Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Am I my brother's....wife?!

Here is more vindication for those of us who warned that considering homosexual behavior to be a civil right would be a slippery slope that would lead to calls for legal recognition of other aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., sexual relations other than between one man and one woman in marriage). Critics accused us of using fear tactics when we asked what would prevent polygamists from making the case that their civil rights were being violated. Homosexual activists dismissed those claims as the rantings of "homophobes". However, we are now seeing polygamists pushing for their "civil rights" based on the gains made by homosexuals.

Now comes something even more insidious that I have also been warning people about. Once we normalize homosexuality, where do you draw the line? Homosexual acitivists who try to shoot down arguments against same-sex "marriage" will say that the line should be drawn by limiting it to two people who are in love and want to share their lives together. OK, let's run with that. But now we have a case of a incestuous relationship. A brother and sister are living in a sexual relationship and have borne children. Chuck Colson reports on this case in his column today, entitled Saw This One Coming.

When the German government found 0ut about the relationship, they took away three of the couple's four children, and jailed the father/brother/husband for incest. Now, the couple is challenging the law in Germany's Federal Constitutional Court. Some of the arguments the couple is making sound eerily familiar:

"this law is out of date, and it breaches the couple's civil rights"

"couple [is] not harming anyone"

the ban "is discrimination"

"Why are disabled parents" or "people with hereditary diseases [and] women over 40" allowed to have children? (this in response to the argument that incest produces children at a higher risk to be born with a disability)

Do you recognize any of those arguments? They have all been made in the push for same-sex "marriage" in this country. The homosexual equivalent to the last argument is how they respond when it is held that one reason for marriage being only between one man and one woman is because that union can produce children, while same-sex "marriage" will not. They will ask, "If that is the case, then why are opposite-sex couples allowed to marry who, for whatever reason, will never be able to have kids?"

How will the homosexual activists respond to a couple who says it is their civil right to have an incestuous relationship? How can they say incest (or polygamy, or anything else for that matter) is wrong? Will they affirm family members being married to one another, or will they further try to refine the definition of marriage, but not so narrowly that it excludes them?

This is happening in Germany now, but we are fooling ourselves if we think it won't eventually come to our shores, especially when the US Supreme Court relies on laws and decisions in foreign countries to arrive at their decision.

This is just one more reason why you should contact your legislator and ask them to vote against adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to Iowa's civil rights code.

No comments: