Advocacy of Incest in Tv Show

[Ahab]

I'm looking forward to the next season, when they all find out we were all brothers and sisters in heaven before we were born on Earth.

No spoilers, though, please.  I want to see it as it was meant to be seen.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point taken.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

What is the difference between "seemingly consensual" incest and "consensual incest?"

In any case, I think the point isn't so much to normalize incest so much as to make people ask the question, "why is this considered wrong?" If the only moral argument against it can be summarized with the phrase "Eww!", then maybe it isn't really that bad in the first place.

In modern society, the true basis for our common moral values is humanism; the goodness or badness of a thing is primarily evaluated on how much it benefits or hurts people, with secondary consideration played to how much it benefits or hurts  other sentient species or benefits or hurts the planet itself. If you can't make a coherent argument on how consensual incest hurts people (beyond "Eww!"), humanism says it isn't wrong. And if humanism doesn't say something is wrong, it is going to be hard to come up with a broad-based consensus that it is wrong.

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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?

Cheap shot.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

What is the difference between "seemingly consensual" incest and "consensual incest?"

The word "seemingly."

A predatory figure (such as a father) may be able to groom his daughter over an extended period of time, such as to use his role in her life, his undue influence, to induce her to "seemingly" concent to an incestuous relationship.  

By way of illustration, consider allegations made by Mackenzie Phillips against her father, John Phillips (of The Mamas & the Papas fame) :

Quote

In September 2009, Phillips's memoir High on Arrival was released, after which she appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show for an hour-long interview. She told Winfrey that she first tried cocaine when she was 11 years old, and that her father had taken drugs with her, and had also injected her with cocaine.

During the interview, Phillips read excerpts from her book. She said that at the age of 19, on the night before her first wedding in 1979, "I woke up that night from a blackout to find myself having sex with my own father", and that when she confronted her father months later, asking why he had raped her, her father simply replied, "Raped you? Don't you mean we made love?"

Phillips told Oprah Winfrey of having a consensual sexual relationship with her father, describing her participation as "sort of Stockholm syndrome, where you begin to love your captor." The affair ended after Phillips became pregnant and subsequently had an abortion, which her father paid for.

This alleged "consensual sexual relationship" in a "sort of Stockhold syndrome" environment is along the lines of what I had in mind.

Quote

In any case, I think the point isn't so much to normalize incest so much as to make people ask the question, "why is this considered wrong?"

This seems like a rhetorical question tantamount to normalizing/justifying incest.

Quote

If the only moral argument against it can be summarized with the phrase "Eww!", then maybe it isn't really that bad in the first place.

I don't think that's the only moral argument.  By a long shot.

And note what you are saying here.  "Maybe {incest} isn't really that bad in the first place."  That sounds like . . . normalizing incest.

Quote

In modern society, the true basis for our common moral values is humanism; the goodness or badness of a thing is primarily evaluated on how much it benefits or hurts people, with secondary consideration played to how much it benefits or hurts  other sentient species or benefits or hurts the planet itself.

Actually, there's a lot more to it than that.  There are all sorts of laws and regulations that are predicated on the regulated conduct being malum prohibitum (as opposed to malum in se).

Quote

If you can't make a coherent argument on how consensual incest hurts people (beyond "Eww!"), humanism says it isn't wrong.

I reject the premise.  I think there is a substantial argument to be made against incest.

Quote

And if humanism doesn't say something is wrong, it is going to be hard to come up with a broad-based consensus that it is wrong.

You seem to be advocating for the normalization of incest.  Is that a fair statement?  Or are you only speaking in purely theoretical terms?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 26, 2020 by smac97

[Daniel2]

How is this thread related to Mormonism?

Honest question: Is incest condemned in LDS scripture...?

Even Googling Mormonism/Christianity and Incest, this illuminating (non-LDS) article is what I found:  https://religionnews.com/2016/04/08/how-to-deal-with-the-old-testaments-regressive-sexual-standards/ which is problematic, at best.  An excerpt:

One of the biggest hurdles to believing the Bible is the content of the first testament. Though many conservatives claim that the Christian scriptures teach only one model for marriage—one man and one woman for life—the truth is not so simple. A standard modern baseline for sexual contact among both believers and the non-religious—mutual consent—is never considered. Young women are coerced to marry or sold into marriage by their parents with regularity. The book of Numbers, for example, records God commanding Israelite soldiers to marry conquered virgins (while slaughtering everyone else, including children). And while polygamous and incestuous relationships are not explicitly celebrated, they are regulated by Israel’s God-given laws. The most prominent polygamous relationships are blessed by God with children and financial gain.

Given the Old Testament's regulation of incest, it's ironic that the initial article blames Obergefell and marriage between same-sex couples.  The same can be said for those wishing to blame gay couples for the advancement of modern legal recognition of polygamy, which the Latter-day Saints (as well as early Jews and Christians) were practicing long before legal recognition was granted to our marriages in the last decade.

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Daniel2

[Analytics]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The word "seemingly."

A predatory figure (such as a father) may be able to groom his daughter over an extended period of time, such as to use his role in her life, his undue influence, to induce her to "seemingly" concent to an incestuous relationship.  

By way of illustration, consider allegations made by Mackenzie Phillips against her father, John Phillips (of The Mamas & the Papas fame) :

This alleged "consensual sexual relationship" in a "sort of Stockhold syndrome" environment is along the lines of what I had in mind.

As I read it, you called the consensual relationship in the TV show "seemingly consensual." 

 

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

[the question "why is this wrong?"] seems like a rhetorical question tantamount to normalizing/justifying incest.

It only justifies incest to to the extent that there isn't a good, humanism-based rationality for why it is wrong. But asking the question doesn't normalize it.

 

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think ["Eww!" is] the only moral argument.  By a long shot.

Have you articulated any other?

 

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And note what you are saying here.  "Maybe {incest} isn't really that bad in the first place."  That sounds like . . . normalizing incest.

Nah. I think you are normalizing it by raising the question here. I don't find it the least bit "normal" and wouldn't otherwise think about it.

 

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually, there's a lot more to it than that.  There are all sorts of laws and regulations that are predicated on the regulated conduct being malum prohibitum (as opposed to malum in se).

In modern society with modern values (as illustrated by most posters in this thread), I stand by what I said.

 

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I reject the premise.  I think there is a substantial argument to be made against incest.

It's curious that you haven't articulated it.

 

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seem to be advocating for the normalization of incest.  Is that a fair statement?  Or are you only speaking in purely theoretical terms?

No, I'm not advocating for the normalization of incest. I'm just responding to something that is a non-issue for perhaps 99.99% of the population because you brought it up.

 

[Daniel2]

Btw, when I searched www.lds.org for "incest," nothing came up....  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?lang=eng&query=incest

Is there something in LDS cannon condemning such?

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Btw, when I searched www.lds.org for "incest," nothing came up....  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?lang=eng&query=incest

Is there something in LDS cannon condemning such?

It is mentioned in the context of abuse and rape and is condemned along with them. Not seeing it mentioned elsewhere. It might be mentioned in reference to Sarah and Abraham without using the term. I may look for it later. 

[Stargazer]

A second cousin of mine once almost married his twin sister by accident. Their mother had put them both out for adoption shortly after they were born, and when they were young adults it happened that they met and became quite interested in each other. I don't remember all the details, but one of their adoptive relatives noticed the unusual physical similarities they shared, and raised a "caution flag" with them. They then checked records and discovered their true relationship. Obviously they didn't take the relationship any further!  But it did lead to them both finding their birth family, which is how I came to know about them.

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Given the Old Testament's regulation of incest, it's ironic that the initial article blames Obergefell and marriage between same-sex couples.  The same can be said for those wishing to blame gay couples for the advancement of modern legal recognition of polygamy, which the Latter-day Saints were practicing long before legal recognition was granted to our marriages in the last decade.

FWIW, I've heard some commentators say that Obergefell was some sort of "slippery slope" that would lead to arguments favoring other non-traditional sexual relationships that are currently considered forbidden -- including incest, poly-gamy and -andry, and group marriages. Like it was the "last straw", or something. Seems unlikely to me.  That is what seems to be the initial article's point in mentioning it.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

This conversation leads me to remember something that had slipped my mind for some time. One of my uncles lived in a long-term gay relationship with one of my grand-uncles (his own uncle), that lasted until the older man's death. If this had been a male-female relationship it would have been called incest, but does the same-sex nature of the relationship remove that stigma?  

Is the degree of incestousness of a relationship affected by the likelihood of progeny as a result? In the case of my uncle and granduncle progeny was obviously out of the question. And if half-siblings are made infertile in some way, so that progeny are out of the question (as in the TV episode), would this remove the stigma of incest to any degree?

I think that a stepsibling relationship is also considered incestuous, right?  Even though the usual reason for prohibition, namely genetic problems, wouldn't apply.

[Daniel2]

BTW, this gem comes from the "news site" that Smac quotes the article from.  So, their invocation of Obergefell as some sort of cause isn't surprising:

Every day it becomes more evident that the liberal news media are no longer simply a megaphone for liberals in Washington, New York, and Hollywood. The media are now leading the radical Left and using their platform to push a socialist agenda.

MRC Culture cuts through the leftist propaganda and exposes the media’s liberal bias, bringing the truth to the American people.

Donate today to help MRC Culture continue to document and expose liberal media bias. $15 a month goes a long way in the fight for a free and fair media.

 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

How is this thread related to Mormonism?

Hmmmm.....good question!

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think there is a substantial argument to be made against incest.

The only problem I see with it is that the children born to a brother and sister with the same mortal Father and mortal Mother are likely to have birth defects.  Otherwise it's no biggie since we are all brothers and sisters.

It would be highly unusual for it to happen these days but long long ago when Adam and Eve had children their mortal children had no choice but to marry a brother or sister.  That was back when we/our species was more pure though and they did not have birth defect problems back then.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Ahab

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Cheap shot.

Maybe but also kind of accurate.

[katherine the great]

Just to throw in a little bit of science: Westermarck Effect.  Wiki actually has some good, concise info on the studies done on incest avoidance instincts in humans. This theory is basically the opposite of Freud's ideas of family members lusting after each other and it has been tested. Outside of royalty, socially sanctioned brother/sister matings are almost nonexistent. Close inbreeding is thought to have contributed to the eventual extinction of Neanderthals.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Btw, when I searched www.lds.org for "incest," nothing came up....  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?lang=eng&query=incest

Is there something in LDS cannon condemning such?

I found it in the Old Testament when I was looking up how much I could sell my imaginary daughter for.

More seriously this is now available to everyone now that the General Handbook is out:

Quote

 

Incest
The Church condemns any form of incest. As used here, incest is sexual relations between:

A parent and a child.

A grandparent and a grandchild.

Siblings.

An uncle or aunt and a niece or nephew.

As used here, child, grandchild, siblings, niece, and nephew include biological, adopted, step, or foster relationships. Incest can occur between two minors, an adult and a minor, or two adults.

When a minor is a victim of incest, the bishop or stake president calls the Church’s abuse help line in countries where it is available (see 38.6.2.1). In other countries, the stake president seeks guidance from the area legal counsel at the area office.

A Church membership council and record annotation are required if a member commits incest (see 32.6.1.2 and 32.14.5). Incest almost always requires the Church to withdraw a person’s membership.

If a minor commits incest, the stake president contacts the Office of the First Presidency for direction.

Victims of incest often suffer serious trauma and feelings of guilt. These victims are not guilty of sin. Leaders should be sensitive to them and give caring counsel and support to help them overcome the destructive effects of incest. Leaders also give assurances of God’s love.

Oddly I also found this right above it. I don't remember seeing it before but I might have glanced over it thinking it was obvious:

Quote

Female Genital Mutilation

The Church condemns female genital mutilation. [Additional policy direction is forthcoming.]

Just wonder what more direction is needed.....

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Just wonder what more direction is needed.....

Removing the gender bias?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

This conversation leads me to remember something that had slipped my mind for some time. One of my uncles lived in a long-term gay relationship with one of my grand-uncles (his own uncle), that lasted until the older man's death. If this had been a male-female relationship it would have been called incest, but does the same-sex nature of the relationship remove that stigma?  

Is the degree of incestousness of a relationship affected by the likelihood of progeny as a result? In the case of my uncle and granduncle progeny was obviously out of the question. And if half-siblings are made infertile in some way, so that progeny are out of the question (as in the TV episode), would this remove the stigma of incest to any degree?

I think that a stepsibling relationship is also considered incestuous, right?  Even though the usual reason for prohibition, namely genetic problems, wouldn't apply.

The church considers it incestuous. Still there is a strange irony to hyping up the legitimacy of heterosexual marriage because it alone can produce offspring and then turning around and more forcefully condemning homosexual relationships for doing something that primarily influences offspring.

That being said, I look at your story an wonder if there was abuse or grooming that led to that relationship.

Yuck. I am willing to take the hopefully not controversial stance that incest is bad.

This show showed one case where I am sympathetic to the parties involved and I would not call what they did sin if it really happened since it was done in ignorance but the odds of that form becoming common are basically nil. The rare cases where it does happen are, of course, tragic:

https://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/04/married-couple-discover-they-are-actually-biological-twins-001630047.html

12 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Just to throw in a little bit of science: Westermarck Effect.  Wiki actually has some good, concise info on the studies done on incest avoidance instincts in humans. This theory is basically the opposite of Freud's ideas of family members lusting after each other and it has been tested. Outside of royalty, socially sanctioned brother/sister matings are almost nonexistent. Close inbreeding is thought to have contributed to the eventual extinction of Neanderthals.

Okay, now I am going to take a weird tact. Some say it is actually healthy for a species to have a limited amount of inbreeding. The defects die but the survivors of such a relationship do not have the recessive alleles that cause the problem so genetically they are a little healthier. That does little good for those who do get the recessives. They usually die before breeding. Of course too much inbreeding almost invariably destroys a species or a population.

This should not be taken as an argument for human incest as the ethical problems vastly outweigh any possible benefits and our population size and methods of genetic selection are so different from that of wild populations that it would most likely be pointless even if there were no ethical ramifications.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Removing the gender bias?

Maybe, don't circumcise your kids.  

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

The only problem I see with it is that the children born to a brother and sister with the same mortal Father and mortal Mother are likely to have birth defects.  Otherwise it's no biggie since we are all brothers and sisters.

What I hear you saying is that if incest doesn’t lead to birth defects then there is no problem, in your opinion. 
? 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

What I hear you saying is that if incest doesn’t lead to birth defects then there is no problem, in your opinion. 
? 

 

Just gonna put this right here. Don't mind me.  

Quote

Moses 5:3  And from that time forth, the sons and daughters of Adam began to divide two and two in the land, and to till the land, and to tend flocks, and they also begat sons and daughters.

 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

Weren't Abraham and Sarah half brother and sister?  

 

Manual resolves it by saying uncle and niece:

Quote

Abraham could validly state that Sarah was his sister. In the Bible the Hebrew words brother and sister are often used for other blood relatives. (See Genesis 14:14, in which Lot, Abraham’s nephew, is called “his brother.”) Because Abraham and Haran, Sarah’s father, were brothers, Sarah was Abraham’s niece and thus could be called sister. The accompanying pedigree chart shows this relationship.

Another ancient custom that might shed light on the relationship permitted a woman to be adopted as a man’s sister upon their marriage to give her greater legal and social status (see Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Sarah,” 14:866).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-12-17-abraham-father-of-the-faithful?lang=eng

[MustardSeed]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 

Just gonna put this right here. Don't mind me.  

 

I thought twice - generally a good idea.  Deleted.

Edited February 27, 2020 by MustardSeed

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Cheap shot.

But true, given his track record on LGBT issues.  We just had a thread where he was asked a question and he cut and pasted his anti gay go to post that had nothing to do with the question and mostly was based on opinions not facts.  Now he brings up incest and out of all that he could have chosen from the article, SMAC injects the part that mentions gay marriage love is love.  Implying that those who support gay marriage must also support incest.  Don't you think that is a bit shameful?  Or do we just nod our heads and support his assertion rather than challenge him for making gay marriage a part of the discussion about incest.

I personally. don't see how bringing up a fictional TV show where two people have no idea they are brother and sister is remotely a gospel topic issue.

Edit to add: Given the web sit SMAC pulled this from only reinforces my assertion.  Looking less like a cheap shot and more like a reality.

Edited February 27, 2020 by california boy