There’s even a term for it. “Genetic Sexual Attraction.” GSA.
GSA is when a mother and her biological son, or a father and his biological daughter, are in a sexual relationship.
I had never heard this term before, but I suppose it sounds better than the word that really describes such relationships: incest.
And now GSA people want to get married.
I saw an example of this in a recent article about a 51 year-old mother and her 32 year-old son who are in a sexual relationship. Here is the mother’s defense of her behavior:
She said: “This is not incest, it is GSA. We are like peas in a pod and meant to be together.
“I know people will say we’re disgusting, that we should be able to control our feelings, but when you’re hit by a love so consuming you are willing to give up everything for it, you have to fight for it.
What is incredible about all of this, is that this is precisely the same situation that same-sex marriage was in just a few years ago. It was deemed to be unnatural and unhealthy and now our culture has fully endorsed it.
Notice also that the woman above even used the same argument that is used to justify same-sex marriage, namely that they are in “love,” and are not “able to control our feelings.”
In other words, this behavior is not a choice, but is genetic. And who can deny us the opportunity to express our love?
Get ready for round two of the marriage wars. The move to justify incest will be next.
Of course, sadly this should come as no surprise. In many of my prior posts on our culture’s gender confusion (e.g., see here), I have pointed out what many others have also pointed out, namely that the culture’s quest to redefine marriage will not (and cannot) stop with same-sex marriage.
If a man and a man are allowed to marry, then what keeps us from denying most anyone (any combination of people) the right to marry?
Why not a mother and her biological son? Why not a father and his biological daughter? Why not a man and two men? Or a man and two women? Or a woman and two men?
There’s no logical reason–given the rationale used for same-sex marriage–why we should deny marriage to these other groups. To do so would simply be discriminatory (on modern definitions of the term). Why should they not be allowed to enjoy the blessings of marriage? Why should they not be allowed to marry those they love?
This simply highlights one of the most often missed points in the whole same-sex marriage debate. Advocates of same-sex marriage often claim, “Everyone else gets to marry the person they love, so why can’t we? That’s discrimination.”
But this sort of claim is monumentally misleading. The marriage laws of this country have never said people can marry whomever they love.
Same-sex marriage advocates make it seem as if they are singled out unjustly. But, that is not the case. There have always been restrictions on marriage such as age, gender, biological relationships, number of spouses, etc.
What same-sex marriage advocates want is for our country to remove just one of these restrictions, the one pertaining to gender. The problem is that the rationale for removing that restriction–people should be allowed to marry whom they love–can be equally used to remove all the restrictions.
No doubt there will be some who would be pleased with such a development. “Yes,” they might say, “let’s remove all restrictions on marriage.”
But, if marriage can simply be whatever a person wants to make it, then it is swallowed up in an ocean of subjectivity. If marriage is entirely self-constructed there can be no such thing as “marriage.”
Marriage becomes a chimera. An illusion.
And this is why Christians have been opposed to same-sex marriage from the start. We are opposed to it simply because it isn’t marriage. Indeed, we’ve been opposed to it because, in the end, it will not enhance marriage in our country but lead to its disappearance.
Print This Post
Matthew Tringali says
“It isn’t incest.” What is the point of having words if we can’t agree that the dictionary is objective!
Blake says
Homosexual:Gay
Incest:GSA
Pervert the language, pervert the culture.
A.W. Bowman says
Once the foundation of any moral absolute [God’s law] is destroyed, then every moral based on that absolute is also destroyed. The prostitution of the Christian church in America is officially complete and its also bankrupt. Welcome again to the biblical days of Noah.
dantespencer says
AW, Not sure how you’re drawing a connection between the world’s ever expanding expressions of depravity and the state of the church, but we in the church – the ark of Christ that saves us from this world’s corruption and its judgment – ought to therefore love what God loves and not tear her down as the world does with falsehoods and cruel judgments. The church is the fruit of Christ’s work that God loves and will perfect when he presents us before himself spotless, washed in Christ’s blood and covered in his righteousness. God has not abandoned the work of his hands (Phil 1:6). That is the hope and glory of the gospel. Nonchristians are spiritually dead so we should expect them to sin, but simply showing anger toward them will never lead God’s elect to faith in Christ (Acts 18:10). The church’s calling is the proclamation of the gospel and the care of her sheep, not washing the outside of the world’s cup.
sally carson says
If we dont denounce sin, we are seen to condone, it by the world, and how will people will know what sin is, if it’s not brought out into every day life? The Bible isnt taught in many churches and banned from schools. How can any one repent of sin, if they are not being made aware of it? We are saved because God loves His elect, but He expects us to serve Him also and delights to use us in the proclamation of the Word. That means we must testify and encourage others recognise and to forsake sin, even if they are not saved
dantespencer says
But maybe the courts would use the genetic factor as the reason for prohibiting marriage? What about two homo brothers being married? If polygamy is eventually permitted, it’s somewhat remarkable to think that Utah was not going to be accepted into the Union on account of mormon’s polygamy.
Dean says
Yes, its a domino effect as far as society goes, one that distorts a unique relationship. For me its a pave paradise & put up a parking lot moment.
Phoenix (@Sum14HisWord) says
Took a bit to find the article from the magazine. Note it references another couple they met up with: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3529572/I-m-love-son-want-baby-Mother-falls-son-gave-adoption-32-years-ago.html
Gordon Woods says
And then, bestiality
sally carson says
Yep, a woman has already applied to marry her dog!
Heather Stewart says
It’s incest and makes me sick and am I going mad here??? What is happening to the so called Laws?? Incest is a crime
James A Gibson says
“Get ready for round two of the marriage wars. The move to justify incest will be next.”
This is not plausible. What led to the relatively quick acceptance of same-sex marriage was in part the familiarity with people who are gay and the desire to not deprive them of goods. For example, VP Cheney and his opposition to gay marriage until his daughter came out. That’s not the full historical explanation of its social acceptability in the US, obviously, but its one datum that led to broader acceptance. But it is an important one, because just like what was used to justify gay marriage in the minds of those who opposed it but now accept it was an emotional response – at least in part emotional. Is there a large national coming out movement for GSA and a well-financed socio-political campaign to take away the social stigma? I don’t see it. If not, then it just isn’t the right sort of environment for GSA crowd to get much traction.
The other reason it isn’t plausible is that there are other movements that are ahead of GSA in that regard. Plural marriage, for instance. The Learning Channel (sic) already has several shows that are almost advertisements for it. If anything is next, it’s that.
Remington says
James,
You make some good points in regards to the advantages same-sex marriage advocates had that GSA advocates do not have. But I think you are overlooking something. Yes, GSA would have a much harder time finding widespread support *if* it had to work from scratch the way the same-sex advocates did. But GSA advocates do not have to carve out their own path from scratch. SSM advocates have already carved out a path for GSA advocates to follow. The foundational logic behind accepting GSA has already been firmly laid by SSM advocates.
GSA still has to overcome the “ick” factor, but it’s not as uphill battle as it would be were it not for the conditioning already done by same-sex marriage advocates.
edingess says
Wait…the LGBT folks promised there wouldn’t be a slippery slope. They said people were exaggerating when they made these predictions.
sally carson says
Yes but homos in Parliament promised that if they got Civil Partnerships they wouldnt go for marriage, but they did.
Grant says
Of course they promised. It was the way to get what they wanted.
Once they have it, they just lie again and promise that this next one is the last one. Really. Honest. For realz this time.
groovyman67 says
important topic to discuss, but easy to get away from principles. As I see them: Our voice to the world (aka sinners whom we are no better than) as radically focused on gospel proclamation. Our focus on obedience to Christ as making disciples within the church.
It is just too easy for us to look at the world and become self-righteous, demanding something of them they are ultimately incapable of, at the same time subtly thinking that the free grace of God was directed our way due to our own superior morality.
With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you; but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 1 Peter 4
But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. 1 Corinthians 5
Prince of Pennyrile says
AND after incest is approved the next step will be that it is “OK to have sex with children”. We are on the road to destruction unless we do a U-turn.
shagvt says
And then today we have an article defending this … these people are just victims of their own genetics and deserve sympathy rather than condemnation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/disgusted-by-incest-genetic-sexual-attraction-is-real-and-on-the/
Just following exactly the same playbook. I think it is more likely that that polygamy will happen before this, but really they are just two steps in the same one problem, and ultimately it’s just an extension of the same distortion of marriage.