Pro-Gays, is incest immoral?

[glassjester]

Did God allow incest in the Bible so that there would be descendants from Adam and Eve?

For the third time, I do not believe a literal interpretation of Genesis.
The degree to which the events recorded are historical as opposed to allegorical, I do not know (I wasn't there) - especially pertaining to the creation narrative.

I will not deny that incestuous relationships took place in the past. To do so would be ridiculous.
But you ask if God allowed it. Yes. God also "allowed" Adam to sin. And God continues to allow us to sin, today. Does He not?


To say that an event occurred, is not the same as saying God called it good.

 

[kmoney]

A question for people that do not believe homosexuality is immoral, or intrinsically disordered.

Do you believe incest is morally wrong? Why/why not?

Additionally, do you believe bans on incestuous marriage are unconstitutional, and incestuous couples should be allowed to marry? Why/why not?

I think they are interesting questions. The primary argument in favor of homosexuality is that they are consensual relationships. Family dynamics make it difficult for incestuous relationships to exclude all potential abuses but in theory you could have one. Potential problems in offspring is often mentioned when condemning incest, but that isn't something inherent in the relationship or the sexual act. From a legal standpoint, the potential abuses, distorted family dynamics, and defected offspring could be enough to criminalize it, but it may be trickier from a purely moral standpoint. And the difficulty doesn't lie in only one side. As anna has brought up, fundamentalist Christians would have a hard time absolutely condemning it, if they wanted. I think the general argument from that side is that early in the human race things were pure enough that incest didn't cause harm but eventually it became a problem and was condemned.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

...The primary argument in favor of homosexuality is that they are consensual relationships...

The limits of consent: Consent only has value when it is based on knowledge of what is truly good for us

Earlier this year, an article in New York Magazine featured a story involving an eighteen-year-old woman who plans to marry and have children with her father. When the interviewer asked her to respond to those who might question her relationship, she offered the following reply:


I just don’t understand why I’m judged for being happy. We are two adults who brought each other out of dark places ... When you are 18 you know what you want. You’re an adult under the law and you’re able to consent.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the-limits-of-consent

 

[annabenedetti]

For the third time, I do not believe a literal interpretation of Genesis.
The degree to which the events recorded are historical as opposed to allegorical, I do not know (I wasn't there) - especially pertaining to the creation narrative.

Seriously? Let's look at two of your previous posts:

I don't know that Cain married an immediate relative, do you?
And if he did, I don't know that God was particularly happy about it.

You know, I've heard that Cain didn't always act morally...

If you don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, then how do you rationalize your historical understanding of their son Cain?

Yes. I do believe that there were, at one time, only two individuals that could truly be considered "human," in the sense that they had rational faculties, and were true persons, in the image and likeness of God. And that these two original humans, being aware of themselves, and of right and wrong, willingly chose to do wrong.

What year they were born, or where they lived, I do not know.

And those two humans? Are they the Adam and Eve who bore a son named Cain?

I will not deny that incestuous relationships took place in the past. To do so would be ridiculous.

Quite true.

But you ask if God allowed it. Yes.

That's correct.

God also "allowed" Adam to sin. And God continues to allow us to sin, today. Does He not?


To say that an event occurred, is not the same as saying God called it good.

You're kind of stuck between a rock and hard place, saying you hold a non-literal interpretation of Genesis while also holding a belief in two original humans from which all humankind descended.

Anyway. We can leave it at that if you want.

We both agree that incest is present in the Bible, that God allowed it, that immediate-family incest is immoral and illegal, that there are mitigating cultural factors in relations outside immediate family (cousins, etc., none of which is all that common as far as I know).

Where we don't agree is in your attempt to present homosexuality and incest as comparable and your contention that people who don't have a problem with same sex marriage would say the same about incestuous marriage.

We also don't agree that homosexuality is the slippery slope to legalized incest between immediate family members, presumably involving minors, since it's usually the slippery slope scenario given, that legalized same sex marriage will lead to legalized child molestation.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

We both agree that incest is present in the Bible, that God allowed it, that immediate-family incest is immoral and illegal...

Quit lying anna. As shown in the article I linked, it was incest by today's definition, not by God's. He later spoke against inner family sexual relations and other sexual sins in Leviticus, thus defining human sexuality. Laws and cultural mores' followed.

Edit:

We also don't agree that homosexuality is the slippery slope to legalized incest between immediate family members, presumably involving minors, since it's usually the slippery slope scenario given, that legalized same sex marriage will lead to legalized child molestation.

In order to have a slippery slope, homosexuality would first have to take the moral high ground over incest.

State your reasoning as to why homosexuality is morally superior to incest.

 

[annabenedetti]

Quit lying anna. As shown in the article I linked, it was incest by today's definition, not by God's. He later spoke against inner family sexual relations in Leviticus, thus defining human sexuality. Laws and cultural mores' followed.

"Today's definition?"

You mean the definition has changed? So there's a definition we use today for incest, and it's different than the definition for the incest in Genesis?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

"Today's definition?"

You mean the definition has changed? So there's a definition we use today for incest, and it's different than the definition for the incest in Genesis?

It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6-18) and incest that occurred after God’s commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative.

http://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html

Now let's talk about the "slippery slope" and how homosexuality is supposedly morally superior to incest (at least in your and other LGBTQ activists opinions).

 

[annabenedetti]

Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative.

Well now.

That's got to be near the top of my TOL What-the-Heck moments.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Well now.

That's got to be near the top of my TOL What-the-Heck moments.

Yeah, you'd have to actually pick up a Bible and study it in order to understand what's in it.

Now about how homosexuality is supposedly morally superior to incest, or at least in you and other LGBTQ activists minds.

 

[annabenedetti]

Sorry, not interested.

I'm just going to watch that before-and-after definition of incest bounce off the walls of TOL for a while.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Sorry, not interested.

I'm just going to watch that before-and-after definition of incest bounce off the walls of TOL for a while.

Actually I'm interested in the subject of how (according to LGBTQ activists like annab) homosexuality is supposedly 'morally superior' to incest.

From a secular viewpoint: While male-female incestuous relationships (as opposed to same sex incestuous relationships...meaning homosexual incestuous relationships) do often times bring about a pregnancy and often times harmful side effects, I'm not aware of male-female incestuous relationships (unlike homosexual relationships) causing HIV/AIDS, anal cancer and a long long list of STD's that those who engage in homosexuality are disproportionately known for contracting.

Bounce those facts off of the walls in the empty brain of yours anna.

 

[ok doser]

Some gays have died of AIDS? Yes. But every year in America, far more people die from respiratory diseases caused by smoking , die from alcoholism or accidents caused by intoxication etc , drunk driving ,
from unhealthy diet and using dangerous illegal drugs such as cocaine and heroin etc than from AIDS .

we regulate smoking
we regulate alcohol consumption
we regulate drunk driving
we regulate unhealthy diets
we regulate dangerous illegal drugs such as cocaine and heroin etc


looks to me like we should regulate fags, too

 

[glassjester]

If you don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, then how do you rationalize your historical understanding of their son Cain?

As I said earlier, I do not espouse a literal interpretation of Genesis. But even if you did hold to strict Biblical literalism, the argument that if the event occurred, God must have wanted it to occur - simply makes no sense.

Genesis records many human actions that are clearly not good.

The flaw, here, is easily demonstrable.

If you can say...
"In Genesis, people committed incest, therefore God is pro-incest,"

then you could just as easily say...
"In Genesis, Noah got drunk, therefore God is pro-drunkenness."

or...
"In the Gospels, Judas betrayed Christ, therefore God is pro-Christ-betrayal."


It just doesn't work.

Point being - whether or not you hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture, you cannot argue that because incest occurred, it is therefore morally permissible.


Are we ok on that? Can we get back to the two OP questions?

Anyway. We can leave it at that if you want.

Oh, alright.

We both agree that incest is present in the Bible, that God allowed it, that immediate-family incest is immoral and illegal, that there are mitigating cultural factors in relations outside immediate family (cousins, etc., none of which is all that common as far as I know).

Right.

I am still interested in your reasoning, here.
Why is incest immoral?
Why should incestuous marriage not be legalized?

 

[annabenedetti]

As I said earlier, I do not espouse a literal interpretation of Genesis. But even if you did hold to strict Biblical literalism, the argument that if the event occurred, God must have wanted it to occur - simply makes no sense.

Genesis records many human actions that are clearly not good.

The flaw, here, is easily demonstrable.

If you can say...
"In Genesis, people committed incest, therefore God is pro-incest,"

then you could just as easily say...
"In Genesis, Noah got drunk, therefore God is pro-drunkenness."

or...
"In the Gospels, Judas betrayed Christ, therefore God is pro-Christ-betrayal."


It just doesn't work.

Point being - whether or not you hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture, you cannot argue that because incest occurred, it is therefore morally permissible.


Are we ok on that? Can we get back to the two OP questions?

Well no, we're not okay, we're agreeing to drop it. You haven't convinced me at all, because for anyone with a literal interpretation of scripture (I know, I know, but sorry, you haven't convinced me you're not trying to hold both interpretations), the incest was part of God's design, it wasn't because humans did something wrong. He began by creating only two humans, after all.

Oh, alright.

Killjoy... :chuckle:

I am still interested on your reasoning, here.
Why is incest immoral?
Why should incestuous marriage not be legalized?

I'll have to come back to that. I just got a call and a family member needs my help.

 

[glassjester]

Well no, we're not okay, we're agreeing to drop it. You haven't convinced me at all, because for anyone with a literal interpretation of scripture (I know, I know, but sorry, you haven't convinced me you're not trying to hold both interpretations), the incest was part of God's design, it wasn't because humans did something wrong. He began by creating only two humans, after all.

Yes, and had they not sinned, for all we know they may never have reproduced.
Besides, God incorporates the sins that Man freely commits, into His plan, and makes good things come of them.

Judas' betrayal of Christ was "part of God's design," then, as much as incest was.
That doesn't imply approval of the act, now does it?

Killjoy... :chuckle:

It would make a good topic for a separate thread, for sure.

I'll have to come back to that. I just got a call and a family member needs my help.

Ok.

That is definitely much more important than any online discussion!

 

[annabenedetti]

I am still interested in your reasoning, here.
Why is incest immoral?
Why should incestuous marriage not be legalized?

Okay, I'm kind of done with this, not really much else to say.

Incest between immediate family members is immoral because the parent-child dynamic is built on a complex structure of unconditional trust on the part of the child and the nurture and protection on the part of the parent. Sexual exploitation of the child via parental authority ruptures that dynamic bond of trust and protection and the boundaries of authority and obedience.

Incestuous marriage between family members shouldn't be legalized based on the above.


There you have it. That's what I think, you're not going to change my mind.

What two adult, consenting, non-incestuous homosexuals do is none of my business. If they want to be legally married, they have the civil right to do so. This can't be compared to incest no matter how you try to wave your magic wand trying to turn that apple into an orange.

:e4e:

 

[glassjester]

Incest between immediate family members is immoral because the parent-child dynamic is built on a complex structure of unconditional trust on the part of the child and the nurture and protection on the part of the parent.

Alright.

That's at least an argument against incestuous pedophilia (and really all pedophilia), and at best only an argument against parent-child incest. This seems to say nothing against sibling relationships or those between parents and their adult offspring - as seen in ACW's post.

Earlier this year, an article in New York Magazine featured a story involving an eighteen-year-old woman who plans to marry and have children with her father. When the interviewer asked her to respond to those who might question her relationship, she offered the following reply:


I just don’t understand why I’m judged for being happy. We are two adults who brought each other out of dark places ... When you are 18 you know what you want. You’re an adult under the law and you’re able to consent.

But I guess we'll leave it at that. :idunno:

 

[annabenedetti]

Alright.

It's not bad. I'm not an expert in moral philosophy.

That's at least an argument against incestuous pedophilia (and really all pedophilia), and at best only an argument against parent-child incest.

It addresses your slippery slope argument toward the legalization of child molestation.

This seems to say nothing against sibling relationships or those between parents and their adult offspring - as seen in ACW's post.

I was focused on our conversation (In which nothing was resolved), not aCW's posts, so they weren't a consideration.

But I guess we'll leave it at that. :idunno:

We'll have to.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Okay, I'm kind of done with this, not really much else to say.

Incest between immediate family members is immoral because the parent-child dynamic is built on a complex structure of unconditional trust on the part of the child and the nurture and protection on the part of the parent. Sexual exploitation of the child via parental authority ruptures that dynamic bond of trust and protection and the boundaries of authority and obedience.

Incestuous marriage between family members shouldn't be legalized based on the above.

There you have it. That's what I think, you're not going to change my mind.

Theocrat. If you religious zealots start telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies and who they can and cannot love, the next step is obviously a state religion.

Besides, you're assuming that the majority of incestuous relationships are parent-child. Where did you get that information? Have you not heard of the term "brotherly love"? You incestophobes use any scaremongering tactics that you can think up to keep people in love from being together.

(After hearing that nonsense time after time from homosexualists like annab, it really felt goooood to throw it back in her face).

 

[glassjester]

It addresses your slippery slope argument toward the legalization of child molestation.

Ok. Except I do not believe I ever included pedophilia on that slippery slope.

My hypothesis, in this thread, was that no one could defend homosexuality/homosexual marriage without defending incest/incestuous marriage, as well.

And so far, no homosexuality proponent has been able to make an argument against incest/incestuous marriage, per se. Only incestuous reproduction (although no pro-homosexual can honestly base their sexual morality on reproduction), and incestuous pedophilia (with arguments that apply to pedophilia in general).

Maybe a more pointed question would help to illustrate this.
Should two brothers be allowed to marry?