Advocacy of Incest in Tv Show

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

It’s sweeps week for the networks and the February 25 episode of NBC’s New Amsterdam certainly included an unusual storyline. What began as a therapy session for a young couple turned into a case of incest.

In the episode titled “Double Blind”, an engaged couple named Chris and Jenny sought counsel from Dr. Iggy Frome (Tyler Labine), the head of the psychiatry at New Amsterdam hospital. The couple is due to be married in sixteen days but experiencing a rough patch. Little did anyone see what was coming. It turns out, a DNA test that was gifted to them as a present showed the two to be half-siblings from the same sperm donor.

Dr. Frome, a gay, married man himself, is caught off guard but begins to make the best of it because he’s all about the LGBTQ "love is love" agenda. The session continues with Frome encouraging Jenny to hold Chris’s hand and reconnect with him. He wants to help them overcome this hurdle. Chris is able to move on but Jenny’s unable to do so. Who can blame her?

Quote

Iggy: I will admit that your situation is difficult. Um, but is not my job to judge whether your relationship is right or wrong. What is very apparent to me is the love between you two is very real. And if you want, worth fighting for. There is one inconvertible truth. Biological children can never be an option.

Jenny: You think kids are what we're worried about? I can't even look at him.

Iggy: Because this new information has changed the way you see him? Well, good news there. Relationships can survive change. In fact, almost all of them have to.

Jenny: This isn't like he's suddenly gained 20 pounds.

Iggy: No, um-- Look, I get it. But life goes on, and you adjust. Relationships adjust too, or they end. If change is insurmountable in the heart, then that's it, show's over. But that is not the case with you two. Is it? So the real question becomes: Can we change what's in your heads?

Jenny: How?

Iggy: Jenny, will you sit on the couch with Chris? Good. Jenny, will you take Chris's hand? Jenny.

Jenny: I can't. I can't. I can't.

Iggy takes it up a notch and shows Jenny and Chris a copy of each of their DNA test results, which are almost identical. Then he places his own DNA test results between theirs and his look like them, too. He tells them that all humans have 98.5 percent of their DNA in common and this is meant to calm any fears of Jenny’s.

Iggy also has Jenny read her wedding vows so that she feels all warm and fuzzy again about Chris after she says, "There's nothing that you're gonna say that's gonna make me forget who Chris really is [her half-brother]."

Quote

Jenny: "As I sit here in our half-painted living room that you promised to finish, listening to the, um, Spin Doctors Album that we bought for $1.00 at a yard sale because the lady who sold it to us had no idea who they were...I can't believe how happy I am or how lucky I am... I never thought I would find somebody--Somebody who laughs at all my stupid duck jokes. Or likes my grandma's baked spaghetti. Or picks up all of our bath towels all the time. So of course I said yes when you asked me to marry you. Nobody's ever loved me like you, and I've never wanted to be with anybody..."

Iggy: Okay. Good. Jenny. Can you see that Chris? The Chris you wrote those vows for. That is the only Chris there is. And if you ever forget that, all you need to do is go back to those vows. Just like every other couple.

 

"Just like every other couple."

Eww.

Quote

Iggy's tricks work and they leave his office, walking hand in hand, while another doctor deems them "adorable."

"Adorable" incest.

Eww.

Quote

This is how it works in the politically correct, post-Obergefell world. Nothing is weird or immoral anymore. Half-siblings getting married? Sure, incest is no problem. Despite it being against the law in New York.

In the immortal words of Alexander Pope:

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[katherine the great]

Well I’ve heard it taught (which I don’t believe by the way) that Adam and Eve’s children married each other and they were full brothers and sisters. (AND they would have been raised together) That is definitely “ew” worthy. At least these two didn’t have a clue they were related and weren’t raised together. 🤷‍♀️

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here:

"Just like every other couple."

Eww.

"Adorable" incest.

Eww.

In the immortal words of Alexander Pope:

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

Thanks,

-Smac

Weren't Abraham and Sarah half brother and sister?  

I'm not advocating for incest but it seems like even the scriptures don't teach that it's always immoral.  And this situation (sperm donor, kids not raised together, etc.) doesn't seem like a moral issue either.  

Edited February 26, 2020 by bluebell

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Weren't Abraham and Sarah half brother and sister?  

I'm not advocating for incest but it seems like even the scriptures don't teach that it's always immoral.  And this situation (sperm donor, kids not raised together, etc.) doesn't seem like a moral issue either.  

When does it become a moral issue?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

"Ew" sounds like a rather emotional argument. And the acceptance of incest does not necessarily result from the "post-Obergefell world".

I'd take a more rational approach, that the problem with incest is at least two-fold:

First, the genetic component of a too-small gene pool. Second, the ability to consent is compromised by existing familial relationships.

Whatever the correct choice in the case of this story, I think it is a difficult situation which demands our empathy. What would you do, SMAC, if you learned that your wife was actually your half-sister? Tough situation indeed.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Meadowchik

[ALarson]

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Dr. Frome, a gay, married man himself, is caught off guard but begins to make the best of it because he’s all about the LGBTQ "love is love" agenda.

Why would you turn this into an LGBTQ issue or discussion?

I have to believe that most people object to siblings dating or marrying and it's a completely different topic that is not related to SSM or same-sex dating.

As others have pointed out, there had to have been incest involved regarding Adam & Eve's daughters (either Adam got them pregnant or their full brothers did). 

I'm definitely not advocating for incest, nor do I think it's ok.  But with all of the people sending in their DNA now, this type of situation is bound to happen.  So it's an interesting story line, IMO .

Edited February 26, 2020 by ALarson

[smac97]

Just now, ALarson said:

Why would you turn this into an LGBTQ issue or discussion?

I didn't.  I quoted the article.

Just now, ALarson said:

I have to believe that most people object to siblings dating or marrying and it's a completely different topic that is not related to SSM or same-sex dating.

It's a different topic, yes.  That said, I think it's hard to deny the post-Obergefell shift in perspectives on sexual morality.  Judeo-Christian ethics are on their way out.  Laissez-faire libertinism is on its way in.

Just now, ALarson said:

I'm definitely not advocating for incest, nor do I think it's ok. 

But the TV show is.  That's my point.

Just now, ALarson said:

But with all of the people sending in their DNA now, this type of situation is bound to happen, so it's an interesting story line, IMO (with a definite ick factor too!).

Yes, this can happen.

But broadcast TV is openly advocating for it.  I think that's a troubling development.

THanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's a different topic, yes.  

I feel that SSM or LGBTQ issues should not even be a part of a discussion regarding incest.  But you apparently do, or you would not have quoted the article and posted it here for discussion.

 

I see you avoided the incest involved with Adam & Eve (and their children)  😅

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As others have pointed out, there had to have been incest involved regarding Adam & Eve's daughters (either Adam got them pregnant or their full brothers did). 

Any comment?

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

When does it become a moral issue?

Thanks,

-Smac

Only on Wednesdays in May.

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I see you avoided the incest involved with Adam & Eve (and their children)  

And not just Adam and Eve! Judeo-Christian Biblical tradition does not set a great standard against incest.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I feel that SSM or LGBTQ issues should not even be a part of a discussion regarding incest. 

Why?  Same-sex marriage is brought up on the context of polygamy, and nobody seems to bat an eye.

Quote

But you apparently do, or you would not have quoted the article and posted it here for discussion.

I quoted the article.  The two topics are different, yet, but nonetheless affect each other.

Obergefell is relevant to a discussion of normalizing polygamy.  Why is it not relevant to a discussion of normalizing incest?

Quote

I see you avoided the incest involved with Adam & Eve (and their children)  😅

Quote

As others have pointed out, there had to have been incest involved regarding Adam & Eve's daughters (either Adam got them pregnant or their full brothers did). 

Any comment?

There is an old legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law."  Essentially, "{t}he phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases."  This maxim is so well-known there is even a Wikipedia article about it:

Quote

The phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases. In other words, a general law is better drafted for the average circumstance as this will be more common.

I suppose we can formulate "hard cases" and present them to religious people (as you and others are doing here, over and over) with the apparent purpose of tripping them up in their faith, or (assuming a more benign motive) getting them to re-examine what they believe and why (or even as apparently as an attempt to justify/rationalize incest).  But I don't think it's a very useful exercise.  "Don't lie" is a very good maxim to live by.  "Ah," you can say, "but what about people who hid Jews from the Nazis, and lied to the Nazis about it?"  That, I think, is a "hard case."  But it's not one that really merits much attention, particularly if it is presented with the intention of persuading someone that everything is relative, that lying is generally perfectly acceptable, and so on.

Similarly, I see Adam and Even's immediate posterity's apparent incest as a "hard case," and not as justification for incest today.  But you apparently do, or you would not continue to bring it up.  Over and over and over.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 26, 2020 by smac97

[2BizE]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

When does it become a moral issue?

Thanks,

-Smac

The morality of this issue is that science has shown offspring of people closely related leads to higher incidence of birth defects.  It would be irresponsible of couples to take his risk.   This places the community and state at risk of medical and financial concerns as well as longevity of populations.  Generally, state laws prevent closely related couples from marrying.  I’m not aware of a religious law in the scriptures preventing this, but marriage is a state agreement in most countries.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I quoted the article.  The two topics are different, yet, but nonetheless affect each other.

SSM and incest "affect each other"?  How exactly?

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  I don't see it as justification for incest today.  But you apparently do, or you would not have brought it up multiple times.

Nope....I specifically stated otherwise too.  But it's more relevant to this discussion than trying to connect SSM or dating with incest.

Edited February 26, 2020 by ALarson

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Not really.  I don't see it as justification for incest today.  But you apparently do, or you would not have brought it up multiple times.

Nope....I specifically stated otherwise too. 

And yet, you keep bringing up the topic.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

But it's more relevant to this discussion than trying to connect SSM or dating with incest.

See?

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

SSM and incest "affect each other"?  How exactly?

Obergefell.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Quote

When does it become a moral issue?

The morality of this issue is that science has shown offspring of people closely related leads to higher incidence of birth defects.  It would be irresponsible of couples to take his risk.  

So sex between genetically unrelated siblings is okay?

Sex between a sterile father and his daughter is okay?

And so on.

I think the moral question is about more than the risk of birth defects.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet, you keep bringing up the topic.

See?

You started this discussion regarding incest.  Incest was practiced by Adam and Eve/their children (unless you disagree) and others in the Bible, etc.  There is no reason not to mention this (I'm not the only one who has posted about it in this short thread.) and it's on topic so far.

Unless you want to turn this into a discussion only about how same-sex dating and SSM is connected or comparable to incest?

 

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by ALarson

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You started this discussion regarding incest. 

By quoting a news item.

Quote

Incest was practiced by Adam and Eve (unless you disagree) and others in the Bible, etc. 

See?  You're still doing it.  

Quote

There is no reason not to mention this (I'm not the only one who has posted about it in this short thread.) and it's on topic.

Again, I don't see Adam and Even's immediate posterity's apparent incest as justification for incest today.  But you apparently do, or you would not be bringing it up over and over.

Quote

Unless you want to turn this into a discussion only about how same-sex dating and SSM is connected or comparable to incest?

I don't understand.  Are you making some sort of threat?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 26, 2020 by smac97

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I don't see Adam and Even's immediate posterity's apparent incest as justification for incest today.  But you apparently do, or you would not be bringing it up over and over.

It's more relevant, IMO (and others have posted about it on this thread too) than what you appear to want to discuss:

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Unless you want to turn this into a discussion only about how same-sex dating and SSM is connected or comparable to incest?

If that's the topic and my (and the other's) posts are off topic, it's your thread.

So connect the two (SSM and incest) and carry on with your discussion.

Edited February 26, 2020 by ALarson

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Again, I don't see Adam and Even's immediate posterity's apparent incest as justification for incest today.  But you apparently do, or you would not be bringing it up over and over.

It's more relevant, IMO (and others have posted about it on this thread too) than what you appear to want to discuss:

"It's more relevant" seems to be code for "Adam and Even's immediate posterity's apparent incest is justification for incest today."

You and others keep bringing up Adam and Eve.  Again and again.

Quote

If that's the topic and the other is off topic, it's your thread.

And yet I have not yet prohibited anyone from bringing up Adam and Eve (as you have done, over and over, apparently as some sort of a justification for incest today).

Quote

So connect the two (SSM and incest).

Lawrence and Obergefell.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 26, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

39 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

The morality of this issue is that science has shown offspring of people closely related leads to higher incidence of birth defects.  It would be irresponsible of couples to take his risk.   This places the community and state at risk of medical and financial concerns as well as longevity of populations.  Generally, state laws prevent closely related couples from marrying.  I’m not aware of a religious law in the scriptures preventing this, but marriage is a state agreement in most countries.

Also incest is legally defined as between close but not-blood-related family members like step or adoptive parents and children, even for adults. It's not just the blood relationship, but the relationship of familial influence that is a problem.

[Amulek]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Incest was practiced by Adam and Eve/their children (unless you disagree) and others in the Bible, etc. 

And when the law was given to Moses, the Lord seemed to have pretty strong feelings that such practice should not continue (see, e.g., Leviticus 18 where it is prohibited or Leviticus 20 where it warrants penalty by death). 

 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And when the law was given to Moses, the Lord seemed to have pretty strong feelings that such practice should not continue (see, e.g., Leviticus 18 where it is prohibited or Leviticus 20 where it warrants penalty by death). 

 

Yup.....but I still don't see how incest is a part of same-sex dating or SSM.....any more than it is a part of heterosexual relationships (in rare cases for both).

Are there statistics that show incest occurs more in relationships involving same sex partners vs. those with heterosexual partner?  IF that's what is being claimed here, I'd be interested to see any studies on this....

Edited February 26, 2020 by ALarson

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

It would be irresponsible of couples to take his risk.  

Then you are okay if they agree to sterilization and instead adopt or perhaps use a sperm donor?