Incest: The Perv Judge Is Right
In Australia, a feminist (male) judge has just let the world know one day the world (and today, himself) may not have any problem with incest.
I quote from the article:
A judge in Australia has been criticised 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.
Well, how can you say little perv is wrong?
Homosexuality was regarded (by Christian societies, I add myself) as criminal and unnatural, but it is now widely accepted. When oen forgets Christianity and the only thing that count is self-satisfaction, why would two consenting adults not be allowed to screw the brains out of each other amidst the “celebration” of the wider society? Is anyone being hurt? Are not the two consenting? and most of all: who are we to judge?
The little perv goes on making a Nazi remark, and a feminist one.
The feminist one is the following:
“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.”
There is only one thing more pathetic than a man posing as the defender of “women’s right”: a homosexual man posing as the defender of “women’s rights”. I smell faggotry here, but again it’s just me.
The Nazi remark is reported as follows:
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.
“Look”, he says, “what are all these antiquated notions? To contracept and abort is perfectly legal, and not “judged” by us enlightened women and women of the XXI century; let the sibling do what they please, and if a byproduct should occur you just get rid of it. Simples”.
You know what? Pervert chappie is right. In a world where abortion is on demand, extremely cheap or completely free, with no questions asked and no stigma of sort attached, there is, if we follow the logic, no reason to think otherwise.
It’s all included in the logic of the acceptance of sodomy: if the logic of accepting what is made among consenting adult is fine, why should the same logic not be applied to siblings, or – and I insist on this issues, because it is perfectly true – dogs, sheep, or mules?
Pervert chappy is totally rotten.
But I must say, he has explained in a very clear way how rotten post-Christian societies are.
Posted on July 11, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged Incest, Sodomy. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.
The original article left me shocked because there was more still in it. There was also the suggestion that childhood molestation was unimportant/irrelevant to the case and by suggestion, also ok. The judge also said since sex outside of marriage is not outlawed, that’s fine too. If you read the original comments (as available in the Sydney Morning Herald) you will clearly see in his thinking, Satan’s future plan- make acceptable every single act forbidden in the Bible.
“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”.
In the 1960’s it was said that fornication was only wrong because it may lead to unplanned children who did not have the advantage of married parents, but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception.
In the 1970’s it was said that fornication was only wrong because it was leading to increasing numbers of unplanned pregnancies , but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of abortion.
In 2014 it seems that the only relevant criteria in judging a sex act as immoral is if it results in the birth of an undesired child.
Are we making progress in proving that there can’t possibly be anything wrong with sex outside of true marriage between an adult male and female, or is it that the world just getting increasingly incapable of being rational?
Very smartly put.
Of course the perv judge is right; it follows as night follows day. And the step after this will be children. After all, sex is just giving and receiving pleasure, right? Children understand perfectly well what feels good to them, they will argue. Don’t they masturbate from a young age (well, yeah, especially after you have them putting condoms on bananas in pre-school).
Who is the state to invade their body by telling them who they can and can’t have ‘guide them’ as they ‘discover the pleasure of their bodies’ – a right guaranteed by ‘privacy’ and the ‘pursuit of happiness’, it will (and is now) being said. You see, it’s not for the *adults*, it’s for *the children* – they have rights, you understand (well, only if they make it out of the womb. Pervs can’t really get to them in there, so they have no value or rights).
A whole generation has been groomed from just about the time they learn to talk by media, reinforced in schools, on all things sexual. It will be no big deal to them when they are adults. Your children’s children won’t have a chance. Unless….