What Will Gay Activists Say About Incest?
And it is a very good question as we all know how selfish and self-centered the LGBTQ community really are. Michael Brown writes a very good article on this topic and we will add our own 2 cents worth as well.
Already in 2007, Time Magazine raised the question, “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 observed, “that the critics were right,” adding that plaintiffs were now “using Lawrence to challenge laws against incest.”
When you alter an objective moral standard like right and wrong then you are left with a subjective guideline where anything goes as long as you have enough support for your point of view. atheism, secularism and other alternatives to God’s word do not lead people to a more enlightened, more moral lifestyle.
It’s true that most Americans are repulsed by the idea of a mother having an affair with her own son (rightly so), but not that long ago, Americans were repulsed by the idea of two men having a sexual and romantic relationship.
How about brother and a sister together? Jesus said and I paraphrase, ‘ as it was in the days of Noah…’ So we can see how the pre-flood world was like by just looking at our own societies in this supposed modern age.
Not surprisingly, in December, 2010, when Columbia University professor David Epstein was arrested for a three-year, consensual affair with his adult daughter, his attorney Matthew Galluzzo 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.”…
Today, we are faced with this very real headline: “Mother, 36, and son, 19, who fell in love when they met last year after she gave him up for adoption as a baby, say they’ll go to JAIL to defend their relationship.”
If you are afraid to take a stand now when it is just the homosexuals who are demanding liberties they should not have, how will you be courageous enough to take a stand when new sins make the same demands? Where will you draw the line and how will you know that line is in the correct spot?
What, then, gives society the right to tell this mother and son that their love is invalid — indeed, that it should be criminalized — and that they don’t have the “right” to love whom they please?
Hasn’t the Obama administration told us repeatedly that we must not judge someone based on who they love? Why, then, doesn’t this apply to this mother and son?
When we let people have a false view of love then we get these type of messes. Too often the church lets the unbelieving world do the defining of vital issues and then meekly follows along, ignoring the definitions God has provided for all to see the correct view of those important terms.
As for “progressive Christians” who are so eager to remove Leviticus 18 from their Bibles, since Leviticus 18:22 flatly condemns homosexual practice, they need to remember that this chapter primarily forbids incestuous relationships. Consequently, if you remove it from your Bible, you have no scriptural basis for forbidding incest either (in particular, consensual, adult incest). There are consequences with tampering with Scripture, just as there are consequences with tampering with marriage
In other words, when you start editing the Bible, soon you will have no Bible left to follow.
In support of my position, I quoted the wise words of G. K. Chesterton, “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up.”
The interviewer told me that I was the only one even to raise this issue. No one else had considered the larger, societal consequences and no one else considered what might happen in a non-consensual way within the family once the incest taboo was removed.
For the long term good of our society, then, we need to keep this wall firmly in place while rebuilding the wall against homosexual “marriages.” And while we’re at it, let’s rebuild the wall against no-fault divorce, since a true wedding vow does not say “as long as we both shall love” but “as long as we both shall live.”
Believers need to remember that it is God that they follow and it is God’s instructions they must keep. The homosexual, the transgender, the incest participants do not hold the keys to heaven, nor do they have power over hell. God does and we need to keep in mind that God set the rules so that people can enter in the former in order to escape the latter. We are failing people and God if we change the Bible to appease those who do not want to follow God’s rules.
The real question, though, is what will gay activists say? Will they be silent, lest they condemn their own consensual, loving relationships? Or will they take a hypocritical stand and say, “Love is only love when it fits our particular parameters”?
They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. They cannot have it both ways.
If the homosexual activists say keep the incest participants and other sexual relationships out of marriage, etc., then they have become as discriminatory, etc., as they claimed heterosexuals are when the heterosexuals sought to keep same-sex marriages illegal.
They also make a case against their own inclusion in the institute of marriage as well. Why should the homosexual community get to say who should be included in the institution of marriage? Who are they to decide? They are not God and have no control over eternity.
The believer needs to think twice about how they open the doors of the church and their beliefs when they seek to get sinners into the pews.