From here:
Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.
“Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”
The problem for the Anglican Church will be this: if the church redefines marriage to include same sex couples, what possible reason could it have to exclude opposite sex siblings in monogamous, committed, faithful relationships?
We’ve been saying it for years. Once homosexual “marriages” became accepted it was only a matter of time for other forms of “marriage” to be demanded. And now we see it happening.
How long before some absolute genius proposes that it be compulsory?
Well, plain ol’ heterosexual marriage still isn’t, so I’m not too worried.
I rather wonder when the Anglican Church will stop insisting that these various permutations be “monogamous”. Marriage in an Anglican church has now become a service-product, and there are more sales to be had when it is freely distributed to all “communities”. Having hauled their way across the homosexual bridge, surely the tanks of progressivism can roll onward over the relatively gentle slope of the uplands of polygamy.
Ultimately, it will not matter which genders, ages, “sanguinities” (remember it was here that you first heard this new, socially-hip, postmodern term), or numbers of people that are thrashing around in a bed. Principles of sexual morality will eventually be boiled down to the dry powder of the single word “consensual”.
The real question is, can you argue against it without using God?
Why?
Because the people you are trying to convince won’t respond to an argument invoking God.
Possibly you’re not trying to convince anyone, mind, and I’ve got hold of the wrong end of the stick, in which case, carry on. 🙂
So what I do is to remind these people that as a citizen I have the Right to Freedom of Religion, and that gives me the right to have my voting decisions influenced by my religious beliefs. They never like it, but I refuse to back down, and that upsets them even more. Perhaps because my steadfastness to keep religion included in the debate takes away their control of the debate.
That’s fair enough, of course. But when it comes down to a vote you’re still outvoted by these people. Religious conservatives are in a minority in Canada. Which means that to have real weight at the polls, Christian conservatives have to ally with Muslim and Jewish conservatives.
Perhaps this is the way forward for interfaith dialogue. 😀
Yes you can, but society at large will still probably be blind to the truth. The fact is indisputable that the stable two-parent, heterosexual marriage, the ‘traditional family’ in other words, is the best arrangement in which to raise children, and therefore is the best for a society. One of the best predictors for poverty is divorce or single-parenthood. I believe the vast majority of family breakdowns are the result of some kind of moral failure (read, ‘sexual sin,’ to be blunt.)
It could be pre-marital, in which case people too often rush into a relationship, perhaps cause a pregnancy, then, as time goes on realize this isn’t the relationship they wanted after all. the result? separation, single-parenthood and financial hardship.
It could be marital unfaithfulness, resulting in divorce – same result.
Unfortunately, whether we call it a cause or a symptom, the entitlement to indulge every sexual urge has an interconnectedness about it. So, all this talk about normalizing homosexuality, then polygamy,now incest, next pedophilia, bestiality, whether a cause or a mere indication of the state of things, it’s all part of the same jigsaw puzzle which, when complete, will be the end of things as we know them.
However, this is the real elephant in the room that cannot be addressed; the subject that must not be discussed.
If this thinking becomes part of the “politically correct” vocabulary you can be sure the ACoC will quickly fall in line as they continue to show their allegiance is to that deceptive term and NOT to the true Gospel. Many of the so-called bishops should have been removed from office at least 20 years back and that includes people like Fred Hiltz and Michael Bird.