The story of a mother and son in New Mexico is getting much deserved attention. The very same arguments used to defend and legitimize homosexual “marriage” are now being used to defend and legitimize incest.

If you support homosexual “marriage,” you owe it to yourself to read what Matt Walsh says about a mother and son fighting for their right to “love” one another. All of the arguments used to defend and legitimize homosexual relationships and “marriage” are being used by the mother and son to defend and legitimize their incestuous relationship. And the things is: if you support the logic and reasoning used to defend homosexual “marriage” then you have no moral or legal ground to refuse to support incestuous relationships.

To prove that point, Walsh runs through the main arguments used to defend homosexual “marriage” and then applies them to incestuous relationships. Namely, he cites:

1. It’s consensual
2. It’s not hurting anyone
3. Love is love

Looking over the arguments it would be hard to deny a mother and son the “right” to love and engage in a relationship. If these arguments can be used to legitimize homosexual relationships then there is no logical, moral, or legal reason to refuse to allow a mother and son the right to their relationship.

Furthermore, if you do refuse to legitimize incestuous relationships, especially after supporting homosexuals ones, you are engaging in the same bigotry and narrow-mindedness you once accused traditional marriage advocates of. How judgmental of you.

As Walsh makes clear, these reasons, and a whole list of others, can rightly be used to defend and legitimize incestuous relationships in light of the Supreme Court finding a “constitutional right” to same-sex “marriage.” If that “right” exists for homosexuals then certainly it must exist for a mother and son, for advocates of polygamy, polyamory, and any other relationship two (or three or five) people can imagine.

If you don’t believe these reasons justify incest then perhaps the other reasons used to justify homosexual relationships will convince you that a “constitutional right” exists for a mother and son to be in a consensual, sexual relationship. This list was compiled by Walsh but is very familiar to anyone paying attention to this discussion for any length of time. These reasons were used time and again by gay “marriage” supporters to justify their position:

• I was born this way.
• I can’t choose who I love.
• It’s [current year]!
• I have a right to be happy.
• I should have the same right as people who do not share my proclivity.
• This kind of sexuality exists in the animal kingdom.
• Don’t be narrow-minded.
• Stop judging.
• Stop imposing your religious beliefs on me.

I could go on, and perhaps I will further comment in a future post. For now though, I highly recommend reading Walsh’ blog post. He goes into detail on why supporters of homosexual “marriage” must come to the defense of incestuous relationships or be nothing less than hypocrites. He also discusses why our legal system must abide any union of persons in order to apply the law they created for homosexuals equally and consistently.

You really do owe it to yourself to read the post and consider the arguments. Whether they knew it or not, activists arguing for same-sex “marriage” have successfully argued for everything else: polygamy, polyamory, incest, and whatever else can be thought of. That reality is disturbing.