Thus I have written often about those pushing for the legalisation of polyamory, or group love. The logic of group marriage is identical to the logic of homosexual marriage. And of course the same logic can be found in the push to legalise incest.

However, whenever I suggest these next steps in the slippery slope, the other side ridicules me and mocks me, claiming no one is arguing for polyamory or incest. That is why I have to keep writing articles like this. There are people all over the world pushing for these very things, and they are happy to ride on the success of the same-sex marriage movement.

Let's consider another clear cut example of this. Here is how one news item reports the story of a push for incest:

The upper house of the Swiss parliament has drafted a law decriminalising sex between consenting family members which must now be considered by the government.

There have been only three cases of incest since 1984.

Switzerland, which recently held a referendum passing a draconian law that will boot out foreigners convicted of committing the smallest of crimes, insists that children within families will continue to be protected by laws governing abuse and paedophilia.

Daniel Vischer, a Green party MP, said he saw nothing wrong with two consenting adults having sex, even if they were related.

"Incest is a difficult moral question, but not one that is answered by penal law," he said.

Barbara Schmid Federer of The Christian People's Party of Switzerland said the proposal from the upper house was "completely repugnant."

"I for one could not countenance painting out such a law from the statute books."

The Protestant People's Party is also opposed to decriminalising the offence which at present carries a maximum three year jail term.

A spokesman for the party said: "Murder is also quite rare in Switzerland but no one suggests that we remove that as an offence from the statutes."

So now the Greens want incest legalised. Why are we just not surprised? Why should any of this come as a surprise? Those intent on destroying society will never stop with just same-sex marriage. They want the whole hog: complete sexual anarchy.

Indeed, there have been plenty of homosexual activists who have long argued for the removal of most, if not all, legal restrictions on sexuality. Way back in 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations in the US demanded the "repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers."

Also in this 1972 Gay Rights Platform was the call for the abolition of all age of sexual consent laws. These proposals were endorsed wide and far in the homosexual community. Indeed, lesbian activist Judith Levine argued for all this and more (even pedophilia) in her famous Village Voice article, "Stop the Wedding. Why Gay Marriage Isn't Radical Enough".

So if we are stupid enough to grant the homosexual activists their wishes to marry, then please do not express shock or outrage when all the other contenders for "marriage equality" come crawling out of the woodwork. Anything goes in such a world.

The truth is, all boundaries are smashed when we redefine marriage. There are even groups arguing for the right to marry one's pet. Called petrosexuality, this new sexuality group insists that a person's love for his or her pet, including sexual relations, should be made official. Thus one Dutch web site encourages people to marry their pets.

But hey, at least you can't say I haven't told you so.

END