Advocates for the legalization of consensual incest are using a recent New York lawsuit demanding the state allow a parent to marry their adult child to further their agenda, the New York Post reported recently. An anonymous resident of the Empire State filed a lawsuit in April seeking to overturn the state’s laws outlawing incestuous marriages because he or she wants to wed his or her adult offspring. This has prompted proponents of legalizing incest to support the suit and use it to advance their agenda. For example, pro-incest advocate Richard Morris of Australia told the Post that he backs the suit, because he believes that sex between any consenting adults "should not be criminalized." Morris claimed he is only lobbying for real “marriage equality,” and added that it is “the right thing to do, isn’t it?”
Keith Pullman, another incest supporter, told the Post: “It is absurd to say that an adult can't consent to marry their parent. That same adult can be sent to war, take on six or seven figures of debt, operate heavy machinery, be sentenced to death by a federal court, and consent to sex with five strangers (and marriage with one of them) but can't consent to marry someone they love?” Pullman added, "It seems to be as unjust as the law that used to imprison gay people, and the law that used to stop people of different races marrying.” His website advocates "for the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence, and marriage without limits on the gender, number, or relation of participants" and avers that "full marriage equality is a basic human right."
Verbiage on the site opines, "Not everyone is going to want to accept who you are or who you love or how you love. That's okay, as long as they don't try to control you. Sexual, relationship, and marriage rights are arriving for all adults, and as that happens, anyone who hates you or is prejudiced against you will have less and less ability to hurt you.”
This is the inevitable result of decoupling marriage from the Biblical view of the institution as a God-given, voluntary, sexual and public social union of one man and one woman, from different families, for the purpose of procreation and serving God as an unchangeable foundation for human life. That view of marriage is the firmest foundation for building a family…and therefore a stable, successful society.
The woke mantra “love is love” is both pathetically banal and preposterously absurd. Its meaning, as intended by progressives, is essentially “sex is sex.” This is one of the Great Lies of our time. Sex between one man and one woman in a committed long-term relationship intended to help carry out the Biblical injunction to “go forth and multiply,” is of a different kind, order and worth than sex between a person and his or herself, a person and a donkey or penguin, a person and four others, a person and a sex-bot, or parents and their offspring. That this notion has to be defended is a sign that the end times might not be far off.
It is not, in fact, “a basic human right” to be able to marry three others, a llama, or your sister. The fact that you owe money or operate heavy machinery does not automatically translate to “you have a right to marry your daddy.” No matter one’s sex or sexual orientation, one should have the decency, honesty and integrity to admit that, for example, three brothers’ desire to marry their father should not carry the same ethical-- or evolutionary—weight as that of one man and one woman wishing to wed out of both love and the complimentary and covenantal desire to create offspring in God’s image.
Love is love? Really? Would you say that “war is war,” whether it is engaged in to plunder, subjugate and annex an innocent sovereign nation and people or to protect and defend them? How about stating that “income is income? Is that the case, whether it is earned by working hard to make things and provide services that people need and enjoy or it is obtained by cheating, swindling, deceit, and illegal and injurious activity such as child sex trafficking, robbery or murder?
Love is love? Not necessarily.