Posted on 12/15/2010 9:18:21 PM PST by This Just In
So, Why Is Incest Wrong?
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
There are certain questions now pressed upon us that previous generations would never believe could be asked. One of these is thrust upon us by events in New York City, where a well-known Ivy League professor has been arrested for the crime of incest. What makes the question urgent is not so much the arrest, but the controversy surrounding it.
David Epstein is a professor of political science at Columbia University, where his wife also teaches. He previously taught on the faculties of Harvard and Stanford. Last week, he was arraigned before a judge in Manhattan, charged with a single count of felony incest. According to authorities, Professor Epstein was for several years involved in a sexual relationship with his adult daughter, now age 24.
Though the story was ignored by much of the mainstream media, it quickly found its way into the cultural conversation. William Saletan of Slate.com, who remains one of today’s most relevant writers working on the issues of bioethics and human nature, jumped on the story with a very interesting essay that openly asked the question many others were more quietly asking: “If homosexuality is OK, why is incest wrong?” Related Posts
* Homosexuality and the Bible — One Very Wrong Way to Deal With the Text * America’s Debate over Homosexuality: Are Christians On the Wrong Side of History? (Audio) * “Rights Talk” Collides with Right and Wrong * “Both Wrong and Dangerous” — Scientists Have Worldviews, Too. * “The Land of Never Wrong” — The Real World of Big-Time Sports
(Excerpt) Read more at albertmohler.com ...
Normal parents aren’t sexually attracted to their offspring. Must be a trait we have built in.
Excellent and astute post, SWAMPSNIPER.
Read post #20.
Because there just aren't enough banjos to go around.
Who's growing toothless banjo pickers now?
GMTA, FRiend.
it is true we can choose to be creatures in the field, however, when someone makes such a choice, they utterly fail at the creature level. Humans make horrible creatures. . .because we were not created to be mere creatures governed by instinct. We were given a free will and a role to share in the governing of our instinctual self through self-discipline. The central instrument of that discipline was the Word of God, i.e. the moral law. Through faith in that Word, the divine self would rule over the carnal. . .but there I go. . Let’s turn our Bibles to Genesis. . .
The progression of discourse tends to be:
1) No one even thinks to talk about X.
2) X is mentioned, but only derisively and in passing.
3) People go on for hours about how horrible X is.
4) Someone actually stands up for X, but is generally castigated.
5) People come up with increasingly sophisticated arguments about why X is horrible.
6) A minority of people come up with increasingly sophisticated arguments for why X should at least be tolerated, but they are generally dissed.
7) A minority of people come up with arguments why X is actually a good thing, or how some people have to do it.
8) A majority of people believe that X is horrible, but it can be tolerated so long as no one talks about it.
9) A majority of people believe if someone wants to do X, then it is OK by them.
10) More and more people start taking a stab at X just to see.
With incest we are somewhere around step 4. Right now it seems as if we are winning this cultural battle, but we are just at step 4 on our inevitable decay toward step 10, which is where I currently believe we are at with regard to homosexuality and its associated practices.
If there is no generally agreed upon downside from a purely materialistic point of view, then mentioning X ultimately leads to tolerating, and even encouraging, X for those who wish to engage in it. If all you have to do is abort any physically defective children that result form incestuous unions, then over time society will agree that it should be tolerated so long as all parties are consenting.
Dunno. I would suspect nature frowns on it, just like homosexuality.
Only two legged pigs could think up something like that!
“26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.””
Looks like the commies have acheived this goal. Now show this list to your liberal friends and watch them give you the deer in the headlights look.
What with all the unwed mothers who can't be certain who the father(s) of any of their children are.
There are places in American that can be accurately described as being 'in the wild.'
It's why my tag line never changes.
Interesting concept. I imagine it will take some time for the various children of different mothers to “get together” to see how it affects things/neighborhoods/certain populations. I suppose that helps though - having different mothers.
Yes, completely agree that incest is a sin
and causes the breakdown of the family as
well as the general decline of civilization.
Liberals are deviant self centered, self
righteous predators on ALL levels.
“Deliverance” comes to mind. A movie I would
not see for obvious reasons.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
There is a war on between Good and Evil, and it is heating up. There are many reasons why homosexual acts are wrong that can be enumerated, if the person you're talking to is not religious and doesn't believe in moral absolutes. The "taboo" against incest (aside from scriptural condemnation) is "well, recessive genetic traits can manifest that are harmful". That is an extremely weak argument because if someone is going to commit incest, they would likely have no problem with abortion. Or not everyone is fertile, or two blood relatives of the same sex could commit incest, etc.
So, why is incest wrong?
Because every monotheist religion (and Buddhism as well) teaches that sex is for marriage. Beginning, middle and end of it. Marriage and children. Once a culture decides that sex is perfectly fine before marriage, outside of marriage, without marriage; then between two people of the same sex, then orgies and group grope, and then of course you have to add contraception and abortion - then you have the perfect recipe for destruction of human civilization.
Human civilization is based on intact families. Sex is a powerful urge that all healthy human beings experience. It is like fire. Fire can cook your meal, heat your house, forge your metal. It can also kill, burn and injure, destroy forests and houses, and entire cities. It's all in how it is used. What do we teach children about fire? "Don't touch!" "Be careful! Don't play with matches!" Only when the child is mature enough to be aware of the danger potential of fire can they be trusted with matches or the gas stove.
The fire of sex desire is even more destructive than the flames of fire that burn wood and fuel.
We now are seeing the results of "free sex" - one thing leads to another, since all rules are now evil - here on FR people who stand up for traditional - aka "real" - morality are called prudes, Taliban, wanting to pin red "A"s on people, closet homosexuals, etc. Intense vitriol here on FR is thrown at people standing up for moral absolutes. Just the other day a porn supporter (now thankfully banned) said something like "so what if there are victims from the porn industry. That's the price we pay for freedom."
Here's what Edmund Burke says about freedom:
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites--in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;--in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;--in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
-- Edmund Burke
If the authority of God is thrown away, civilization is doomed. This is the war we're in.
Sadly, you are right. There is at least one post on this thread which illustrates your point in terms of individuals tolerating such abhorrent behavior.
I just read an article the other day concerning a possible course at the University of Hawaii (a.k.a. Commie College).
The course: Pedophilia as therapy
The fact that this “course” would even be considered speaks volumes of how far America has descended in depravity.
God said it is sin, and it just so happens that the chance of mutations manifesting is minimized by not mating with relatives.
If homosexuality is OK, is there anywhere we cannot extrapolate?
If homosexuality is OK, why cannot incest with a consenting adult be OK? Then why set the age of consent arbitrarily at 21, or 18, or 16, or 13 or 5. Who is to say? Why bother with ages of consent? And what's so special about consent?
If incest is OK with another person of any age, why not sex in general with any person of any age, independent of genetic relationship? And why not polygamy, if group sex and swinging is OK? Why limit it to persons? Why distinguish between humans and any other species? Why not sex with any other species? Why not drop the entire prejudicial “species” and taxonomy thing?
Why define relationships or roles within relationships at all? Why define marriage or family at all? If 19 people, some genetically related, some not, of various ages and genders, some living together but some not, some intimate together, but some not, some having pets or barnyards full of various animals of many species, genders, ages and genetic relatedness that some or all of them are intimate with or not, and the various animals intimate with each other of not - why cannot this entire collection of life forms get a common P.O. Box or something, and be allowed by society to declare themselves a “marriage,” or a “family,” and then be allowed to produce or adopt children or adults or animals, declaring them as dependents for tax purposes, and enrolling the entire system in the best health-care plan available through the employer of any one of them?
Or why not just scrap the whole tax and health-care shtick and not define themselves at all, in any way? No labels. No men or women; no child or adult; no relatives or non-relatives; no human and animal. No marriage. No family. No responsibilities. No society.
It's a shame that this item of the Communist Goals is often swept under the rug by libertarians claiming to be fiscal Conservatives.
In my opinion, the pornographers and smut peddlers (Larry Flynt and his ilk) are not any better than the homosexual apologists. I personally don't think it's possible to be a Conservative without adherence to the immutable, eternal Laws of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.