Columbia Political Science Professor Equates His Incestuous Relationship With Daughter to Homosexual Sex

Columbia Political Science Professor Equates His Incestuous Relationship With Daughter to Homosexual Sex


The headline for the Daily Mail article focuses on David Epstein’s equation of sex with his biological daughter with homosexual sex, but I was stunned by the admission that a member of the Political Science staff at Columbia was having sex with his adult child:

The political science professor at Columbia University, 46, allegedly slept with her between 2006 and 2009.

Epstein, who specialises in American politics and voting rights, is also said to have exchanged twisted text messages with the woman during their relationship.

Matthew Galluzzo, defending Epstein, has said that even though his daughter had emerged as a victim in the case, she could ‘best be described as an accomplice’.

He told ‘Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so.

‘At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms.

‘It’s ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different?

‘We have to figure out why some behaviour is tolerated and some is not.’

Really?  We have to figure that out?

How about because the world has enough banjo pickers:



Seriously though, from a strict Constitutional perspective, does the government have the power to tell a consenting adult they cannot have sex with another consenting adult, regardless of the relationship?

I’m going to say yes on incest, and it comes down to the definition of “consent.”

Do you know why the age of consent is important?

Here’s one of the best explanations I’ve read:

To protect children, who may not have any understanding exactly what they are being asked to do or have any idea of the consequences of their actions, from adults trying to take advantage of them.


One of the things I learned while working with sex offenders is how sex offenders use positions of power to force children to do what they want.  A parent is a position of power, especially over their child.  Were a parent to raise a child with the intent of creating a sexual plaything, it would be very easy for them to assert their power over said child.

Rather than incest being taboo, it’s normal.

This doesn’t allow the adult child to truly “consent,” because they might not be able to fully comprehend the consequences actions due to the parent’s deviant influence on them.

What do you think?  Why should incest between two consenting adults be illegal, other than it’s disgusting?

  • Joseph McCoy

    Good article, although the banjo has a new, much more respected reputation these days.

    • Duane Lester

      Actually, my older brother plays. It’s a joy to watch him pick.

  • Bruce Feher

    Murders and incestuous as professors, why to go Columbia! You can bet NO ONE in my family will attend your “school”

    • Navigator1924

      we’ve ruled out Harvard also. you realize this normalizing of incest was inevitable. I actually thought this was against the law. It produces “challenged” offspring most of the time. The characters in the movie “Deliverance” are examples of incest. I also read somewhere 1st cousins also have the chance of producing “deliverance babies”. All in all, this is sick. Just another sick communist to deal with.

      • Frank Friel

        It is against the law in most states but one of the parties in the relationship must make a charge. Police will rarely intervene if the parties in the relationship are both adults.

    • Jay Smith

      I’m guessing no one will attend Columbia from your family because you didn’t teach them how to write a proper sentence. But go ahead, hide behind your superior morality if it makes you feel better.

      • Kathryn Antinore

        Sounds like you are the one spouting your superiority at Bruce. Did that make YOU feel better?

        • Bruce Feher

          You hang with murders and such if that makes you feel good Ms. Antinore.

          • Frank Friel

            Actually Bruce Ms. Antinore was trying to defend you. Please sir, remove your head from your ass and pay attention to the thread.

          • Mary Ann Johnston

            She was talking to Jay in your defense. It really does help to not only read the sentence but to look at whom the the response is being made.

          • MarkSylvstr

            Murderers, not ‘murders’

        • Jay Smith

          I’m not pointing out my superiority, just pointing out the hilarity of someone writing “Columbia school bad I no send my kids there its imural”

          • Jackie Owens

            I guess not everyone is an overly intelligent Liberal like you.

          • Phil Steinacker

            Jay, that’s not hjilarity, that’s lying on your part! He didn’t write it in the ignorant way you illustrated. You’re dishonestly pawning off on him your own bigotry, and then you obfuscate when called on it.
            You are quite correct NOT to flaunt your superiority.

          • Jay Smith

            No he wrote “Murders and incestuous as professors, why to go Columbia” which is fucking hilarious. Why go to Columbia? To learn some fucking syntax! You people are fucking funny, did you all get fucked by your uncles and became humorless cunts about it? Fuck it, I wasn’t flaunting my superiority before, but I might as well now. You are all probably products are incest, since you mongoloid brains can’t find the humor in someone, while figuratively clutching his pearls, say he won’t send his kids to one of the best universities in the country using the sentence “Murders and incestuous as professors, why to go Columbia”. That’s not on me, its on all of you. Ron Paul is a closeted homosexual.

          • gemjunior

            Best universities in the country vs. most liberal indoctrination center…… I should know, I went there….. and as a conservative almost had to dodge bullets more than once. Out of each thousand faculty members I think they said there were only 6 who considered themselves “conservatives”.

      • Bruce Feher

        Hey Jay, I went to public school, that should be explanation enough!

      • Char Stevenson

        I’m guessing you go to Columbia and probably won’t graduate from there because you like the ambience.

        • Phil Steinacker

          Hey, Jay! Now that’s hilarious!
          Thanks, Char.

      • Frank Friel

        So you believe a person who finds incest immoral is exhibiting “supirior morality”. Well, that’s a very astute observation. One of the reasons our Society has advanced to the point we are now is because we have exhibited a superior morality to our forebearers in most cases. Of course ther are those in society that would allow any kind of immorality to appease some groups sense of validation. You sir, are a moron.

      • Jackie Owens

        So you are FOR incest?

      • lisahcan

        Looking forward to banging your daughter? First, you gotta have sex with a woman to GET a daughter.

    • Tigerclaw1

      Ivy League schools are good for graduating well-connected morons, nothing else.

  • Christian LeBlanc

    In a world where contraception and abortion reign supreme, I don’t see a secular reason to proscribe incest between consenting adults.

  • Chuck Fowler

    Good article, except for the banjo picking slur against all rednecks, hillbillies, mountain folk or anyone else who plays a banjo but probably doesn’t marry their cousin.

    • Duane Lester

      I didn’t mean it to be a slam against banjo pickers. More a statement about inbreeding and that guy symbolizes that more than anything.

      • keyboard jockey

        That’s my demographic, I thought it was funny. But truly- there are enough banjo pickers in the world? There can never be enough banjo pickers LOL!

      • Carl Roden

        Its ironic that the movie “Deliverance” based on a great book with an amazing environmentalist message about nature and man’s effects on it will always be remembered more for one or two scenes of incest and male-rape.

        That being said Duane, you are right we have enough slow witted people in this country without condoning adding to the population.

    • venicementor

      OR has sex with their child!

    • Kevin Carrigan

      FDR married his cousin. Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt were cousins. Franklin married Eleanor Roosevelt–who was TR’s niece; she was the daughter of TR’s brother Elliot.

  • Cat2727

    So, when his daughter gets older it would be alright?
    When one attempts to excuse depravity — depravity of any sort, rationalizations come back to bite.

    • redraider93

      Difference between “legal” and “alright”….

      • Michele Verret-Ayala

        Maybe there is a technical difference. However, I am sure it could be proven as one abusing their power and authority. I don’t care whether a child reaches “legal” age or not…a parent yields an emotional position over that child forever.

  • David Waldman

    CLEARLY Bush’s fault.

    • Phil Steinacker


  • Dorothy Grafton

    Incest hurts both participants & especially the child, because the child feels betrayed by the very person that should be protecting him/her….and I am here to tell you a child, even a very young child knows instinctively that this behavior is wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Frank Friel

      Unless they’re conditioned to believe otherwise. Just as a young person is not born racist, they are conditioned to believe hating someone else because of the color of their skin is acceptable.

  • Rosey Kidd

    He is parent and by grace he should be protecting her from harm ,Not causing her great pain and mental problems ,he should be put behind bars in chains ,SICKO and why is he still teaching ,Is that school is just for abusers and murderers ,God help the children who choose to go there,That school should be closed !

  • fredbird67

    This is disgusting, that he would indulge in an incestuous relationship with his own daughter, never mind that she’s an adult now — SICK!!! And as a bluegrass musician, I too found the reference to banjo pickers offensive.

    • Shannon D. Thiss

      I am a hillbilly redneck and a banjo enthusiast and I found it funny as hell.

      • Duane Lester

        Thank you. That’s what I was going for.

      • Frank Friel

        This is what most people used to think. Now we all have to be offended at every little joke someone tells. Too many people have sand in their vaginas and just need to grow up and get thicker skin.

    • Frank Friel

      Grow thicker skin please. People are going to make fun of other people all the time and if you haven’t figured that out by now, your just going to constantly be offended.

    • gemjunior

      Everyone is offended these days. Offended, offended, offended. “That remark was offensive”. Take a number, you big Sissy Mary……

  • jr

    what makes it any more disgusting than homosexuality? Your opinion?

    • Jennifer Frank

      because incest is HAVING SEX WITH YOUR CHILD in this case! How can you be so stupid as to even ask that question!?!?!

      • Frank Friel

        It’s not a stupid question. See here’s a naturalists view of both acts. Incest actually results, possibly, in the creation of human life. There is great risk that the offspring will be severely handicapped either physically or mentally. Many species of animals outside of the human species breed incestually and thrive. Humans do not in this case because of the inherent risk of those handicaps earlier stated. Homosexuality, on the other hand, has no natural result in their completion of their sex act. It does not result in the propogatin of the species and is inherintly unnatural. Many like to point to other species of animals that exhibit sexual acts and social conjugation with their same sex companions, but it is well established that this is simply a sign of dominence and not a natural act of reproduction. In conclusion it would seem that incest is actually a more natural act then homosexuality. And what do you know, not a single mention of God in that entire explaination.

    • Brent J. Leckner


  • Linda Roberts Harrison

    how could anyone have sex with their own flesh and blood….discusting pig….

  • Nate09

    I think polygamy will be the next step after gay marriage, but incest will follow. Polygamy is less taboo, since it’s what people accept as ok anyway, it’s just official in a marriage. Incest will happen, but it has to be more mainstreamed first…

    • Kathleen Elisabeth

      It’s all a part of bringing down society and the beginning of the end of morality

      • Frank Friel

        Morality doesn’t end because immoral people make immoral acts legal. You still have the abosulte freedome to live a moral and ethical existance regardless of what is legal. If you need a legal opinion to decide what is moral you are as warped as the immoral legislatures working toward immorality.

        • Phil Steinacker

          I agree with your first two sentences, and I bet Kathleen does too. I think she meant “the end of morality” as the end of all the commonplace shared moral values necessary for a culture to survive in a form even barely recognizable as Christian.

    • Jackie Owens

      Hollywood, first they FORCED gays on us, slowly it will be polygamy then bestiality then incest is legal. This is how they have convinced so many that being a degenerate is fine.

    • Mary Ann Johnston

      In California, they are already trying to pass a bill that calls Pedophillia a sexual orientation and compares it to homosexuality. One big difference though, homosexuality is between consenting adults. Pedophilia, like rape, is not about the sex but the power. There is only pervsion there, no orientation.

  • Debbie Lepley King

    This country has fallen in an abyss of sin, and when so called intellectuals use their position to promote evil deeds, then I say keep your children out of college and teach them about predators.

  • Ronin

    That’s what happen when you give gay people rights. They are not the only one ill.
    More corrupted minds will come up to the surface…

    More perverts, will show up to to ask for the legalization of their illness.

    First coulbe be incest. Later could be bestiality..

    • Frank Friel

      Your argument is a falshood of logic sir. It is referred to as the slippery slope argument. One event does not result in another. The problem we have in this country is that the federal government should not be legislating morality at all. These decisions must be left to the states and local governments that should have the power to enact laws in their communities that they see fit. This is how this country had worked prior to the “Federalization” of our republic when the Civil War ended. The Progressives of the early 20th century further centralized power and now it has eroded to the point that every little social problem is sent to Washington for discussion. This creates a very fractued federal government that ends up creating laws that many people within the constituency disagree with under the guise of protecting a class of the citizenry.

      • Ronin

        Laws shouldn’t bound ethics and morality.
        That means that your argument is a falshood of logic sir.

      • Phil Steinacker

        I disagree with you, Frank, in the following ways.

        First, most law is the ostensible legislation of morality, despite loud disclaimers to the contrary. Just an example in only one area, all laws against stealing in its various forms is rooted in the Commandment prohibiting the taking from another what is not yours, and that religious morality which undergirds it is also foundational to much of the legal system today. If stealing is not immoral, then what basis could serve society nearly so well? Self-interest, even mutually practiced, eventually disintegrates into complete self-centered ness on the societal and cultural level.

        But more important, in my view, to our central disagreement… while I understand they are separate events in one sense, any long-term observer of political and legal developments knows that once an institution like marriage is dismantled, then it is just reality that others will seek to further dismantle it for their own purposes. We can see the obvious after-effects of introducing no-fault contraception, abortion, and divorce into the larger permissable culture and the resulting damage to that culture, its institutions which used to offer some measure of protection these effects, and now, inevitably, our chidlren. BTW, these breakdowns have all been witnessed previously in older and even ancient cultures. Nothing new is under the sun.

        The sad truth is that already several different groups of those inclined to incest, bestiality, pedophilia,and also polyamory (3+ marriage partners) are advancing their goals in the form of public statements through their publication arms, websites, and blogs, which they intend to pursue by following the trail blazed by SSM advocates. True, they are quite distinct and separate from one another,yet they will independently attempt to build opportunities from the success of same-sex marriage advocates. Possibly they will find legal tactical advantage to combining their efforts. but it will take a little time for these efforts to mature to that level; say, about two weeks (sarcasm/off).

        The interconnection between these groups, while not organic or official, is spelled out in what I believe is the biggest political, if not legal, argument against SSM:
        Once you redefine marriage away from the original strictly held definition of one man and one woman, you open the door to anyone with the agenda to further redefine it in their own image and likeness, so to speak.

        After all, once the door is opened, what argument can be mustered to prevent further tampering? Do homosexuals who actually think out their views actually possess an argument which will block more innovation without undermining that which they are now demanding? BTW, so far this argument is turned away in silence when advanced publicly. If you know of an effective refutation, please comment. I don’t think one is possible, frankly.

        These groups – albeit miniscule minority groups, at least for now – are fully aware of the coming new reality, whether the SCOTUS rules in their favor or not. Regardless, they intend to pick up the battle for their own causes by building upon an expected positive decision by the Court..

  • Green Eyed Lady

    this is illegal everywhere – this demon belongs in jail!

    • Frank Friel

      You are ignorant and should really not be making ignorant statements. But yes, he does belong in jail because it is illegal in New York.

  • Culture War Notes

    Attacking what two consenting adults choose to do?
    You’re probably a homophobe as well.
    Keep your bourgeois middle class Christianity out of other people’s faces.

    • Duane Lester

      I specifically omitted any reference to religion in order to avoid this argument. You’re swinging at straw men.

    • Brent J. Leckner


  • Stephen Foraker

    This country is out of control!

  • Angel Garber

    This is what political correctness begets… A nation of people who are so tolerant that they will accept and try anything.. When is it going to be enough? When will we open our eyes and see that political correctness has created Sodom and Gomorrah?

    • Frank Friel

      Please don’t confuse tolerance with acceptance. Tolerance is holding on to your love of humanity in spite of it’s immorality and decadence. Acceptance is losing your love of humanity and joining the immorality. The left have accepted, the right tolerates.

    • Phil Steinacker

      Frank has an excellent point. In building block fashion, we need to begin the long ardous road to reclaim the language by restoring accurate meaning to words appropriated by the Left: tolerance, discrimination, gay…
      There will be confusion in communication – at first – with those we encounter, but if enough folks do it and stick with it then we can ram a big hole in the fabric of the progressive lie.

  • oket

    “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of people living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it”, Frederic Bastiat

    • Frank Friel

      And this is why the founding fathers wanted the “moral” aspect of law to be handled by the states and not the federal government.

  • Linda McDaniel

    They don’t feel that it is immoral because they have no moral barometer. They, literally, don’t know the difference between right and wrong… and that’s pathetic.

    • Char Stevenson

      I think the professor is quite aware of what he is doing and that he’s morally bankrupt. He revels in it as it’s the titillation he desires but his daughter has been a partner for so long that even if she knows deep down it isn’t right, she goes along because he is the one who gives orders and she’s the one who takes them.

      He should be killed by hanging.

      • Frank Friel

        Did you get this information from a personal interview with the daughter? I don’t disagree with your statement about the professor, but you have no idea what the daughter thinks.

  • John Chagnon

    If morality, natural law and historic understandings are going to be ruled inadmissible in this debate than what other grounds could a person use to say that an incesuous relationship between consenting adults is not acceptable? Harm? There are all kinds of sexual acts that can and do produce demonstrable harm but the present law and culture often turn a blind eye to them so why would this be any different? I’m not suggesting that incesuous relationships are good. I believe that nature, natural law, the witness of history, and the testimony of near universal moral traditions weigh heavily against it. Yet if all sexual and marital relationships consist of only what suits the current needs of consenting adults why would this particular kind of relationship be any more worthy of condemnation than others that used to be problematic?

    • Brent J. Leckner


  • Seraphim

    The banjo picking comment was uncalled for. It implies hill billies and red necks (and by extension all southerners). If you want to go that way with it, how about a slur against Rhode Islanders? After all, Rhode Island is the only state that has no law against adult consensual incest (which was repealed in the 1980′s). New Jersey has the law, but has an overt, stated policy against enforcing it in consensual cases. Many states already allow some form of it (e.g. Arizona allows oral sex and Texas allows mutual masturbation). Where do you draw the line? If our variety of laws in America are any indication, there is no consensus other than a general “Ewww! That’s gross.” How long can that hold out in court in a country with pluralistic moral/ethical values?

    The only way to establish a precident against it is to adopt a consistent moral/ethical climate against it. Sadly, this country is destroying itself from within and I just can’t see that happening.

    • Frank Friel

      Just don’t let the federal government handle it. It should be handled, in the most optial of situations, at the community level. States constitutionally have the right to pass morality laws, and should. The federal government need not be involved due to the very fact that we have “…pluralistic moral/ethical values”. Why should I, as a citizen of Oklahoma have to live by the same moral/ethical values that someone else in say California does? And if I don’t like my states collective morals/ethics I can easily leave and move to a state that I agree with.

  • sls

    i’m glad my daughter’s friend turned down columbia in favor of brown. ick.

  • nobody you care about

    Your argument seems to be that a child might not fully understand…but that doesn’t apply to two consenting adults, because both parties are adult. “Adult” being the keyword, in case that wasn’t clear enough.

    • Brent J. Leckner


  • Judith Muehlbauer

    I don’t want to defend this slimeball, but the issue of a child not being able to consent because of age does not seem to apply in this case as his offspring was an adult when they were sexually involved.. It would seem you would need a different legal basis to prosecute if you hold the position that consenting adults should be free to do what they please in the bedroom.

    • Judith Muehlbauer

      BTW, I’m perfectly fine with banning incest on the grounds that it is abhorrent.

      • Frank Friel

        Some people feel not being Muslim is abhorrent and they would love to pass laws that force you to convert to Islam. I know you’ll tell me these issues are completely seperate, but they are not. What people do, consensually, in the privacy of their own home is and should be free of legislation. As long as your actions don’t infringe on the rights of others, it shouldn’t be “illegal”. This does not condone immorality, but just as God gave us free will, the government should allow us a certain level of freedom as well.

        • Brett_W

          Frank, that is an argument that I can get behind 100%. Morality should not be imposed by our government but should how ever be instilled but our family and our faith. While is not inevitable that those with out faith will also be with out morality, those with good and strong faith will posses a strong moral compass. Yes, this does open the argument to “What is good faith?” and that is a personal choice.

  • Paul Hue

    The next step: Marriage. What would the argument be against parents and children marrying? Children marrying? How dare we “judge”, much less fail to deny marriage to, any consenting adults.

    • Frank Friel

      I believe pretty much every state in the country has laws that prohibit marriage to kin closer than a second cousin. Some states allow cousins to marry but it is uncommon.

      • Paul Hue

        We all know that, Frank. But based on WHAT? The same rationale used to permit homosexual marriage should now permit those other forms of marriage. And as for gay marriage: what would the basis be for banning gay marriage between siblings and cousins and parents/children?

    • MikeD2012

      We should simply “open” the definition of marriage to include family and multiple partners. Then would the left be happy? I don’t see an endgame with them.

  • Warren Dew

    I’m pretty sure the daughter was over the age of consent in this case, since she was an adult.

  • Steven Bradley

    What’s disgusting to one person may not be to another. For instance, sex between two males is beyond disgusting to me – the thought of it makes me want to vomit. Yet it seems to be getting shoved down our throats by the SCOTUS, and any complaint to that is considered to be deviant!

  • Randal Phillips

    Historically, incest has been FAR more prevalent among European royalty than “banjo pickers”. Of course, since most banjo pickers are white southerners, they’re fair game for any kind of insult or slur.

    • chrisinva

      thanks from a happily married southern banjo picker, Randal.

  • Kevin Bankert

    Sure it’s disgusting. It also shouldn’t be illegal. And any so-called Constitutionalist who says it should be is no different from any other right- or left-wing statist: he or she simply wishes to use the police power of government – that is, men with guns – to stamp out behaviors he or she finds objectionable.

    When the act involves consenting adults, then there’s no victim. And where there’s no victim, there’s no crime.

  • disqus_spSAltmiWg

    According to your source article this was the LAWYER speaking, not the professor. Everybody loves to try to sound smarter than a professor at Columbia, Harvard and Stanford.

  • Anna Azzy Meyer

    Oh Dear God, It is NOT that big a deal. For all you know he was a great father. The FACT is that it was his ADULT daughter, who is Perfectly capable of making her own decisions. If she wanted to bang her dad then that is HER choice. Though it is considered Taboo and is not socially acceptable in a lot of places, We have NO right to tell Anyone who they want to be with. It shouldnt be illegal, because what people do in their private lives DOES NOT CONCERN US. Also, inbreeding doesnt really cause to much problems in the beginning. It takes a couple generations. But again, Not something that everyone in the god damn world needs to put their two cents in. Mind your own bizz.

    • MikeD2012

      And thus, the argument to save traditional marriage is born. Thanks Anna Azzy.

    • MikeD2012

      PS Great fathers don’t sleep with their offspring you sick, fwisted, tuck.

    • JTLiuzza

      Your outlook has been twisted into believing that the primary purpose of sexual activity is for pleasure. It is not. But even a morally crippled person like you should be able to see the connection between the deviant view of sex primarily as a vehicle of pleasure, and the “normalization” of all deviancy like sodomy and now incest, which you are advocating, not to mention the horror of abortion.

      Where did it all begin? Contraception. Once that insidious idea was accepted as a good, acceptance of sexual perversion as good was only a matter of time, advocated by folks like you. When sex is viewed primarily as a vehicle of pleasure, which is the contraceptive mentality, any sex between “consenting adults,” even incest, seems to also be a good to the confused.

  • Danielle Stephenson

    making it illegal based on the it’s disgusting factor. well It is disgusting In my opinion. It is an abuse of power even if the “child” is of consensual age. but what about the scientific part. A child can result from and incestual relationship.

    wikapedia– Inbreeding results in increased homozygosity, which can increase the chances of offspring being affected by recessive or deleterious traits.[2] This generally leads to a decreased fitness of a population,[3][4] which is called inbreeding depression.

    Is that not an issue that should be considered? yes we have birth control but it isn’t %100. I think how incest effects the resulting child should be taken into consideration.

  • Anna Katrina Wagner

    People really have to debate this? To me it’s obvious…. but then again, my old-fashioned, Bible-believing, God-fearing thoughts and opinions are just “hateful”.

  • jabwocky

    Well, it is Columbia, it’s like voting for somebody that is ignorant, or incapable of holding that office, you pretty much get what you ask for… same thing applies here, you have a liberal school, pushing a liberal agenda, which is in the most part, anti-society, without morals and values, because those people become easier to manipulate…

  • Magdalene Prodigal

    No holds barred. No protection for the innocent; the lust of a man trumps all other rights even to the right to life itself. Sliding down the slippery slope ever faster.

  • Diogenes71

    Isn’t the goal of same-sex “marriage” to make every type of possible sexual encounter normal; pedophelia, bestiality, incest, polyamory, mutliple partners. Doesn’t anyone have any self-control? Must we be presented with deviant sex constantly until be become insensitive to the damage it does to one’s soul as well as to society? We see sex objectified every where these days form the media, TV, mags at the market checkout stand. This must have a corrosive effect on society!

  • Patrick Carriveau

    Once same-sex marriage is allowed, this crap will follow. When? Who can say. But, as sick as a father having sex with (or wanting to marry) his daughter sounds now, just remember how sick same-sex marriage sounded to all of us less than a generation ago, and now the relentless lobbying by the forces of this perversion continues to de-sensitize the populace. Where does it stop?

  • exoticdoc2

    The only rational source for objective morality is one that lies outside of and above human beings. God is the only one who fits that description. What atheists are left with is mere human opinion with no way of discerning the validity of one random collection of atom’s opinion from another’s. First heterosexual promiscuity, then homosexuality, and then we slide into incest, bestiality, and every other sexual deviancy with each person doing what is right in their own eyes. There will be no end to the moral decay of this world.