There are certain arguments 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?”
“When you confound that structure….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.”
Exactly. Those who have nothing but disorder strive to be evangelical with it. Misery loves company. If there is order in something, they will work tirelessly to dismantle it. Marriage is not the goal of “same-sex marriage” advocates, the elimination of marriage is. When that goes so does everything else.
The situation is the inevitable outcome when notions of sexual
morality are de-coupled from the reproductive act. The man
is sick beyond imagining – and a criminal at that. It is likely that
his daughter is irreparably damaged, and will always be regarded
as “damaged goods”.
The article mentioned the offender was a professor of “political
science”. He is a professor of political something or other, however that
field hardly qualifies as “science”, but that’s another topic for
another day.
What continues to be hard to understand is how anyone can be confused about such issues. Why isn’t it obvious? And why has society in such large measure decided to ignore the obviousness? This isn’t difficult, after all. All sexual deviancy is – attend here! – sexual deviancy, a radical abnormality, and we only have to look at sado- masochism, whose deviancy and undesirability is still not in doubt, and ask why this is different from incest? (And I should add that the genetic argument against incest OUGHT to be compelling.)
But #2, if this incest is consensual, then maybe neither is damaged goods. Both may be pleased with the arrangement.
On the other hand, maybe we should ask his wife? Or is it the case that we have moved to Sodom and Gomorrah, that all is permitted and nothing denied. What harm can there be in that? Larry
From the article:
[i]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.[/i]
OK, his argument here is a very slippery slope. By his reasoning, the norm that everyone must follow is the husband, wife, and kids model and everything that falls outside of that somehow “damages” the family “institution.”
By this, singletons such as myself are somehow deviant because we do not follow the norm. So are single-parent families. (Remember that there are many reasons for the existence of single-parent families and not all are “selfish.”)
Indeed, singletons and single parents are often treated as aberrations and threats by others — and that’s especially weird when it comes from Christians, considering that singlehood was prized over marriage in the Gospels and the Jewish community was called to pay particular attention to widows and fatherless children.
I know that this writer is trying to build the case for immorality regarding incest and homosexuality but his arguments unfortunately capture other states of life, as well. I still have a difficult time understanding why those of us who are outside of his “norm” seem so threatening to the marrieds. Incest is psychologically and emotionally damaging because it drastically alters the biological and emotional roles of the relationship and is based on an imbalance of power. That in itself is a compelling argument against it and there is no need to cast about and damn any other lifestyle choice.
look east my friends where they are looking at repealing such laws: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html
(Signs of European cultural suicide, part 4895)
One of the big reasons sexual deviancy is becoming the norm is the moral collapse of the mainstream Protestant churches. It is one thing to have some members or clergy of a church become moral deviants– and recognized as sinners. it is a whole other matter when churches and their leaders endorse moral deviancy and become virtual leaders in the destruction of moral norms.
Stories like this prove how acceptance of homosexual behaviour is the camel’s nose under the tent opening the way to the destruction of all moral norms. Yet, to read comments of leaders in some mainstream Protestant churches it is they who are the Angels of Light. But, in reality, they have become minions of the Prince of Darkness.
I know the above sounds strong. But it isn’t half as strong as what has been thrown at the pope and the leadership of the Catholic Church for its struggle to defend Christian moral norms in a morally decaying world.
Teatime2, I don’t follow your argument. Unmarried people have always been acceptable as Christians. So also have been widows and widowers raising their children.
But here is the slippery slope out in the open: [url=http://abcnews.go.com/Health/switzerland-considers-legalizing-consensual-incest-columbia-professor-accused/story?id=12395499&tqkw;=&tqshow=NL&page=1]Epstein’s attorney[/url] is arguing that Epstein’s behavior isn’t wrong if homosexuality is okay, and that the daughter, who has not been charged, is an accomplice rather than a victim.
wow, the gay rights crowd is going to be out with the pitch forks over this defense Epstein’s lawyer is offering….
It’s always interesting to me how some will blame the homosexual for any heterosexual deviant behavior. It one wishes to look for the opening salvo in moral decline, why not cast a look toward premarital, extra marital sex. It’s practically become the norm. And don’t try to tell me that the homosexual crowd caused that as well. I recall very well hearing about “wife swaps” in my small town when i was a child when most of the villiage had never heard of a homosexual. A case of the pot calling the kettle black i think.
Katherine,
Yes, I probably should have explained in more detail. Mohler is claiming that a personal choice which does not include a heterosexual marriage with children harms, and I quote, “the family as an institution,” even if it harms no one directly. He applies this to homosexuality but his argument is such that it could apply to anyone else who does not marry and/or have children.
Why? Because, to follow his argument, other lifestyles — by their very existence — constitute a choice other than traditional marriage and, as such, lead to its degradation. That line of “reasoning” tolerates singles, just barely, because there is the possibility that singles may eventually marry. But his anti-homosexual arguments about the primacy of heterosexual unions and the rearing of children can apply to single people and single parents, as well.
The odd manner in which he tries to bring homosexuality into a discussion about incest is treated in such a way as to suggest that any lifestyle outside of a heterosexual marriage is a threat to marriage and leads to sin. And, no, the Southern Baptist tradition of which he is a part does not value singlehood, particularly for women. They do believe that a woman needs to be placed under the guidance of a man.
As I wrote previously, there are rational, reasonable arguments about the immorality of incest. One does not need to bring homosexuality or other issues into the equation. Blaming homosexuals again is ridiculous — I agree with Deacon Mark.
#9, I think the people at this site (generally) do not hold homosexuals responsible for premarital and extramarital sex, and they CERTAINLY do not condone any of these. But it is true that we lump all three of these into one category, i.e. contrary to scripture. And all three pollute the waters (see the links just in this thread), corroding to the (unrelated) one man one woman, monogamous, married model.
I’m not sure what purpose it serves to debate which of the three is worst or most influential, and it seems somewhat subjective to boot.
“any lifestyle outside of a heterosexual marriage is a threat to marriage and leads to sin.” yes, that is correct, relationships contrary to scripture are sinful and lead to sin (including even incest). and that position was commonly accepted until the 60s.
Teatime2, I still think your interpretation is incorrect. I read Mohler again. His examples are all those of people choosing to enter sexual relationships outside of marriage, and he says these do damage to the family as an institution. He has nothing to say about people choosing to remain single, or people whose children were the products of marriage and whose spouses have passed away.
Nor do Epstein’s lawyer, or the various comments referenced, blame homosexuals for this incest case. Rather, they are trying to use homosexuality as an excuse.
Katherine is correct, Teatime2. Read Mohler’s argument more closely.
[blockquote]And, no, the Southern Baptist tradition of which he is a part does not value singlehood, particularly for women. They do believe that a woman needs to be placed under the guidance of a man.[/blockquote]
Recognizing that as a boy and young man I stood outside the experience of my female contemporaries, I still have to say that the Southern Baptist church in which I grew up and came to faith had a number of single, never-married women in the membership (younger, middle-aged, and elderly), all of whom were valued for themselves and their own ministries within the congregation. There was no sense in which they were valued less than their married sisters in Christ. Atypical? I think not. This is a small town church that is about as conservative socially and theologically as one can imagine. I do wish people wouldn’t generalize in the way that your statement does.
I highly doubt Epstein can be successfully prosecuted given Lawrence v. Texas. His daughter was an adult during the whole relationship, and apparently it was consensual. If he has a lawyer that understands the implications of the Supreme Court decision, which apparently he does, the charge will be quietly dismissed by the prosecutor in a couple of months.
Neither incest nor polygamous relationships, so long as they are consensual, can be distinguished from sodomy under Lawrence. If Lawrence remains good law, I think the same will be held to be true eventually with prostitution as well.
Once you jettison traditional morality a a sufficient basis for prohibition of consensual private acts, which is what Lawrence did, there is no longer any rational basis for conviction. That was the point of Scalia’s dissent, which was absolutely correct. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court reverses itself on Lawrence when it inevitably gets the California Prop. 8 decision, I think it’s pretty certain the right of government to regulate any consensual sexual activity will be gone completely. Certainly lawyers Boies and Olson are hoping that is what is going to happen.
I think Jim is correct. This is precisely the scenario that Justice Scalia foresaw as a consequence of Lawrence v. Texas, which basically precluded the state from having any interest in regulating consensual adult sexual behavior. That’s the whole point of the analogy.
And, of course, why should not the state allow these two consenting adults to be married?
you argument #9., is sound vis a vis heterosexual disregard of what once was standard moral dictate. Shall we therefore say, “Moral law has changed and such promiscuity is acceptable?” If we accept that as a reasonable proposition, then any excess can be institutionalized. Normality is simply what most people do – which is precisely what the bell curve shows. Shall we buy that? But what the bell curve shows is that homosexuality is far far from, let us say, one standard deviation. It is always abnormal. What then? Incest always has been like homosexuality, a radical deviance. Question: if our culture accepts incest as legitimate behavior, will we accept BOTH as normal? Larry
McKenzie Phillips was a legal adult when her father initiated a drug-fueled incestuous relationship with her. She was already pretty messed up, but that was the frosting on the cake. There is no way the Epstein instance is innocuous.
Woody Allen’s son seems to have a pretty clear-headed view on this kind of weirdness.
#19. And what was that view? I no nothing of this. Larry
#20–Here is the son’s statement on Allen committing incest with his sister:
[blockquote]
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_8003/is_2005_Jan_23/ai_n37423924/
Woody Allen son: I’ll never forgive dad; Marriage to adopted daughter is ‘immoral’
Mail on Sunday (London, England), The, Jan 23, 2005
WOODY ALLEN’S son has launched a stinging attack on his father – saying he will never forgive him for marrying his own adopted daughter.
Speaking for the first time about the scandal that tore his family apart, Seamus Farrow branded his father immoral for marrying Soon-Yi Previn, who is 35 years his junior.
‘He’s my father married to my sister,’ said Seamus, 18. ‘That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression.
‘I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father and be morally consistent.’ Allen, now 69, justifies his relationship with Soon-Yi on the grounds that she is not his real daughter. But Seamus said: ‘I lived with all these adopted children, so they are my family. To say Soon-Yi was not my sister is an insult to all adopted children.’
Seamus, a child prodigy who entered university at 13, was the only biological child from Allen’s long-term relationship with actress Mia Farrow.
But Farrow also brought up 13 other children, three of her own from her marriage to conductor Andre Previn and ten she adopted. Farrow and Previn adopted Soon-Yi from Korea when she was seven, but divorced soon after.
Farrow then began her relationship with Allen, but they split in 1992 after she found nude photographs of Soon-Yi, who was then 19, on the mantlepiece of Allen’s Manhattan apartment.
In the bitter break-up, Farrow gained full custody of the children. And in 1996 Allen was prevented from seeing Seamus, who had been called Satchel, after a baseball star, but changed his name after the split. Even now, Mia’s sense of anger has not lessened. ‘It was such a sense of betrayal,’ she told Saga magazine.’ ‘Soon-Yi was a kid when I found her on the streets of Korea.
She was seven when Woody met her.’ Family friends say Seamus helped his adopted brother Moses write a letter to Allen at the time of the split, saying: ‘You’ve done a horrible, unforgivable, needy, ugly, stupid thing. If you bring us to court…
I hope you get so humiliated that you commit suicide.
‘I don’t consider you my father any more. I hope you are proud to crush your son’s dreams.’ [/blockquote]