Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

From the Telegraph (UK):

A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.
Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and “unnatural” but is now widely accepted.
He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.

Also see related stories at the Sydney Morning Herald, The Telegraph (AU), International Business Times, and News Co (AU),

In fairness, reactions to his statement have largely reflected outrage; however, I think many of us would recall that this was largely the reaction of those who said homosexuality was morally neutral (or good) before the 70s.

… It’s the end of the world as we know it… And THEY feel fine…

Oh geez.

Abortion should not be a rationale for allowing something that is incredibly risky for the health of the offspring. “It’s okay now, because they can just kill their children instead of raising hemophiliacs!” What a joke.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

Define “consensual adults” The age of majority (legal adulthood) is 18 throughout Australia but the age of consent for sex ranges from 15-17 depending on the territory.

Is this judge suggesting it should be legal for a (for example) 30-year old man to have sexual relations with his 16-year old sister?! :eek:

The age of consent will be the next thing to be knocked down. Father Z has been predicting that for years.

This world is getting sicker by the minute. Say the Rosary every day!, God Bless, Memaw

His logic is consistent. Start from a flawed premise, and this is a fair result.

Who is Father Z?

I think the argument that “the age of consent is next” doesn’t make as much sense, since the secular worldview’s basis for the morality of any sexual act *is *consent. That’s the only language the secular vision speaks.

It is a disappointing state of affairs, however. I know that many of my friends who believe in consent-based marriage think that there is an argument that the polygamy should be legalized (based on consent of the spouses).

That is just too gross for words.

Yes, the secular viewpoint is that there must be consent. The push for lowering the age of consent will simply be that children are able to give consent at a lower age than the current law gives them credit for. A consenting adult, a consenting child. I think Father Z is right.

I disagree. I think there will likely be some changes in the way we view pedophilia and child pornography, in the sense that we might see the perpetrators of these crimes as having a mental illness. But I don’t think we’ll somehow shift towards a viewpoint that says consent can be given by children.

Belgian law already allows a child to consent to “assisted suicide”


What would happen in Australia is a 30 year old man had sexual relations with a non-related 16 year old?

I think the judge’s point is that familial relation alone should not determine the legality of the sexual act.

(I disagree, of course and am slightly surprized. I really thought polygamy would be the next domino to fall) :shrug:

This “judge” made his decision based on the belief that the only problem with incest is that of giving birth to an afflicted child. AND while that may be a good reason, it is not the only reason. A family is a group of people you are born into for safety from the world, a place to grow into full sexual maturity in a healthy way (and I realize that some do not understand that part). The possibility that your brother or sister is “checking you out” for a lifelong or short-term sexual partner is most destructive to a good and healthy development.

When you become of “consensual” age, that does not stop the need for a family to remain a place that is free of sexual stalking or selection. The adults still need that family and any children from that family or in that community would be affected by a breach of that freedom and protection in a family.

This was the problem with Woody Allen staking out and then marrying one of his adopted children: do you think the other members of that family, wife and children, had the stability and security for normal psychological and human development?

Same as here in the US, while the ‘legal’ age is 18, most states, a person is sexually an adult at 15-17, not really sure why it is this way, but I do know 15 is the cut off, younger than that, they are considered a kid, and not able to make decisions about their sexual activity, but at 15, they are…?? doesnt really make much sense to me, but I guess thats the law.

I always thought if someone over 18 had sex with someone under the age of 18, that in itself was actually statutory rape, but thats really not true, as long as a person is 15 or older, they can do as they life in regards to sex. I dont think a 15 yr old is really old enough to make decisions like this, but 3 yrs are not going to change that much anyway, so I guess it doesnt matter (shrugs?)

Yay equality!



And I have been agreeing with him all that time. It is a clear, logical path following the logic that has made same-sex “marriage” acceptable. Incest is a no-brainer.






DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit