Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

australia-judge-incest-homosexuality.si

Judge: Incest is OK Now, Because We Have Abortion

By Rebekah MaxwellBarbWire guest contributor

This Week’s Sign the Apocalypse is Upon Us

Just another lovely day in our über-enlightened world. Birds singing…sun shining…incest normalized.

What’s that? You hadn’t heard about the latest repressive and archaic sexual taboo to be struck down in the daily quest for new heights of evolution?  Let a judge fill you in.

The UK Telegraph reports:

A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.

Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and “unnatural,” but is now widely accepted.

He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.

“A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner,” the judge said.

“If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you’d invariably have, they would say it’s unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone.”

Someone should have told Mr. Neilson that particular slippery slope doesn’t exist before he started the slide down.

Right about now, you can hear the horrified gasps of the traditionalists…but surely, in context, this whole incest defense will make perfect sense. Right?

Judge Neilson made the comments during the trial of a brother charged with raping his younger sister. The man has pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting his sister when she was 10 or 11 years old in 1973 or 1974 but has pleaded not guilty to charges relating to sex they had in 1981, when she was 18 and he was 26.

“By that stage, they are both mature adults,” the judge said.

“The complainant has been sexually awoken, shall we say, by having two relationships with men and she had become ‘free’ when the second relationship broke down. The only thing that might change that is the fact that they were a brother and sister, but we’ve come a long way from the 1950s – when the position of the English Common Law was that sex outside marriage was not lawful.”

Well, there you are then. We only thought incest was bad way back when we were on the wrong side of history. We’ve learned so much since then. Like that an adult man can rape his 10-year old sister (and that’s bad), but when she turns 18, it’s perfectly acceptable to take advantage of her proximity and vulnerability. Perfectly logical.

We already believe that all ethics are cultural, societal, and subject to change; there’s nothing objectively wrong about anything, ever. So we now judge right/wrong by what produces harmful side-effects.

Instead of using those concomitant enforcements to ascertain natural laws, we set to work treating the uncomfortable symptoms, so we can revel in our disease. You see, once we can eliminate all the undesired consequences, all “bad” behavior will be on the table.

For example, we have accepted that only reason incest is still considered wrong or repugnant (by the backward folk, of course), is the provable risk of genetic deformity in future generations. But as Neilson says, we’re systematically wiping out all inconvenient kids anyway, so why be concerned about the gene pool? Or the future?

We’re already redefining all other foundations of humanity and relationships. Why not redefine “family” from “those closest to me whom I protect with my life” to “those closest to me whom I can prey on sexually”? Why struggle in the dating scene, when you have female humans in your own house…within seizing-distance?

The judge does seem to forget a little detail in his logic. The woman in this case wasn’t “sexually awoken, shall we say” by her high school boyfriends. She received a rude and warped awakening at 10-years old, when her privacy and person was violated, by her own 18-year old brother. The whole “rape” thing at the crux of this rape case, remember?

But why, may we ask, is the 10-year old sister off-limits to her brother anyway? Sexual urges begin in homosapiens long before age 18…why does her age present any barrier? Isn’t that just another archaic taboo to be systematically dismantled?

A far younger girl can get an abortionist to kill her child (certainly by age 14 in the U.S.) and we all know the “exceptions.” We know incest makes abortion necessary…and we now know abortion makes incest normal.

Who’d have guessed that our next evolution would have so much in common with redneck jokes…and the barbarians of old? But who cares if our family trees don’t really branch?

Behold our new civilization!  Where everything is relative…and so are your sex-partners.

Rebekah Maxwell, producer of the Steve Deace Show, began reporting and producing at WHO Radio in 2007, with on-air work recognized by the official alphabet soup: the AP, IBNA, NBNA, RTDNA, NAB (all the while staying far from the TSA and UFOs). She delights in debating religion, politics, and all other subjects impolite at the dinner table. Her favorite time of year is Caucus season, and she’s an accomplished slam poet, ready to spit the truth…in mad rhymes, if necessary.



 

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Trending Now on BarbWire.com

Send this to a friend