What's Wrong With a Little Incest?

The Hypocrisy of Secularist Human Rights 

Recently a case of extreme degeneracy was reported in the NZ Herald.  It involved incest--a father and daughter having a long term, intermittent sexual relationship.

A father and daughter pleaded guilty to incest when they appeared in the Dunedin District Court this afternoon.  Judge Kevin Phillips convicted them and remanded them on bail, with conditions prohibiting communication between the pair, for sentence in November.

The pair - aged 37 and 23 - have previously been convicted of incest, after the woman gave birth to a child in 2011.  The pair, who have interim name suppression, had troubled upbringings.  The daughter was born after the man entered into a sexual relationship with his foster mother when he was only 13 and she was 30.  He had little to do with his daughter during her upbringing, but a sexual relationship between them started shortly after they were reunited in 2010.  She was 16 at the time.

They were both sentenced to supervision for the first conviction in 2012 with the father also receiving a sentence of community work.  The latest offending came to light following a police investigation in 2013, a summary of facts said.  The pair will appear before the district court again in November.  [NZ Herald]

A case of incest occurred in the Corinthian Church in the first century AD.  The Apostle Paul describes this sin as so egregious, so extreme, it was not tolerated even among the pagans.

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. [I Corinthians 5: 1-2]

It seems as though the first century revulsion against incest continues amongst our modern libertines.  Not one voice has been raised to defend or excuse or advocate for the sexual liberty rights of  the incestuous "couple".  For that we Christians can be thankful, even whilst our sexual warriors shrink in cowardly shame, stopped at a Bridge Too Far.

Yet, it is appropriate to mark as well the hypocrisy of silence which has seen no-one amongst the media, the Chattering Classes, academia, the Human Rights Commission, nor politicians come forth to assert the rights of the "couple".  No-one.  Paul was right: even in pagan, licentious Rome, incest was a "bridge too far".  Even in the most licentious libertine generation ever seen in this country, the silence on behalf of this "couple" is deafening.

Yet, every argument which has been put forward asserting the freedom rights of homosexuals, bi-sexuals, trans-genderists, and multi-genderists surely applies equally to this Dunedin "couple".  Are they not to be respected?  Ought they not be discriminated against?  Do not doctrines of fundamental Human Rights come into play?  Why are the innate, intrinsic human rights of this "couple" being trampled into the dust?  If homosexuals can "marry", why not these two?

Ah, says the modern libertine, not so fast.  There are physical and genetic consequences--well established by science--that prove incest risks harm and damage to progeny.  But, Mr Libertine you have thrown out that consideration well and truly, in your advocacy for the "rights" of the trans-gender community.  In their case, biology and genes be damned.  Nothing a surgeon's knife and hormone treatment won't "correct".  And even if it were true that incest risks harm to the children of the union--well, you have a cunning plan.  Abortion is also a recognised human right in your libertine culture, so that fixes that.  Why, then, the sudden fastidiousness over incest?

We would throw down the gauntlet to the libertines who now lead our nation.  By what standard do you champion the human rights and freedoms of homosexuals and trans-sexuals, but fail or refuse to extend the same perverse rights to this incestuous couple?  If you fail to meet the challenge, your arguments on behalf of those politically correct libertine practices, which you happen to consider trendy and fashionable, go up in a puff of noxious smoke.

The second part of the challenge is this: if you refuse to advocate for the human rights of the incestuous, barraging Parliament for the decriminalisation of such behaviours, and if you will not earnestly lobby politicians to recognise incestuous marriage, the only cause you will be trumpeting will be your own hypocrisy.

In the end it will come down to this.  You want recognition for your favoured lusts; but prohibition for everything  "yuckie".  Behold the moral compass of the modern libertine.  It has always been so.