The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Corbett “compared same-sex marriage to incest in a TV interview.” Actually, what Corbett did, was to say that an analogy, where same-sex marriage was compared to child marriage, that his legal team used while defending true (biblical) marriage, was not a good analogy. Responding to a reporter, Corbett said that “I think a much better analogy would have been brother and sister, don’t you?”
The AJC piece (courtesy of Newsy.com it says near the top) doesn’t use the phrase “same-sex” marriage. While describing Corbett’s “profoundly sad and disturbing” comments it uses the phrasing “the marriage of gay couples.” Corbett never mentions incest or sex at all. Of course, for many liberals almost everything comes down to sex. Because, you see, for the left this debate isn’t really about marriage, it’s about homosexuality, and forcing its legitimacy upon us through any means necessary.
Apparently it continues to escape most, if not all, on the left, that eventually one must “discriminate” when it comes to defining marriage. I suppose, at least at this point anyway, that incest is a line too far for many liberals. But why? Why the moral outrage over incest? What’s wrong with incest? Who or what says that incest is wrong? What moral code are liberals using to condemn incest?
Apparently it also escapes most liberals that, whether people realize it or not, our objections to incest almost exclusively stem from a biblical admonition against it. Why else oppose it? Because of the likely genetic harm faced by children produced from such relationships? Since when does the left concern itself with the unborn? After all, we all know well their solution to such problems.
Make no mistake about it, if it became politically popular to support incest, the left would be all on board. Of course, such positions are easy when one has little to no moral standards at all.
(See the articles and columns I've linked to on homosexuality and marriage here.)