By Jack Minor –
A judge has suggested that now that same-sex marriages and homosexuality have become more accepted the next logical step could be to legitimize incestuous relationships.
“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,” Judge Garry Neilson from Australia said.
Neilson compared incest to homosexuality, saying that such relationships were once illegal.
“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.”
Opponents of same-sex marriage have long predicted that once the traditional definition of marriage between a man and woman is changed then there would be no logical basis to prohibit any other type of marriage arrangement including polygamy and incest.
Supporters of same-sex marriage have disputed these claims insisting the situations are entirely different and that it is not hypocritical to call for expanding marriage to same-sex couples while denying it to siblings. The claim frequently made is incest can be legitimately prohibited due to the possibility of birth defects in offspring.
However, Neilson said while he agreed the only reason incest was currently a crime was because it may lead to abnormalities in children born from the relationship he said this argument is largely irrelevant because of the widespread availability of birth control and abortion.
Indeed, the same-sex marriage may have unwittingly provided ammunition for Neilson’s position by how they have changed the terminology used to bolster their cause.
In the early days of the debate over homosexual debate the issue was over “same-sex marriage.” However, when that phrase failed to garner support among many Americans who are still opposed to homosexuality the homosexuals and their supporters changed the phrase to “marriage equality,” thus downplaying the homosexual angle.
In 2012, the Democrat controlled legislature in Colorado was preparing to pass a civil union bill, the text of the legislation said its purpose was to ensure “equality” but it prohibited family members from entering into a civil union regardless of their sexual orientation.
State Sen. Kevin Lundberg, one of the two Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee who voted against the bill said it was hypocritical for Democrats to sponsor a bill that supposedly was for equality, but instead had discrimination written into it.
“When I was calling for the exemption for child placement organizations, Sen. Pat Steadman who sponsored the bill said no to the amendment because that would be allowing discrimination to occur and he was not going to do that,” Lundberg said. “I pointed out to him the bill itself has discrimination written into it by saying that two sisters or close relatives can’t be a part of a civil union. However it’s quite clear that they’re simply saying it’s my way or the highway in that respect.”
Lundberg said supports of the bill refused to defend or even respond to his question about discrimination.