Advocacy of Incest in Tv Show

[The Nehor]

Congratulations on finding something new to be outraged about I guess.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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).

I don't see Smac saying it is a part of same sex dating, etc.  Rather that the legal reasoning applies equally to incest as it does to SSM.

I believe the rationale for connecting it could be two parts...

First, it involves two consenting adults (assuming abuse is absent) and second, it disconnects the need for procreation from marriage (in incest of blood related, procreation between the couple is best not to happen; with SSM, it cannot).

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't see Smac saying it is a part of same sex dating, etc.  Rather that the legal reasoning applies equally to incest as it does to SSM.

I believe the rationale for connecting it could be two parts...

First, it involves two consenting adults (assuming abuse is absent) and second, it disconnects the need for procreation from marriage (in incest of blood related, procreation between the couple is best not to happen; with SSM, it cannot).

Just as many comparisons could be made to heterosexual marriages involving two people who choose not to have children, IMO.

When Smac includes quotes like this in the OP,  I have my doubts that what you state above is what he wanted to discuss:

Quote

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. 

But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and move on.....I've lost interest in this topic anyway (unless someone responds to my questions about statistics between incest and SSM vs. incest and heterosexual marriages). 

Edited February 26, 2020 by ALarson

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't see Smac saying it is a part of same sex dating, etc.  

This is correct.  I am not saying incest "is a part of same sex dating, etc." 

AFAICS, nobody is saying that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Just as many comparisons could be made to heterosexual marriages involving two people who choose not to have children, IMO.

When Smac includes quotes like this in the OP,  I have my doubts that what you state above is what he wanted to discuss:

Calm is correct about what I want to discuss.  You are not.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and move on.....I've lost interest in this topic anyway (unless someone responds to my questions about statistics between incest and SSM vs. incest and heterosexual marriages). 

As you like.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

Powerful or influential people in Hollow-weird (aka Hollywood) like to set themselves up as moral arbiters for the rest of the world, telling me (as just one in a potential/alleged litany of examples) that my trip to the grocery store in my fully-gas-powered automobile is destroying the planet while one week of their jet-setting to and from wherever emits more pollution than a whole year of my using my fully-gas-powered automobile to get to and from wherever.

Meanwhile, they pretend that their jet-setting either: (1) automagically has no consequences whatsoever for the environment; and/or (2) is OK because they're doing it in service of (a) higher cause(s).  And also meanwhile, they're churning out dreck such as this show and telling me and others like me that the only reason why I don't like it is because I'm such a proooooood.

And as for the incest?  Hey, true luuuuuuurve is true luuuuuuurve, no matter who the parties are ... right?  And anyone who thinks otherwise is such a prooooood, anyway, right?  And once society accepts that this instance of incest is OK because, after all, it's not like the parties were reared in the same household, or anything, then it becomes, well, the only difference between this and other forms of incest is that the parties weren't reared in the same household, and what's the big deal about two s**ual partners being reared in the same household, anyway, because, after all, true luuuuuuurve is true luuuuuuurve ... right?   

But, as the Obergefell majority so magnanimously reassured people like me, don't worry, religious people, you can continue [outmodedly] to "believe" and to "teach" as you wish regarding same-sex relationships, same-sex marriage, and [eventually] incest (until we get a majority to repeal the Free Exercise clause ...)  

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

When does it become a moral issue?

Thanks,

-Smac

Was it a moral issue for Abraham and Sarah?

[mtomm]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Was it a moral issue for Abraham and Sarah?

Mary and God, The Father? 

[The Nehor]

I don’t think an “ewww” factor is a good reason to prohibit something.

There are two practical reasons to prohibit it:

1. The genetic problems of offspring that are really prevalent in sibling and parent child relationships and to a lesser degree the further you go out.

2. Even absent having children a relationship with someone you were raised with it far too likely to be the result of abuse or grooming. If a brother hooks up with his five year younger sister once she turns 18 my mind goes straight to assuming abuse. Same with parent child and other people who are raised close together.

This story is not that rare in entertainment. There was an episode of House like this too. This episode was written to generate the action smac took here along with whoever wrote up the article he saw informing him of this. The people who made it knew exactly what they were doing.

They were angling for free publicity and knew exactly how to get it. It reminds me of those (Calvin Klein?) ads done years ago. They got underage teens and basically complimented them for their looks and asked them questions about dating and whether guys or girls found them attractive. Nothing overtly pornographic but the whole thing had a porn feel to it and the sets, the lighting, and the voice were very “porny”. It was all over the news with people arguing whether it qualified as porn or not and lots of people whining about how ignorant the company was for doing this. Fools. The company knew exactly what they were doing. People were looking up the commercials to see what it was all about. Free advertising that people were seeking out. The morally righteous crusaders were never going to buy their products anyways but they made fine puppets in getting the word out.

Dance Puppets! Dance!

I refuse to be their puppet and get outraged over this.

Edited February 26, 2020 by The Nehor

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Was it a moral issue for Abraham and Sarah?

I don't think so.

Again, "hard cases make bad law."

"Incest" is a somewhat nebulous term.  Its meaning can vary a bit by context and culture.  But then, "pornography" is also somewhat difficult to define with precision, and yet nobody suggests that pornography doesn't exist, or that its production and use lack a moral dimension.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, The Nehor said:

I don’t think an “ewww” factor is a good reason to prohibit something.

I agree.  I think ethics and morality are good reasons to prohibit something (and practical reasons as well).

Just now, The Nehor said:

There are two practical reasons to prohibit it:

1. The genetic problems of offspring that are really prevalent in sibling and parent child relationships and to a lesser degree the further you go out.

2. Even absent having children a relationship with someone you were raised with it far too likely to be the result of abuse or grooming. If a brother hooks up with his five year younger sister once she turns 18 my mind goes straight to assuming abuse. Same with parent child and other people who are raised close together.

These seem to lack much in the way of a moral element.

Just now, The Nehor said:

This story is not that rare in entertainment. There was an episode of House like this too. This episode was written to generate the action smac took here along with whoever wrote up the article he saw informing him of this. The people who made it knew exactly what they were doing.

I think the episode was written as part of an effort to incrementally normalize incest.

Just now, The Nehor said:

They were angling for free publicity and knew exactly how to get it. It reminds me of those (Calvin Klein0 ads done years ago. They got underage teens and basically complimented them for their looks. Nothing directly offensive but the whole thing had a porn set feel to it. It was all over the news with people arguing whether it qualified as porn or not and lots of people whining about how ignorant the company was for doing this. The company knew exactly what they were doing. People were looking up the commercials to see what it was all about. Free advertising that people were seeking out. The morally righteous crusaders were never going to buy their products anyways but they made fine puppets in getting the word out.

Dance Puppets! Dance!

I refuse to be their puppet and get outraged over this.

I'm not outraged.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Incest" is a somewhat nebulous term.  Its meaning can vary a bit by context and culture.  But then, "pornography" is also somewhat difficult to define with precision, and yet nobody suggests that pornography doesn't exist, or that its production and use lack a moral dimension.

Is there any reason to suppose the writers or whoever created the idea for the show don't hold a position that incest exists or that incest can be immoral or even abusive at times?

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

These seem to lack much in the way of a moral element.

Both are moral arguments. The first is intentionally bringing a human into the world much more likely to be afflicted with genetic problems, a bad thing. The second is to prevent predatory abuse. How are these not moral?

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the episode was written as part of an effort to incrementally normalize incest.

I am more cynical. Their effort is aimed at pushing up their viewership numbers and shock is a good way to do that particularly when it also generates free publicity and I am sure they appreciate your humble efforts on their behalf.

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not outraged.

You were perturbed enough to post it.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.

Again, "hard cases make bad law."

"Incest" is a somewhat nebulous term.  Its meaning can vary a bit by context and culture.  But then, "pornography" is also somewhat difficult to define with precision, and yet nobody suggests that pornography doesn't exist, or that its production and use lack a moral dimension.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not talking about law though.  Is anyone arguing that the episode you watched is a good reason to make incest legal?  

I'm just saying that clearly incest is not always immoral as far as God is concerned.  Other than the genetic issues (which are great in my opinion) I think what usually makes incest immoral is the familial relationship that exists.  Take that out and the 'ew' factor is much less relevant to the issue of advocacy.  

 

[Calm]

It is not like this is a random subject thrown up just for drama like a soap opera.  With the use of sperm donors, it has the potential of becoming a perhaps not common, but not so unusual of a problem.  In one case, someone has found over 200 siblings.  If they are living in the same area, chances of becoming acquaintances rises.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/modern-family-20-plus-sperm-donor-siblings-find-each-other-n1071656

Quote

More than 16,500 donor-conceived people have connected with their half siblings or their biological parents through the DSR. The largest match between half siblings is around 200, director Wendy Kramer said.

But a sizable half sibling group living within the same geographical vicinity could become problematic. “Most tangibly, there is a potential risk for accidental incest and medical problems that offspring could have unwittingly,” said Dr. Dov Fox, author of Birth Rights and Wrongs: How Medicines and Technology are Remaking Reproduction and the Law.

Last month, Dr. Bryce Cleary filed a $5.25 million lawsuit against a fertility clinic in Oregon after discovering he is the biological father of at least 17 children he did not know about. Cleary said he agreed to be an anonymous donor under the conditions that no more than five children would be conceived and that they would be born to mothers outside the Pacific Northwest. However, many of his 17 offspring were in fact born in Oregon.

The lawsuit says that there was a high chance that some of his children may have attended the same colleges, churches, and interacted within the same social circles without knowing it. Cleary also said he may have unknowingly treated or examined one or more of his offspring while working as a primary care physician in Corvallis, Oregon.

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This story is not that rare in entertainment. There was an episode of House like this too. This episode was written to generate the action smac took here along with whoever wrote up the article he saw informing him of this. The people who made it knew exactly what they were doing.

They were angling for free publicity and knew exactly how to get it. It reminds me of those (Calvin Klein?) ads done years ago. They got underage teens and basically complimented them for their looks and asked them questions about dating and whether guys or girls found them attractive. Nothing overtly pornographic but the whole thing had a porn feel to it and the sets, the lighting, and the voice were very “porny”. It was all over the news with people arguing whether it qualified as porn or not and lots of people whining about how ignorant the company was for doing this. Fools. The company knew exactly what they were doing. People were looking up the commercials to see what it was all about. Free advertising that people were seeking out. The morally righteous crusaders were never going to buy their products anyways but they made fine puppets in getting the word out.

I have seen at least four shows like this, not counting all the unknown siblings dating because of their father having an affair soap operas...a very well known trope.  It is an easy emotional draw.  New Amsterdam can pretend to be cutting edge because they don't have them split up, but I doubt they are the first.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is there any reason to suppose the writers or whoever created the idea for the show don't hold a position that incest exists or that incest can be immoral or even abusive at times?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

I think the story told in this episode was intended to advance and legitimize and normalize incestuous behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand your question.

I think the story told in this episode was intended to advance and legitimize and normalize incestuous behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

All incestuous behaviour?

Or could it be it was mainly looking for stories that had grabbed people's attention?  Do a search on Google and there are tons of articles on the potential problems of half siblings encountering each other unknowingly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_incest

Edited February 26, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

I don't think so.

Again, "hard cases make bad law."

"Incest" is a somewhat nebulous term.  Its meaning can vary a bit by context and culture.  But then, "pornography" is also somewhat difficult to define with precision, and yet nobody suggests that pornography doesn't exist, or that its production and use lack a moral dimension.

I'm not talking about law though.  Is anyone arguing that the episode you watched is a good reason to make incest legal?  

I'm speaking of "the law" broadly.  I'm applying "hard cases make bad law" by analogy, not directly. 

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm just saying that clearly incest is not always immoral as far as God is concerned.  

Theoretically.  I am not really invested in evaluating the morality of Adam and Eve's immediate descendants.

I am also not taking their "incest" as a given (hence my us of qualifiers like "apparent").  

I am also not interested in using their (apparent) incest as any sort of justification for incest now.

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Other than the genetic issues (which are great in my opinion) I think what usually makes incest immoral is the familial relationship that exists.  Take that out and the 'ew' factor is much less relevant to the issue of advocacy.  

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I think the story told in this episode was intended to advance and legitimize and normalize incestuous behavior.

All incestuous behaviour?

Probably.  Certainly the behavior shown in the episode.

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or could it be it was mainly looking for stories that had grabbed people's attention?  Do a search on Google and there are tons of articles on the potential problems of half siblings encountering each other unknowingly.

I've seen such stories before.

What is perhaps new is attempts to advance and normalize and legitimize incestuous behavior.  Such as an episode of a TV show in which a medical doctor (a psychiatrist, no less) encourages the incestuous couple to stay together after finding out about the incest, and in which another doctor calls the couple "adorable."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Probably.  Certainly the behavior shown in the episode.

I find that really hard to believe having watched the show a couple of times.  Anything close to abusive or imbalance family dynamics they would be slamming hard against imo.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What is perhaps new is attempts to advance and normalize and legitimize incestuous behavior.  Such as an episode of a TV show in which a medical doctor (a psychiatrist, no less) encourages the incestuous couple to stay together after finding out about the incest, and in which another doctor calls the couple "adorable."

Not that new.  I have seen it before a couple of times.  Usually one doctor is for it as long as they understand the issues and the other debates it from the more traditional finding.

Added:  my limited experience with the show was it was nonstop emotionalism and everything was either horribly tragic or excruciatingly adorable....thus why my experience is limited.

It is possible their agenda was primarily to normalize incest, but given its choice of topics in the past, I think more likely they chose it because it is attention getting and an easy plot for heart tugging conflicts.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Calm

[2BizE]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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

I haven’t put much thought into this, so I don’t have a well formed opinion, but I think two adults who want to marry/are in love should have a process to be together.  This process is more mandated by state and country than by religion.

Here is an interesting case in Utah:

https://kutv.com/news/local/first-cousins-in-love-start-petition-to-marry-legally-in-utah

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find that really hard to believe having watched the show a couple of times.  Anything close to abusive or imbalance family dynamics they would be slamming hard against imo.

Point taken.

Seemingly consensual incest, then, is being normalized / legitimized.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

 

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 .

Because any time SMAC can scour the internet and find something that can possibly reflect badly on gay marriage, he will figure out a way to include that quote.  Is him including that part of the article a surprise to anyone?