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, as with homosexuality, then the 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. They just have an “ick” factor.
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.
Homosexuals are increasingly seeing normalization in society.