In November I wrote about the legalization of same-sex marriage. This is a difficult subject to write about, because as soon as it is brought up, readers attempt to classify the writer. The writer is either an enlightened member of the reader’s “team,” and hence to be respected, or a bigoted member of the “enemy team,” to be villified. Attempting to discuss the future and make predictions without being perceived is nigh impossible.
But, that’s what I attempted to do. In summary, my concern was, and still is, that the arguments used to advance same-sex marriage were flawed. Not only are they incompatible with other progressive beliefs, but they justified more than just same-sex marriage. In my post, I laid out that this is not, in my opinion, a slippery-slope argument. Proponents of same-sex marriage cite, and rightfully so, that slippery-slope arguments are logical fallacies. However, my argument is that the same-sex marriage campaign’s victory was a package deal. “A” doesn’t lead to “B” which leads to “C” and so forth; A, B, and C are all purchased together.
So it is in this vein that we check in on events in Australia:
A judge in Australia has been criticised [sic] after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.
Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and “unnatural” but is now widely accepted.
He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.
The first sentence says it all: the argument for legalizing same-sex marriage was that consensual sex between any consenting adults should be legal. This included incest. This wasn’t a slippery slope, it was a package deal. In fact, it is the judge who makes something like a slippery-slope argument, except in retrospect. Instead of justifying his position by projecting a future trend, he is doing so by observing a past trend.
I also want to highlight the third sentence. One can easily picture the likes of Stephen Colbert doing a mocking deadpan imitation of a stereotypical conservative, saying, “Yes, the availability of contraception and abortion is going to lead to the legalization of incest.” And one can easily picture his audience laughing at the chicken-little conservative. However, this is exactly what is being advanced as a serious legal argument! Recently I have been left nearly speechless as progressives mockingly deflect the accusations of conservatives, and then proceed to do exactly what they were accused of preparing to do. It is one thing to laugh at satirical exaggerations of accusations; it is another thing altogether to laugh at actual, factual descriptions of events. The former shows a taste for comedy, the latter a disconnect with reality.
To continue on:
Judge Neilson made the comments during the trial of a brother charged with raping his younger sister. The man has pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting his sister when she was 10 or 11 years old in 1973 or 1974 but has pleaded not guilty to charges relating to sex they had in 1981, when she was 18 and he was 26.
“By that stage they are both mature adults,” the judge said.
“The complainant has been sexually awoken, shall we say, by having two relationships with men and she had become ‘free’ when the second relationship broke down. The only thing that might change that is the fact that they were a brother and sister but we’ve come a long way from the 1950s – when the position of the English Common Law was that sex outside marriage was not lawful.”
The comments were labelled misogynistic and “completely disgraceful” by Sally Dowling, the crown prosecutor, who has asked an appeal court to appoint another judge.
“The reference to abortion is particularly repellent,” she said.
Dr Cathy Kezelman, an advocate for preventing child sex abuse, said incest was horrific, regardless of the ages of those involved.
“The relational betrayal of the horrors of incest between a brother and sister of any age is abhorrently criminal,” she told The Sydney Morning Herald.
The important word here is “misogynistic.” This is a word that has long since ceased to have any actual meaning, and is rather used as a verbal club to beat down any man who dare say something – anything – offensive. It is typically deployed when a man suggests that there is a limit to acceptable behavior, especially on the part of a woman. However, here it is the libertine judge who believes that a woman of legal age has the right to engage in incestuous behavior if she so chooses, and yet despite his support for unfettered female choice, he is still labelled a “misogynist.”
This is just further proof that this word, like most verbal weapons favored by progressives, has no actual principled meaning. Instead, it simply means the refusal to give any particular woman what she wants at any particular time. A man rejecting charges against a man based on the supposed legality of incest is called a misogynist for failing to protect the sister. A man pushing charges against the sister’s will would be called a misogynist for ignoring her right to choice. The hypocrisy never ends. It’s the feminine imperative all the way down.