Love is Love

When Incest Became ‘Genetic Sexual Attraction’

Remember when incest was called incest? Now it’s called “genetic sexual attraction,” and it’s next in line to be normalized.

Jezebel recently published an article by Aimee Lutkin titled “A Mother-Son Couple is Fighting the Law to Teach the World About Genetic Sexual Attraction,” and it’s exactly what you think it is.

Here’s the basic rundown:

Monica Mares gave up her son when she was just 16. Mares and her son Caleb Peterson reunited 19 years later when they found each other on Facebook. After living with each other for some time, they became lovers.

According to Lutkin:

“Genetic Sexual Attraction is a term that has become more commonly used than incest in those cases where two people who are related, but don’t grow up together, meet and fall in love (or lust). In an interview with The Daily Mail, Mares says that if she’d raised her son, they ‘probably’ would never have had a sexual relationship, but she now considers him the love of her life.”

…Probably?

Excuse me for a moment while I hurl myself into traffic.

After it was discovered that Mares and Peterson were having a sexual relationship, they were charged with incest, which is a fourth degree felony. They’re out on $5,000 bail, but Mares is no longer able to see Peterson or her other children.

The author of the piece notes that incest is illegal, and says that some think it’s wrong because of an imbalance of power:

“…many see Peterson as a victim, since his youth and position as her son creates an obvious imbalance of power.”

Let’s be real here. We exist in a world of moral relativism. The Supreme Court has legally altered the foundational principle of marriage. Marriage was once defined by gender, but now it’s rooted in the idea of mutual consent. Given this, as long as two parties mutually consent to engage in a relationship, no one has any moral basis to call it wrong, regardless of who the parties are.

Mares and Peterson are both consenting adults. Mares has no maternal power over Peterson–she didn’t raise him. So why do people claim that their sexual relationship is “wrong?” The simple answer? It’s “icky,” as one commenter said. That’s as far as most people are willing to dig. It’s wrong because it’s wrong.

But “icky” isn’t grounds for moral judgment–not in a world of subjectivity. Many people believe homosexuality, polygamy, or bigamy is unnatural, but as they say, love is love.

Interestingly enough, Caleb Peterson gets it. He understands the logical flow of the moral argument:

“Honestly I never thought we would get into trouble for our relationship. We were both consenting adults–when it comes down to it…She’s [an] adult, I’m [an] adult. I can make my own decisions. I never thought it would blow up into something like this.”

Try to make this argument, however, and all you’ll get is disgusted looks. Don’t allow that to deter you. Dig deeper. Once people accept that they cannot morally judge an incestuous relationship because mutual consent is law, they will scramble for other excuses. The go-to excuse is the ever popular “but incest can lead to birth defects.”

To his, I have several replies. Birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation–and if the person to whom I’m speaking is pro-choice–abortion. If you really want to mess with a person’s imitation moral compass, ask them why it’s wrong to have a child with a defect as long as he or she is cared for by a loving family. That one freaks people out.

Moral subjectivity is a funny thing. People like to live in a morally subjective world until it makes them think. Once challenged on their philosophy, they become defensive, and afraid. They’re this way because they can’t rationalize their way out of the maze they’ve created.

Moral relativism has no boundaries, only doors. Once one door is opened, there are always a select few who want to open the next door. Those who want to stay behind are eventually outnumbered, and left behind. They become the “bigots,” the “haters,” the “intolerant.” On and on it goes until the system breaks.

The system is breaking.

Tags

Frank Camp

Frank Camp breathes politics--that, and regular air. After the 2004 election ignited a passion for politics in Frank, he's been dedicated to understanding what makes people think the way they do. His goal at Constitution.com is to arm his fellow conservatives with the tools they need to fight the liberal army in an effective and persuasive manner.

Please leave your comments below

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments