The Slippery Slope of Governing Sexuality

A few different sources, including Dr. Albert Mohler, have recently brought up the case of David Epstein, a professor of political science at Columbia University.  Apparently Epstein was recently charged with incest over a sexual relationship with his adult daughter.

The natural question, of course, is why?

If what two consenting adults do is no one else’s business, why is incest illegal? If reproduction is not germane, then the traditional genetic argument fails.

On what moral basis, then, is incest illegal?

Over at the SoldiersPerspective, a similar question is raised

Where does it end? Where do we, as a country, draw the line to what is acceptable behavior in this country?…Will we allow familiar relationships that are currently illegal (incest)?  Will we allow polygamy? Who is our government to decide which forms of sexually deviant behavior are acceptable and which are not? If we allow homosexuals to serve openly, we should also allow polygamy, incest, and dare I say it, beastiality…

North of the border, where the homosexual agenda is a few years ahead of that in the US, Canadians are facing their own “next step.”  An article at the Globe and Mail notes that Canadians may not like polygamy, but they can no longer justify making it illegal.  (The Canadian military, which pays for sex change operations, also just issued policies on how “transsexuals” are supposed to dress while serving.)

These questions normally raise a “how dare you” from homosexual advocates.  The problem with that response is it indicates they, too, have a “moral line” they won’t cross — but its a moral line they can neither explain nor justify.

By contrast, Christians generally have a clear moral line: One (male) husband, one (female) wife, and “let man not separate.”  Deviations from that standard — like divorce — do not negate the standard itself.  In fact, they support the need for one.

Homosexuality is increasingly being normalized in society.

What’s next?


  • I cant see any legal justification for banning consensual incest.
    And as for your claim that Christians have a clear moral line, when exactly are they going to get around to coampaigning for laws against divorce and remarriage?

  • …and don’t forget about making laws against the 20 somethings that live together several years before thinking about getting married, if at all.

  • “Homosexuals are increasingly seeing normalization in society.”

    Yes, and thank that good lord of yours that there were progressive, liberal, accepting people at the time when Christians were thrown to the lions for entertainment, because those evil progressive, liberal, accepting people put an end to that.

    They also put an end to;

    allowing Puritans from lynching Quakers and forcing them to fund their churches;

    made it possible for woman to vote, work outside the home and get and education;

    stopped the lynching of black people;

    allowed black people to work in the Mormon church;

    and so many, too many examples to mention that should wake you up and realize:

    It is those who you demonize that have “normalized” your Christianity.

  • Nice demonstration of the logical fallacy of equivocation. Links to websites advocating what may be sedition have been removed from your post, and will be in the future as well.

  • So JD, where is the concerted campaign for remarriage and divorce to be made illegal?

  • Why do you feel such a campaign is necessary?

  • Because of the clear moral line. If that clear moral line explains why Christians think gays should be arrested it should also mean they want people who remarry to be arrested.

  • Donalbain,
    You appear, once again, to be misapplying a worldview with which you disagree and about which you are uninformed. The result is, once again, that your commentary makes no sense.

  • OK.. then explain to me the difference. Why is part of a clear moral line to put homosexuals in prison, but not people who divorce and remarry?