Normalizing Incest and Other Perversions: It’s Already Happening

Or their goats? Or their dead friends?

By William M Briggs Published on July 7, 2017

Now you might think that 19-year-old Natasha had sex, “sex [that] was intense in a way that no other sex has been,” with her father because she was lacking a father figure in her life.

Not so.

“My mom’s long-term partner was a patriarchal butch lesbian, so I already had a ‘father figure’ in my immediate family,” she said.

Surprisingly, this “patriarchal butch lesbian” father figure was abusive, so Natasha went in search of her actual father, who she discovered and then bedded in Jamaica.

Cosmopolitan UK gives us the dry, clinical name for Natasha’s behavior: Genetic Sexual Attraction.

It can’t be long until we hear, “Don’t worry. It isn’t incest, it’s GSA. And I was born this way.”

Sooner than you think. The magazine says GSA is a “real topic of discussion at the moment, with numerous stories of long-lost family members who reunited only to discover an intense sexual attraction, being bandied about all over the place.”

In a separate (and vivid) article about another woman having sex with her father, the magazine tells us GSA was “coined by a woman called Barbara Gonyo years ago, when she felt an overwhelming sense of sexual desire after being reunited with her birth son, Mitch, who was adopted as a baby.”

England’s Telegraph says, “Disgusted by incest? Genetic Sexual Attraction is real and on the rise.” In that article is a large picture with the words “I’m in love with my son and I want to have his baby.”

The blog Full Marriage Equality tells those experiencing GSA, “You are not alone,” and, “You are not crazy or wrong for having these feelings.” Why? Because “there is no good reason why adults should feel a need to refrain from being together in whatever way they want.”

Folks in this category are calling themselves “The GSA Community.” And there is (of course) an online discussion group.

Disorientations

Besides homosexuality, pedophilia, and objectum sexuality, GSA is only one of the new sexual “orientations” with which we are becoming familiar.

An ever more frequent argument is to call somebody “transphobic” if they would reject sex with somebody suffering gender dysphhoria. Having a “genital preference” is frowned upon. The NY Post summarizes the current debate with the rhetorical question, “Can attraction be taught, or mandated by cultural enforcers?”

Bestiality

Zoophilia (bestiality) is now not uncommon. A headline in Britain’s The Sun: “Sick revellers at Oxford toff bash ‘romped with a goat’ during debauched uni party.” “The grotesque act was said to have happened at the secret summer ball organised by the Piers Gaveston Society last month.” We are informed “Piers Gaveston was founded in 1977 and named after the rumoured gay lover of Edward II. Its past members include movie actor Hugh Grant.”

A writer at Salon muses, “For all I know, zoophiles are some of the most psychologically healthy people in the world.” In another Salon piece, “A legal defense of donkey sex,” the writer asks, “A man accused of feeling up a farm animal argues an anti-bestiality law is unconstitutional. Does he have a point?”

Incidentally, bestiality is legal in several countries. Like Canada, “so long as there is no penetration involved, according to a surprise ruling issued by the Supreme Court.”

Necrophilia

Perhaps worst are the writers who ask, “Is Necrophilia Wrong?” Big Think asked. They claim the arguments of those who say “Yes” are “merely circular, theological pap.”

A self-declared mortician at The Thinking Atheist agrees. He says “religion cannot be used to justify current laws regarding necrophilia.” Besides, “Necrophilia poses no great risk to ones health.”

Vice (of course) gives a loving, and perhaps even approving, portrait of the phenomenon. Vice also gave us the article (which I won’t link to), “This Is What It’s Actually Like at One of London’s [Urination] Dungeon Orgies.”

We know where this is going: the legalization and official approval of any kind of sexual activity, anywhere, for any reason. To achieve perfect “freedom” and “equality,” we must be allowed to rut like animals whenever the mood strikes. God help us.

 

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • ImaginaryDomain

    Like we didn’t see this coming….sexual perversion is an addiction disease, and like heroin it doesn’t take long before you’re always looking for the next, better “high”.

    • ImaginaryDomain

      And as a follow up to anyone who might think this wasn’t planned…
      In their own words, central demands put forth by homosexual activists in their “1972 Gay Rights Platform”:
      “Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent.”
      “Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”

      • John Connor

        It’s funny that you all fall for any and all conspiracies on the web. The authenticity of this document isn’t even verifiable and is only quoted by religious organizations. Sad try at best.

        • ImaginaryDomain

          Oh my friend you are so deceived. Here’s the source: Kirk, Marshall; Madsen, Hunter (1989). After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s. Plume. ISBN 978-0452264984.

          • John Connor

            Satire my uneducated friend

          • ImaginaryDomain

            Nice try. The Kirk and Madsen cite ain’t satire, but a blueprint of how the “gay” will be forced upon all of us until accepted by most. And even if the Michael Swift post is satire, it’s iconic of the depravity of the “gay” lifestyle to even think such things to write.

          • Dover Beach

            NAMBLA and Pedophile information Exchange were not satirical organisations. And the latter was affiliated to a mainstream ‘civil liberties’ organisation in the UK.

          • swordfish

            That reminds me of another organisation with a history of covering up child abuse. Hmm, can’t quite remember it’s name offhand. It’ll come to me.

        • ImaginaryDomain

          Here’s another source:

          By Michael Swift, “Gay Revolutionary.” Reprinted from The Congressional Record of the United States Congress. First printed in Gay Community News, February 15-21 1987
          “We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and
          vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your
          locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater
          bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of
          Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our
          bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us….

  • KC

    As soon as some sin is pronounced good – all sin becomes available to call good.

    • ImaginaryDomain

      Yep…
      Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
      light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for
      bitter. (Isaiah 5:20)

      • swordfish

        Homosexuality and same-sex marriage predate Christianity. It is Christianity which has shamefully labelled a normal human behaviour as a sin.

        • ImaginaryDomain

          Uhhh, where to start. Isaiah is an Old Testament book, predating Christianity. Homosexuality was shamed long before Christians came on the scene, so I don’t understand your post.

          But in any event, homosexuality is not normal. It’s pathological narcissism.

          • swordfish

            Where to start with you, Mr. Imaginary? (a good name for a religious believer) I’m not talking about Isaiah. Homosexuality was accepted in many cultures in antiquity. Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of animal species so it’s certainly normal (we are animals) and likely has a genetic basis. Unless having their ‘thinking’ warped by religion, most people simply accept this and move on.

          • Dover Beach

            Oh, because something is observed in other animal species it is thus ‘normal’ for human beings? Would you really want to apply this given some of the behavior observed in other animal species? Strangely, I never see this argument deployed in defense of step-fathers who kill their wife’s children. But, Your Honor, this is ‘normal’ in several animal species! That may be because the argument is nonsense on stilts.

          • swordfish

            I don’t think killing step-offspring is “normal” animal behaviour. Homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of animal species but I don’t think step-offspring killing has. In any case, you’re being willfully obtuse to score points. To most people, describing something as “normal” doesn’t imply “like every behaviour”. Or would you describe murder as “normal”?

            Incidentally, god massacres millions of children in the Bible.

          • Dover Beach

            Not at all. You are desperately trying to resuscitate your silly argument. Firstly, the killing of existing children or children that appear very briefly after mating, IS commonly observed in many animals species including primates, lions, mice, insects, fish, and so on. Secondly, but that isn’t how I use ‘normal’, it was how you used it above. You argued that homosexuality was ‘normal’ because it was observed in other animal species. I demonstrated the silliness of your usage via a reductio. By normal, you meant to imply moral. Now, it appears, you didn’t. Make your mind up.

          • swordfish

            Let’s refer to my original comment:

            I was responding to this:

            “But in any event, homosexuality is not normal. It’s pathological narcissism.”

            By writing this:

            “Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of animal species so it’s certainly normal (we are animals) and likely has a genetic basis. Unless having their ‘thinking’ warped by religion, most people simply accept this and move on.”

            To me, that means what it says: normal. It doesn’t mean ‘normal = moral’. My position on homosexuality is that it is simply a neutral fact of life. It’s an obviously completely different thing to killing step-children.

          • Dover Beach

            You really can’t explain how it is different. If both are observed in nature why is the former ‘neutral’ but the latter not? What does neutral even mean in this context? You are begging the question by smuggling in morality under the term, ‘neutral’.

          • swordfish

            I see your point. However, you do not see mine. The assertion that homosexuality is normal is supported by the evidence that it is widely observed in nature, and the meaning of ‘normal’ is taken to be the normal(!) one.

            I didn’t argue that homosexuality is moral because other animals do it, I stated that it is normal because other animals do it. (Incidentally, from a pure numbers point of view, I still think that observations of homosexuality greatly outnumber those of step-offspring killings.)

            “All we need to do is apply the standards that assign moral, immoral, or non-moral (neutral) to human conduct, without needing any reference to what other species of animal actually do.”

            If you’re judging morality, then yes, if you’re judging normality, then no. I judge the morality of this very simply: Do both partners give their informed consent and is no one else hurt? If the answer is yes, it’s okay.

            ‘It doesn’t matter what you do in the bedroom as long as you don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses.’ Daphne Fielding.

          • Dover Beach

            Not at all. Firstly, what other species do is irrelevant so far as the human species is concerned. And that is conceding the ridiculous claim that other species engage in ‘homosexuality’. Secondly, the claim that what is ‘normal’ can simply be inferred from what is observed occasionally is absurd and that is conceding the broad interpretation that is given to observations of ‘homosexuality’. For instance, the Wiki entry on this suggests that such observations of ‘homosexuality’ in animal species is inferred from “sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs.” This is plainly absurd. Thirdly, why should ‘consent’ or ‘harm’ matter given what you’ve argued so far. Either can only be important so far as they aid social cooperation. If either hinders our ‘evolutionary advantage’ than they are morally irrelevant. Further, ‘consent and ‘harm’ seem to apply external absolute limits’ on behavior; the sort of limits you’ve elsewhere disavowed.

            It’s abundantly clear that you need to think much more carefully about your own position before criticizing the position of others.

        • Dover Beach

          Same-sex ‘marriage’ predates Christianity? LOL.

          • swordfish

            ‘LOL’ Good argument. Try reading some history.

          • Dover Beach

            I have read history. You made a bald assertion without any reference. I responded in the only way fitting in the cirucmstances.

          • swordfish

            Fine. Now read some history. Start with ancient Egypt.

          • Dover Beach

            Still no actual reference. This is instructive.

  • Gary

    If you read who God told Moses to kill, you will find it is the same people this article is talking about. Plus homosexuals and adulterers.

  • Robert Hightower

    This proves God’s word is true. For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, will multiply teachers for themselves because they have an itch to hear something new. 2 Tim 4:3

  • AvgJoe

    That slippery slope seems to have no bottom

    • GLT

      There is definitely a bottom and it will come with a tremendous thud.

    • Paul

      The bottom is called hell

  • Charles Burge

    I’ve argued for a long time that if you accept sodomy as OK, there’s absolutely no reason not to accept incest as well. LGBT activist seem to recoil at this, but it just exposes their hypocrisy.

    • Hrodgar

      Folks said the same about contraception excusing sodomy; didn’t convince anybody then, either, and look where we’re at now.

  • Patmos

    These people are ill equipped to fight the battle that is not against flesh and blood, it’s why you see them descend so low.

    “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
    Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

  • Jim Walker

    The lgbtq “success” open doors to all the rest of use the same way to gain(force) “acceptance”.

  • Gary

    Those who accept homosexuality have rejected morality. Once morality is rejected, there is no longer a reason to oppose any sexual behavior.

    • swordfish

      Your comment makes no sense. What exactly is wrong with two consenting adults of the same gender having sex in the privacy of their own bedroom? How is an act which harms no one and which happens in private a rejection of morality? Why would acceptance of one sexual behaviour automatically lead to the acceptance of *all* sexual behaviour?

      • Alice Cheshire

        Because that’s how people work. Remove one line, then another, then another. First homosexuality, then polygamy, then incest, etc. You can argue all you want, but it is how people work.

        • swordfish

          Homosexuality, incest and every type of sexual behaviour have existed for as long as people have existed. There is no evidence that behaviour in general has become worse – judging by the Bible, it’s improved out of all recognition.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            1. What ?
            2. So also has rape, pedophilia –
            Are you saying there is no sexual immorality ?
            3. What improved?

          • swordfish

            1. ?

            2. If sexual behaviour is carried out with the informed consent of those involved (so not rape, paedophilia or necrophilia) then yes, I’m saying that it isn’t immoral.

            3. We no longer stone women to death for adultery, for a start off.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            2. How ? By what standard? How do state what morality is/ are or what is moral, by what objective standard?
            (Also considering the fact the rape, pedophilia and possibly necrophilia have also long existed) how can you this or anything is moral or immoral?
            3. You seem to lack the understanding of Christian theology to know Christians are not needed to conduct this 2. The practice was done under Israelite theocracy 3. The practice applied to men and women.

          • swordfish

            2. Why would there need to be an objective standard for morality? We are social animals and have evolved to depend on each other for our survival – we use empathy to imagine how others are affected by our actions and judge our behaviour (and that of others) accordingly.

            3. I don’t need to understand anything about Christian theology to say that our standards of morality have improved since biblical times. Our attitude to slavery is another example, as is our treatment of homosexuals.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            2. Again my point still stands, why then ? How then, can you state something is morally wrong ? By what state this and can state anything is right or wrong ?
            If by evolution we have also depended on things like survival of the fittest which have trumped things to ensure our survival as well as over things for our superiority . By “we use empathy to imagine others..” yes but how ?
            How then do you or do we know what is morally right or wrong ? How do we find an objective standard? How do we trust our empathy and know that our empathy is morally right ?
            Please note we can use our empathy for the wrong .
            Please not we are emotional beings as well however we can use how emotions for the wrong and wrong as well.

            3. “I don’t need to understand anything about Christian theology to say that our standards of morality have improved since biblical times. ”
            How and when ?again what Standard?
            (Yet you also make blunt statements of Christian theology but yet claim now you don’t need to understand it)
            “Our attitude to slavery is another example, ”
            Our attitudes to slavery was wrong to begin with. For the bible did not teach slavery. By the way the abolitionists did not base thier cases against slavery on
            “that our standards of morality have improved since biblical times” statement. They based it on the case that there was an objective moral standard and the natural law as well as the fact that slavery and slave holders were theological wrong.

            “as is our treatment of homosexuals”
            Again how ? And why ?

          • swordfish

            2. I’m saying there is no objective moral standard. We behave decently to others on the whole because we’re a social species who depend on each other for survival. BTW, evolution isn’t “survival of the fittest”.

            3. Common sense. I’m not making a theological statement about the Bible, I’m using it as a historical reference and pointing out that things like slavery were commonplace but have now been outlawed. Your point that slavery was abolished by Christians is self-defeating – how did they decide slavery was wrong if the Bible doesn’t say so? Maybe they used common sense or empathy?

            Incidentally, how did god decide on his moral standards? According to you, he can’t have used reasoning, so his standards must be completely arbitrary.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            “2. I’m saying there is no objective moral standard. We behave decently to others on the whole because we’re a social species who depend on each other for survival.
            BTW, evolution isn’t “survival of the fittest”.”
            1. How then do you decide what is good ? Who decides what is morally right ? Especially without this becoming subjective?
            2. Evolution is on the means of survival of the fittest.

            “3. Common sense. ”
            How ? What common sense ?

            “I’m not making a theological statement about the Bible,”
            But you did earlier

            “I’m using it as a historical reference and pointing out that things like slavery were commonplace but have now been outlawed. Your point that slavery was abolished by Christians is self-defeating – how did they decide slavery was wrong if the Bible doesn’t say so? Maybe they used common sense or empathy?”
            1. How is my point about Christians abolishing slavery self – defeating ?
            2. What common sense ? This phrase is a bit vague!
            And empathy can done to the wrong.
            3. Perhaps theses books;
            https://www(dot)cambridge(dot)org/core/books/an-essay-on-the-treatment-and-conversion-of-african-slaves-in-the-british-sugar-colonies/E9A4A6A3933D924F435B0B8D4A417E8D

            The Civil war as a Theological crisis, by Mark Noll

            (While not saying they did use both empathy and emotions, they justified both by) They based thier reasoning on the fact; 1. Biblically they were going against Christ and commandments. They used a bad understanding of Christian theology as well as many tried to justify their means on various factors like bad biblical exigete and other historicity, social, pseudo-science etc. Secondly they based much of moral as well theologically on there being an objective standard and the nature law by which they used the means and as where to justify.

          • swordfish

            2. Morality *is* subjective, that is the whole point. We know how it feels when we are harmed by others so try and avoid doing the same. This is very simple stuff.

            3. Christians abolishing slavery is self-defeating to your argument because you think moral standards come from god, but god is okay with slavery. The people who campaigned against it used their own subjective judgement to decide that it was wrong. Again, this is very simple stuff.

            I note that you have no answer to my point that god’s moral standards must be 100 % arbitrary.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            “2. Morality *is* subjective, that is the whole point. We know how it feels when we are harmed by others so try and avoid doing the same. This is very simple stuff.”
            1. How is this simple stuff, when decofiring morality ?
            2. If morality is subjective then what makes your morality better than someone else’s, who may disagree ? If morality is subjective then why should I follow your morality ? How is there anything truly immoral then ?
            3. “We know how it feels when we are harmed by others so try and avoid doing the same.” why ? Why is that wrong to harm somebody? Why is it immoral? What happens if someone disagrees?

            3. 1. How is Christians abolishing slavery self-defeating because they believe morality comes from God ?
            2. When was/is God okay with slavery?
            3. The abolitionists did not base thier arguments against slavery on subjective judgements they actually based it thier judgements on; Christian theological and biblical understanding and reasoning, they also based it on that this was ungodly and unjust, they based it there the”natural law” and there being absolute moral standard.

            For your last statement I did not answer as I was only strictly answering 2 and 3.

          • swordfish

            2. You keep repeating questions that I’ve already answered and ask *eight* separate questions here! I’ll just say that because something is subjective doesn’t mean it’s completely fluid – most people would agree that Star Wars V is better than Star Wars I. As for “why is it wrong to harm somebody”, the answers to these sorts of questions are obvious to those not confused by religion. Ask a child.

            3.1 Already answered.
            3.2 Deuteronomy 20:10-14, for a start – also condones rape.
            3.3 I think you’ll find that ‘judgement’ is subjective.

          • Dover Beach

            You obviously don’t understand the implication of ‘subjective’ with respect to morality. If morality is subjective, it cannot be wrong per se to harm somebody; it can only be” X or Y feels that it is wrong”, where ‘wrong’ is simply the expression of a feeling.

            “We behave decently”.
            Utterly meaningless if subjective. ‘Decent’ sets a standard by which this or that conduct is to be measured; this is impossible to do if merely subjective.

            “2. If sexual behaviour is carried out with the informed consent of those involved (so not rape, paedophilia or necrophilia) then yes, I’m saying that it isn’t immoral.”
            You’re arguing that morality is subjective and yet setting objective standards that excludes conduct that lacks consent. Incoherent. At best, if morality is subjective all you are saying is that you feel conduct without consent is wrong. So what? Why should anyone else care. It’s like telling someone you like chocolate ice cream.

            “What exactly is wrong with two consenting adults of the same gender having sex in the privacy of their own bedroom? How is an act which harms no one and which happens in private a rejection of morality?”
            Well, What exactly is wrong with one consenting adult [and a dog] having sex in the privacy of her own bedroom? How is an act which harms no one and which happens in private a rejection of morality? You could have no objection to the above given what you’ve said.

          • swordfish

            (My numbers refer to your sections.)

            1. I *do* understand what the implications of morality being subjective are and I agree with your sentence outling one of said implications.

            2. Subjective doesn’t mean ‘completely arbitrary’ or ‘meaningless’. I’ve no idea where you get this idea from. To take my Star Wars example, there are no absolute standards by which to judge movies but I’m still pretty sure 95+ % of people would agree that Star Wars V is superior to Star Wars I.

            3. Your example would fail my subjective standards because an animal cannot give informed consent.

          • swordfish

            “This would be like saying that imprisoning someone guilty of falsely imprisoning an innocent human being is a contradiction.”

            No it wouldn’t! That’s a totally false analogy. Thou shalt not kill is supposed to be an absolute moral standard according to your own assertion; it quite blatantly does contradict condoning capital punishment.

          • Dover Beach

            It isn’t false at all. The analogy is perfectly apt. Further, the commandment does not prohibit killing per se, but killing the innocent; that is, murder. Which is obvious to anyone reading this text in the context of the Pentateuch. Moreover, there is nothing contradictory in reading the text in such a way and in holding it as an absolute standard. The contradiction only arises when it is wrongly interpreted as a blanket prohibition that applies even in instances when it may be warranted in self-defense, or as due punishment.

          • Dover Beach

            No, the analogy is perfectly apt. And the commandment is an absolute standard, it prohibits the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. It does not prohibit self-defense nor due punishment, which is obvious when read in the context of the Pentateuch.

          • swordfish

            You didn’t reply to my previous comment. I’m disapponted.

          • Dover Beach

            Yes, I did, but because it has a link it’s currently in moderation. Never speak from ignorance.

          • swordfish

            I haven’t posted any comments with links. I mean the comment 4 above this one. BTW, I’m not really disappointed.

          • Dover Beach

            Seriously, where do I say you posted a comment with links? I aid I did. Anyway, it’s been 2 days pending so I’ll just post it without the link:
            Not at all, I’m not shifting any burden. I’m simply arguing that you plainly have no idea what ‘subjective’ implies with respect to morality, or to truth for that matter, which is particularly manifest in your latest reply. All that people could be ‘agreeing’ to is their preferences, nothing more. “Oh, you like chocolate ice cream, so do I.” So what? How can a mere preference give rise to an obligation? How could someone’s preference for, say, free inquiry, oblige anyone else, morally, if it is only a subjective preference? It cannot. Paul Boghossian has a good podcast on moral relativism at Philosophy Bites.

          • swordfish

            (You’re right about that ‘comment with a link’ – I misread your comment.)

            You have to establish that there is an objective morality coming from god. You can’t do it because there’s no evidence that god exists, and no unambiguous absolute moral position described in the Bible anyway. (Example: slavery is condoned)

            It’s getting really boring having you constantly tell me that I don’t understand what subjective morality implies, when that’s obviously not the case. Subjective morality means that because I subjectively don’t want to die, I assume that others feel the same way so I infer that murder would be wrong. Incidentally, even if I assumed it *wasn’t* wrong to kill other people, I still wouldn’t be doing so because I have no reason to in the first place and I wouldn’t want to go to prison in the second place.

            Regarding religious morality:

            1. What moral actions are never carried out by atheists?

            2. What immoral actions are only carried out by religious believers?

            There are very many more answers to question 2 than question 1.

          • Dover Beach

            Firstly, I don’t have to do any such thing since I’ve no where in this argument made such an assertion and the request is a distraction.
            Secondly, it may be getting boring, but it is nonetheless true given what you’ve said and continue to say . Subjective morality is incoherent. You cannot move from a feeling about X to a X is wrong. If you don’t like chocolate ice cream it cannot be ‘wrong’ for others to like chocolate ice cream. So, if what you said is true, the use of ‘wrong’ is superfluous, it couldn’t be ‘wrong’ to murder other people, all you could be saying is, I don’t like killing other people. To which some who does like killing other people could simply reply, That’s nice.

          • swordfish

            You do have to establish that there’s an absolute morality otherwise you’re stuck with a subjective one by default, in the same way that you have to prove the existence of god otherwise there isn’t a god by default.

            Your objection reduces to “morality can’t be subjective or it would have to be decided subjectively”, which is a pointless thing to say. I *KNOW* it’s subjective, (how many times!) that’s the whole point! You say that someone could disagree about murder being wrong and I agree that that’s true – people disagree about things, get over it! Christians can’t agree on what god’s absolute morality consists of either. (Although that’s for partly different reasons.)

            In any case, the existence of disagreement is a red herring because the overwhelming majority of people agree that (for example) murder is wrong, so we can make laws and establish an ethical moral framework.

            Incidentally, you don’t seem to have taken the implications of absolute morality onboard. God’s absolute morality *cannot* be based on evidence or reasoning, so must be completely arbitrary. As I asked someone above, if god changed his mind and announced that murder is okay, what would you do then?

          • Dover Beach

            Firstly, not at all. I have already shown that so-called ‘subjective’ morality is absurd. Further, it is absurd to imagine that so-called subjective morality was the default if one could not establish objective (the proper qualifier in this circumstance, not absolute) morality; it could just be that morality, properly understood, just did not exist.

            Secondly, no, my objection does not reduce to that. We do not ‘decide’ our likes or dislikes, that is the point; they are simply our preferences. Your error is to imagine that we can ‘disagree’ about our preferences; no, we cannot, they are simply our preferences. That you persist in using words like ‘decide’, ‘wrong’, ‘disagree’ when talking about preferences is more evidence that you don’t understand the implications of subjectivity to morality.

            Thirdly, no, my point has nothing to do with ‘disagreement’ presenting a problem for subjectivity. The problem is that preferences cannot give rise to obligations. You cannot get from ‘I dislike murder’ to ‘Murder is wrong’ no matter the numbers. Your framework doesn’t rise to an ethical or moral framework. All it would be is a framework of subjective preferences that could be no more obligatory than people’s tastes in food or clothing.

            Fourthly, no, again. Absolute morality can certainly be based on reason and experience.

          • swordfish

            You say it’s not possible to subjectively decide anything. I’m sorry, but I do that every day and so does every person on the planet. End of.

            You finish by claiming that abolute morality “can certainly be based on reason and experience”.

            Experience is subjective by definition, but that aside, if your claim is true, then we don’t need god because we can use ‘reason and experience’ ourselves. I fact, that’s exactly what we actually do. Have you never heard of ethics?

            I say again that god’s absolute morality *CANNOT* be based on reason, experience, or anything else, otherwise it isn’t ‘absolute’.

          • Dover Beach

            “You say it’s not possible to subjectively decide anything. I’m sorry, but I do that every day and so does every person on the planet. End of.”

            Is that your counter-argument? No, no, it will not do. What people do every day is, say, prefer, not ‘subjectively’ choose, butter pecan to rocky road ice cream o the like, according to their inclination. But they cannot be ‘wrong’ in choosing the former over the latter. And such a choice is hardly a matter of practical deliberation.

            “You finish by claiming that abolute morality ‘can certainly be based on reason and experience’.
            Experience is subjective by definition, but that aside, if your claim is true, then we don’t need god because we can use ‘reason and experience’ ourselves. I fact, that’s exactly what we actually do. Have you never heard of ethics?”
            Firstly, sure, there is an element of subjectivity in individual experience, but I never said individual experience alone or even experience alone, but reason AND experience. Secondly, it isn’t that we need God in order to understand what is good or what is evil, but that good and evil are ultimately inexplicable without God understood as Ipsum Esse Subsistens.

          • swordfish

            I’ll just say that god can’t base his morality (or anything else, for that matter) on reasons or evidence outside himself.

            You can’t have it both ways round. Either god’s absolute morality is based on reasons and experience (I would have thought ‘evidence’ a better term?), in which case we can arrive at the same morality without god; or it isn’t, in which case it’s arbitrary.

            “Secondly, it isn’t that we need God in order to understand what is good or evil,”

            Just as well!

            “…but that good and evil are ultimately inexplicable without God understood as Ipsum Esse Subsistens.”

            Why?

            “And, thirdly, this is only beside the point because I’ve not raised God at all in this regard.”

            You can thank me for invoking your insubstantial friend.

          • Dover Beach

            Before responding to the above I’ll just note that you are no longer defending the claim that it is intelligible to use the term ‘wrong’ if morality is subjective.

            “I’ll just say that god can’t base his morality (or anything else, for that matter) on reasons or evidence outside himself.

            You can’t have it both ways round. Either god’s absolute morality is based on reasons and experience (I would have thought ‘evidence’ a better term?), in which case we can arrive at the same morality without god; or it isn’t, in which case it’s arbitrary.”

            This doesn’t follow at all. It is we, not God, that use our reason and experience to discern what is good and what is evil. It is God that has created a world in which such discernment is possible. There is simply no reason why (i) being able to discern morality as a feature of the world, also means (ii) that God is superfluous.

            “Why?”
            Reflect on (i). An aid to reflection: Feser’s post, Does morality depend on God? (Updated)

          • swordfish

            “It is God that has created a world in which such discernment is possible. There is simply no reason why (i) being able to discern morality as a feature of the world, also means (ii) that God is superfluous.”

            There is no evidence god exists – let’s not lose sight of the big picture! Having said that, you haven’t refuted my point at all. Your claim is that there is an absolute moral standard coming from god – how does he arrive at that standard?

            Regarding (i), morality is simply a result of us being a species of animal who have evolved to rely on social co-operation to increase our chances of survival. I’m not sure what sort of world you envisage where it’d be impossible to discern morality. (Other than trivial examples like worlds with no sentient life.)

            Regarding (ii), god is superflous – is the only thing you’ve said so far that I agree with.

            Regarding your link to Feser: no thanks.

          • Dover Beach

            “There is no evidence god exists – let’s not lose sight of the big picture! Having said that, you haven’t refuted my point at all. Your claim is that there is an absolute moral standard coming from god – how does he arrive at that standard?”

            There is indeed evidence that God exists, but that is beside the point. My original claim was that moral subjectivism was self-refuting. This I established, which is why you chose to move on to another claim, which I never made, but which nevertheless exemplifies confusion about the position you are attacking.

            “Regarding (i), morality is simply a result of us being a species of animal who have evolved to rely on social co-operation to increase our chances of survival. I’m not sure what sort of world you envisage where it’d be impossible to discern morality. (Other than trivial examples like worlds with no sentient life.)”

            Social cooperation isn’t morality by any measure since social co-operation is merely a practical, not a moral, concern. Choosing to enforce a law on the left or right hand side of the road is a measure that enhances social co-operation, but no one imagines that this is a moral matter. However, conduct can be immoral even if it does facilitate social cooperation. To use that oft-repeated example, sacrificing an innocent person in order to assuage a blood-thirsty mob may promote social order, but it is nevertheless immoral. Still, I don’t really think you’ve thought this claim through because you be otherwise stuck defending all manner of social cooperation that has existed in the past as moral. You could certainly have no reason to call it immoral.

            Focus, McFly. Focus!

          • Dover Beach

            Firstly, there is indeed evidence that God exists, but that is beside the point. My original claim was that moral subjectivism was self-refuting. This I established, which is why you chose to move on to another claim, which I never made, but which nevertheless exemplifies confusion about the position you are attacking.

            Secondly, social cooperation isn’t morality by any measure since social co-operation is merely a practical, not a moral, concern. Choosing to enforce a law on the left or right hand side of the road is a measure that enhances social co-operation, but no one imagines that this is a moral matter. However, conduct can be immoral even if it does facilitate social cooperation. To use that oft-repeated example, sacrificing an innocent person in order to assuage a blood-thirsty mob may promote social order, but it is nevertheless immoral. Still, I don’t really think you’ve thought this claim through because you would be otherwise stuck defending all manner of social cooperation that has existed in the past as moral. You could certainly have no reason to call it immoral.

            Focus, swordfish. Focus!

          • swordfish

            “Firstly, there is indeed evidence that God exists, but that is beside the point.”

            There isn’t any evidence that god exists, but it’s interesting that you now admit god is irrelevant to morality.

            “My original claim was that moral subjectivism was self-refuting. This I established, which is why you chose to move on to another claim, which I never made, but which nevertheless exemplifies confusion about the position you are attacking.”

            Please. You haven’t established any such thing. I chose to move on because you kept repeating the same pointless argument: I say: X is wrong because I subjectively think so. You reply: How do you objectively know? – How is that a refutation? It’s actually a non-sequitur. I’m not claiming to objectively know something, I’m specifically saying my opinion is f*cking subjective!

            If you want to try again, I’ll give you the floor: Why is subjective morality self-refuting?

            “Secondly, social cooperation isn’t morality by any measure since social co-operation is merely a practical, not a moral, concern.”

            I’m arguing that moral ideas are derived from behaviour which has given us an evolutionary advantage, specifically co-operation. In fact, the only point to morality is that we actually do interact with each other – if we were a solitary species, it wouldn’t matter.

            “Further, conduct can be immoral even if it does facilitate social cooperation. To use that oft-repeated example, sacrificing an innocent person in order to assuage a blood-thirsty mob may promote social order, but it is nevertheless immoral.”

            1. Immoral according to what standard? You’re just assuming there’s an external absolute standard again.

            2. Social order isn’t the same thing as social co-operation. Only a religious believer would equate an angry mob with social co-operation! (To be fair, angry mobs seem to be common amongst religious communities, as is worse behaviour in general, at least according to crime statistics.)

            The example you give would result in a death which would be less optimal from an evolutionary perspective than an alternative example where actual co-operation results in no deaths, so the ‘no deaths’ scenario would be more likely to win out.

            3. Evolution isn’t perfect. Neither is human behaviour. So what?

          • Dover Beach

            “There isn’t any evidence that god exists, but it’s interesting that you now admit god is irrelevant to morality.”

            There is indeed evidence, and no, I’m not admitting God is irrelevant to morality. What I’m admitting is that we can discern certain moral truths without God’s assistance, but these moral truths nevertheless have their source in God.

            “Please. You haven’t established any such thing. I chose to move on because you kept repeating the same pointless argument: I say: X is wrong because I subjectively think so. You reply: How do you objectively know? – How is that a refutation? It’s actually a non-sequitur. I’m not claiming to objectively know something, I’m specifically saying my opinion is f*cking subjective!

            If you want to try again, I’ll give you the floor: Why is subjective morality self-refuting?”

            No, I did establish it, and your response above further establishes your confusion. Preferences never rise to the quality of being wrong. It cannot be ‘wrong’ to like chocolate ice cream. Likewise, if we were simply stating a subjective preference with respect to this or that moral claim, “I do not like murder” , such a claim can never rise to ‘Murder is wrong’. To say something is ‘wrong’ is to make an objective claim, it isn’t the statement of a preference. So, it’s not a question about how could you possibly know if X is wrong, its that the subjective claim, ‘I do not like murder’ is not an objective claim at all. Again, go and listen to Paul Boghossian’s short podcast on this at Philosophy Bites.

            “I’m arguing that moral ideas are derived from behaviour which has given us an evolutionary advantage, specifically co-operation. In fact, the only point to morality is that we actually do interact with each other – if we were a solitary species, it wouldn’t matter.”

            No, moral ideas are “not derived from behaviour which have given us an evolutionary advantage”.
            The later is situational, the former are not. If you’re arguing that, no, the former are situational as well, then morality simply collapses and is nothing more than what we think is social advantageous under this or that circumstance.

            “1. Immoral according to what standard? You’re just assuming there’s an external absolute standard again.”

            Immoral according to the principle that deliberately killing an innocent person is morally wrong.

            “2. Social order isn’t the same thing as social co-operation. Only a religious believer would equate an angry mob with social co-operation! (To be fair, angry mobs seem to be common amongst religious communities, as is worse behaviour in general, at least according to crime statistics.)”

            Social cooperation aids social order. I’m not equating the mob to either. I’m suggesting that your claim that whatever aids social cooperation is good is exposed by this example because the sacrifice does assuage the mob, and they return to their homes, and social peace is restored.

            “The example you give would result in a death which would be less optimal from an evolutionary perspective than an alternative example where actual co-operation results in no deaths, so the ‘no deaths’ scenario would be more likely to win out.”

            You seem desperate to know concoct an excuse. The mob were ready to riot. Such a riot would have likely resulted in more than one death, so the sacrifice of an innocent would have be optimal by your own lights.

            “3. Evolution isn’t perfect. Neither is human behaviour. So what?”
            LOL.

          • Dover Beach

            In order of your reply:
            There is indeed evidence, and no, I’m not admitting God is irrelevant to morality. What I’m admitting is that we can discern certain moral truths without God’s assistance, but these moral truths nevertheless have their source in God.

            No, I did establish it, and your response above further establishes your confusion. Preferences never rise to the quality of being wrong. It cannot be ‘wrong’ to like chocolate ice cream. Likewise, if we were simply stating a subjective preference with respect to this or that moral claim, “I do not like murder” , such a claim can never rise to ‘Murder is wrong’. To say something is ‘wrong’ is to make an objective claim, it isn’t the statement of a preference. So, it’s not a question about how could you possibly know if X is wrong, its that the subjective claim, ‘I do not like murder’ is not an objective claim at all. Again, go and listen to Paul Boghossian’s short podcast on this at Philosophy Bites.

            No, moral ideas are “not derived from behaviour which have given us an evolutionary advantage”.
            The later is situational, the former are not. If you’re arguing that, no, the former are situational as well, then morality simply collapses and is nothing more than what we think is social advantageous under this or that circumstance.

            Immoral according to the principle that deliberately killing an innocent person is morally wrong.

            Social cooperation aids social order. I’m not equating the mob to either. I’m suggesting that your claim that whatever aids social cooperation is good is exposed by this example because the sacrifice does assuage the mob, and they return to their homes, and social peace is restored.

            You seem desperate to now concoct an excuse. The mob were ready to riot. Such a riot would have likely resulted in more than one death, so the sacrifice of an innocent would have be optimal by your own lights.

          • swordfish

            Okay, this has gone on far too seriously long enough by half (as someone once said). Time to minify.

            “What I’m admitting is that we can discern certain moral truths without God’s assistance…”

            Good.

            “If you’re arguing that, no, the former are situational as well, then morality simply collapses and is nothing more than what we think is social advantageous under this or that circumstance.”

            Close enough.

            “I’m suggesting that your claim that whatever aids social cooperation is good is exposed by this example because the sacrifice does assuage the mob, and they return to their homes, and social peace is restored.”

            What you’re failing to see is that evolution is operating at the individual survival level, not the angry mob level. Also, the example is contrived – why not allow a third outcome: someone persuades the angry mob to stop being stupid and go home, for instance?

          • Dover Beach

            Well, there’s the rub, if morality is nothing more than social cooperation than whatever is social advantageous is just social advantageous. But if this just were the case you could not claim that the example is contrived or that there just might be a third outcome, because you are only grasping for that third outcome for moral reasons, not for reasons to do with social advantage. You could simply not criticize the act in prudential terms if it achieves what I have said it achieved, namely social peace. To do so, is to admit that morality is something beyond social cooperation.

          • Dover Beach

            Re 2, that you don’t understand the implications, even if you agree with 1, is manifest. You cannot make the claim that X is better if your claim regarding X is simply subjective. As say re this example above: No, no, you can’t say that at all. All you could say is, “Most people liked Star Wars V more than Stars Wars 1.” You couldn’t say the former was ‘better’ in this or that respect merely because more people liked it. Again, you completely misunderstand the implications of saying that morality is subjective.

            Re 3, no, it doesn’t fail any such standard. There are no such thing as subjective standards. As to the issue of consent, an animal cannot give consent per se, so how could that even be a legitimate requirement in this instance? Moreover, how can your subjective opinion have any force in respect to the choices of others?

          • swordfish

            You’re trying very hard to shift the burden of proof here so I have to prove that I understand the implications of morality being subjective, rather than you proving that morality is absolute.

            All you’re really arguing is that there’s no such thing as “absolutely better” on a subjective scale, but that is a tautology. I’m not arguing that there is, I’m saying that morality is subjective and has subjective standards which are subjectively agreed on. In other words, just like movies, flavours of ice cream or most things in our everday experience.

            Now, why don’t you prove that there is such a thing as absolute morality?

          • Dover Beach

            Re 1, no, you don’t, which is evident in your replies.

            Re 2, I never said that subjective means, completely arbitrary or meaningless, I said that whatever subjective preferences you have are completely arbitrary or meaningless as moral standards. As I say above regarding this example of yours: No, no, you can’t say that at all. All you could say is, “Most people liked Star Wars V more than Stars Wars 1.” You couldn’t say the former was ‘better’ in this or that respect merely because more people liked it.

            Re 3, animals cannot provide ‘informed consent’ at any stage of their development so to require their consent in order to interact with them in whatever way is absurd. Moreover, your purported subjective standard is no such thing. All you are doing is stating a preference, but why such a preference must be anyone else’s is beyond understanding. For instance, your preference for this or that flavored ice cream doesn’t oblige anyone else to only like or eat this or that flavor, all it does is notify me of your preference.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            2. 1 I repeat and ask because you did not answer all you said was morality is subjective and some how we simply know what is wrong because some how it’s simple !?! But yet you don’t fully explain how and why, especially considering morality or you believe morality is subjective!?
            2. Those eight questions I ask are still connected 2/3
            3. What do you mean by fluid?
            4. Must I ask a child ? How do or does a child fully conceive what is right and wrong, especially considering part of a parents responsibility is to raise, teach and discipline a child especially when thier wrong ? I may concede that a child might have understanding to morale but why should or for that matter anyone if morality is subjective, why should I ask if thier morale is no better or worse than mine ?

            3. 1. How and when did you answer this ? Looking back I have seen no such response that I can tell!?
            2. Not quite;

            Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is not speaking of rape as we define it today, but of the man who takes advantage of a young woman and has intercourse with her and then wants to dump her and take off and brag to his friends about a “conquest.” The Bible says he is to marry her and unlike other married men, he is never allowed to dump her/divorce her.
            Deuteronomy 22:25 speaks of the actual crime of rape. It is to be punished with DEATH.

            3. Really so let me ask you this; if you commit a crime, a quite serious one, and get caught then go to court and stand before a judge/jury and they find you guilty and charge you, are you the going to say and tell them the judgement is nothing but subjective?

          • swordfish

            Shaquille Harvey:

            2. Please. I’ve explained my very simple point that morality is subjective two or three times. I know you can’t think of a response but surely you can do better than just trying to get me to explain over and over while you play dumb. Did you not get my Star Wars analogy?

            3.1 Christians abolishing slavery is self-defeating to your argument because you think moral standards come from god, but god is okay with slavery. The people who campaigned against it used their own subjective judgement to decide that it was wrong. (Repeated from my previous comment, and that was itself a near-repeat of an earlier comment, so I’ve explained this point twice as well!)

            3.2 The passage I refered to advocates slavery and rape. I didn’t refer to 22:28-29. If 22:25 says rape is punishable by death, that contradicts “Thou shalt not kill” – absolute morality is tricky stuff!

            3.3 If I committed a serious crime, I’d obviously know I was guilty and wouldn’t challenge any guilty verdict.

          • Dover Beach

            I”ll let my earlier comment address your manifest continuing confusion re subjective morality.

            “If 22:25 says rape is punishable by death, that contradicts “Thou shalt not kill” – absolute morality is tricky stuff!”

            No, it doesn’t. This would be like saying that imprisoning someone guilty of falsely imprisoning an innocent human being is a contradiction.

            “If I committed a serious crime, I’d obviously know I was guilty and wouldn’t challenge any guilty verdict.”
            If morality were subjective you wouldn’t know any such thing. What objectively marks an act as a serious crime if we only view them subjectively?

          • Dover Beach

            “I’ll just say that because something is subjective doesn’t mean it’s completely fluid – most people would agree that Star Wars V is better than Star Wars I.”
            No, no, you can’t say that at all. All you could say is, “Most people liked Star Wars V more than Stars Wars 1.” You couldn’t say the former was ‘better’ in this or that respect merely because more people liked it. Again, you completely misunderstand the implications of saying that morality is subjective.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for your honesty. There ya have it folks. Swordfish (no wonder he doesn’t use his name!) says Incest is perfectly fine and dandy.

            Now do you understand the concept of Total Depravity??

          • swordfish

            You should try reading the Bible. Adam and Eve’s children populated the Earth by incest and after the flood, from Noah’s family by more incest.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            See my comment above. It still applies. As for me, I have read the Bible and God condemns incest in several places at a specific point in time. And therein lies your lie.

            “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:44)

            No different than your father, Satan, who quoted Scripture to Jesus for his own purposes.

          • swordfish

            There’s no such thing as “Satan”, and it’s no good pointing out that the Bible condemns incest in some verses if it condones it in others. Incidentally, incest may not exactly be desireable behaviour but it’s better than wiping out all of humanity except for one family (not to mention almost every animal) in the flood.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh there is. He’s your daddy you’re gonna get to meet him one day. And it and may be no good to the spiritually-dead, totally-depraved, son of disobedience and child of wrath but is to the children of the Most High God.

            Moreover, who are YOU to say what is good or not? Right or Wrong? On what Moral Authority do you stand?

            Cite your source/authority for saying, “Incidentally, incest may not exactly be desireable behaviour but it’s better than wiping out all of humanity except for one family (not to mention almost every animal) in the flood.”

          • swordfish

            I notice that you didn’t have any reply to my pointing out that the Bible contradicts itself. If you agree that it does, how do you know what your god is actually telling you to do?

            As to what source/authority do I cite to claim that genocide is wrong, I would say that the fact that religious believers apparently need god to tell them that genocide is wrong is deeply disturbing.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I don’t have a reply to you pointing out that the Bible contradicts itself because it’s just another lie and the Bible doesn’t contradict itself. The Bible is the Word of God. God is perfect. Ego, the Bible is perfect. 2nd Tim. 3:16. Don’t cast pearls before swine so not elaborating on that.

            Nice attempt to deflect. Didn’t work. All you did your give evidence for all to see that you are your own authority and you make it up as your go along. That and show you can’t answer a simple question.

          • swordfish

            “The Bible is the Word of God. God is perfect. Ego, the Bible is perfect.”

            I can only assume that you haven’t read it properly. Why does the ‘perfect’ Bible condone slavery and conquest rape?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, like everything else you’ve assumed you’d be wrong. You really wanna talk to be about reading the Bible and you don’t even believe in Satan? Next you’ll be saying you don’t believe in God and I should read the Bible to find that out. LOL

            When the spiritually dead try to read the Book of Life it’s like a blind man trying to read a road map before hopping in the car to drive. You have to get a heart transplant before you can have eyes to see.

            Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:47)

            “The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Cor. 2:14)

            “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (2nd Peter 3:16)

            If you were a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ, as I am, you’d know the answer to that question and you’d be as blessed as I am. You wouldn’t want it any other way. So I’ll not be wasting my time, or m pearls, casting them before the likes of you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            When the spiritually dead try to read the Book of Life it’s like a blind man trying to read a road map before hopping in the car to drive. You have to get a heart transplant before you can have eyes to see.

            Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:47)

            “The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Cor. 2:14)

            “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (2nd Peter 3:16)

      • Gary

        The God of the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior. That is why homosexual behavior is immoral. Those who try to justify homosexuality have rejected what God had said about it. Rejecting one of God’s rules usually leads to rejecting more of God’s rules.

        • swordfish

          Question: If god changed his mind and announced that homosexuality wasn’t a sin, would you change your mind about it also?

  • The foundation of traditional sexual morality is this one, inescapable, irrefutable, biological FACT:

    Sex makes babies.

    This remains true in spite of every form of contraception tried except for gonadectomy and more extreme types of hysterectomy. Even if you’re on the Pill, or the Patch, or use condoms or diaphragms or an IUD or whatever, including vasectomy or tubal ligation, sex still makes babies. And the more you do it, the more likely you are to wind up with a baby.

    So, it is a moral imperative that, if you’re going to have sex, you ought to be ready, willing, and able to ensure that you will arrange things so that your baby will have the best of possible environments. In the large majority of cases, that is in a home founded on the permanent union of said baby’s biological parents (i.e., in marriage), who are those most motivated to ensure their baby’s welfare and well-being. Outside of truly abusive relationships, how often do you hear sentiments like “I’m so glad my parents got divorced” or “The best thing that ever happened to Mom was that she was left alone to raise me”?

    Now, the number one social construct to make sure that babies get the care that they deserve is to decree that only those who are prepared to be parents shall have sex, and that such prior dedication be demonstrated by marrying the person with whom they intend to undertake such an enterprise.

    Any time you make an exception to this rule, that the only person one has sex with is one’s spouse, you chip away at the odds that children will be reared by their biological parents, by increasing the odds that their parents will have sex, and one or more babies, before they have arranged their lives to the benefit of their children.

    Back when Dear Abby and Ann Landers were still alive, and hadn’t been overwhelmed of their good sense, they would cite a statistic that offspring of about 40% of incestuous relationships were at severe risk for dual-recessive genetic diseases.

  • Jennifer Arnold Baker

    This whole article is mentally and morally sick! It’s not a matter of religion, it’s a matter of being decent, clean and discreet. Sex with an animal? A corpes? A family member? The same gender? These are not right! This country is so filthy and so jaded. I love America, but am sad.

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      It’s not a matter of religion? Who are YOU then to decide what is “decent, clean, and discreet”? If they take a shower first and do it in the privacy of their own bedroom, what is it not then “decent”?

      Judging from you post, and that’s all I have to go on (Matt. 15:18, Lk 6:45), you’re very likely gonna wind up in the same place as all those you think are “morally sick”.

  • bbb

    England kicked God out. Now it is viewing the world in a materialistic and immoral milieu of communism, cultism, white and black witchcraft [legal religions in England] and Islam.
    It’s enough to freak a body out.
    When a nation is firmly founded in the Owner’s Manual of Basic Information Before Leaving Earth [aka Bible] the nation thrives, it has families, communities, counties, States and national government that knows right from wrong.
    There is a right and there is a wrong.
    Incest is wrong, it is not a diagnosis in the DSMXIII manual to be studied and medicated [that’s all psychiatrists do].
    The right and wrong is clear for use human mortals; genuine precepts for living well and showing kindness to fellow Christians who understand God’s Law means those people enjoy all the marvelous benefits of living in His word.
    Again, there are too many who do not understand that we are given a soul, the soul is eternal, and it will spend the rest of existence to the end of all ages in either heaven or hell. It may be glib to say we do not believe that, but since it is one of those truths that is non-negotiable the tragedy is how many souls will fill hell out of ignorance.

  • Cornelia Cree

    When will we call this what Jesus called it. Demons.

Inspiration
Joy in the Hurricane
James Randall Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us