One could think that this Salvo fake ad goes too far simply for the sake of causing trouble and making liberals mad. While that is an enjoyable side effect, it certainly isn't the main goal. The reality is that I could provide links to scholarly articles advocating (at least intellectually) each of the above "lifestyle choices." See the excerpt below for an example of what I mean. That's the problem, isn't it? When does the "progressive" cease to, uh, progress? By definition, there is no stopping. Lars Walker writes about this in a recent post of his:
If you're a social conservative, chances are you’ve had a conversation something like this:
Conservative: “But if we accept homosexual behavior as normal, how do we retain other traditional taboos, like the one against incest?”
Liberal: “That’s just a straw man. Nobody’s going to advocate incest.”
Now, read this, from Tauriq Moosa, tutor in ethics, bioethics and critical thinking at the University of Cape Town, South Africa (courtesy of my friend Dale Nelson):
Thirdly, and oddly, people exclaim [incest is] “just” repugnant. We will examine this more closer later. Nonetheless, why should the sexual activities of two consenting adults concern us? This is the same question we can ask those who are ‘against’ homosexuality (which is like being against having blue eyes). It is none of our business what two consenting adults wish to do (as long as no one else is harmed/involved without consent).
Repugnance helped many things we now consider wrong to continue in the past, such racial and sexual inequality. We can’t rely on repugnance to justify our social policies, since our repugnance is simply that: our own. Besides which, people are repulsed by different things – and we cannot leave it up to the whims of our emotions to implement policies and laws which could, unnecessarily, cause suffering to other people, as is the case with gay people, women, and indeed the current brother-and-sister couple.
Pretty lively for a straw man, isn’t it?