Religious bigot quotes me and calls our community a ‘threat’.

Seriously guys, a little over a month into my activism, and this article appears, It’s called, ‘We’re all incest-phobes now.’ I’m going to pick apart what this guy has to say, and bear in mind he is a religious person who wants to protect the status quo.

The article opens with the incest debate in the Scottish Parliament which I cover in the first two entries here. He then goes on to say:

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the legalization of homosexuality has been used to justify incest. The truth is there has been a growing campaign from the legal, academic, and cultural nerve centers of society to push for the legitimization of incestuous relations for years.

Too right, and so there should be, because the current laws are discriminatory and unjust. Why should our love be worth less than anyone else’s? There isn’t any ‘reason’ that hasn’t been picked apart by either myself, Full Marriage Equality, or The Final Manifesto. If this person really wants to debate the three of us, I’m sure he could try, but in the end our logic will win out. Any non-biased sensible person would be on our side by the end of such a debate, of that I am sure.

He goes on to mention another case in which a guy gets busted for having a three year affair with his daughter, and the arguments used by his lawyer… and then he strikes a low blow with this:

Recently, during a case involving a man charged with repeatedly raping his sister, Australian District Court Judge Garry Neilson compared incest to homosexuality, saying that it too could be eventually accepted as the norm.

So now he is mentioning a RAPE case… really, is he serious? Nobody in the right mind would normalize rape, rape is clearly wrong, it infringes upon the rights of the victim. Here was me thinking we are talking about CONSENSUAL sex between family members… rape is a different topic altogether and is a crime worthy of punishment. Silly me, he was really trying to imply that incest = rape. Sorry, I spotted that logic fail, you’ll have to do better than that, try again next time.

Now here is another part:

Debra Lieberman, an Assistant Professor in the Adult and Health department at the University of Miami, is on record of saying that “My bottom line is this: consensual sex between two adults should always be legal, sibling or otherwise.” When pressed about the family instability that would come with such behavior, she responded,

Sure, but there are other things that mess around with family relations as well. Children of divorced parents have trouble — and you’re not outlawing divorce… [I]t might be a little more uncomfortable. But guess what? Life is hard and there are other situations that cause a lot of discomfort, like divorce. And then the big question is, ‘Are we going to let disgust dictate our moral norms?

Notice how he assumes that incest causes family instability… no it doesn’t. I know that both from personal experience, and from speaking to countless others over the years who have also been in incestuous relationships. He assumes this because he just doesn’t understand the dynamic of double-love. The relationship type of love is an add-on to the existing family bond, it is not separate and the family bond not only remains intact it is actually strengthened. Even when we break up, the family bond stays intact… as happened for me and my dad. If he took the time to read the entire contents of my website, he would have known our perspective before making such assumptions.

The lady who responded to this, whose quote I’ve highlighted in blue, is far more reasonable. She asks if people are going to let disgust dictate moral norms. Legitimate question… should legislation be based upon freedom and logic, or on what some other persons may find disgusting? Personally, I find it a no-brainer. Obviously since one could find anyone to find any other act disgusting, personal disgust should play no part in the legislative arm of government.

Now we get to this bit:

While promoting his film Yellow, which featured an affair between siblings, Nick Cassavetes, director of the film The Notebook,used the pro-gay marriage logic to justify incest. “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.

Exactly, we aren’t hurting anyone! Let people find us weird if they want to… I don’t give a shit about other peoples opinions, but I do give a shit about when other people want to deny us our fundamental rights, namely the right to live in peace and the rights of consanguineous marriage should we choose that. That’s part of the point of this blog actually, to point out that others may have their views about us, including negative ones, but they should NOT be able to deny us our rights.

Finally, radical sexual activists have taken to the blogosphere to push for the legalization of intra-family relations. As early as 2002, theGuardian documented the existence of “chatrooms and websites that are de facto support groups for people engaged in incest” who “want … to normalise [sic] what we have long considered to be profoundly abnormal.”

Shock! Horror! People with the same sexual orientation might want to hang out together and network online? No way! Oh wait… I’m a part of all that aren’t I. Of course I am, which is why I am reviewing this article. I am trying to point out that incest is NOT ‘profoundly abnormal’, it is part of the normal spectrum of human sexual behavior, and that we’re not weirdos, we’re normal people who have these relationships that feel right to us. It might be abnormal to somebody else, but certainly not to everyone.

Some of these activists have begun to collude and, like the gay-rights activists before them, have created politically correct terms for their sexual deviancy. Rather than call themselves “incestuous,” they use the term “consanguinamorous” because, says one activist, incest “makes a lot of people feel uncomfortable, when it is used people tend to think about child abusers and rapists, not people in consensual loving relationships.”

I believe that last quote came from me 🙂 LOL, we’re deviants now… well, I guess we deviate from the perceived norm yes, but that doesn’t mean we’re horrible monsters that are going out to rape little kids. I protected out community very recently from just such a monster. People’s ears close as soon as they hear the word ‘incest’, not so when they hear the word ‘consanguinamory’. Truth is, the word ‘consanguinamory’ means ‘lovers of family’… it cannot be interpreted as anything other than love between consenting adult family members.

Then comes this:

Perhaps most frightening is that the pro-incest crowd is already using the same hermeneutical manipulation of the scripture that the gay-rights movement employed. One activist claims “the Bible does condemn incest in Leviticus, but the same book also condemns eating pork, and wearing clothing made from more than one type of fabric.” Homosexuals routinely used this argument to silence Christian critiques of their behavior. This same activist also justifies incest using the same red-letter hermeneutics the gay lobby used to bless homosexuality.

Jesus, the living representative of God on earth didn’t have a single word to say on the subject, or about homosexuality for that matter. If gay and incest bashing was part of Gods plan, you’d think he might have mentioned it. Instead, what we do get is a general message of love for all human beings.

In case you were wondering, the blue highlighted bits are my words from other essays, the last from Consanguinamory and Christianity.  I wouldn’t say that this is in any way manipulates scripture, it just points out what is and isn’t there within it. Can this religious person DENY that Jesus did not mention either homosexuality or incest, and provide a quote from Jesus to prove me wrong? No, he cannot, because no such quote exists.

Furthermore, if incest was so bad, why in Genesis is Abraham a prophet when he is consanguinamorous himself, being wed to his sister Sarah? If God was anti-incest, he would not choose a consanguinamorous person to be the founder of the three largest religions of the world, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Can’t have been that much of an issue now… can it? Prove me wrong pastor… where apart from a single passage in leviticus (a book most people now largely ignore because of the stupidity of it’s regulations and it’s irrelevance to modern life) is there any condemnation of Incest?

Do we follow the letter of the Bible which is as flawed as the humans that wrote and translated it, or the spirit of God’s law, which is the law of love, which requires freedom? As a religious person, he should know that the latter, the Holy Spirit, trumps legalisms. Didn’t Jesus himself break Judaisms laws by doing good deeds on the Sabbath, thus enraging religious authorities? Yes he did… therefore it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus would not want the ancient Judaic law enforced, especially not in this day and age. We should have moved past such BS by now.

He now says:

When one looks at each of the aforementioned arguments for the legalization of incest, the resemblance to the push for homosexuality is undeniable. Both invoke the “victimless crime” argument, both claim privacy rights trump sexual boundaries, both dismiss the opposition as fundamentalists who “let disgust dictate our moral norms,” both claim that the Loving v. Virginia decision justifies their right to marriage, both use happy language to remove the stigma of their behavior, both claim “sexual determination” is a fundamental right, both use the obsolete ceremonial laws in Leviticus to discredit the prohibitions against their sexual deviancy, and both look strictly at the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ to charge that He never addressed the subject and it is thus irrelevant to the faith.

Well perhaps that is because it IS irrelevant to the faith, and perhaps both homosexuals and consanguinamorists use the same arguments is because those who discriminate against both groups used the same flawed logic from the same sources! Funny thing that is, although altogether unsurprising and entirely predictable. The outcome too will be predictable… we will win.

Now here is where the meat and potatoes of the discussion is taking things:

Those who insist that the aforementioned examples are just sporadic rants of an unorganized lunatic fringe would do well to remember that the homosexual movement began in a similar fashion. They should also heed the fact that we are not dealing with mere basement-dwelling bloggers. We are dealing with people who can shape cultural and legal climates; think-tanks, government advisors, filmmakers, political commentators.

Wow I feel so special, I can actually play a part in influencing all those people? THAT’S THE IDEA! Why make a blog like this is it was going to make no difference? The fact we have people worried now spurs me on, it is a sign to me that we are on the right track. Yes, we need to do this to end the discrimination and the hatred.

Those who think that the appeal of incest is too small to pose a threat are ignorant of the power of a minority that has sympathy in high places. Homosexuals constitute 1.6% of the U.S. population and they overthrew 228 years of marriage law. With growing sympathy from Hollywood, political commentators, academia, and government advisors, the incest lobby will be in position to do the same.

Well, injustice is still injustice, even if it is perpetrated against a single person, and injustice is never tolerable or excusable. If the current system is causing an injustice, it needs amending, and the sooner the better. We will not rest until justice is done, and our people are liberated globally.

The church must come to grips with the fact that the logic used to justify gay marriage has provided the argumentative infrastructure to annihilate almost the entirety of Biblical sexual ethics.

We mustn’t delude ourselves into thinking that this new wave of sexual revolutionaries will not wage war against faithful Christians with the same ferocity and tactics that the homosexual lobby did before them.

He yet again fails to mention that the ‘sexual ethics’ apparently does not apply to the consanguinamorous prophet Abraham and his sister/wife Sarah. I have no beef with Christianity, I would consider myself Christian, I do have a major beef with those who use their religion to justify the denial of other people’s rights.

We can and we will end this kind of bigotry. The anti-incest lobby fail on logical grounds, and here they are also losing on scriptural grounds too. I am not angry with this person who wrote the article, I actually pity him because he is blinded by his own bigotry and bias… I forgive him, he doesn’t even realize that he is part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

 

 

 

Advertisements