I have come to realise by now that the other side does not care about facts, evidence or data – they are simply interested in pushing their agenda. So I have stopped trying to reason with them. But for the majority in the middle who are not quite where they stand on various contentious social issues, I keep working to convince them that we are in some trouble here.
I refer of course especially to the homosexual juggernaut which continues to roll on, not just crushing everything in its path, but preparing the way for even more ghastly sexual-social experiments. They have opened wide the door, and all sorts of groups are merrily following in their footsteps.
I have documented this countless times already, but new examples arise almost every day. Be it the push for incest rights, or bestiality rights, or polyamory rights, or even paedophilia rights, I have written extensively about all these cases of the slippery slope in action.
My forthcoming book will feature many dozens of examples of each. Here I wish to add three more cases of the push for polygamy/polyamory. The three cases happen to come from North America, although plenty of other places could be mentioned here.
So let me begin in the US where a law professor is simply taking the logic of homosexual marriage to its natural conclusion. He sees no reason why things like incest and polygamy should be banned, now that we have opened the door to homosexual marriage. One article puts it this way:
Though Mr Irons may not realise it when he made his remarks appearing to link incest and SSM, in fact the lawyer of a father accused of incest in the US has already gone down this track. David Epstein’s lawyer has argued that his client’s consensual sexual relationship with his adult daughter could be seen in the same light as gay relationships. His client, a professor from Columbia University, has pled guilty to a misdemeanour charge of attempted incest last year. 
This is from Epstein’s lawyer, Matthew Galluzzo, in The Huffington Post (December 15 2010):
‘”Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so,” Galluzzo said. “At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case [the relatively recent Swiss legislative move to decriminalize incest] to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms.”
“It's OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home," he said. "How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not."’ 
Though Jeremy Irons will no doubt be apologizing profusely to the gay community and the rest of the world for his hateful, offensive, despicable, homophobic remarks, in fact he is on to something.
That gay marriage will be followed by the demand for poly (polyamorous) marriage is another development most appear unaware of. In fact leaders of the Australian Greensparty have begun a political campaign for poly marriage. 
The slippery slope is occurring before our eyes. Where is the outcry? [email protected]
My article last week about the radical Left’s defence of paedophilia in the 1970s provoked all manner of paroxysms from today’s Lefties. How dare I blacken the name of Hattie Harman by pointing out that she became legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) soon after it campaigned for a more relaxed approach to sex with children?
But I had private communications, too, from people who encountered the “libertarian” Left during those years. “In the late Sixties and early Seventies, I worked at a school operated by the Inner London Education Authority,” wrote a retired schoolteacher.
“The teachers there were almost all Marxists or, as they would have said, Maoists. They were supporting an initiative to lower or abolish the age of consent, which they said was just a way for the upper classes to keep the working classes in their place. According to them, children were sexual beings who had a right to express their sexuality. I was one of the few parents on the staff and said that this was just an excuse for dirty old men to abuse children… I was told that I was brainwashed and bourgeois.”
Another correspondent asked me to take a closer look at the NCCL Report on Sexual Offences (1976), which argued for a fundamental rethink on the subject of incest.
Yes, you read that right. Decriminalising incest was one of the pet causes of the brothers and sisters of the extreme Left represented by the NCCL. This is from its 1976 report:
Defenders of marriage have long said if the institution is redefined beyond one man and one woman, there is no clear end to the new combinations that could be considered “marriage.” A growing body of evidence shows the popular culture, led by Hollywood elites, do not intend to stop with same-sex unions.
Nick Cassavetes, the director of the romantic film The Notebook, told reporters at the debut of his new film that incest is no different than allowing same-sex weddings.
“Love who you want, isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want,” he said.
“If you’re not having kids, who gives a damn?” the son of legendary director John Cassavetes and actress Gena Rowlands asked in an interview with The Wrap while premiering his new film, Yellow, which features an incestuous affair between a brother and sister. “If it’s your brother or sister it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.”
Meanwhile, a celebrity gossip rag has become the latest publication to support polygamy and polyandry.
The Court has upheld the German law that makes incest illegal. The plaintiff, one Patrick Stuebing, had claimed that the law against incest infringed his rights to a family life. He had been living with his sister, by whom he had had four children, and in fact been imprisoned for incest.
The case is a sad one, in that Patrick and his sister had only met and became close as adults, not having been brought up together. In places were family break-up is common, or where siblings and half-siblings may not be brought up together as children, this is a danger: near relatives may meet as adults and fall in love.
The only problem is that they have drafted their petition without thinking very carefully about the wording.
It reads as follows:
'I support the right of two people in love to get married, regardless of gender. It's only fair.'
The problem of course is that 'two people in love' covers a whole variety of possible combinations which are excluded by the current legal definition of marriage.
Marriage between close relatives who love each other – otherwise known as 'incest'
Marriage between a man and boy who love each other – otherwise known as 'paedophilia'
Marriage between minors who love each other – call it what you will
Marriage between a woman teacher and her pupil under 16 – hmmmmmm!
February 24th, 2011 Jill Posted in Ethics, IncestComments Off
By Zac Alstin, MercatorNet
Do taboos on incest and infanticide have a rational basis?
The father of modern astronomy, Galileo, did not win converts to his theories through their obvious truthfulness. Rather, the younger generation of astronomers were drawn to the new and exciting research possibilities that came with Galileo's telescopes. Older, more established astronomers doubted that the new technology could be trusted. We moderns take for granted that what we see through the end of a telescope is real. Yet some of Galileo's contemporaries refused to even look through one of his telescopes for themselves.
We are amused by such stubbornness today but we live with the advantage of a much greater body of evidence that reinforces the reliability of telescopes and microscopes. We have been to the moon, and confirmed with unaided vision the ruggedness of its surface. In a different context, “new and exciting” theories might prove to be nothing more than a fad.
It is my grave duty to inform you that the same is true of the discipline of ethics, where the most reasoned and convincing arguments nevertheless rest upon a set of basic assumptions which we simply must accept or deny. Those who best represent traditional ethics exist in a kind of parallel universe to most modern academic ethicists, and, it seems, never the twain shall meet.
February 14th, 2011 Jill Posted in IncestComments Off
By Johann Hari
[...] So why is your stomach still churning as you read this? What is it about incest that makes it universally abhorred? The most obvious answer is the risk of producing severely deformed children. King Hatchepsut, an Egyptian pharaoh who was the product of an incestuous union between brother and sister, is considered by many Egyptologists to have suffered from birth defects. In Michigan in the mid-1990s, the state laws had to be reformulated to forbid "consensual incest" after two high-profile scandals. In both cases, the offspring of father-daughter relations had severe birth defects and several of the resulting babies died. All existing studies of inbred populations show that incest increases the rate of appearance of negative recessive genes.
We should, however, be wary of damning incest on these grounds alone. To prohibit two people from having sex because their offspring may be "defective" or "inferior" is to adopt the standpoint of a eugenicist. Indeed, Dr Sean Gabb has clearly shown that the impetus behind the 1908 Punishment of Incest Act was just that: the proponents of the act were exactly the same figures who advocated the "sterilisation" of the "feeble-minded". If we prohibit incest on the grounds that it risks producing "defective" children, we must also prohibit reproduction by haemophiliacs and the carriers of a host of other "defects".
In any case, we must acknowledge that, with the rise of contraception, we have succeeded in separating sex from reproduction. Another unashamed participant in incest discovered in a chatroom, "daddysgirl", insisted: "We would never have a baby, it would be all screwed up and wrong. I use the coil." So has a window opened for "safe" incest? And if so, is our visceral disgust just a remnant from a vanishing age?
January 6th, 2011 Jill Posted in IncestComments Off
By Matthew J Franck, Witherspoon Institute
What’s wrong with a prominent professor’s incestuous relationship with his daughter.
The story of David Epstein, the Columbia University political scientist and Huffington Post blogger now facing criminal charges of incest, has launched a very interesting discussion. What is fascinating about it, and deeply disturbing, is the inability of some commentators to articulate what is morally wrong about the act of incest. It is almost equally disturbing that a legal argument for a “right” to engage in adult, consensual incest stands on surprisingly firm footing, thanks to precedents the United States Supreme Court has already established in other cases on the “autonomy of the person” under our Constitution.
Professor Epstein, 46, has been charged with third-degree incest for carrying on a sexual relationship over a three-year period with his daughter, now 24. From what little has emerged about the case, there are no charges that the relationship antedated the daughter’s eighteenth birthday, nor has it been alleged that the sexual relations were other than consensual. (The daughter herself has not so far been charged with a crime, however.) So powerful is the contemporary opinion that “consenting adults” may engage, in private, in any acts that commit no “harm” (narrowly understood in almost purely physical terms) to the parties in question or to others, that some observers have merely shrugged indifferently at the Epstein case, while others have striven to find grounds for condemning such incestuous acts but finally confessed their failure to find them.
December 18th, 2010 Jill Posted in IncestComments Off
By Albert Mohler
There are certain questions now pressed upon us that previous generations would never believe could be asked. One of these is thrust upon us by events in New York City, where a well-known Ivy League professor has been arrested for the crime of incest. What makes the question urgent is not so much the arrest, but the controversy surrounding it.
David Epstein is a professor of political science at Columbia University, where his wife also teaches. He previously taught on the faculties of Harvard and Stanford. Last week, he was arraigned before a judge in Manhattan, charged with a single count of felony incest. According to authorities, Professor Epstein was for several years involved in a sexual relationship with his adult daughter, now age 24.
Though the story was ignored by much of the mainstream media, it quickly found its way into the cultural conversation. William Saletan of Slate.com, who remains one of today’s most relevant writers working on the issues of bioethics and human nature, jumped on the story with a very interesting essay that openly asked the question many others were more quietly asking: “If homosexuality is OK, why is incest wrong?”
The attorney for David Epstein, a Colombia university professor charged with incest with his adult daughter, is defending sex between family members by appealing to homosexual “rights” as a precedent.
Epstein’s lawyer, Matthew Galluzzo, told ABC News that “It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.”
“What goes on between consenting adults in private should not be legislated. That is not the proper domain of our law,” Galluzo told the Huffington Post, which publishes Epstein’s articles. “If we assume for a moment that both parties are consenting, then why are we prosecuting this?”
“Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so,” Galluzzo stated in his interview with ABC . “At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms.”
Galluzzo was referring to a Swiss legislative initiative to legalize incest between consenting adults, a measure that has not been approved and is reportedly rejected by 60% of Swiss citizens.
…Thus I have written often about those pushing for the legalisation of polyamory, or group love. The logic of group marriage is identical to the logic of homosexual marriage. And of course the same logic can be found in the push to legalise incest.
However, whenever I suggest these next steps in the slippery slope, the other side ridicules me and mocks me, claiming no one is arguing for polyamory or incest. That is why I have to keep writing articles like this. There are people all over the world pushing for these very things, and they are happy to ride on the success of the same-sex marriage movement.
Let’s consider another clear cut example of this. Here is how one news item reports the story of a push for incest:
The upper house of the Swiss parliament has drafted a law decriminalising sex between consenting family members which must now be considered by the government. There have been only three cases of incest since 1984. Switzerland, which recently held a referendum passing a draconian law that will boot out foreigners convicted of committing the smallest of crimes, insists that children within families will continue to be protected by laws governing abuse and paedophilia.
Daniel Vischer, a Green party MP, said he saw nothing wrong with two consenting adults having sex, even if they were related. “Incest is a difficult moral question, but not one that is answered by penal law,” he said.
December 12th, 2010 Jill Posted in IncestComments Off
By Joe Carter, First Things
Earlier this week, an Ivy League political science professor was arrested and charged with one count of incest for having a reportedly consensual sexual relationship with his twenty-four year old daughter.
Normally, I’d find such a story too sordid and tabloid-esque to be worth commenting on. But there was one aspect that I found to be so shocking that I thought it was worthy of discussion: the father was charged with a crime.
Perhaps I’m jaded but I has assumed that in American that no sexual activity—no matter how despicable—could be considered a crime if it were consensual and didn’t involve permanent injury or the exchange of money.
What is the standard that the legal system uses to justify criminalizing this form of consensual sexual activity? One way is to question whether adult incest can ever be truly consensual. As law professor J. Dean Carro told Salon.com:
Karen’s older brother told her that there was nothing wrong with him touching her body. And he seemed to know a lot more at age 14 than she did at age six. This progressed gradually and steadily from touching above the clothes to actual rape that continued for years. Eventually Karen’s older brother went on to get married and have a family, appearing just fine to nearly everyone in the community. He left his younger sister, now in her late twenties, emotionally, sexually and spiritually crippled.
There are 50 young women with backgrounds similar to Karen’s in just one recently formed support group for women. They all grew up in Jewish homes and they have all been sexually abused. These are the ones who have the courage to step forward.
Thank God it is now beginning to come to light, and victims are starting to learn that they are not the only ones with this secret corrosive problem. We have the opportunity to take necessary constructive actions. Not only can we support those who are already victims, we can implement effective prevention education to stop the growth of abuse in our communities.
It’s not only teenage older brothers or cousins with characteristically raging hormones who can become abusers. Approximately 80% of sexual abuse is committed by a trusted family member or family friend, with roughly 15% being committed by teachers, coaches, youth group leaders or clergy. Less than 5% of sexual abusers are strangers to their victims. This makes sense because gaining the trust of the victim is a prerequisite in the grooming process leading to sexual abuse occurring and not being reported.
Silence may be golden, but not when abuse is involved. Abuse thrives in silence.
Karen, at age six, needs to be taught that she has the right to say “No!” to any unwanted touch.
Karen, at age six, needs to be taught that she has the right to say “No!” to any unwanted touch — even if it’s from an older brother or an uncle. David, at age four, needs to be told that nobody should touch him in the private areas that are covered by his bathing suit, unless it is for health or hygienic purposes, no matter who the person is. Debbie, at age nine, needs to learn to tell a trusted parent as soon as possible if anybody attempts to touch her in a confusing way.
The Seventh Commandment
On Yom Kippur, a day when we face our transgressions, we read a portion of the Torah that explicitly delineates many sexually immoral acts. And every one of these immoral acts can be summarized by the seventh of the Ten Commandments, "Lo Teenof" (Exodus 20:13). It is usually translated narrowly as “Do not commit adultery,” but it is more broadly interpreted by most Torah commentators as “Do not engage in illicit sexual activities.”
It is interesting to observe that the Ten Commandments do not appear as one list of ten; they appear, instead, in two columns. The first five focus on the relationship between an individual and God, while the second five focus on the relationship between people, with the directive to honor parents being the perfect segue way between the two.
Part II – What Disproportionately High Rates of Harm Mean
At the very end of Part 1 I noted that homosexual intercourse, like incest, is problematic because of the excessive embodied (formal, structural) sameness of the participants; moreover, that problems with procreation for both incest and homosexual behavior are merely symptoms of this root problem of excessive structural identity.
We need to go further; for problems with homosexual activity are not limited to a structural inability to procreate. Homosexual relationships also exhibit a disproportionately high rate of scientifically measurable harms. These measurable harms cannot be explained away as merely a product of societal “homophobia” but are instead largely attributable to the lack of true sexual compatibility (or complementary symmetry) between persons of the same sex.
If the disproportionately high rates of measurable harm manifested by homosexual relationships were attributable exclusively or even primarily to societal “homophobia,” then we would expect male-homosexual relationships and female-homosexual relationships to exhibit the same high rates for the same types of measurable harm. However, this is exactly what we do not find.
Homosexual males experience disproportionately high numbers of sex partners over the course of life and of sexually transmitted infections, not only in relation to heterosexual males but also in relation to homosexual females. The reason for this is not difficult to imagine. On average men have 7 to 8 times the main sex hormone, testosterone, than do women. That has an obvious impact on male sexuality, relative to female sexuality, such that bringing together two men in a sexual union is not exactly a recipe for monogamy. Incidentally, the polysexual character of male sexuality has been shown scientifically to be not only a cross-cultural phenomenon but also, to a large extent, a cross-species phenomenon.
As regards lesbian relationships, the limited studies that we have to date suggest that homosexual females experience on average disproportionately high rates of measurable harm as regards shorter-term sexual relationships and higher instances of mental illnesses associated with such relationships, relative not only to heterosexual females but even to homosexual males.
The issues around lesbian mental health are not surprising in view of the fact that on average women have, relative to men, higher rates of mental health issues and higher expectations of sexual relationships for meeting needs of self-esteem and intimacy. Simply put, failed sexual relationships place greater stress on women’s mental health than on men’s. I trust that most people recognize that women on average have much higher intimacy expectations for sexual relationships than do men. This is why, almost invariably, in a marriage between a man and a woman it is the wife who complains that her spouse doesn’t share his innermost feelings often enough. “Men are from Mars, women are from Venus,” as one marital counselor has famously put it.
On Apr. 29 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the so-called “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” which places “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” “real or perceived,” alongside of “race,” “national origin,” “gender,” and “disability” as benign conditions for which society should provide special protections in federal law. Those who oppose homosexual practice are, by analogy, implicitly identified in law as discriminatory bigots, akin to racists and misogynists.
The problem is that the analogy to race and gender doesn’t work well. Race and gender are 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, and primarily non-behavioral conditions of life, and therefore, intrinsically benign. Homosexuality and transsexuality are none of these things. While there probably are some biological risk factors for some homosexual development and even transgenderism, science has failed to establish that homosexuality and transsexuality develop deterministically like race and gender. Even the Kinsey Institute has acknowledged that at least one shift in the Kinsey spectrum of 0 to 6 is the norm over the course of life for those who identity as homosexual (75%). Most importantly, unlike race and gender, homosexuality and transsexuality are in the first instance impulses to engage in behavior that is structurally discordant with embodied existence (as male and female). They are therefore not intrinsically benign conditions.
I contend that a better analogy (i.e., with more points of substantive correspondence) can be made between homosexuality and transsexuality on the one hand and polysexuality (an orientation toward multiple sexual partners) and incest (here I am thinking of an adult-committed sort) on the other hand. The latter are, after all, two other sexual behaviors that are incongruent with embodied existence that, despite such incongruence, can still be conducted as committed, caring relationships between adults. If incest and polyamory are indeed better analogues to homosexuality and transgenderism, then it is clear that placing the latter alongside race and gender as conditions worthy of special protections and benefits becomes, well, misplaced.
Surprising as it may seem, incest is not always a crime in Europe.
Three European Union nations — France, Spain and Portugal — do not prosecute consenting adults for incest, and Romania is considering following suit.
The shocking case of Austrian Josef Fritzl, found guilty this week of holding his daughter captive for 24 years and fathering her seven children, has focused new attention on incest — which is a crime in itself in Austria even if the acts are consensual. But in the Fritzl case it was in connection with rape, homicide and other charges that led to a sentence of life in a secure psychiatric ward.
Laws exempting parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters from prosecution for incestuous acts if they are not forced upon adult family members are decades old in France, Spain and Portugal.
In Romania, decriminalizing incest among consenting adults is being considered as part of a wide range of reforms to the country’s criminal code. No date has been set yet for a parliament vote on the bill, and opposition to the proposal is fervent even among some lawmakers in the ruling coalition.
Currently all forms of incest in Romania are punishable by up to seven years in prison. But Romania’s Justice Ministry suggests the new legislation would move the country — which joined the European Union two years ago — closer legally to some other EU members.
"Not everything that is immoral has to be illegal," said Justice Ministry legal expert Valerian Cioclei. "We cannot help these people by turning them into criminals and punishing them."
Incest is defined as sexual intercourse between people too closely related to marry legally. In the United States, all 50 states and the District of Columbia prohibit even consensual incest, although a few states impose no criminal penalties for it, according to the Harvard Law Review.
From The Times July 15, 2008: I had sex with my brother but I don’t feel guilty
A woman slept with her sibling for years and has good memories. Not many people understand their relationship, she says
Strangely enough, Daniel’s wedding day didn’t upset me at all. It was his 30th birthday six months later which really got to me, as he stood there with his wife Alison while they greeted the guests. I can honestly say that that was the only time when I felt real envy and wished desperately that it was me standing beside him, arms round each other as we showed the world how much we loved each other.
It’s not as if I’m not allowed to love Daniel, but the way we feel about each other isn’t something that we can share easily with anyone else. Daniel is my brother, but since I was 14 we’ve had a sexual relationship – and that’s not something that many people would feel comfortable with …
Incest is so often spoken about in the same breath as abuse, but if you’re close in age and equal in relationship terms then it’s entirely different. Of course abuse happens, but it can happen in any sexual relationship and there’s an expectation that a family member would never hurt you in the way that someone else could. There’s no comparison between siblings close in age having sexual feelings and contact and an adult forcing a younger member of the family to do something they neither understand nor want to be involved in. I think incest is traditionally seen as bad, but in some cultures that isn’t the case. When I was small I asked a Sunday school teacher if Adam and Eve’s children married each other since they were the first people on earth. She just laughed and didn’t reply. Having children with Daniel was never an issue and we were always careful about contraception …
Every so often I would wonder what people would think if they found out, especially our parents, but it always felt so right and was so exciting that these concerns were never enough to stop me. Sometimes he initiated sex and sometimes I did, but in between times our relationship was as easy, relaxed and affectionate as ever, with the incredible passion of each encounter quietly banked away until the next time …
By the time he met Alison he was working and I was a student, and I knew that this relationship was different, but it still came as a shock when he told me he wanted to marry her. However, I was more shocked when he said: “You only have to say and I won’t marry her, but then I want us to stay together and not see anyone else. We could be the old boring brother and sister who never got married, but ended up sharing a house because no one else would have them! I know this is meant to be wrong but I’ve never felt anything so right.” This echoed everything that I’ve thought about our incestuous relationship over the years. After hours of discussion we agreed that it was time to stop the sexual side of our relationship and also decided that telling anyone else was a bad idea, parting in tears afterwards …