Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1 Incest and the Degradation of Our Vocabulary 
    Incest and the Degradation of Our Vocabulary

    by Matthew J. Franck
    January 5, 2011

    What’s wrong with a prominent professor’s incestuous relationship with his daughter.

    The story of David Epstein, the Columbia University political scientist and Huffington Post blogger now facing criminal charges of incest, has launched a very interesting discussion. What is fascinating about it, and deeply disturbing, is the inability of some commentators to articulate what is morally wrong about the act of incest. It is almost equally disturbing that a legal argument for a “right” to engage in adult, consensual incest stands on surprisingly firm footing, thanks to precedents the United States Supreme Court has already established in other cases on the “autonomy of the person” under our Constitution.

    Professor Epstein, 46, has been charged with third-degree incest for carrying on a sexual relationship over a three-year period with his daughter, now 24. From what little has emerged about the case, there are no charges that the relationship antedated the daughter’s eighteenth birthday, nor has it been alleged that the sexual relations were other than consensual. (The daughter herself has not so far been charged with a crime, however.) So powerful is the contemporary opinion that “consenting adults” may engage, in private, in any acts that commit no “harm” (narrowly understood in almost purely physical terms) to the parties in question or to others, that some observers have merely shrugged indifferently at the Epstein case, while others have striven to find grounds for condemning such incestuous acts but finally confessed their failure to find them.

    After briefly describing the facts of the Epstein case, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh asked, “Should it be illegal, and if so, exactly why?” The comments from his readers were not, in the main, terribly edifying. Volokh’s UCLA colleague Stephen Bainbridge cited the ethicist Leon Kass’s phrase “the wisdom of repugnance,” and said there was “definitely an ick factor” at work in his judgment of the case. But beyond this instinctual support for an ancient taboo, Bainbridge had little else to offer. And such an “ick factor” may be all most people can summon upon learning of this case. The taboo being so ancient, so much a part of “second nature” in people’s moral make-up, it has gone unarticulated for so long that when the need arises to articulate it, we may find ourselves speechless.

    William Saletan made perhaps the most successful attempt to articulate a reason for condemning even consensual adult incest. He rejected the oft-cited risk of hereditary birth defects as a reason to prohibit incest, because such a risk is not present in some incestuous relations and is easily obviated in others. And violence and exploitation could not be said to be at work in truly consensual cases of incest between adults. Saletan finally settled, without much further elaboration, on calling incest a “cancer of the family” because it perverts already-existing relationships between family members.

    It does indeed. Saletan might have consulted the analysis offered in C.S. Lewis’s 1960 book The Four Loves had he wished to develop the point. Lewis’s four forms of love are affection (the Greek storgē), friendship (philia), sexual or romantic love (eros), and charity or Christian love (agapē). Here we may stick to the first three—the “natural loves,” Lewis calls them—and observe that they are not so much variations of one thing as different species of love. Each has its own integrity, and is in an important way constitutive of human happiness. Some overlap among or progression through the various loves is possible, of course. Married couples, for instance, may begin as friends, become lovers, and finally find their relationship cemented in bonds of affection, that “humblest love” that as often as not involves a great deal of “taking for granted.”

    But while such overlap is appropriate in some instances, in others it is inappropriate—indeed, it can be an outrage to mix loves or for one to intrude upon another. The relations of children to parents, and of siblings to each other, the most basic of familial ties, are intense and lifelong relations of affection, in which great variations on storgē are visible. Such close kinship, grounded in nature or even only in law and custom (as with step-siblings, for instance), is often its own justification and support. Surely many of us have been heard to say something like, “I don’t much like him, but I’m obliged to love him, because he’s my brother.” Introduce the element of eros, however, and affection is not reinforced; it is destroyed, and replaced by something unnatural to the relationship in its proper sense. The human good of parent-child love, or of sibling intimacy, is sacrificed to a misplaced passion that cannot achieve its own rightful end.
    Excellent - read the whole thing.

    The Public Discourse
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member FBIGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    If I told you I'd have to kill you
    Posts
    290
    And society slides down the slippery slope of same sex marriages. I wonder what we will have when we finally reach the ditch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by FBIGuy View Post
    And society slides down the slippery slope of same sex marriages. I wonder what we will have when we finally reach the ditch.
    The economic and cultural elites (not NBA players or celebutards) will continue to marry, avoid divorce, and make important distinctions among the varieties of sexual expression at various times of life and between sexual expressions that cause more harm and those that cause less harm.

    The middle class and working class will adopt the indiscriminate view of sexual expression held by academics and taste-makers which will result in the emotional and economic problems all too familiar to those living below the poverty line.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by FBIGuy View Post
    And society slides down the slippery slope of same sex marriages. I wonder what we will have when we finally reach the ditch.
    I do believe that's a slippery heterosexual slope you're standing on, not a homosexual slope. Incest has been around a lot longer than homosexuality and with a much higher degree of social and legal approval.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    The economic and cultural elites (not NBA players or celebutards) will continue to marry, avoid divorce, and make important distinctions among the varieties of sexual expression at various times of life and between sexual expressions that cause more harm and those that cause less harm.

    The middle class and working class will adopt the indiscriminate view of sexual expression held by academics and taste-makers which will result in the emotional and economic problems all too familiar to those living below the poverty line.
    Incest has been a topic of discussion for centuries. The problem is that societies have difficulty defining it.

    People are related in degrees. A parent or sibling is the first degree, though a sibling is actually closer than a single parent. Then you have double first cousins which are sometimes considered 1st degree and sometimes a half step away. Then you have first cousins, which in many cases are also second or third cousins. So it's really not all that simple.

    Centuries ago, the Pope defined incest as "intermarriage closer than the fifth degree". Mind you, he didn't do this out of any concern for morality or genetics (which hadn't been discovered) , he did it to keep the noble families of Europe from combining their wealth and power and being a challenge.

    But then things went back to normal, including first cousin marriages. Personally, I have an ick factor with that, but others don't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I do believe that's a slippery heterosexual slope you're standing on, not a homosexual slope. Incest has been around a lot longer than homosexuality and with a much higher degree of social and legal approval.
    No... it has been an argument of those who are against gay marriage that if you allow homosexual marriage where do you draw the line? The fags say it has nothing to do with incest, polygamy, pedophilia etc... Sure does look like it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Jfor View Post
    No... it has been an argument of those who are against gay marriage that if you allow homosexual marriage where do you draw the line? The fags say it has nothing to do with incest, polygamy, pedophilia etc... Sure does look like it.
    They can't have it both ways. If they are going to argue that gay marriage is wrong because it's not traditional, then by default traditional marriages are not wrong. Incestuous marriage and plural marriage predate the modern notions of marriage by 4,000 years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    WhiteWolf
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jfor View Post
    No... it has been an argument of those who are against gay marriage that if you allow homosexual marriage where do you draw the line? The fags say it has nothing to do with incest, polygamy, pedophilia etc... Sure does look like it.
    Gay marriage doesn't produce genetic mutants like incestual couplings can and do. The ill effects of inbreeding are well documented. Two gay men cannot produce a child... did this fact escape you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by WhiteWolf View Post
    Gay marriage doesn't produce genetic mutants like incestual couplings can and do. The ill effects of inbreeding are well documented. Two gay men cannot produce a child... did this fact escape you?
    Utah, not surprisingly, has an interesting law. IN Utah, first cousin marriage is illegal, unless the couple are past child bearing years.

    First cousin marriage is allowed in these states under the following circumstances:
    Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.
    Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.
    Indiana- if both are at least 65.
    Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.
    Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.
    Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.
    *
    North Carolina- First cousin marriage is legal. Double cousin marriage is prohibited
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,308
    Quote Originally Posted by FBIGuy View Post
    And society slides down the slippery slope of same sex marriages. I wonder what we will have when we finally reach the ditch.
    No because every time you think you hit bottom, there is always someone there handing out shovels.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •