child molestation, incest, homosexuality, the RAT core belief system at work...
Posted on 12/15/2010 9:45:01 AM PST by wmfights
There are certain questions now pressed upon us that previous generations would never believe could be asked. One of these is thrust upon us by events in New York City, where a well-known Ivy League professor has been arrested for the crime of incest. What makes the question urgent is not so much the arrest, but the controversy surrounding it.
David Epstein is a professor of political science at Columbia University, where his wife also teaches. He previously taught on the faculties of Harvard and Stanford. Last week, he was arraigned before a judge in Manhattan, charged with a single count of felony incest. According to authorities, Professor Epstein was for several years involved in a sexual relationship with his adult daughter, now age 24.
Though the story was ignored by much of the mainstream media, it quickly found its way into the cultural conversation. William Saletan of Slate.com, who remains one of today’s most relevant writers working on the issues of bioethics and human nature, jumped on the story with a very interesting essay that openly asked the question many others were more quietly asking: “If homosexuality is OK, why is incest wrong?”
After reviewing the various legal arguments used to justify criminalizing incest, Saletan comes to the conclusion that genetics cannot be the fundamental basis, since incestuous sex could be non-reproductive. Similarly, the basic issue cannot be consent, since no one is arguing in this case that the sex was non-consensual.
He gets the liberal response just about right: “At this point, liberals tend to throw up their hands. If both parties are consenting adults and the genetic rationale is bogus, why should the law get involved? Incest may seem icky, but that’s what people said about homosexuality, too. It’s all private conduct.”
Saletan comes to the conclusion that the basic reason for the wrongfulness of incest is damage to the family unit. As an Ohio court ruled, “A sexual relationship between a parent and child or a stepparent and stepchild is especially destructive to the family unit.”
Now, remember that Saletan raised the issue of the morality of incest as related to the question of homosexuality. He argues that the family-damage argument against incest does not apply to homosexuality. In his words: “When a young man falls in love with another man, no family is destroyed.”
Saletan’s argument is easy to follow, and if you accept his fundamental premise, it can even make sense. But his fundamental premise assumes that there is no damage to a particular family unit if a homosexual relationship exists. That argument can be made only by ignoring the impact upon a family of origin. Beyond this, it limits the family-damage argument to an individual family, when the argument must be more broadly applied to the family as an institution.
This article is a very interesting window into the sexual confusions that lie at the heart of our age. To his credit, Saletan gets the conservative argument basically right:
The conservative view is that all sexual deviance—homosexuality, polyamory, adultery, bestiality, incest—violates the natural order. Families depend on moral structure: Mom, Dad, kids. When you confound that structure—when Dad sleeps with a man, Dad sleeps with another woman, or Mom sleeps with Grandpa—the family falls apart. Kids need clear roles and relationships. Without this, they get disoriented. Mess with the family, and you mess up the kids.
That’s a pretty fair summary. Of course, the Christian argument goes much deeper than the merely conservative argument, affirming the fact that, with exacting precision, God has spoken to the sinfulness of such behaviors — specifically condemning both homosexuality and incest. In other words, Christians move the question from mere wrongfulness to sinfulness and place all issues of sin within the biblical account of sin and redemption.
It is extremely revealing that, for many of our fellow citizens, incest may merely “seem icky.” And yet, all around us are folks who, with a straight face, deny the inevitability of this slippery slope.
What’s the daughter’s name? I can’t decide who’s wright and whos wrong without seeing a picture of the daughter.
Name not released, apparently.
child molestation, incest, homosexuality, the RAT core belief system at work...
Agreed,and when I look at pics of Charles’ son William, the one getting married, oddly enough, he looks like every 3rd young man his age from Long Island, NY.
that was a very good analysis, IMO. I was thinking along the same lines but couldn’t make it that clear cut.
Moral relativism can rationalize anything, even genocide.
If I understand them correctly, the men disagree with it happening now, but they wish it had happened to them.
Guilty.
Forinstance, let's discuss the merits of homeowners being able to kill robbers who have entered their home - and paying the homeowner if the robbers are killed. It saves the courts money - and saves in jail costs... Let's talk about it.
That's how it works... they do it, we need to also.
Rick Santorum brought this up years ago, and caught hell for it—from the gays. Fact is that if homosexual marriage is allowed, then polygamy and polygandry will soon follow—and incest. Because we can witness this in denenerate families. Remember “Tobacco Road?”
Which is why they DON”T want to talk about the rigthtness /wrongness of homosexuality.
I have always liked him.
I took the cue from this article and brought up the question with my younger son and nephew at dinner last night. My Nephew is 20 and my son is 17. I asked them if it's consensual, they are adults and no children are being born why is it wrong?
It led to a great discussion about the need to have healthy families if a society is to thrive and grow.
They don't want to debate something like, “Should global warming alarmist be fined and jailed for lying to the public”? Or, " Convicted child predators should be put to death within one year of conviction..."
No, they do not want the morality of homosexuality debated. Homosexual “ rights, “yes, of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.