Incest is the new gay

Part I: The Beginning

It all started in 1952 with the American Psychiatric Association publishing its first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and included homosexuality as a disorder. Almost immediately, however, that classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in research funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. That study and subsequent research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, rather than a normal and healthy sexual orientation. As results from such research accumulated, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences reached the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.

In recognition of the scientific evidence,[1] the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.” After thoroughly reviewing the scientific data, the American Psychological Association adopted the same position in 1975, and urged all mental health professionals “to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations.” The National Association of Social Workers has adopted a similar policy.
Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.[2]

Baker vs Nelson

On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota gay student activists, Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis. The clerk of the Hennepin County District Court, Gerald Nelson, denied the request on the sole ground that the two were of the same-sex. The couple filed suit in district court to force Nelson to issue the license.

This came to be known simply as Baker vs Nelson. What it did was bring the same-sex issue to the limelight. The same-sex activists now had a very important tool in their hands: scientific evidence to sway court decisions. While previously homosexuality was considered as a crime, a disease and a deviancy, the trend began to change slowly in the latter half of the 19th century. Homosexuality began to be seen as indicative of a type of person with a defined and relatively stable sexual orientation. Then of course the incident of 1952 happened which completely put the ball in favour of the same-sex supporters. Interestingly it was the United States which was at the forefront of this.

The road to legalization of same-sex marriages

In 1975, the ice was further broken in the United States. Licenses were issued for same-sex marriages but later revoked and in one case the Bible was cited. In 1979 the Netherlands gave limited rights for same-sex couples. [3] In 1989 Denmark became the first country in the world to legally recognize same-sex unions, after passing a bill legalizing “registered partnerships”. Norway followed suit in 1993, and Sweden in 1995. Iceland and Greenland followed in 1996, the Netherlands in 1998 and Belgium in 2000. The major breakthrough however was on December 21 2000 when Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands signed into law the first same-sex marriage bill in the world.

This started an avalanche which resulted in some European countries and many Canadian and American states also passed the same law as well as sporadic countries elsewhere. [4]

Part II: The Avalanche 

The purpose of the above discussion was to explain the process by which homosexuality gained acceptance among the educated liberal class of the non-Muslim world of the West. The main opponents then and now are the religions prevalent in those areas whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or indeed Islam. Many of such groups are conveniently labelled ‘Conservatives’ in these parts or if they express typical religious flamboyance then they are recognized by their religion or sect.

The opponents are same today but their number has decreased. This is helped by two things: the secularization of the western lands and the wide scale reproach towards homophobia a term that has slowly become as powerful in rhetoric as anti-Semitism. This means there is a slight discomfort among western civilization towards people who are, to put it bluntly, anti-gay or more technically homophobic. The command this word has can be gauged by the fact that homophobic should literally mean someone who hates humans, but it is now meant technically as someone who hates homos which is short for homosexuals

As with imposition of secularization in any land the first to suffer is the land’s primary religion. Debates are ignited, on basis of scientific evidence primarily, that debunk the religion’s several tenets that are not in line with the liberal values accepted by the liberal world today. What is the purpose of this discussion is however to demonstrate that such liberal values are not a constant stagnant term but rather a very dynamic constantly evolving set of values that have given fruits in the area of sexual partnership. This means that now we have a complete redefinition on what can and cannot constitute a sexual partner.


Incest is the term used for sexual relationship between people who are family members or close relatives. The term is sometimes used for cousins and foster relationships as well. Incest is also the next frontier for the liberals. It is slowly gaining support and popularity especially with some highly publicized cases making rounds in the media. The current reaction of conservatives and most liberals at this is of disgust. This is evident from any thread about this topic where the majority are expressing their discomfort and horror.

Incest however is taking a very similar route to acceptance as homosexuality did. The most high-profile case in recent times is that of Patrick Stübing and Susan Karolewski, a German brother-sister couple. [5] Another such case covered in media extensively was that of Penny Lawrence and her father Gary Ryan (both adults). [6] What is interesting is what is common in both these cases.

The matter of choice

What is common is indeed the same scientific justification that put the ball firmly in the court of the homosexuals and their supporters. This time around the justification comes in the form of Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA). [7] This is a term coined in the 1980s to describe overwhelming feelings between blood relatives who first meet as adults. [8] It was first put in literature by a mother who met her son after a lengthy separation when he was an adult and found out she had sexual feelings for him. If you follow the two references (7 and 8) you will see several similar cases reported after the 1980s. However the gist of GSA is basically the same as the conclusion of the research on homosexuality: the persons carrying out this act do not have a choice.

To understand the implications of this we will once again refer back to how science came to the aid of homosexuality. The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated that:

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.“[9]

Professor Michael King states:

The conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of sexual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change. Scientific evidence on the origins of homosexuality is considered relevant to theological and social debate because it undermines suggestions that sexual orientation is a choice.“[10]

The key word here is choice. Similarly for GSA we have “It also embraces the theory that if two people who are genetically related do not meet until adulthood, the normal sexual aversion that develops between siblings during childhood is somehow switched off.” [8] and “The emotions that GSA engenders are reportedly intense and all-consuming, leading those affected by it to act against their interest to pursue a relationship with their relative.“[8] as well as “GSA is rare between people raised together in early childhood due to a reverse sexual imprinting known as the Westermarck effect, which desensitized them to later close sexual attraction” [7] (which basically says that children not reared together in early childhood become very attractive to one another later in life as they are not ‘desensitized’).

The great bigotry debate

Having established of sorts an argument similar to that of homosexuals about choice, the natural thing to wonder is why the same people who oppose incestuous relationships, support same-sex relationships? This is a relatively minor opinion but it is gaining grounds.  It is argued vociferously in this article by Stephen J. Ardent [11] who raises some critical points to demonstrate this bigotry.

Ardent argues “Incest is Against the Law. So was homosexuality at one time. So what? I guess it’s time for the law to change.” This is a valid point as we saw in Part 1 under the heading of road towards legalization of same-sex marriages.

He goes on to say “If you support gay marriage you must support any consensual sexual relationship between partners that are of the age of consent. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.”
Ardent however considers cousin-marriage to be a form of incest as well. We shall look upon this point later. He also recognizes science as a very strong tool in modern debates on morals. In his section “Incest is biologically wrong” he states: “We’ve all heard the stories about babies with two heads, six fingers, no legs, etc. But they are just that, stories. These genetic defects can happen to any two people.” He cements this point further when he argues “Finally, science and medicine have discovered that children produced by an incestuous relationship have in all practical terms no greater likelihood of genetic disorders than any non-incestuously produced child.
Well what about other incestuous relationships besides cousins? While they carry an increased risk of genetic disease, again, any two people who carry the markers for these diseases, related or not, can result in a child with a genetic disorder. We have genetic testing and such couples could choose to adopt rather than having one of their own.
It’s no different that a gay couple, who by the mechanics alone, are not capable of having children. It is no reason for them not to marry or to adopt.”

Here I believe he has hit the nail on the head. He has drawn the parallel between gay couples adopting children and incestuous people also adopting if facing the danger of deformed babies.
Having done the main work, Ardent returns to drawing rhetorical parallels between the two ‘movements’. he says: “Incest is a Mental Illness. Says who? So was homosexuality until 1990. Time for medicine to catch up with reality.” (refer to era before later half of 19th century discussed in Part 1)
He asks: “Incest is Morally Wrong. Says who? Whose morals? Any valid denial of rights to incestuous couples based on morals would be a valid and adequate reason to deny gay couples the same rights.”
To allegations of victimization: “If both parties are of the age of consent it is not victimization. Incest is not just between an adult and a child. Not all incest is child abuse because not all incest is between an adult and a child.”

Interestingly he points out ‘Accidental Incest’ whereby sperm banks means you may not know how many children you fathered and who exactly are you sleeping with.

The reader I believe, shall be able to work out where this ‘Avalanche’ goes from here. We however focus our attention to what caused this ‘acceptance’ and what we as Muslims must do about it.

The three musketeers

The basic driving force of all liberal reformations is basically to give as much freedom as possible to three things: choice of food, choice of sexual partner and methods to earn money. It is not as though they do not have restrictions but the restrictions increasingly have been made based less on religion or tradition and more on consensus and scientific evidence.  Sometimes, as we will see, the matter of choice overrides scientific evidence and in these cases the leverage of public opinion is often sought.

The fourth unofficial string to this is pleasure; or more commonly pleasure through recreational drugs. We will also later on discuss how this factor affects our discussion.

The western liberal movement constantly tries to come up with the best possible way of life whereby these three liberties are preserved. They slowly and successfully have broken the hold of religion on these matters. How this movement has achieved this is through firstly gaining control of the governments of the western countries. This led to rapid secularization of the lands. Such speed was a direct result of the atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church towards its masses which meant that when the hold of the Church was finally broken on people’s personal lives (after the Protestant Reformation Movement and the advent of democratic parliamentarian rule instead of monarchies) the backlash was so severe that the liberals did not wish to hear the word of the Church in any matter. This was swiftly adopted in Judaism and attempts are currently being made on Islam for over a century. For details kindly see our article Answering Secularism I.

Now with their hold on government the society can be easily molded into whatever shape they want. This may or may not require scientific evidence because it is legislated using the majority vote. It is this customized formation of society that can have a sway on thought process. This is what we discuss next.

Scientific analysis and empirical evidence – good enough?

But first we must put Science in its correct perspective. Science has namely two aspects: meta and empirical. All of it however requires a philosophical intellectual reasoning to make sense of what we ‘see’. For example the Universe was created when a small chemical agent came into being and then evolved to create the whole universe. This is empirically proven. But the analysis of this differ. Muslims, and all other major religions, believe Allah (or God) created this particle and guided it through a process by which the Universe was created. Atheists believe this particle came by chance and evolved into this Universe by chance. Therefore we have two obviously differing analysis.

The separation of metaphysics from physics has resulted in an increasing reliance on empirical evidence. This is wrong as not everything can be explained by tabulated outcomes. Not everything can be reproduced so that a definite pattern is observed. Not every cause can be studied by deliberately trying to reproduce the results of an experiment faithfully. Consider something called ‘thought’. Can scientists reconstruct the mechanism by which a particular thought came to a person’s mind? Can they even detect a thought and what it says without interference of the host? Can they determine why a thought comes at a particular time? The answer is a solid no. Therefore we conclude that empirical evidence is not the final say on anything because it does not answer the fundamental question of Why. We know the planets follow a perfect orbit round the Sun, but why do they do so? Why the altering of the day and night in a specific order throughout the year? What purpose does it serve? The answer is not with scientists.

So the purpose of the above discussion was to basically demonstrate that Science does not hold the answer to what is right and what is wrong. What is more is that the separation of meta from empirical data has reduced further the capability of Science to answer the question of Why and Why not. The ever-evolving precision of instruments means that constantly we will be bombarded with new data that will override the previous one. For example a while back a study showed that previously what was thought to be useless area in DNA (which evolutionists explained as occurring because the DNA base evolved from a primitive thing to its present state because of a chain of coincidences therefore some parts were not ‘mapped’ as a result) was actually ‘useful’ area in terms of mapping. So if we go by science and take right and wrong from it then entire generations will be in the wrong throughout their lives and suddenly some new scientific discovery might tell you that the morals you lived your own life by – were wrong.

I am by no means implying that Science is useless or redundant. I am merely pointing towards the incorrect importance given to scientific analysis which is particularly borne out of the reformation backlash of the liberals against the Roman catholic Church ; it has now translated into a global imposed supremacy of Science over religious discourse. As Professor King said above: “Scientific evidence on the origins of homosexuality is considered relevant to theological and social debate because it undermines suggestions that sexual orientation is a choice.” [10]

But there are gaping holes in this scientific analysis. The reader may have noticed that almost all the scientific responses to homosexuality asserted that the individual could somehow fit into the society and live a ‘normal’ healthy life.

Three questions: who defines normal, how do you conclude it is healthy and what is to say some decades from now you will not ‘discover’ it is in fact unhealthy?

The last two questions are answered in the above paragraphs. The first question takes us back to the discussion of reformation of society. The scientists actually consider ‘normal’ what is normal behavior accepted by the masses and approved by the government. There is nothing objective about it. The opinion of the masses is then again not indicative of correctness as it is result of the education system, society traditions and in present age: media propaganda. How do you think the masses voted for same-sex marriage legalization in 90s and 2000s but not before that?

Therefore the Scientists vision is subjective and limited to the society they see around them. What they call normal is normal only for that society but it does not mean that it is right. The issue left is therefore of their assertion that there is no choice for homosexuals.

Islam and Incest

There is no disagreement among Muslim scholars that Incest is haram (prohibited). There is no disagreement that the ruling for homosexuality is the same. For a believer that much is enough.

One may ask: what does Islam say about genetic pre-disposition? The answer is that even if we assume the scientists are correct in their assertion that there is no choice the fact of the matter is that there is a choice because human beings are born with free will. Giving in to our desires is not the same thing as being forced against your will. So the scientists’ assertion of ‘no choice’ means simply that the homosexual person was ‘born gay’.

But all of us are born with something not necessarily a disease. We are all born with an equal disposition towards good and bad. Which good or bad is what separates us from one another. For example I may be born with a disposition towards being short-tempered, while someone may be born with a disposition towards laziness. Our purpose in life is to over come these dispositions so that we mold it according to what our Creator Allah desires. No pre-disposition is impossible to overcome. Otherwise there would be no reward or punishment on Day of Judgement. For atheists, such a day does not exist but then again their theory is flawed since mathematically no equation can be unbalanced in nature, the proof of which is the perfect way our Universe is running. We know that justice isn’t served in this world and sometimes bad people seem to ‘get away’ with their evil. But mathematically that is not possible as the equation is unbalanced. One must get the reward of punishment for what they did in their lives. This necessitates  that there be a Day of Reckoning, which further necessitates that all humans should have the ability to overcome their bad pre-dispositions to submit to the Will of Allah. It is not ironic that Islam’s literal meaning is submission to Allah.

Therefore the scientists’ argument that there is no choice is void. Their argument that such behavior is ‘normal’ has been shown to be void as well. Human beings are born with good and bad qualities and inclinations. In additions the society and education imposed on them further shapes their orientations and choices. It is a matter of overcoming this to live according to what is right.

Animals as our role models?

It is sometimes suggested that homosexuality is not abnormal because many animals do it as well. However this is an incorrect analogy because humans are intellectually superior to animals. You don’t need empirical evidence to prove that. Therefore we can not take animals as a proof of what is normal. You have an insect whose female eats the male after copulation. Should that also serve as a guide to human sexual relations?

Part III: The Future

In our previous articles we discussed how Animal Brothels were legalized in Denmark. This also stems from the same notions of majority is correct and such people function ‘normally’ in ‘normal’ societies. In addition it is suggested that the animal is not harmed and probably likes it.

The future as I see it is that the West will legalize incest in the same way as homosexuality. Meanwhile their society will continue to evolve into something even more liberal in terms of their three fundamental needs. Their fourth unofficial such need of recreational drugs/wine/anything to get their mind off life, also made headline recently with US states of Washington and Colorado having voted to legalize the possession and sale of marijuana for recreational purposes, in defiance of federal law. [12] The same agents are at work here: choice, majority opinion, adaptation in society.

I do not see forms of incest such as parent and child legalized, nor do I see rape legalized however their society would be such that those who do not wish to copulate with their parent will not say anything to those who wish to do. It is their choice and we throw in the rhetoric about freedom of expression and the argument , for liberals at least, is complete.

This will further increase immorality in their society (though they won’t accept this terminology and would like to call it advancement or modernity) so that new perversions will crop up and in ways similar to homosexuality and incest these societies would ‘adapt’ to ‘fit’ them in. With the government in hands of the liberals it won’t be a hard task. The ‘Accidental Incest’ also stems out of their society spiraling out of control whereby measures have to be taken to accommodate newer perversions resulting in even more perversions.

Liberalism and nihilistic atheism have already destroyed Western marriage institutions. Homosexuality and Incest will completely destroy it. After all when you are not going to be given life after your death to answer for your deeds then better live life for sex, money, food and drugs/wine and do whatever you want as long as you are fine with it and you don’t get caught by police. It is a simple enough formula. Just kill your conscience. (Another food for thought for scientists: why do we have a conscience?)

An acquaintance of mine suggested that western society will come to accept ritualized cannibalism one day. Applying the now familiar agents of choice, majority vote and fitting in we can safely predict the path of such legalization. There will be an Armin Meiwes and Bernd Jürgen Armando Brandes who will be consenting adults willing to eat flesh of one another in a controlled and safe environment using drugs to ease the pain and enjoy the sexual experience.

This perversion has no bounds. If only the liberals would come to realize that just because you are attracted to something/someone does not mean you go and have intercourse with it. This perversion stands out in sharp contrast, ironically, to what America’s great leader Abraham Lincoln believed in. Professor Gramm wrote: “To him, the universe if not random, is not morally neutral, is not masterless; and humankind has to answer for its actions in a cosmos that is not only physical but moral. The difference between good and evil can sometimes be known. There are such things as duty and responsibility toward others. We are not the ultimate judges. And, as in the Old Testament, nations are held accountable as if they were individuals.” [13]. Gramm argues that much of Lincoln’s thought would be alien to today’s America because its law and culture are “becoming abjectly secular,” and because “we now have a society increasingly uncivilized and more pervasively without conscience. . . .” [14]

As usual in Muslim lands plagued with secularism, encouraged by the West taking revenge on Islam for the sins of Roman Catholic Church, the liberals are quick to catch on the Western ‘trends’. As a result the media propaganda machine which sways the public opinion in a short span of time is used to openly promote homosexuality. However Muslim bloggers have risen to the occasion trying their best to refute such perversion [15]

It is therefore necessary for Muslims to see that with legalized homosexuality knocking on their doors the gates will soon be open for incest, bestiality and cannibalism. They must think of themselves and their future generations and practice and spread the word of Islam to the best of their capabilities.


[2] (page 30)
[13] Kent Gramm, Gettysburg. A Meditation on War and Values, p. 22
[14] Ibid., pp. 184 and 76.