Inc@$t and Y@G: A Modern Day Double Standard
Inc@$t and Y@G: A Modern Day Double Standard
Let me be clear from the start: I do not advocate for either Inc@$t or Y@G behavior. Both are biblically and morally wrong. However, the cultural logic and legal landscape surrounding them reveals an interesting contradiction. In today’s society, consensual Y@G relationships are celebrated—even codified into marriage law—while Inc@$t, even among consenting adults, remains illegal and taboo. Why the inconsistency?
If we’re going to evaluate actions purely on secular grounds—like consent, harm, and evolutionary value—Inc@$t might actually seem more defensible than Y@G. Inc@$t, while still morally objectionable, at least involves the potential for procreation, which is essential to biological and societal continuity. It aligns with the evolutionary impulse to reproduce. Y@G, by its very nature, cannot produce life, and so serves no reproductive or evolutionary function. From a cold materialist standpoint, that should raise questions—yet it doesn’t.
People often cite the risk of genetic defects as a reason Inc@$t is wrong. But this argument is frequently overstated. Many non-Inc@$t couples also carry recessive traits and risks for genetic disease. Society doesn’t prevent them from marrying or reproducing. Meanwhile, Y@G unions—entirely sterile by design—face no legal barrier. This double standard suggests the issue isn't really about logic, harm, or biology. It’s about cultural preference.
Conclusion
Again, to be clear: Inc@$t is wrong. Y@G is also wrong. But when our laws and ethics become inconsistent—accepting one while demonizing the other without rational basis—we reveal a society driven less by truth and more by trend. As someone shaped by Scripture, I believe both acts fall outside God's design. But even if we put the Bible aside, it’s worth asking why our culture upholds such selective standards of morality.
Comments
Post a Comment