Australian Judge Endorses Incest

The dominoes of heteronormativity are falling. Many of my leftist friends (yes, I have a few) accused me of the slippery slope fallacy when I told them the normalization of homosexuality would lead to the eventual acceptance of other “formerly” aberrant sexual practices like pedophilia, bestiality, and incest. Well, sometimes what looks like a slippery slope fallacy is just an accurate prediction.

An Australian judge recently declared that our modern society had moved on past condemning incest between consenting adults. And his argument is perverse:

“A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available,’ not having [a] sexual partner. . . . If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you’d invariably have, they would say it’s unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone.”

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.”

But his argument is also logical. And this is what my leftist friends don’t want to accept. Notice the train of the judge’s argument: sex outside of marriage was once illegal, then it was homosexuality, then pedophilia… Why not incest? Really, why not? Favoring one sexual aberrancy over another is arbitrary, and it is peculiarly hypocritical.

Christians have a moral argument against sexual aberrancy. People don’t agree with our standard, but at least we have one. And it doesn’t change to suit the particular passing fetishes of decadent societies. But once you reject the possibility of objective law, there is really no option but to let everything, and anything, go.