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.