Jump to content

Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo


Recommended Posts

Australian-judge-says-incest-may-no-longer-be-a-taboo.htmlUK Telegraph:

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.

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.Scissors-32x32.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites


More from out enlightened betters

'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'
How some university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences

"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world is going to HEL*!!!!!


Well part of it is.



People need to have something greater than themselves in their life (Augustine's God shaped Hole?) to give us a reason to go on. If you eliminate God (as so many of our "better" have) you have to replace it with something, and Sex/lust being a powerful force is one of the things they use.


The problem is they have way to much time and money on their hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The Court and Marriage: Anthony Kennedy's Hate Speech


Posted June 27, 2013

Mark Twain said of Wagner's music that "It's not as bad as it sounds." The decisions brought forth on Wednesday morning by the Supreme Court are far worse than they sound. If we credit the authors of the two main opinions, Justice Kennedy (in U.S. v Windsor) and Chief Justice Roberts (in Hollingsworth v. Perry, on Proposition 8 in California), the two decisions affect to be quite limited in their reach. The justices would feign to be artisans of their craft carefully shaping judgments precisely confined-or even, in the case of Roberts, holding back from a judgment altogether. But in truth, these judgments cannot be cabined. They lay down the predicates for litigation that will clearly unfold now, and with short, easy steps, virtually all of the barriers to same-sex marriage in this country can be swept away. Even the constitutional amendments, passed by so many of the States, can now be overridden.


In U.S. v. Windsor, Justice Kennedy wrote with only the liberal bloc behind him as they struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That was the part of the Act in which the Congress declared that, for the purposes of federal law, all references to "marriage" would refer only to "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." Kennedy affected to be a high friend of federalism here Scissors-32x32.png



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1720969319
  • Create New...