Notre Dame University but has renounced his Catholic faith and converted to Reform Judaism. He expressed virtually every fallacious claim that homosexual ideologues everywhere express—claims that conservatives should be prepared to refute. In the service of helping to equip IFI readers for such conversations, here are some of his claims (in boldface) followed by rebuttals.

1.) “Jesus said nothing about gay people.”

First, Jesus also says nothing about pedophilia, incest, rape, polyamory, sadomasochism, voyeurism, or infantilism. Are we to assume that Jesus, therefore, approved of these types of acts?

Second, arguments from silence are considered weak—if not fallacious—arguments. Anyone who has as much academic training as Colbert claims to have should know that. The fact that Jesus says nothing on a topic tells us nothing about what he thinks on that topic. We do know that Jesus said this:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 

Jesus does not abrogate any of the transcendent, eternal moral prescriptions and proscriptions found in the Old Testament.

2.) “There are more than a few biblical scholars who interpret the passages [about homosexuality] much differently.”

Not until the last quarter of the 20th Century did a single scholar in the history of the church interpret any passage in Scripture in such a way as to imply God approves of homosexual activity. Radical reinterpretations of Scripture passages that address homosexuality were not driven by new discoveries. They were driven by the sexual revolution and the sexual desires of same-sex attracted persons. That said, even today, there are homosexual scholars who admit that Scripture is clear that God condemns homosexual activity.

Biblical scholar and expert on the topic of the Bible and homosexuality, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon cites two homosexual scholars, historian Louis Crompton and professor of Christian Studies, of Women’s and Gender Studies, of Classical Studies, and of Religious Studies at Brandeis University, Bernadette Brooten—both of whom affirm homosexual marriage—who argue that such a position is not consistent with Scripture.

3.) “There was no such thing in biblical times of a positive LGBT identity. The modern understanding of same-sex marriage is different from the biblical times.”

There was “no positive LGBT identity in biblical times” because God condemns homosexual activity. God’s condemnation of homosexual acts is categorical—no exceptions. Paul tells us that those who affirm such sin as righteousness will not see the kingdom of Heaven.

The hubris of this argument is astonishing. It suggests that there is something that Jesus—who is God, and, therefore, omniscient—didn’t know about human nature, human activity, or human experience.

4.) “The fact is that many, many LGBTs have been married within their various faith communities; their children are doing just fine. Take some time to get to know real LGBT people.”

Though homosexuals may be “married” legally, they are not in reality married because marriage has a nature, which Jesus himself said is the union of one man and one woman.

Getting to know those in faux-marriages does not change the Word of God.

How we feel about people has nothing whatsoever to do with a moral assessment of volitional acts. Colbert’s suggestion “to get to know real LGBT people” reveals that to him the experiences of fallen humans supersede Scripture when it comes to homosexuality.

Does he apply that principle consistently? Would he, for example, recommend that people who disapprove of consensual adult incest take some time to get to know two brothers who are in love and raising kids together as a means to eradicate their disapproval? Would he suggest “getting to know” the five people of assorted sexes in a poly union as the means by which to assess the morality of polyamory or poly-parenting?

Intentionally denying children either a mother or father is unconscionable no matter how nice the two parents are. In addition to the intrinsic right of children to be raised whenever possible by a mother and father, there are a number of studies that indicate children being raised by homosexuals are not fine—and some of these studies are far better studies than those worshipped by the homosexual community. The “LGBTQ” community savages these studies by applying standards that they never apply to studies whose results they like.

For example, homosexuals—including Colbert—frequently tout a study on lesbian parenting without citing the serious structural problems with the study including small sample size, method of selecting participants (i.e., “convenience sampling” vs. far superior “random sampling”), self-reporting nature of responses, absence of a control group, and failure to do long-term follow-up testing.

For research that contradicts the claim that children raised by homosexuals fare as well as children raised by mothers and fathers in intact families, click here, here, here, and here.

5.) “LGBTs are active and productive members within their communities. As more and more people get to know and understand gay people, they see that we are just as good as everybody else. I am sure God is fine with ‘their behavior.’”

The fact that homosexuals do good things tells us precisely nothing about God’s view of homosexual acts. Virtually all sinners do good things as well.

No one is good. Romans 3: 10-12: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

6.) “Why would you care anyway? LGBT life has no adverse effect on your life anyway.”

The homosexual and “trans” community really must stop disseminating the patent lie that widespread cultural approval of homosexual activity, the legal recognition of intrinsically non-marital unions as marriages, and acceptance of the “trans” ideology affect only the parties involved. Here are just some of the adverse effects that harm countless lives:

• Lies that destroy temporal and eternal lives are being disseminated as truth.

• Children are being denied their intrinsic right to be raised by a mother and a father.

• Children are being fed the lie that either mothers or fathers are dispensable.

• Government schools are teaching implicitly and explicitly the lie that disapproval of homosexual activity constitutes hatred of persons.

• Schools are now teaching kindergartners about homosexual relationships—rather, they’re teaching children leftist ideas about homosexual relationships.

• Schools are teaching that biological sex has no intrinsic or profound meaning, including regarding feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy in private spaces.

• A feckless school board (April 27, 2018 Brabrand Briefing.pdf) in Fairfax, Virginia has proposed replacing the term “biological sex” in the health curriculum for grades 8-10 with the nonsensical, science-denying term “sex assigned at birth.” Apparently, board members aren’t “woke” to the fact that doctors don’t assign sex. They identify it.

• Government schools are mandating that faculty lie, ordering them to refer to students who masquerade as the opposite-sex by incorrect pronouns.

• Government schools are engaging in absolute censorship of resources that dissent from “LGBTQ” dogma even as they present resources that affirm it. That’s not education. That’s indoctrination.

• Professors are losing their jobs for expressing conservative or theologically orthodox views on sexuality and marriage.

• Christian owners of wedding-related businesses are being sued.

• The Boy Scouts of America was forced to accept openly homosexual scouts and leaders, and then girls who pretend they’re boys.

• Public libraries now have drag queen story hours for toddlers, and little boys dressed in drag march in the shameful “pride” parades that deface our once-great cities every June.

• “Progressives” like New York Times writer Frank Bruni have reinterpreted First Amendment religious protections to be limited to pew, home, and heart.

• Adoption and foster care agencies have been forced out of business for refusing to place children in the homes of homosexuals.

• Corporate America, professional medical and mental health organizations, the mainstream press, and the arts promote the pro-homosexual/pro-“trans” ideology.

• While leftists express their views of homosexuality freely at work, even starting pro-homosexual clubs and slapping silly safe space stickers on work spaces, conservatives risk loss of employment for expressing their views.

• Brendan Eich was forced out of his job at Mozilla, the company he founded, for donating to Prop 8—the California proposition that would have banned homosexual marriage.

• Minors are being surgically mutilated and chemically sterilized in a futile quest to mask their sex.

The homo/“trans” ideology not only affects but also harms everyone.

7.) “Gay people are in nature so how can they be against natural law. There have been gays throughout history.”

There are diverse definitions of the word “natural.” Colbert seems to be using it in the sense of “found or existing in the world,” which is not how it’s used in natural law theory. Natural law refers to the design of humans which points to their intended purposes (i.e., teleology).

All manner of disordered desires and deviant activities exist in nature, including all sorts of “paraphilias.” Would Colbert argue that because some humans exist who desire to be hurt or hurt others, to expose their genitals, or to have sex with toddlers that these phenomena are natural—in the natural law sense—and worthy of affirmation?

8.) “Your view for LGBT Christians is pretty judgmental. Take a look at the planks in your eyes before you go after the specks in LGBTs’ eyes.Judge not, or you will be judged.”

The erroneous claim that the Bible prohibits making judgments between right and wrong must be examined in light of the following verses: “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment” (John 7:24), and “The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks justice” (Psalm 37:30).

The verse that says, “Judge not, that you be not judge” means that we are not to engage in unrighteous judgment. We are not to condemn hypocritically a sin that we are engaging in. We’re to recognize the universality of sin and offer forgiveness as we have been forgiven. This verse does not entail a refusal to judge between right and wrong behavior. It does not prohibit humans from making distinctions between moral and immoral conduct.

It’s absurd to claim that the Bible prohibits Christians from making statements about what constitutes moral conduct (i.e., to judge). If it did mean that, we could not say that slavery, racism, bestiality, polyamory, selfishness, fornication, adultery, aggression, incest, lust, or gossip is immoral, for surely those moral propositions constitute the kind of judging that repels critics like Colbert.

Everyone does and should judge right from wrong. Every civilized human makes judgments every day between right and wrong actions. Christians have no moral authority to judge the salvific status of others, but Christians have every right to discriminate between right and wrong actions and to express those beliefs publicly. The ethical legitimacy of public speech is not dependent on the subjective response of those who hear such expressions.

As he railed against judgmentalism, here are some of the terms Colbert used to describe those who disapprove of homosexual acts: “self-righteous,” “sanctimonious piety,” “condescending attitude,” “rabid,” “bigoted,” “prejudiced,” and “hateful.”

9.)  “I did not choose to be gay anymore than you chose to be, presumably, straight. Being gay has nothing to do with a choice.”

While erotic attraction to persons of the same sex is not chosen, acting on those feelings is, indeed, chosen. Humans experience myriad powerful, persistent, unchosen feelings. Our task as moral beings is to determine on which of those feelings we are morally justified to act. And that task requires some arbiter of morality—some basis on which to judge right from wrong.

10.)  “I am not defying God. God does not condemn gay people, our lives and our love. God is fine with his creation of gay people.”

On what basis can Colbert make the claim that he is not defying God? He can’t rationally make such a claim based on either the plain words of the Old or New Testament.

God does, indeed, condemn homosexuals as well as many others. God condemns anyone who rejects the work of Christ on the Cross. One of the clearest signs of being saved from God’s wrath is repentance. Doing the will of the Father and confessing when we fail are signs that we are saved. Perpetual embrace of that which God condemns and calling that which God condemns “good” are sure signs that one will not see the kingdom of Heaven:

Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

God creates men and women. Through the fall of Adam, all of us are born with a fallen nature and are in need of redemption. While God for a time allows the disordering of his creation, he no more created in humans homoerotic desire than he created in humans adulterous desire, polyamorous desire, incestuous desire, “minor-attraction,” murderous desire, the desire to be an amputee, the desire to gossip, pride, covetousness, or physical anomalies.

If Christians truly love their neighbors as themselves, they should be prepared to respond courageously to claims like Colbert’s. Authentic love depends on knowing first what is true.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Conversation-with-Homosexual-Journalist.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

Mike Miller at the Independent Journal Review posted a Tweet from Fox News’ Brit Hume about the University of Kansas Gender “pronoun buttons” — Hume Tweeted, “Is there no end to this foolishness?”

What foolishness? Miller reports that “Signs in the university’s various libraries explain the purpose of the buttons”:

Because gender is, itself, fluid and up to the individual. Each person has the right to identify their own pronouns, and we encourage you to ask before assuming someone’s gender. Pronouns matter!

Misgendering someone can have lasting consequences, and using the incorrect pronoun can be hurtful, disrespectful, and invalidate someone’s identity.

Misgendering. That’s a first for me — I hadn’t heard that word before. My vocabulary has expanded a lot in recent years.

More and more of the people who considered themselves “enlightened” and “open minded” about the LGBT “agenda” (Brit Hume might even be one of them) are now being pushed to their tolerance limits by the growing list of “identities” that we are all supposed to not discriminate against.

I wonder if Hume has bumped into the list of paraphilias. There is a short list and a longer list. I have not been able to find the entire 549 yet but I will keep looking.

When it comes to “identity politics,” as I noted last time, the list of possibilities are endless. The most common ones are race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and the bogus “sexual orientation” (more on that in a later post). In recent years, the letters following LGBT have begun to come out of the closet, and as noted above, the group wanting to expand the list of “genders,” such as at the University of Kansas — represent even more letters!

Two years ago when I discussed this series of articles with the Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins, she had this to say:

To your question about whether we should iterate and reiterate what distinguishes natural sex between men and women from perversity in all its protean forms, I say, absolutely. As often as the Left says homoeroticism is akin to skin color, we have to say, no, it’s akin to paraphilias, incest, and polyamory.

In this effort to lay out the range of possibilities in identity politics, let us turn to our first paraphilia: incest.

Wikipedia deserves much of the criticism it receives from political conservatives, but I like to refer to it when useful. Here is an excerpt from their page on incest:

Incest is sexual activity between family members or close relatives. This typically includes sexual activity between people in a consanguineous relationship (blood relations), and sometimes those related by affinity, such as individuals of the same household, step relatives, those related by adoption or marriage, or members of the same clan or lineage.

The incest taboo is and has been one of the most widespread of all cultural taboos, both in present and in many past societies. Most modern societies have laws regarding incest or social restrictions on closely consanguineous marriages. In societies where it is illegal, consensual adult incest is seen by some as a victimless crime.

This series will ask a lot of questions — here is our first: How will society respond when those who practice incest start self-identifying as such and begin clamoring for their “rights”?

Up next: Frightening the horses.

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?

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.