That was, you may recall, one of the protests over on the wilder and weirder shores of the sexually conservative wing of humanity over the progressive legalisation and then normalisation of gay sexual activity. If we allow that then incest and can’t be far behind, can it?
And then we get this genius of an Australian judge telling us that very thing:
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.
“A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner,” the judge said.
“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.”
The strange thing is that I agree that I can’t see a reason for adult, consensual, incest to be a crime. But it is rather confirming those earlier statements about Teh Gayers, isn’t it?