When the taboos start to fall, who’s to say that yours will stand?
An Australian judge suggests that a 1950s court would have found sex between two men “unnatural,” and sex outside of marriage a violation of English Common Law.
So, now that more nations and states have declared what was taboo to be not just normative but a civil right, Judge Garry Neilson asks, why not incest? He then deals with the objection that birth defects may occur in the spawn of close relatives by noting that contraception is widely available and abortion socially acceptable.
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.
But why the outrage in our postmodern, progressive era? Let’s think it through for a moment based on our spinning moral compass.
For the sake of this legal exercise, let’s assume society continues to condemn sexual acts involving the use of threats and violence, against the will of at least one party. Beyond that, who’s to say that sex, and/or marriage, between consenting members of a nuclear family is impermissible under law? On what principle can we continue to forbid it?
And if, as we’ve been told, the only significant question regarding marriage is “who do you love?”, then it seems that all other societal sexual restraints (beyond those on nonconsensual coercion and compulsion) must be lifted.
However, human experience shows that sexual relations need not involve “love” at all.
Mere momentary pleasure, with no commitment, has become the accepted standard for many people. Since we’re not willing to jail (or judge) people who engage in consensual one-night stands — even if one of them is married to a third party and thus in breach of contract — then the question really has nothing to do with “who you love,” does it?
As you follow that thread, you quickly arrive at the end where you must admit: The law should be what I feel it should be, at least for me. If you’re particularly democratic, you might amend that to say, the law should be what the majority decides from time to time.
This is tantamount to the statement: there is no law.
Now, some of my libertarian friends would have said “Amen” to that, if they didn’t fear it might sound too religious. (But, oddly enough, most libertarians are not so libertine nor antinomian.)