In the secular progressive la la land of moral relativism/equivalency, the notion of “consent” is the moral key stone. It is the sole moral standard on which they base their sexual taboos. That’s why, for example, bestiality is wrong– because the animal cannot give (verbal) consent. It’s wrong, they believe, not because the act is necessarily vile, unnatural, and against God’s law, but because one of the parties “lacks consent.” That’s why homosexuality, on the other hand, is perfectly excusable in their moral universe– because it involves full consent of both parties. This is how the modern Lib defends homosexuality against comparisons to pedophilia and bestiality. Fine. But what if the pedophilia does involve consent? What then? And that’s what the perv below wants to know; and honestly, I’ve applied all the secular progressive reasoning powers at my disposal, and I can’t say I find fault in his logic! His secular progressive reasoning is sound.
‘We Have To Figure Out Why Some Behavior Is Tolerated And Some Is Not’
The lawyer representing David Epstein, the Columbia professor accused of sleeping with his daughter, recently spoke out about his client’s controversial case. Epstein was charged last week with one-count of third-degree incest for what was allegedly a consensual three-year sexual relationship with his 24-year-old daughter.
Epstein’s lawyer, Matthew Galluzzo, gave comment to ABCNews.com:
“Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so,” Galluzzo said. “At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms.”
“It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home,” he said. “How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.”
Galluzzo also said that even though Epstein’s daughter had emerged as a victim in the case, she could “be best described as an accomplice.” In an interview with the Huffington Post, Galluzzo questioned if prosecuting incest was “intellectually consistent” with the repeal of anti-sodomy laws that resulted from Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. “What goes on between consenting adults in private should not be legislated,” he said. “That is not the proper domain of our law.”
Galluzzo continued: “If we assume for a moment that both parties [involved in incest] are consenting, then why are we prosecuting this?”
We all knew the normalization of homosexuality would eventually lead to this, didn’t we? It was only a matter of time.
The reactions of the Huffpo’s Lib commenters provide us a few chuckles as well as insight. Most of them (not all) seem as naturally outraged by this pervy behavior as the rest of us. But allow yourself a knowing smile as you watch them wrestle with the why this consenting pedophilia is wrong. They are unable to articulate it.