The 'Incest Laws': What's The Point?

Oh, I don't know. I was just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts.

I love the ending of John Sayles Lone Star for its mature dealing of this subject.

(just look at the royal family &c. &c &c &c.)

are there any BIOLOGISTICIANS on ILE? help.

just look at dalmatians.

ain't they cute?

Pete's points about coercion are much better, but of course this isn't always a problem (most obviously between adult siblings) and needs no rules or morality much distinct from what we would apply to a step-parent.

In case anyone is thinking "he fancies his sister" I should add that I know of no living biological relatives, having been adopted. I just can't see the sense in this taboo now, if there ever was any.

I would really like to fancy my sister, because it's an exciting idea for me. But I don't, despite the fact that she's very attractive. I REALLY don't fancy her, which genuinely makes me suspect that there's some kind of genetic block.

Am I read this right? I can't believe this has gone without comment.

"No, your honour, my father's brother... (etc etc)"

It'll start by people starting to talk more often and openly about incest, and then the media will try to portray people interested in incest as victims. After that all the great historical figures who have had incestuous relationship will be honored (and even many who haven't, but new studies will come out claiming they have). Then the target will be people morally opposed to incest and any scientific evidence giving it a bad rap. Everything will be done to make them look bad or false. Then the activist groups will try to get lots of funding and celebrity endorsements. Next laws will change. People will be forced to attend divisity training if they even slightly mention what they really think about incest, because it might make people in incestuous relationships feel 'unsafe.'

This is all hypothetical of course.

crosspost

If a law is changed to make something not-illegal, there is a tacit acceptance of the behaviour.

Witness any drug law repealation, incest, and the general fuore against dropping the law of homosexual consent by all the people it affects not.

Those against it would say "You're saying it's alright then?"

To which we say "Too right it is."

A law allowing cigarette smoking would never pass. Just as well it's not illegal now.

Let's return to the libertarian question. If a man happens to walk around town arm and arm with his adult niece, is that going to make me abuse my teenaged niece? In most cases, probably not. Clearly, however, there is a connection. Our collective horror at incest-even adult incest-acts as a protective barrier against the temptation to incest with minors.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp

In a CRAZY, IRRATIONAL and COMPLETELY IMAGINARY way, that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_grace

I'm not falling for it this time.

I'll bite my tongue until it bleeds before I jump on the tautology carousel with you again, Nairn.

Fuck you, dude. Seriously.

A central part of Krutz's argument is that sexual taboos reflect a natural mechanism in traditional societies to preserve marriage. Kurtz argues that even in modern societies, losing these taboos will undermine marriage which is essential to the stability of our society.

You see, when it's convinient for the conservatives, if it feels natural, do it. For example, if it comes easy, fear the other. God made you hate fags for a reason, didn't he? It's a pseudo-scientific granolla-wannabe god-in-nature wankfest.

My friends, there are many sexual taboos. Not all sexual taboos are created equal:

"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict"
-Senator Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia, introducing a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages (1975)

And this isn't just about racism, as is held and taught by haters in pointy hats. The taboo of interracial sex & marriage is historic, deep and widespread throughout the cultures of the world. So I gotta wonder, what happens if we find a cultural taboo to be repulsive? Are we against god and nature? How do we apply this to Kurtz's argument? How do we apply this to Nairn's snarky bullshit:

"Hey, maybe give it 10-20 years for the incestuous agenda to take root and the majority of you could be calling people, who have an ewwwww reaction to incest, incestaphobes.
It'll start by people starting to talk more often and openly about incest, and then the media will try to portray people interested in incest as victims. After that all the great historical figures who have had incestuous relationship will be honored (and even many who haven't, but new studies will come out claiming they have). Then the target will be people morally opposed to incest and any scientific evidence giving it a bad rap. Everything will be done to make them look bad or false. Then the activist groups will try to get lots of funding and celebrity endorsements. Next laws will change. People will be forced to attend divisity training if they even slightly mention what they really think about incest, because it might make people in incestuous relationships feel 'unsafe.'"

Maybe these things aren't all necessary equivalent. Maybe it's time to think this through a little better.

Tell me, Nairn, just how clever you think you are, you fucking monkey.

you kids haven't been around here very long.

Ok, Fluffy, I don't think I am really that clever. My satirical post is so easy to see through and I'm probably missing parts of the analogy and incorrectly put in others.

But, I'm open to what other people say. I'm not so quick to follow the herd/ILX mentality, but people who have engaged in threads with me before would probably be surprised at how I've changed my views some from what they've said. I'd like to "think things through a little better", but that doesn't mean I'll end up agreeing with you. Maybe the evidence or more convincing argument just is not there for your side. I have to compare the two (or more) views, and still after that I'm am open to changing my view.

I don't totally agree with Krutz, but I think he has an interesting perspective as I sometimes consider myself Libertarian.
Krutz writes this:
On balance, I think we as a society have gained much from the weakening of the old sexual taboos, although it is important to keep in mind that we are in fact dealing with a trade-off here.

Firstly I'll use marriage as defined as "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife."

'Not all sexual taboos are created equal.' so it is good to reach a balance that is best for society. Breaking the Interrational marriage taboo doesn't change the definition of marriage at all. Breaking the homosexual taboo changes the part of the definition where it says "a man and a woman/ husband and wife" and the supposedly slippery slope to polyamory changes the definition to include more than two people. Then it becomes a totally different word.

So, some taboos are good to break some aren't. Why? because of the system of moral consensus and prohibition upon which society itself depends.

What are the real consequences of breaking the interrational marriage taboo? not too much. Is breaking the homosexual taboo worse? Kurtz gives a few reason why it could be bad and could lead to loss of stability in the monogamous family which I think are at least worthy of consideration.

Yea, I wouldn't marry anyone irrational either.

b) looking at his point, the idea that societal changes happen in this way, is, well, correct, is it not? the idea that this could happen over 20 years is rather hyperbolic, of course, but, this is how things become societally acceptable. the difference is what is considered acceptable

c) incest has been acceptable in the past, as has paedophilia. it wasnt really until the victorians and the *invention* of apollonian childhood, that children were considered the way we consider them today. artwork from the middle ages often depicts children as 'short adults', which is exactly what they were. it was not uncommon, and certainly not unacceptable, for a child to lose virginity to a family member

d) i presume, nairn, from the tone of your writing, that you disapprove of homosexuality (hence, the equation with incest). is your beef with homosexuality its existence, its legality, or its position in society?

My first reaction was, "What the heck does Uhuru have to do with all of this?"

SMRT.

Really? I didn't know you used multiple login names. Which one is your rational one?

I mean, there can't be that many anagrams for Narnia, can there?

DAMMIT WHY DIDNT ANYONE TELL ME THIS

"nabisco"

i can't wait for the homophobes to start walking around with Webster's or OED's or something. "dictionary-thumpers"?

But the idea of homosexuality is not on equal grounds with all other moral ideas, and I place it somewhere between: something I oppose encouragement of and something that I oppose prohibition of. I think prohibiton of it would effect overall freedom negatively and also encouragement of it would also effect overall freedom negatively.

I think hatred towards homosexuals is a horrible thing and people who support LGBT rights generally have good motives (of preventing infringment on their freedom and protecting them), but I also tend to think the ideas might be misplaced. And they don't realize potentially what other freedoms of society as a whole will be negatively effected or how the moral consensus could change for the worse.

So basically its a problem with moral relativism.

and I place it somewhere between: something I oppose encouragement of and something that I oppose prohibition of

O?!!?!?!?

I think there are subtle differences.Our collective taboo on incest, as expressed in our laws, helps to offset that potential temptation [of incest with minors].
but the taboo on homosexuality protects marriage. (as presented in the article)

so, comparing: protecting minors from incest vs. protecting marriage from adultery. I think the first is more important. Adultery is bad, but because of the greater negative effects of incest with minors, it's worse.

Moreover I think the incest taboo does more to prevent incest with minors than the homosexual taboo does to protect marriage from adultery.

Wachovia Championship gets threesome from Haas family

By DOUG FERGUSON, AP Golf Writer
May 2, 2006

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) -- In 30 years on the PGA Tour, Jay Haas never had a thrill quite like this, even though it was only a Tuesday practice round at the Wachovia Championship.

He walked the fairways of Quail Hollow with both sons at his side...

no more, i can't paste the rest ; (

Once again, I am forced to admire your daunting rhetorical skills.

'that would be an extremely bad idea...'

Well, they say that opposites attract...

Don't know if this is a joke or not. But I do know that Kissinger did win a Nobel Peace Prize. *waits a moment* Now you know how I felt when Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize

-- Dee the Lurker (deethe_downspamdown_lurke...)

where

I for one, would like to steer this conversation back towards the rational exchange of ideas it once was.

Firstly I will start with the definition of marriage as a union between two goats (husband) and a box of thumb tacks (wife).

Look all around you. Do you see how corrupted the definition of marriage has become? How long has this been going on?

First, it's one goat and a box of thumb tacks, then it's a man and a box of thumb tacks, then it's a man and a woman. Then we're all having sex with animals.

More cushion. That’s what I say. A Nairn got back.

But really -- I've tried to engage Nairn in discussion before, with varying degrees of indulgence and civility, and always met with the same aneurysm-inducing willful ignorance. I even stated upthread that I wasn't going to engage him, but that doesn't mean I won't take easy potshots if they help quell/diffuse the anger brought on by the shit he says.

Dan, what I am saying is that I'm going to pump my doe-eyed, fundamentalist cousin's rump.

Tom. I am glad that we have sensitive people on the board to blanch for us. Be my Jiminy Cricket!

J, Tom is not sensitive, he is a ninja. Fear him and his lifestealing ways. Also I am praying for your cousin's rump.

Next laws will change.

It'll be interesting to see who the first politician is to step up to the plate on this one. I'm playing a speech through in my head that starts with "my fellow Americans", has "free and just democracy" in it and finishes with "why I should be allowed to fuck my sister".

I'm just sick of people shitting on Nairn, Dee and others so aggressively, is all. I'm not taking a high ground position at all, I just think it's unfair and unkind.

Would you like to tell tombot the same thing Jon, seeing as he said as much himself? FFS.

Also, I would hope that if I ever trotted out an analogy that equated homosexuality with incest, I'd be raked over the coals as well.

FWIW I DON'T BELIEVE IN RELATIVISM!

Anwyay, I have no opinion on the thread itself so that's all.

Trayce, I don't often feel the need to be defensive about my own homosexuality, but I neither should I feel obligated now to defer to standards of decorum when reacting to opinions I find so horribly fucking insulting.

I am NOT defending Nairn's statements on this thread. I was more on shit like trifes "xpost yes ill give you that dee is a literate bigot" bullshit.

So how come Tombot gets to be fed up with people picking on obvious targets (nairn, dee, kenan, anthony etc), but you assume I am defending Nairn when I say some people have been dicks on this thread?

Take issue with Nairn all you like - don't be assholes and drag unrelated people into the argument who aren't here to defend themselves.

OK, clearly I can't express myself well enough, so I think I'll drop it.

I've tried to engage Nairn in discussion before, with varying degrees of indulgence and civility, and always met with the same aneurysm-inducing willful ignorance
Not having the same view as someone is not willful ignorance. I've tried my best to respond to everything someone has brought up about an article I've linked or an argument I've made in a reasonable way expressing my view. Not always perfectly, but I've never purposefully ignored "the one argument that if considered would totally change my views" if anything I try to consider these even more.

He ENJOYS getting hauled over the coals, like every other "open-minded" modern evangelical I've ever met. So I wouldn't dole out too much pity for the guy.
It's not so much that I enjoy it, but that it doesn't bother me. Why should it? And what would a real "open-minded" person look like? Is it that if someone were really open-minded they would share the same views as you? If we compare my way of presenting my views vs. the way ILX when in gang-up mode presents its views. Which one is more open-minded, and which one is more tolerant?

I'd rather see people like A Nairn completely left alone. They have no place in any form of discourse that has to do with actual live human beings.
Tom, this is probably worse. since when do people with differing views not belong in discourse. If ILX is suppose to be some kind of forum discussed by a representive selection of people/voters, it is a little scary at how resistant many are to considering anything slightly different from what they hold as the absolute truth about some issue.

So I'm just wonder how can someone with differing views discuss them with you?
Would you rather have everyone have the same view as you? have everyone with slightly differing views easily fall under force from peer pressure instead of good arguments? Or should they keep quiet? Or would you want them to try be more reasonable and present better thought out arguments? How would you respond to these? Better thought out arguments do exist.

But can we at least aknowledge that he was making the same arguments, using the same brand of reason-lite, that a lot of "serious" conservative pundits and intellectuals manage to get published on a regular basis

Calling all of it reason-lite is just a cop-out. Do you compare your pundit's, your intellecual's or your own use of reason to the same scrutiny?

Don't take any of this as defense for my views, it is just defense for why I'm here, and why I have ideas and discuss them the way I do. And I am curious about how people would answer some of these questions, especially this one:

"I'm just wonder how can someone with differing views discuss them with you? "

Picking on Dee's politics is stupid because her political views shifted drastically the more she interacted with people on this messageboard (and the more she learned about GWB, ha). Likewise picking on Anthony's politics is stupid because he's not even here.

Also, I'll back Dan up. Dee's one of the few posters here whose politics did change, and dumping her into some group for attack is bullshit. Do i agree with everything she posts? Hell no; Duran Duran is not that stimulating a band, for one...

I give up.

A) Do you feel that homosexual and incestual sexual relationships are equivalent?

B) If not, (and I really hope that I'm not misguided in giving you at least this much credit) are you willing to apologize for making several people on this thread feel that their sexual orientation was unfairly compared to a CRIMINAL, NEARLY UNIVERSALLY SHUNNED ACT?

Oh, and by apologize, I mean apologize. Be the bigger man. Turn the other cheek. Put it in words. If you are capable of doing this, I will extend to you an olive branch of respect for doing the right thing, and thinking of the feelings of others that have been inadvertantly injured by your opinions.

In contrast, if you skeeve out of this as you have skeeved out of every other direct confrontation to your views I have seen since I showed up here, I will be forced to assume that you have no concern for how your blinkered religious viewpoint is injurious to the feelings of others.

To quote you, "Not having the same view as someone is not willful ignorance. I've tried my best to respond to everything someone has brought up about an article I've linked or an argument I've made in a reasonable way expressing my view. Not always perfectly, but I've never purposefully ignored "the one argument that if considered would totally change my views" if anything I try to consider these even more."

So yeah. Put your money where your mouth is. Or shut the fuck up, and stop pretending to be some sort of injured martyred hero.

Can I just make one small point here though - I thought the original concept of this thread was consensual incest ie: ADULTS. Incest /= peadophilia! The taboos mentioned by others previous in this thread would very clearly have been related to say, 2 adult cousins/siblings/whatever.

Just as an aside. (agh xpost)

The big question way up above was how to make sure that such consent was properly given an was not part of an unequal power relationship.

It is big of you to express your feeling that your opinions can change as a result of reasoned argument. But I reserve the right to think less of you for having those opinions in the first place.

Message ends.

weelll, maybe but how 'compelling' are most things that *have* been legislated on (not that this is exactly how uk law works anyway). where was the compelling evidence that killing foxes was leigslatable? or smoking in pubs?

Of course in reality the incest laws operate quite similarly to the sex with minors ones in as much as they enforce hard guidelines and barriers to what is by its nature a grey area. I would rather that individuals were empowered to say no and/or cry rape for the simple reason that they are being forced into an act they do not wish to do - be that physically or emotionally due to their other attachments to the rapist. But that is a reductionist perfect world and one which I can't imagine coming to be.

doesn't that 'grey area' extend upwards in the age scale as well as down? ie vulnerable adults may well be the main people who are harmed here in parental incest cases.

Mark - what absolute first post is that?

Doesn't it seem that when an issue becomes so fraught with potential sinkholes of conflicting morality that laws become less and less able to deal with them effectively? The old saying goes "Hard cases make bad laws" for a reason.

I think that there are a few things acting in the incest equation:
1) Its a widely-held taboo we have all be exposed to. Just because we can make post hoc rationalizations against it - however valid they may be - doesn't mean we can't get over the long-understood taboo.
2) There ARE some serious psychological issues connected therewith, especially intergenerational incest. Siblings, it seems less so to me, but still. And, a lot of people would rather just avoid the field altogether than understand what is going on there, let alone jump into the game.
3) There are also, it seems to me, some class issues at play here. Where I grew up, rednecks and people from West Virginia had sex with their sisters. I now know that not to be true, but I think a lot of people see it as something that erudite people would never engage in - thus, it is somewhat connected to number 1.

The wierdest thing I've ever had happen re: incest was during a lecture in my Family Law class. The professor - A Roman Catholic Priest & a lawyer - actually defended incest! Wether or not this was simply part of the Socratic element of the class, it was seriously unexepected. Not bad, not disconcerting - just "Holy shit. Did he just say what I think he said?"

Ok, so lets look at "loving the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and loving your neighbor as yourself." And lets divide Christianity into two faulty sides Liberal Christianity (L) and Fundamental Christianity (F). L focuses more on "loving your neighbor as yourself", F focuses more on the "loving the Lord your God" part. L tends to have people-pleasing as a motive. They want to minimize criticism of themselves to make themselves feel better. F tends to judge others to make themselves feel better. L tends to be an irrational response to Christianity (I'll expand on this later). F tends to be discriminatory. The true Christian tries to follow both the commands (loving God... and loving neighbor...) They have times of irrationality and times of lacking love, but by trying to avoid selfish motives from pride they can better do both these. It's a selfish motive to want the easier situation of being accepted by secular society and it's a selfish motive to want to be seen as right and better than secular society. These are both clearly not Christian. (I could find quotes if you want)

A response to Christianity saying that it should be Liberal Christianity or be considered bigotry, is ignoring the center option. And this false dichotomy may be partly responsible for driving many Christians towards L and also towards F (those who go towards F see the "Loving God part" as more important).

So, one debate lies in how is Liberal Christianity irrational? Here is a quote from a review of Sam Harris's 'End of Faith':
But "religious moderation," Harris advises, "is the product of ... scriptural ignorance". For all their dreadful shortcomings, some fundamentalists at least accept the original intent behind the less pleasant verses in their Bible"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kenneth_krause/end-of-faith.html

Basically Liberal Christianity rejects whatever they can from scripture to people-please secular society. (so naturally the secular society prefers L to F). There are some other reason why L is irrational. For example its use of moral relativism. This can be debated further, but simply put "if relativism were wholly true, there would be no reason to prefer it over any other theory, given its fundamental contention that there is no preferred standard of truth."

Now back to Dan's comment:
The issue people have with you is that they think that your "different view" is harmful and offensive. People believe you use religion to excuse discrimination and people don't think that's right.
I have always tried to make clear how my view is completely tolerant of people, and only intolerant of certain ideas (as seen above I try to hold to the central view; not L or F). And, really, in a land where there is freedom of speech, what is wrong with so-called harmful or offensive views. What ever happened to: "I might not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." -Volitaire. I know that scripture is often offensive (what is more offensive than being told "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God") and that harm can come from it (see L and F misuses of it). That is why when talking about the rational uses of scripture (non L) it is good to stress the tolerance of people (loving your neighbor).

So, many of you might have trouble with the idea that scripture can even be used rationally or can give an absolute of morality. So why try to force this trouble you have on others? Just give reasoned arguments for it freely speaking your mind, while tolerating the people who hold this view.

B) If not, (and I really hope that I'm not misguided in giving you at least this much credit) are you willing to apologize for making several people on this thread feel that their sexual orientation was unfairly compared to a CRIMINAL, NEARLY UNIVERSALLY SHUNNED ACT?

Of course I apologize for any hurt or offense I've caused, and any unfair comparisons I've made. I really need to try considering people's feelings more and being as gentle as I can when speaking about ideas on this topic. The last thing I want is to not love my neighbor. Sometimes it's hard to think of the feelings of the others when in the context of an internet forum, but the other people are still people.

Dee.

The fossil record is there. Plain and simple.

To graduate from my universaty, I have to do well here in my exchange program, however, there is a problem.

My flat mates, I have no choice about them, I have to live with them. Demands for the dorms here are so high, it would be insane to move out, plus my exchange program would not cover me finacially if I did seek to find another place to live for the duration of my stay here, so I have no choice about it. The other students here all seem to know each other and all get on with each other real fine.

Problem is like this: They have no morals what so ever. They're all about living free and dying young or some crap like that. They think they're all modern, liberal, tolernt beings, and that their way of thinking is the right one. Not a single one of them is an active Christian!

I share a dorm with 14 other people, 2 of which are gay males (though one say's he's Bisexual, but I see him as gay) and one is a lesbian. The others are all straight yet 3 of the girls have admitted to having kissed girls. They all get drunk half the time, smoke pot, listen to music about sex, drugs, violence and worse. Every single one of them is regularly engaging in pre-martual sex, 2 have once been in some form of an orgy (sex with more then one person at the time). One was the lesbian and one is this guy who thinks of himself as some stud cause he had sex with 2 girls in one night.

They told me to relax about it and that I should live and live, but I was always brought up to believe that tolerence of such satanic behavior is to be part of the problem.

I tried to be nice, I bought them all a bible and placed one in each of their mail boxes, but actually got several complaints from the others about it. They said that if they had wanted a bible they'd of bought one them selves. I since have run into trouble with the dorm manager for spraying "queer" on the homesexual's doors.

I told my dad back at home about this and he told me I shouldn't tolerate this and that I should bring the floods to these people, as god did when Noa built his ark. Obviously I can't really flood the place, but there are other ways of dealing with them.

Can you further expand on what you mean by this? Because I think a rather large degree of the misunderstandings going on here, if that is indeed true, is that I think that either you aren't explaining your opinion, especially with regards to the topic of homosexuality, very clearly OR the frisson comes from the fact that quite a lot of us seem to have a very different idea as to what being "intolerant of certain ideas" actually means.

As for the other response...

Dude - evolution is a theory for WHY things have changed over millions of years. It is a theory for the FORCE behind the changes. It is not a theory about the actual existence of the changes or the amount of time over which they occurred.

Regardless, I never mentioned evolution. Don't put words in my mouth and then call me stupid for having said them.

I agree that theories can be broken - but the fossil record speaks for itself.

Do all homosexuals who have unprotected sex get AIDs? Yes they do.

You failed proving anything. Try again.

If I was baited into some sort of fundie bear trap, whatever. I'd actually punch anyone in the throat that made statements about AIDS like that.

the ZOROASTRIANS are gonna be PISSED when they see that.

One of the Pharisees tested Jesus with a question, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" (Matthew 22:36 NIV). Jesus replied, " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40 NIV).

your attempt to take sides between the two, instead of acknowledging their reliance upon one another ACCORDING TO THE VERY SAME VAMPIRE GOD WHO SPOKE THEM, is an insult to the God you claim to worship

I know this counts as feeding the troll, but what the hell

Can you further expand on what you mean by this? Because I think a rather large degree of the misunderstandings going on here, if that is indeed true, is that I think that either you aren't explaining your opinion, especially with regards to the topic of homosexuality, very clearly OR the frisson comes from the fact that quite a lot of us seem to have a very different idea as to what being "intolerant of certain ideas" actually means.

Ok, I don't think I have always made clear the distinction between tolerating an idea and tolerating a person, but I definitely think it's important.

I believe in moral absolutism meaning some ideas are right and some are wrong. I think loving one's neighbor is right and homosexuality is wrong. (Only because the Bible makes these both fairly clear. Many other moral questions are less clear, and man doesn't always know what is the right or wrong answer.) So, what these two moral rules mean to me is that to be righteous I should live this way. Another set of moral rules is it is wrong to judge anyone (that is for God alone), and it is right to rebuke and teach fellow Christians. So for me to be righteous I should follow this set too.

So when I say "homosexuality is wrong," the only real way I should use this statement is in regards to fellow Christians I am teaching as guidance for their righteousness, as warning to anyone else for consideration alone, and not as judgement or a means to invoke/excuse discrimination. This is only a moral rule for those under the moral absolutism of Christianity, not others under their system of moral relativism. But because of Common Grace (all men are created with some sense of the moral absolutes of Christianity) , these Christian moral rules still play some role in the morals of non-Christians. Loving and accepting non-christians is far more important than warning them.

This is so you know where I'm coming from and I hope these statements agree with the Bible (I willing to change them if they don't)

So, what does all this mean for passing laws and the politics involved? I'm not totally sure. I think liberty is more important than imposing morality, but what amount of morality should be imposed to result in the most liberty?

I don't think they follow it, I think they focus on it, and by doing so fail at following both great commandments.

Oh c'mon. there are plenty of reasons to argue with Nairn(ok, not that many, actually), but the problem is that he argues in bad faith rather than just his faith alone. I say this as a Christian(raised Presbyterian), and as one of the theistic folks who has argued with him before(e.g. the last two years).

Put it this way: when even Nabisco gives up on debating you out of exasperation, yer probably not worth the effort.

xpost: far more examples of incest in the OT than just cain, too. Noah's sons, Lot's family, etc

Someone who, after careful consideration of facts and argument comes to a conclusion. The problem is that most people come at this from a pure logic/pseudo-utilitarian perspective and Nairn (among others) ultimately privilege a specific, prescribed moral system as an evaluation tool.

I can say that incest is "wrong" because I can (or could, if I tracked the data down) cite the possibility of actual pregnancy with tendency toward genetic anomaly, sociological studies that show specific tendencies, etc. I think it's nearly universally recognized that genetic disease and sociological disorders are, in fact, negatives.

But you do not rely solely on the Bible as your authority. You also cite experience and reason as your authority. And that, my friend, is when your blinkered bullshit starts making me irrational. That is when the blood vessels in my eyeballs start popping. Because you (and many others from your subculture) so thoroughly abuse logic and language, and you do it so god damn smugly, christ, I want to smack you.

Words have meaning. Language follows rules. Ideas have consequences.

And while, like some sort of naive idiot, I genuinely want to engage you in rational debate, I have to do all I can to avoid typing blathering gibberish in ALL CAPS.

So, back to the Kutz article. I read the article, and I want you to as well, critically. This is my challenge, A. Nairn: List the reasons Kurtz cites in support of his statement that losing the homosexual taboo weakens marriage, and then list the arguments he makes to back them up.

oh I know kingfish, any post I direct to Nairn is the internet equivalent of yelling at other drivers on the freeway

dude i know, but as I keep trying to point out, the problem some of us have with teh guy ain't that he's God-fearin', but his method of arguing.

12 And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the beast.

16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister; for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.

20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.

21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

22 ¶ Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spew you not out.

23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.

25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.

26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

27 ¶ A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them.

xpost

What about incest without conception?

What's awesome is that this implies that as long as you keep teh aunt-groping to just a kind of a make-out session then it's A-OK.

xpost, Onimo mind-meld!

Laurel, Jesus either said or had other say for him after the fact that his "new school" was not here to repudiate the "old school", rather it was a fulfillment and refinement of it

(P.S. incest is considered bad not so much for freak-baby reasons but because at present it tends to border really close on sexual abuse and makes it really hard to sort out lots of stuff about consent and psychological health and so I think by and large the courts just don't want to have to deal with parsing that stuff at all, k thnx bye.)

xpost nabisco we're pretty much just mackin' on Nairn, yeah

its the levitcus pick-n-choose hot bar!

haha

our first album, "Shuck Those Oysters, Gentile Scum" drops Tuesday

nope

I mean Gosh!

how old was Charlotte Gainsbourg around the singing of Lemon Incest?

1)http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000IYCR.08._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

2) jerryheller.jpg

3) http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/religion/christianity/jesus.jpg

O RLY U DON'T SAI

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

[Nairn]the reason why losing the homosexual taboo weakens marriage:
[From Kurtz’ Article]"the taboo on non-marital and non-reproductive sexuality helps to cement marital unions, and helps prevent acts of adultery that would tear those unions apart."

Kurtz's argument begins here:

1) Taboos help us to restrain ourselves from certain negative behaviors that are detrimental to our society.

Up-thread, I stated that some taboos are harmful, not helpful. You agreed. Kutz seems to understand this as well. So we have to refine this statement:

1a) Taboos help us to restrain ourselves from certain negative behaviors that are detrimental to our society. Some taboos, however, are harmful, not helpful. Therefore, we will have to take a look at each taboo and justify it on it's own merits.

Kurtz looks at three taboos: homosexuality, adultery, and incest.

a) The incest taboo strengthens the family by clarifying the relationships within the family and protects children from abuse.

b) The adultery taboo prevents sex outside of marriage, therefore protecting the bond of marriage and the stability of the family.

c) The homosexual taboo protects the family by, doing what? By helping to prevent adultery.

(Kurtz is defining adultery as sex outside of marriage, so I will use it that way, here.)

Kurtz doesn’t say this, but I think there is only one solution, if we want to strengthen marriage and discourage adultery. The solution? Gay marriage.

Nairn: argument to back this up:
[From Kurtz’s article]“the taboo on homosexuality... has substantially broken down...[and] the rates of divorce and out of wedlock birth have dramatically risen.”

I think the culprit, here, is the breakdown of the adultery taboo, because no one has ever provided any credible evidence that homosexuality has anything to do with divorce rates and out of wedlock birth rates.

It’s hard to imagine how it could, unless you just mush it together with all sorts of other societal factors like adultery and incest, which is what Kurtz is trying to do here. I think he is being dishonest, or he is confused and he is a very sloppy thinker.

Kurtz warns us of the dangers of sex outside of marriage (adultery), lumps together homosexuality with adultery (along with polygamy), and concludes that homosexuals should not get married.

Kurtz’s argument distilled: Homosexual marriage should not be permitted because homosexuals currently have sex outside of marriage.

Oh, and, “SLIPPERY SLOPE! SLIPPERY SLOPE! INCEST, POLYAMORY, POLYGAMY, HOMOSEXUALITY, OH MY!”

At least we were spared another rant about bestiality.

What do you think about this, Nairn?

http://sites.gizoogle.com/index2.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blueletterbible.org%2FLev%2FLev020.html

Lev 20:11 And tha dawg T-H-to-tha-izzat lieth wit his fatha's wife hizzle uncovered his fatha's nakedness . I thought i told ya, nigga I'm a soldier: both of T-H-to-tha-izzem S-H-to-tha-izzall surely be put ta death; they blood [shall be] upon them . You'se a flea and I'm the big dogg.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7030267.stm

hey all if u would like to know all about incest n the killer times u can have n if u have stories that u would luv to share with me n I'll share with u hit me back @ my yahoo mr_pimp_s✧✧✧@ya✧✧✧.c✧✧ really hope to hear from u ! luv the Pimp!

-- MrPimpShow, Sunday, October 8, 2006 4:49 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Link

Damn, this thread is some good entertainment.

route-one trollage morelike.

FWIW, I remember Incest Class at university. It boils down to two things; and noone mentioned the second. One, every human culture has an incest taboo of some kind. Two, there is such variation in incest taboos between different cultures, that there is *no* common incest law that *all* known human societies hold. Whichever one you pick, there's been a society somewhere that has at least not cared about it either way.

When I was studying this, about 10 years ago, England and Scotland even had entirely different incest laws. Under Scottish law, having sex with your brother-in-law or sister-in-law was incest. On the other hand, having sex with a child you'd had outside of marriage, as long as he/she was a consenting adult, was completely legal.

paging tuomas

I don't think there are any rational arguments for incest to be illegal. But the same goes for bigamy. Or bestiality. The fact is, though, there is no one who feels sufficiently discriminated by these laws, and no pressure = no change, since the law is inherently conservative.

The usual moral argument I hear against bestiality is: animals have no ability to consent.

I don't think there are any rational arguments for incest to be illegal. But the same goes for bigamy. Or bestiality. The fact is, though, there is no one who feels sufficiently discriminated by these laws, and no pressure = no change, since the law is inherently conservative.

-- Zelda Zonk, Monday, October 8, 2007 11:52 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

okay bai

The usual moral argument I hear against bestiality is: animals have no ability to consent.

Only vegetarians can make this argument, though.

Under Scottish law, having sex with your brother-in-law or sister-in-law was incest. On the other hand, having sex with a child you'd had outside of marriage, as long as he/she was a consenting adult, was completely legal.

ok WTF???

Is anyone going to google "sex with children in Scotland legal" to check this?

this thread had nairn, and i guess he was scottish. maybe that was what he meant by the pro-incest agenda.

The usual moral argument I hear against bestiality is: animals have no ability to consent.

the dalmatian that was fucking the hell out of this pr0n girl totally consented to bestiality.

I always thought A Nairn was American, but i could be wrong.

R.I.P. Thomas Tallis, what a total dick he was

But you gotta admit, his scholars have a nice set of pipes.

who is tuomas tallis?

And then inexplicably, for reasons unfathomable,
But to me wholly admirable,
The DJ played us some Tallis.
He yanked off the Corrs in disgust and announced "Thomas Tallis, Lamentations of Jeremiah."
Across an empty dancefloor I walked to commend him,
And also enquire if he had any Dowland.

drunkenness and immodesty are almost universally considered moral issues.

-- A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:15 (1 year ago) Link

"Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

"When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, 'Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.'

"He also said, 'Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave.'"

"Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. One day the older daughter said to the younger, 'Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.'

"That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

"The next day the older daughter said to the younger, 'Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.' So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

"So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today."

See, drunkenness leads to incest! Take heed!

What I want to know is, if he was too drunk to notice or remember any of the incestuous hijinx, how did they POSSIBLY get a good result? That has not been my experience in the slightest.

I did wonder that myself. The cave-in-remote-mountains equivalent of the turkey baster, possibly.

And did he not wonder, a few months later, just exactly how they became pregnant in a remote cave with nobody at all nearby?

goats. it's all about goats.

Heart rate and breathing rate are irregular during REM sleep, again similar to the waking hours. Body temperature is not well regulated during REM. Erections of the penis (Nocturnal Penile Tumescence or NPT) is an established accompaniment of REM sleep and is used diagnostically to determine if male erectile dysfunction is of organic or psychological origin. Clitoral enlargement, with accompanying vaginal blood flow and transudation (i.e. lubrication) is also present during REM.

Fair enough - but when he's asleep cos he's pissed? I'd think not somehow.

i was well drunk on saturday night and woke up the next morning with a massive boner.

i dunno whether i'd have woken up if some young girl started fucking me (i didn't have a test subject :()

so it probably isn't beyond reasonable doubt.

To be honest though it was more likely that he "didn't know" i.e. "did know but kept his eye shut"

it didn't happen

Twins who were separated at birth and raised by different families met later and married but were forced to break up when they discovered their true identities, a British legislator said on Friday.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/father-and-daughter-have-child/2008/04/07/1207420202007.html

"I was looking at him, sort of going, oh, he's not too bad.

O_o!

I haven't checked ilx lately so if that's been discussed elsewhere, I sorry.

Dear god. ;_;

For Mr Deaves the sexual relationship was "absolutely fantastic".

Wahey! Mount Gambier, the incest capital of the world! Imagine what that'll do for tourism in town.

THERE'S MORE

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/incest-couple-had-another-child/2008/04/07/1207420263586.html

The pair were banned from sexual contact with each other as part of their bond.

who gets the lucky job of monitoring that?

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5974190,00.jpg

HOT

http://img.waffleimages.com/4b543904827ed2f719dd43629da534a32f8147fe/incest.jpg#via=salr

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/incest_080408_wideweb__470x277,4.jpg

and they in fact look a lot alike

Yeah especially in the previous photo.

how could you say no to that face?

oh, he's not too bad

like a wax statue of tom wilkinson left out in the sun for a couple hours

smh @ news reported by smh.com

what

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/a/a2/225px-Arrested_Development_-_Les_cousins_dangereaux.jpg

what

-- wilter, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 12:19 (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

I can't believe no one is talking about Austrian dude who kept his daughter in the basement for 20 years, fathering a bunch of children with her, while his wife lived upstairs and DIDN'T KNOW

there's probably a what's on your ipod thread on ILM

Julie is traveling in France on summer vacation from college with her brother Mark. One night they decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. Julie was already taking birth-control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy the sex but decide not to do it again. They keep the night as a special secret, which makes them feel closer to each other. What do you think about that — was it O.K. for them to make love?

Most people immediately declare that these acts are wrong and then grope to justify why they are wrong. It’s not so easy. In the case of Julie and Mark, people raise the possibility of children with birth defects, but they are reminded that the couple were diligent about contraception. They suggest that the siblings will be emotionally hurt, but the story makes it clear that they weren’t. They submit that the act would offend the community, but then recall that it was kept a secret. Eventually many people admit, “I don’t know, I can’t explain it, I just know it’s wrong.” People don’t generally engage in moral reasoning, but moral rationalization: they begin with the conclusion, coughed up by an unconscious emotion, and then work backward to a plausible justification.

ban france

there's probably a what's on your ipod thread on ILM

on ILE actually

jesus christ

This thread is so fucked up.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/02/should_a_florida_millionaire_be_prosecuted_for_incest_because_he_adopted_his_girlfriend_.html

Yes, he should be run up on charges of doing the absolutely creepiest thing possible to get out of taxes.

dunno about incest cause its pretty obv. what the real story is here.

On Feb. 10, 2010, Palm Beach air-conditioning mogul John Goodman allegedly ran a stop sign. His Bentley convertible struck a Hyundai being driven by Scott Wilson, a 23-year-old civil engineer. Wilson’s car landed in a nearby canal where the young man drowned.

this is either a parable about american politics or a law & order episode, right?

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/multimedia/dynamic/01321/goodman_girlfriend_1321050e.jpg

who's your daddy

<I>A Florida Millionaire Adopted His 42-Year-Old Girlfriend</I>

Who (if bankrupt) he was very polite to every day for the rest of his life.

lol usa

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/02/01/article-2094910-118D380B000005DC-316_634x589.jpg