Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Maybe he was just born that way

So a prominent "progressive" has been charged with incest with a female relative.........

A popular Columbia professor was charged Thursday with incest - accused of a sick sex relationship with a female relative, prosecutors said.

Political science Prof. David Epstein, 46, bedded the young woman over a three-year period ending last year, according to court papers.

He was arraigned before a Manhattan judge on a single felony incest count.

"We ask that everyone remember that he is innocent until proven otherwise and that these allegations are nothing more than allegations," said Epstein's defense lawyer Matthew Galluzzo.
University spokesman
Robert Hornsby said that Epstein "is now on administrative leave and will not be teaching students."

Epstein, who specializes in American politics and voting rights,
has taught at
Harvard and Stanford and often is quoted by news organizations. He also has blogged on The Huffington Post.

So if you are of the ilk to back same sex marriage let me ask you some questions about this case.

Does the thought of having sex with a relative make your skin crawl?

Even the article references the relationship as a "sick sex relationship". How is it that the author of this article can judge this relationship as sick but yet call someone a bigot if they believe the thought of a man sticking a penis into another man's anus is just as sick? After all, I thought we established a long time ago that our sexual preferences were a result of "being born that way".

If you knew David Epstein personally, would his actions here change your opinion of him?

Instead of being charged with a crime, shouldn't he be allowed to marry this relative?

Why hasn't the relative been charged with a crime? Wasn't she a consenting adult engaging in the same behavior? They won't even publish her name?

I'm guessing that Columbia offers same sex benefits to their employees. Shouldn't Epstein be allowed to marry his honey so he can add her to his benefits?

If Epstein had sex with a male relative, would he have been charged?

So under what criteria does someone who believes in same sex marriage deny the obvious attraction between two consenting adults the same "right"?

My point here is that we have all kinds of laws regulating sex in this country, and actually few laws against gays that are enforced. In addition, we all have sexual preferences we find disgusting and/or perverted. Yet if you find the act of homosexuality one of those acts, you're labelled a bigot.

So if you think of this man as some kind of disgusting creep, are you not every bit as "bigotted" as people who do not want same sex marriage?



Anonymous said...

The gay marriage issue never been about gay marriage rights. It's activism for the sake of activism and their purpose is to stick it in the face of the establishment. The issue of gay marriage is but a tool.

People resist gay marriage not because they hate gay people but because it is simply a case of public officials sticking their nose into the area of people's established belief systems.

It's like "under God" in The Pledge. 95% of people are offended by the concept of taking the phrase out. Those same 95% would he offended if some politician proposed tacking on the phrase "...and Jesus".

With gay marriage, most people do not want a new law applied to an established tradition. But think about this: those very same majority of Americans would be VERY OPPOSED to a new law that forbids the tradition of consenting adults in a same sex relationship. Both measures would be activism and both would be opposed because of activism alone, not because of attitudes toward gays. America is far more libertarian than people realize.

If you want to marry your same sex partner, marry him/her. Marriage is a state of mind. You want to sign a contract committing to your partner, knock yourself out. People don't care. But that's not good enough for professional activists. They aren't happy until they stir the pot enough to draw attention to something that was a non-issue, then push the debate in the direction that pisses off the most people.

Anonymous said...

My heterosexual marriage happened in a church. Why did I have to go to a courthouse to get a license from the government? Frankly, I was offended that I needed to get my blessing from the government. I have news for activists who think gays seeking marriage need government sanctioning before a true blissful marriage has taken place: That piece of paper represents $35 with which I could have maybe bought some groceries. That's about it. Other than that, it hasn't made one tiny iota of difference in my life.