Friday, September 14, 2012

Hollywood Embracing Incest And Parroting Moral Argument For Same-Sex "Marriage"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Writer director, Nick Cassavetes, released his new film this week titled, "Yellow."

The storyline is about a woman having an affair with her brother.

But Cassavetes says it's not about incest. It's about not judging other people---it's about doing what you want. It's about freedom.

This is not the first time Hollywood has gone swimming in the slime of perversion and it won't be the last---remember, "The Graduate" with Dustin Hoffman, Nicole Kidman in "Birth", Roman Polanski, Jason Biggs of "American Pie", Woody Allen and his step daughter, etc.?

Each has had their own version of perversion.

Cassavettes' film is not an isolated fringe film. The Entertainment industry has been at this for a long time. This is the point of their progressive cultural spear.

I would not even mention this film, except, that publicly, Cassavettes and Hollywood are making a moral argument in support of the film. And it's the same argument Sen. Ed Murray, Rep. Jamie Pederson, Gov. Gregoire and a host of other characters are making in Washington State, and elsewhere, for so-called same-sex "marriage."

Here's the moral rational for incest and same-sex "marriage."

Ben Shapiro quotes Cassavetes, "Who gives a s—- if people judge you? I'm not saying this is an absolute, but in a way, if you're not having kids, who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn't that what we say? Gay marriage — love who you want? If it's your brother or sister, it's super weird, but if you look at it, you're not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you're in love with one another."

And Cassavetes is right, if you embrace the Murray, Pederson, Gregoire "truth."

Shapiro writes, "There are those who say that gay marriage is a slippery slope toward incest. It isn't. The gay marriage and incest lie are justified by precisely the same moral argument: the argument that love defines an acceptable relationship. Sexual urges are, according to the left, their own moral justification — what is biological is justifiable. If gays and lesbians are "born this way," why not incestuous duos? If consent is the highest value and two siblings consent, what's the problem?"

Shapiro continues, "Incredibly enough, Cassavetes truly hits on the problem in his little diatribe about incest. 'If you're not having kids, who gives a damn? Love who you want,' he says. And he's right . If relationships aren't supposed to be about the next generation — if they're designed specifically for fulfillment of sexual desires — there's no point to monogamy as soon as it becomes burdensome. That's why the divorce rate skyrocketed in America in the 1960s, as the view of marriage shifted from a child-centric one to a fulfillment-centric one. Marriage used to be about the other — a spouse, a child. Now it's about you. And the Rolling Stones are wrong - you can always get what you want. And if you don't, well, you simply change up relationships."

And he concludes that, "Incest isn't the final stopping point for the sexual left. The final stopping point is pedophilia. All it takes is for the left to declare that children have the ability to make rational decisions about their own sexuality. Then the final string tethering Western society to her Judeo-Christian moral roots will be severed. And Hollywood will celebrate."

You are already hearing this so-called moral argument from those seeking to redefine marriage in Washington State and elsewhere.

It will be ramped up on television in the next few weeks leading up to the election.

It is a hollow, immoral argument. To oppose it is to oppose perversion. And to do so does not make one a bigot.

May God help us in this epic moral battle of our times.

Be Vigilant. Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.


  1. Stunning! But true.

  2. I,m wondering how long before the gays start bashing Shapiro or Gary. Their "moral argument" is pretty hard to defend. Thanks.


  3. “Brethren [pastors and priests], our preaching will bear its legitimate fruits. If immorality prevails in the land, the fault is ours in a great degree. If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the public press lacks moral discrimination, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the Church is degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the world loses its interest in religion, the pulpit is responsible for it. If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it. Let us not ignore this fact, my dear brethren; but let us lay it to heart, and be thoroughly awake to our responsibility in respect to the morals of this nation.”

    Charles G. Finney, Power From On High, Chapter 11 (c. 1871-1874)

    Jeremiah 5:1-31 applies.

  4. Oh my gosh, now there's an incest agenda. The GLSEN groups in schools are now going to be GLSENI. Teachers are going to be recruiting kids into incest!!!!!

    Seriously, it's one director looking to get a rise out of people like you. And you're giving him exactly what he wants.

    You have two options,

    1) Ignore him and he'll go away
    2) Ring the alarms and see how it does generating donations since the gay money train is probably going away after November

    1. Ignore him and he will go away . ?????? Not sure you understand the humanistic view of sexuality.

      Go into any public school library in this area and you find books by people such as pomeroy , mary calderon for instance . That support and particpated in published views on incest the last taboo. The then accepted sex educators rebuked their views when they first wrote about it .. Such as the problem with incest , sex wih animals and such was the "guilt associated " with it , not he very act itself . The article I read with the a accepted traditional sexual educator of the time saying they were full of crap . Turn now 30 years into the future , the same people that were once rebuked are considered the top of their fields . True i have not heard of sex education class supporting animal sex or incest , but the basic common theology of any sex is ok if it is safe sex has won the day .
      The 1980 issue of Time addressed SIECUS’ paper on incest, entitled “Attacking the Last Taboo,” claiming the organization was part of an academic “pro-incest lobby . . .conducting a campaign to undermine the taboo against incest, and all other sexual inhibitions

      Gay marriage is actually just homosexuals wanting to particpate in a tradition supported and re enforced by a Judea Christian culture in this country . Marriage has become so wanted by homosexuals because there has and is a special recognition in marriage based on cultural and religious institutions . Its called western Civilization .

      I wonder how the homosexual activists who are being used by some with a greater agenda will react when their familes are being exposed to some strange sexual views and they are told to shut up you bigots.
      In some countries people marry very young children because of religious beliefs , and again the problem these sexual experts of today will say it is not the sex with youn children , its the guilt promoted by the culture that is the problem . Feeling good because of sex is always good . They of course will still be full of crap .


    2. As a long time progressive, I've met all sorts, but no one who was into incest. I just don't see it as an issue. One of the other posters nailed it, the traditional gay argument is falling apart fast, so I think we're going to see more posts like this from Gary searching for the cash cow.

    3. Should have read 'anti-gay marriage argument'.

  5. 11-10. The church ignored the gay agenda too long. Not only did it not go away, it is now trying to redefine marriage, family and the culture. Gary, continue to make your voice heard. God bless you.

  6. A sure sign that anti-gay-marriage arguments are failing: Gary and his co-horts change the subject to something else -- something worse -- incest, and claim they are one in the same.

    The gay marriage argument isn't that "love defines an acceptable relationship" any more than the interracial marriage arguments were about that.

    It's about a group of people who are excluded from marrying ANY and EVERY person they can fall in love with. There is no group of people who can only fall in love with relatives. There are no groups of people who can only fall in love with more than one person at a time. And even if you argue that there are people who can only love children, such relationships bring up a host of issues completely unrelated to same-sex marriage, such as adult influence and underage sexuality.

    Gay marriage won't validate any of these other "relationships" any more than interracial marriage did.

    While this director might want to exaggerate the timeliness of his film by linking it to gay marriage, he's wrong. As are you.

  7. I didn't notice that Gary has changed the subject. Same sex marriage is based on a false premise. It's the same false premise that this producer is using for his argument for incest and the same one used to support polygamy, polymourus and open marriages. Feelings of love and consenting adults does not equal marriage. Also your claim of "marriage equality" is also bogus.

  8. Please do explain why...

  9. Interracial was a different issue. It was race, not sexual preference. Gays are not black and sexual desires are not ethnicity. Nice try. Not the same.

  10. The marriage equality argument I wrote had nothing to do with race. You need to read it again.

  11. I read it and you made the comparision that the argument against gay marriage is the same argument used against interracial marriage. That is not true, like 1:47 said, race is not gender. You need to read it again.

    Craig in Lacey

  12. This is the same argument that the ads on tv are making. "Sexual urges are, according to the left, their own moral justification — what is biological is justifiable." It's what Gary has been saying for a long time. We are being ask to redefine marriage to "affirm" sexual behavior or sexual urges. If the public understands this they will overturn gay marriage.

  13. Gary isn't changing the subject at all, 12:44. It's the same subject. Your argument for gay marriage is bogus. Live as you want and live with the consquences, but two men or two women will never be marriage even if you win the vote. Marriage isn't about sex only. Your version of it is based on your sexual practices. True marriage has to do with a whole lot more than that.

  14. Had those people focused all their energies on helping out men who are forced to buy generic viagra just to get along and let these bygones be bygones, the world will be a better place (maybe that's asking too much, but still).


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.