Advocacy of Incest in Tv Show

[Meadowchik]

16 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

So to put a fine point on it, you're claiming that an otherwise healthy, functional, adult individual should be legally prohibited from marrying his otherwise healthy, functional, adult mother because he or she are incapable of granting consent?

Yup. Because otherwise healthy, functional humans bond in parental-child relationships in not just deliberate but unconscious ways beyond the individual's control. That bond could therefore be leveraged improperly and furthermore would likely be inextricably connected to a decision if such relations were socially and legally eligible for marriage and/or sexual relations.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Vanguard]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yup. Because otherwise healthy, functional humans bond in parental-chuld relationships in not just deliberate but unconscious ways beyond the individual's control. That bond could therefore be leveraged improperly and furthermore would likely be inextricably connected to a decision if such relations were eligible for marriage and/or sexual relations.

But 'improper leveraging' (morally improper?) goes on all the time within the confines of the law. I don't understand why you carve out this one exception. In my example, the ethical issue of 'two similarly DNA'd' indivuduals bringing a child into the world is not an issue because the woman is presumably beyond her childbearing years or soon would be. Regardless, you consider it impossible for them to consent. Do you think this is how it SHOULD be or are you claiming that IS the law and the basis for it (i.e., impossibility of consent)?

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

But 'improper leveraging' (morally improper?) goes on all the time within the confines of the law. I don't understand why you carve out this one exception. In my example, the ethical issue of 'two similarly DNA'd' indivuduals bringing a child into the world is not an issue because the woman is presumably beyond her childbearing years or soon would be. Regardless, you consider it impossible for them to consent. Do you think this is how it SHOULD be or are you claiming that IS the law and the basis for it (i.e., impossibility of consent)?

I think it is implicit in laws currently defining incest, specifically, those defining it as also between step and adoptive relations and not just blood relations.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Meadowchik

[smac97]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You were perturbed enough to post it.

"Perturbed" as in "feeling anxiety or concern; unsettled"?  At an apparent attempt to normalize/justify/rationalize incest?

Yes, I suppose so.  "Outraged," no.  "Perturbed," a bit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Because otherwise healthy, functional humans bond in parental-child relationships in not just deliberate but unconscious ways beyond the individual's control. That bond could therefore be leveraged improperly and furthermore would likely be inextricably connected to a decision if such relations were socially and legally eligible for marriage and/or sexual relations.

But Oedipus is still fine, right? 

 

[smac97]

11 hours ago, mgy401 said:

It seems to me like many of the critics of @smac97 are quite avoiding the issue.

Or worse, they are proving my point, which is that incest is being normalized / rationalized / justified.  In this very thread, even.

11 hours ago, mgy401 said:

I wasn’t on this forum in 2008; but I would venture to guess that few (if any) of the folks now saying that they’d be OK with incest between consenting adults, would have openly taken that position in 2008.  In fact, some of them probably mocked the conservatives who drew the connection between legalizing gay marriage and legalizing incestuous marriage.

But once we say that the sine qua non of marriage is “love” and “dignity”, and consign to irrelevance any discussion of the broader social consequences/responsibilities of marital unions generally (which is what Obergefell fundamentally did); then logically we have to re-evaluate and come up with new grounds to justify the few legal taboos that still apply to western-style marriage—or else drop the taboos.  @smac97’s article (and many of the reactions to it in this forum) simply illustrate that process unfolding vis a vis incestuous relationships, where someone is using Obergefell-style reasoning to conclude that incest isn’t such a bad thing after all (and even pressuring/shaming a woman to participate in a sexual relationship she finds repugnant.  #Hertoo?)

Well said.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

The problem I see is calling something immoral with DNA that would never be seen that way without the DNA...two people meeting as adults, falling in love, and wanting to get married.  DNA tests and suddenly it's labeled incest.

It was incest before the DNA test, though.  Right?  It was undetected incest.

In criminal law, a wrongful act is comprised of two components: mens rea (the "guilty mind," or the intent to do something wrong) and actus reus (the "guilty act," or the wrongful act itself).  Broadly speaking, a person should not be charged or convicted of a crime if he lacks the requisite mes rea.  That doesn't mean the act itself was not criminal/wrong.  Rather, it means that culpability for that wrongful act does not accrue.

Quote

Prior to science, how often did this happen with no one knowing or being offended?  Given the frequency of adultery, got to think in small towns this was not that rare (not saying adultery is more common in small towns, just less mates to choose from).

This morning I read an article about an older man in Utah who had eight siblings.  DNA tests later in life demonstrated that the nine siblings were fathered by six different men, none of whom was the mother's husband.  The man wrote a book about the experience he had in sorting this out.  Part of the article states: "In his book, Stephen cites research showing between 5% and 10% of approximately 50 million DNA kits have resulted in cases of 'nonfamily' relationships where one or both parents are not the biological parents."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 27, 2020 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Through familial relationships' inherent power and influence.

Explain, please. Are they not consenting adults?

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Explain, please. Are they not consenting adults?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72669-advocacy-of-incest-in-tv-show/?do=findComment&comment=1209960210

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Or worse, they are proving my point, which is that incest is being normalized

Just to be clear, in no way do I condone incest or anything other than marriage between one man and one woman. Since the redefinition of marriage as a relationship between two consenting adults, I’m struggling to see how any of the previous restrictions as pertaining to numbers and genders can be maintained. 

Edited February 27, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you're just a bigot. A variation of every single concern you raised has been used in the past to argue against same-sex relationships generally.

Well, you are defending incest so I think you are a depraved pervert so there is symmetry.

I am sure those attracted to the same sex are absolutely thrilled that you compare their arguments to what you use to defend incest. I am sure they will be charging over that hill over there en masse any second now to commend your initiative in comparing their desires to incest and will stand firm with you in defense of incestuous relationships.

*crickets*

Any second now...........

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You say this as if all those who are attracted to those with whom they have been raised don't exist. They find it perfectly natural.

They are wrong. Victims of incest while underage also start believing it is natural. This is why they should get some therapy.

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This whole 'morality' argument breaks down completely if the involved parties are the same sex.

No, the potential for grooming underage relatives, abusing familial bonds, and everything else is still there. The only change is no potential for offspring to have issues with recessive genetic problems. It still has great potential for harm for the participants and their family. Avoiding the possible harm to potential offspring does not mitigate the other ramifications that make it immoral.

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Just to be clear, in no way do I condone incest or anything other than marriage between one man and one woman. Since the redefinition of marriage as a relationship between two consenting adults, I’m struggling to see how any of the previous restrictions as pertaining to numbers and genders still can be maintained. 

Consent imo is key.

[Daniel2]

13 hours ago, mgy401 said:

It seems to me like many of the critics of @smac97 are quite avoiding the issue.

I wasn’t on this forum in 2008; but I would venture to guess that few (if any) of the folks now saying that they’d be OK with incest between consenting adults, would have openly taken that position in 2008.  In fact, some of them probably mocked the conservatives who drew the connection between legalizing gay marriage and legalizing incestuous marriage.

But once we say that the sine qua non of marriage is “love” and “dignity”, and consign to irrelevance any discussion of the broader social consequences/responsibilities of marital unions generally (which is what Obergefell fundamentally did); then logically we have to re-evaluate and come up with new grounds to justify the few legal taboos that still apply to western-style marriage—or else drop the taboos.  @smac97’s article (and many of the reactions to it in this forum) simply illustrate that process unfolding vis a vis incestuous relationships, where someone is using Obergefell-style reasoning to conclude that incest isn’t such a bad thing after all (and even pressuring/shaming a woman to participate in a sexual relationship she finds repugnant.  #Hertoo?)

I’ve been advocating a libertarian position on this board since the early 2000’s, and have been consistently saying that it is not the role of government to restrict consenting adults’ spousal choices (“consenting” and “adult” being key).  And I’ve been specific in saying that equally applies for straight, gay, interracial, inter-religious, plural, and even incestuous relationships, years before Obergefell was even before the courts.  It’s not an “Obergefell-type reasoning” (though that sounds really convincing if you’re wanting to blame gays and their supporters as horrific bogeymen responsible for perceived social decline); it’s really libertarianism. 

Edited February 27, 2020 by Daniel2

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Consent imo is key.

Even between close relatives? 
 

A teacher colleague in a same sex marriage had a son fathered by a donor. Her wife had a daughter from a different donor. The boy and girl are brother and sister and will probably grow up in the same household. Is there any reason they could not marry each other?

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Even between close relatives? 
 

A teacher colleague in a same sex marriage had a son fathered by a donor. Her wife had a daughter from a different donor. The boy and girl are brother and sister and will probably grow up in the same household. Is there any reason they could not marry each other?

Yes, they are immediate family. Imagine the pressure individuals could have if their siblings were eligible mates.

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Or worse, they are proving my point, which is that incest is being normalized / rationalized / justified.  In this very thread, even.

Well said.

Thanks,

-Smac

For the record, I am not advocating for the justification of incest. I am at this juncture curious about Meadowchik's rationale (thanks to her for continuing to indulge me!) for why it should remain illegal. If indeed the law is grounded implicitly on an otherwise functional adult not being able to give consent then I think it is simply a matter of time before that law falls like the house of cards that it is. This is where we come full circle back to the contention that indeed these matters ARE meaningfully related to SSM law. That law must ultimately be based on the consenting adults standard. How is my scenario any different?

[Ahab]

16 hours 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. 
? 

We are all brothers and sisters from the same Father in heaven.  You do realize that, don't you?  Does that mess up the relationship you have with your husband?  You said you're a woman and I'm assuming you have one of those.

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

For the record, I am not advocating for the justification of incest. I am at this juncture curious about Meadowchik's rationale (thanks to her for continuing to indulge me!) for why it should remain illegal. If indeed the law is grounded implicitly on an otherwise functional adult not being able to give consent then I think it is simply a matter of time before that law falls like the house of cards that it is. This is where we come full circle back to the contention that indeed these matters ARE meaningfully related to SSM law. That law must ultimately be based on the consenting adults standard. How is my scenario any different?

The premise of individual liberty girds up the importance of consent and the protection of it. 

If contracts and confessions can be nullified if made under duress or coercion, then incest should remain illegal. Those familial bonds are rightly considered a pre-existing and inextricable influence.

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The premise of individual liberty girds up the importance of consent and the protection of it. 

If contracts and confessions can be nullified if made under duress or coercion, then incest should remain illegal. Those familial bonds are rightly considered a pre-existing and inextricable influence.

If both partners are adults, and they both consent to marry each other, then why would it make any difference if they are brother and sister?  We are all brothers and sisters from the same Father in heaven.

Do you imagine a recognition of the fact that they are brother and sister somehow binds them into an obligation to marry each other?   That one of them and maybe even both could not say something like: No way No how I don't care if we are family I am not going to marry you!

[Vanguard]

33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The premise of individual liberty girds up the importance of consent and the protection of it. 

If contracts and confessions can be nullified if made under duress or coercion, then incest should remain illegal. Those familial bonds are rightly considered a pre-existing and inextricable influence.

But there are remedies to control for contracts made under duress or coercion. Think about abortion law. Efforts are made to make sure the woman is not under duress/coercion before making such a decision. Why couldn't this also apply to marriage contracts in my scenario?

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

But there are remedies to control for contracts made under duress or coercion. Think about abortion law. Efforts are made to make sure the woman is not under duress/coercion before making such a decision. Why couldn't this also apply to marriage contracts in my scenario?

That is essentially my point, that such remedies do not exist because of the inherent nature of familial relationships'.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That is essentially my point, that such remedies do not exist because of the inherent nature of familial relationships'.

I don't know what experiences you have had with family but I've never been under the impression that I must do what a member of my family thinks I should do.  I do want to obey the will of our Father in heaven but even he allows me to make up my own mind and I don't feel an obligation to obey my brothers or sisters, either.

From what I have seen, the "inherent nature of familial relationships" is to NOT agree with each other, to NOT do what some other member of the family thinks you should do.  Brothers and sisters are not required to marry each other just because they are in the same family.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Ahab

[Amulek]

56 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Those familial bonds are rightly considered a pre-existing and inextricable influence.

So what, then, would be the justification for prohibiting incest when there is no such socialization to begin with (e.g., Oedipus, Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa, etc.)?

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by Amulek

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, they are immediate family. Imagine the pressure individuals could have if their siblings were eligible mates.

Imagine? They would be incapable of consent?

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Imagine? They would be incapable of consent?

It's a new day.  The Me Too movement has dawned.  Brothers and sisters are now feeling pressure and are feeling coerced into marrying each other because they now realize each of them is an eligible mate for marriage. 

Maybe not their marriage, but somebody's marriage.

Run away!  Be afraid!  Hide!

Edited February 27, 2020 by Ahab