First same-sex marriage, then polygamy, now incest?!!

If marriage is based on just 'love' and 'consent', where does the redefining stop?

As I’ve mentioned before on McBlog, during the marriage definition debate in 2013, our basic argument was simply this.

If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined again? Allowing only same-sex marriage on the basis of love and human rights would then open the door for those arguing for polygamous and group marriage. And even for incest between consenting adults!

Here’s the inconvenient truth. The same arguments used to justify same-sex marriages can be used to justify polygamy, adult consensual incest, group marriage, and so on. Once the fundamental idea of marriage as one man and one woman is tossed out, any and all types of sexual activity become permissible. Love is love. In fact, isn’t 3 people in a marriage even more love – if that’s all marriage is about.

But it’s illegal Bob. They may be illegal now, but it wasn’t that long ago that same-sex marriage was illegal also.

But we all knew that claims about it’s just civil unions and it’s just removing discrimination back in 2004 were also just a smokescreen.

The media still pretend to be outraged by this argument – targeting a National MP two years ago when they tracked down some comments he’d made almost 20 years ago.

But last week, the media removed the pretence – and confirmed exactly what we said. There will be arguments to justify incest marriages for consenting adults.

And we shouldn’t be surprised.

If love is love, marriage ‘equality’, and it’s consenting adults, even if it’s Johnny and mum – why not?

I’ll tell you why not!

The reason that the National MP got in trouble was for stating the obvious during the civil unions debate 20 years ago. He said

The explanatory note to the [Civil Unions] Bill states that it will address the situation in which same-sex couples cannot receive legal recognition of their loving and committed relationship…. Marriage has preferred status and rights in law because of its public benefits….The argument of removing discrimination is flawed and deceptive… the law rightly differentiates between different relationships…If the government was really interested in removing discrimination then it should amend the Marriage Act. Either this is just a pragmatic and temporary compromise or it doesn't believe its own spin….

Here's the kicker…

Why is the government allowing discrimination to continue by refusing to legally recognise other relationship forms such as the union of siblings or more than two people?

And from that fair question, you get this grand headline. Note it’s just the word “incest”. A negative connation which completely ignores the actual and valid argument.

Marriage equality – it’s all about love. Love is love. Nobody can deny that there aren’t pushes around the world for group marriage and polygamy which is already present in some societies and religions.

Even here in NZ, In 2017, the Ministry of Social Development said a second "wife" in a polygamous marriage may be entitled to a sole-parent benefit.

In 2014, it was revealed that Auckland ratepayers were subsidising an event promoting polyamory for those who want to ‘relate to more than one partner’ and non-monogamous marriages.

Well it’s just getting wackier – as we’ve seen

Marrying fictional characters

Marrying yourself.

Who needs a groom to get married? ‘Sologamy’ – self-marriage – may just be the kind of self-celebration we need.

And of course there are people who have married rocks and married bridges.

Love is love eh. Dn’t be so – uh - rockophobic

Classic.

But what about the consensual adult incest. Could there be a human rights love is love argument for that?

Of course. And it’s already happening.

In an article in 2021, NY Post 2021

Consensual incest advocates are rooting for an anonymous New York parent who wants to marry their own adult child. Australian Richard Morris, who is pushing to change incest laws in about 60 countries, said he supports the legal push in Manhattan Federal Court and that such behavior between consenting adults “should not be criminalized.” He and other advocates have launched about 130 petitions, mostly on change.org, seeking to change incest laws around the world. Most have received little support.

In 2010, the LA Times had this heading - ABC News asks if incest between consenting adults is OK on Facebook

Asking the question because of this story – Columbia University Professor Accused of Incest With Daughter - Teacher says sex was consensual as Swiss consider lifting ban against adults.

Closer to home, remember this story in 2014? Then-Act Leader Jamie Whyte stood by his comments that incestuous relationships between consenting adults should not be illegal and says it would be "intellectually corrupt" of him not to be honest when asked such questions. Perhaps we should put the question to David Seymour.

In the following countries, incest is legal: Belgium, China, France (although there were moves a couple of years ago to ban it), Japan, Latvia, Portugal, Russia (marriage prohibited), South Korea, Turkey (marriage prohibited). Incest is legal for adults only in Argentina, Israel (over 21), Ivory Coast, the Netherlands (marriage prohibited), the Philippines (marriage prohibited), and Spain. Incest is legal in Brazil if over 14 and in Thailand if over 15; however, most marriages in these countries are disallowed or prohibited. Incest is legal in Italy unless it provokes public scandal. In some countries, incest is legal for adults and legal for minors, but illegal for adults and minors together. These countries include Lithuania, Serbia, and Slovenia.

In fact, I recently read on the Gospel Coalition site that while it’s still fairly taboo in Western culture, consanguineous marriage (marriage between individuals who are closely related – 2^nd cousins or closer) is common in Northern Africa and the Middle East, for example: Pakistan (61.2 percent), Kuwait (54.3 percent), Qatar (54 percent), United Arab Emirates (50.5 percent), Sudan and South Sudan (50 percent), and Afghanistan (49 percent). Further east in India, the world’s most populous country, there are more than 50 million people (7.5 percent) in incestuous marriages.

But New Zealand? Surely not.

Don’t kid yourself. You know those horrific imported culture wars that Chloe Swarbrick, Chris Hipkins and the media all go on about.

You won’t believe which culture war they want to import here.

Ok – you probably can. Stuff asks “Why is incest legal in so many countries?”. They forgot to add the next bit – “why can’t we?”!

Actually, it’s interesting that they just say “incest” - and not “consenting adult incest”. During the gay marriage debate I sent out a media release on this exact topic and specifically put “consenting adult incest” because otherwise the LGBT groups would immediately get on the bandwagon and scream that we were comparing gay marriage to incest. In fact, one media outlet deliberately butchered one of our media releases and took out the words “consenting adult” and just left in the word “incest” deliberately to make us look bad. I actually complained and they had to re-insert it.

But interesting here that they just say “incest”.

So let’s have a read

It’s legal to have a consensual sexual relationship with your siblings, parents, and grandparents in France. And Belgium. And Japan. And more than 70 other countries too. So how does NZ stack up? And why is it a moral dilemma? Explainer Editor Lloyd Burr compares our law.

It starts by mentioning that the late Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Prince Phillip were third cousins – which, interestingly, isn’t illegal anyway in New Zealand. So that wasn’t a good start.

In New Zealand, there have been many documented cases on consensual incest, including Sarah* who was adopted and later entered a relationship with Steve*, her biological father

There was a 60 Minutes documentary on it back in 2009.

Okay – that’s weird…. They were charged – thankfully.

The article continues

Even this week, a man in his 30s was jailed for incest after having a consensual relationship with his grandfather. Being a same-sex relationship, there was no risk of offspring with genetic problems which left questions over why it even ended up in court.

Um… it’s illegal, Lloyd. And icky.

But then we get down to the real messaging of the article.

So why is consensual incest so frowned upon today? Is it because it elicits an ‘eewww yuck’ response? Because it's morally wrong? Or because of the impact it could have on genetics?

It is illegal for any immediate family members to have sex with one another, regardless of age or if they both consent. The Crimes Act says “sexual connection is incest if it is between two people whose relationship is that of parent and child, siblings, half-siblings, or grandparent and grandchild”. It states anyone over the age of 16 who commits incest can be jailed for up to 10 years.

So not aunties, uncles, cousins – IF adults and consenting.

The article then covers the 79 countries where incest is legal.

And then it’s time for some biological truth – without the morality aspect.

One of the main reasons for outlawing incest is that there’s a heightened chance of the offspring having genetic disorders.

Professor Andrew Shelling from the University of Auckland’s Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Sciences says it comes down to the interaction of recessive genes.

“There's five to 10 of them lurking in our DNA somewhere and provided we find a mate who's different to us, that's fine and they may never come to reality. But if our mate turns out to be closely related, then we could have a serious genetic defect appearing,” he says.

There are nearly 8,000 different genetic disorders that could appear causing things like cystic fibrosis, organ malformations, intellectual disabilities, blindness, and cleft palates.

“You don't know what's lurking in your DNA and it may be invisible for generations. But if you reproduce with a close relation, your chances of something appearing is much greater. The amount of relation relatedness increases the probability”.

Professor Shelling says the chances of an unrelated couple’s child having some sort of defect is around 2-3%. When they’re cousins, it doubles to 4-6%, and if it’s an uncle and niece, it doubles again to 8-12%.

But then comes some attempt to try and justify incest.

However, it’s not just incest that increases the risk of offspring having genetic disorders. “It’s about the same as women over the age of 35 having kids. And we don't go ‘Oh, that's disgusting, you are over 35, your chance of having an abnormal child is really, really high and the same as if it was your cousin’ and then outlaw it,” he says.

Sorry – there’s a big difference between a woman having an advanced maternal age pregnancy or what is sometimes called a “geriatric pregnancy” – a term which is considered outdated and offensive - and mum having sex with her son, dad getting his daughter pregnant, or a brother and sister having sex together. To be blunt. A massive difference.

So now it’s off to the “sexuality lecturer”. Yes – it’s all downhill from here.

Why is consensual incest between adults wrong? If the answer is ‘because it’s gross’, then is that a good enough reason to outlaw it?

Yes – it’s gross because it’s immoral, and it’s biologically harmful. But who needs or wants morality?

These are the type of questions that surface when the concept of incest is looked at from a philosophical viewpoint.

“Disgust isn't a very good guide to what is morally wrong or not,” says Massey University’s senior ethics, philosophy, and sexuality lecturer Dr Vanessa Schouten. “The fact that I find oysters pretty disgusting doesn't mean it's morally wrong for other people to eat them.”

Did she just compare a parent having sex with one of their adult children at the same moral level as eating oysters?

Wow – strike Massey University off the list of academic prowess.

Her main question is: Should the state be in the business of regulating consensual incestuous relationships? She recalls former ACT leader Jamie Whyte being obliterated ahead of the 2014 election for saying such relationships should not be illegal.

“He gave such a philosopher's answer - instead of a politician's one - which was basically that the state has no role in regulating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I think he's right for the most part,” Dr Schouten says.

There’s your argument for polygamy, group marriage, BDSM or sadomasochism, prostitution, even swinging right there.

But then she gets real creepy.

She gives an example of a brother and sister, both adults who are travelling together in France. They have consensual sex to see what it’s like, decide not to do it again, and keep it a secret.

“Almost everyone thinks it's seriously morally wrong but it's really hard to come up with a reason why,” she says.

Um…… no, it’s not.

“There are plenty of things that are morally wrong that we don't think the state should be in the business of regulating, like adultery. Similarly, there are things that are probably not morally wrong, but we think the state should be in the business of regulating, like taking Class A drugs”.

Taking Class A drugs is not morally wrong? OK – this is definitely a spokesperson for the Drug Foundation.

Although she sounds confused, because one minute she says adultery is immoral (which it is) but remember she also said the state has no role in regulating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. So adultery is fine?

She also uses the argument of genetic disorders, which she says is full of double standards.

“We don't think it's morally wrong for people with an inherited condition - maybe Hodgkin's or something like that - to have sex. Nor for women over the age of 35 who have the same risk of their child having a defect”.

The slow acceptance of homosexuality is another example Dr Schouten gives.

“The problem with relying on your ‘disgust reaction’ as a guide to morality is that it's not very reliable. People used to think homosexuality was wrong because it's yuck. Clearly that's a bad reason and clearly it's not wrong. The fact some people used to think it was yuck wasn't a good reason for thinking that it was wrong,” she says.

Actually it is clearly wrong. There is a ‘disgust reaction’ or a ‘yuck’ factor as she terms it. A stigma, as I would call it. That’s why it’s always marketed in a positive light and barely ever with the actual act displayed. That’s left to the grubby hedonistic Burnett Foundation that Green MP Benjamin Doyle used to work for – and we know what the public think of that.

But nek minnit – our Massey academic finally finds her moral side, despite every reason presented to ignore it.

Putting the philosophical argument to one side, Dr Schouten says there are good reasons why incest is illegal.

“Given that such relationships are almost always harmful, the state has good reason to legislate against it because it is the business of the state to protect people from abuse and exploitation.

“In real life, incest probably almost always does cause harm - particularly in cases involving close family members. Such relationships almost always involve exploitation and abuse,” she says.

Note where she’s landed?

The state does have a role in regulating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

Exactly.

But it’s filtering into the culture more and more.

According to the article on the Gospel Coalition site that I quoted earlier

Incest has become more prevalent in entertainment (e.g., Game of Thrones). Although it’s likely more for shock value than for intentional normalization, it’s still there—and it’s at least symptomatic of a culture that enjoys heightening the threshold of perverted sexuality. It’s no coincidence that incest-themed porn, known as fauxcest, is one of the most searched categories on popular pornography sites. Research has shown a 178 percent increase in “family related porn,” along with the fact that one in ten purchases by young adults are for fauxcest titles.

We even have a new form of prostitution: “sugar daddies” and “sugar mamas.” These older benefactors provide financial resources in exchange for sexual favors. If you don’t spend a significant amount of time on social media, you may not realize how pervasive this is, but almost anyone from Gen Z immediately hears parental titles like “mommy” and “daddy” as somewhat sexualized—an indication we’re already living downstream from a fauxcest culture.

Remember that story I alluded to earlier - Columbia University Professor Accused of Incest With Daughter from 2010. A liberal writer and commentator for Slate.com got the moral argument correct:

The conservative view is that all sexual deviance—homosexuality, polyamory, adultery, bestiality, incest—violates the natural order. Families depend on moral structure: Mom, Dad, kids. When you confound that structure—when Dad sleeps with a man, Dad sleeps with another woman, or Mom sleeps with Grandpa—the family falls apart. Kids need clear roles and relationships. Without this, they get disoriented. Mess with the family, and you mess up the kids.

Pretty spot on.

The Christian response goes further.

¹It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. ²And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?

In the New Testament, John the Baptist died defending the sanctity of marriage after Herod took his own sister-in-law as a second wife (Mark 6:17–28).

In Leviticus 18, the Israelites are commanded not to commit incest, which is a defiling sin (Leviticus 18:24).

Genesis 2:24 says: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” As one commentator said - A man was to leave his mother, not marry her.

A commentary on TheCrossTalk.com sums it up nicely

[I]ncest is seen as a violation of God's created order. In the creation narrative, God establishes distinct boundaries and roles within creation. Incest blurs these boundaries, leading to confusion and disorder. The inherent biological risks associated with incestuous relationships, such as genetic defects and health issues in offspring, further illustrate the natural law principles that undergird these prohibitions. The physical consequences of incest serve as a tangible reminder of the spiritual and moral disorder it represents.

It also reminds us that when the culture messes up the definition of marriage, it messes up the fabric of society.

And why you shouldn’t rely on academics from universities for your measurement of what is moral and what isn’t.

The culture is now openly talking about polygamy, group marriage and even incest – as we predicted.

That’s why we must speak up for and protect marriage.

For the sake of our culture and our families.