Wednesday, December 22, 2010


There is this very bizare article over at Slate ( about the recent arrest of David Epstein for incest. I almost didn't link to it because I don't want to give such drivel more hits's a lot easier to make my point if you've read the initial article. The author asks the question: if homosexuality is okay then why not incest?

So, first, I just have to say: TOLD YOU SO!

Ok, now that I have that out of my system, back on point.

Summerizing, in case you don't want to link jump, he states that incest is demonstratively wrong and should be illegal (although he also says he doesn't think Professor Epstein should be tried) because it causes a breakdown of the family unit. When Dad has sex with daughter or brother has sex with sister they are trampling what defines a family and therefore it is apropriate as a society to criminalize it/immoralize it. Then he makes the logic-wrenching statement that, since homosexual sex doesn't destroy the family unit it should be allowed and tolerated.
Let's see, family unit as it has been defined in this country for over 200 years: father, mother, kids. How does father, father, kids or mother, mother, kids not change that? Is this person mentally deficient?
Not only that but that 'family unit' of father, father can not create 'kid' until and unless a 3rd party intervines. So, it's not only father, father, kid, it's actually father, father, mother, father, kid. (Because the adoptive kid still has a biological mother and father) (Or mother, mother, father, kid. ) Yes, adoption is a viable option for a traditional family as well but, in that case, you are adding onto the traditional father, mother pair the offspring of another father, mother pair. No matter how you look at it homosexual relations mess with the traditional family structure just as much as does incest, pedophilia, bigamy/polygamy, and any other deviant sexual behavior you can think of.
Unfortunately how they mess with the structure is fast becoming irrelavent to the liberal left. Especially for those who love the 'nanny state' mentality, the traditional family, with mom and dad raising, teaching, and equiping the children with the family morals and beliefs, is something they hate and are anxious to get rid of. So today it's 'accept homosexuality or you're a homophobic bigot' with people protesting their arrest/convictions of polygamy and incest (a polygamist recently used the same arguement as homosexuals to try to get him sentence over turned), and a ever more softening of liberal public sentiment towards them and other deviants. Tomorrow it's 'accept any sexual act or you're a sexually repressed bigot. (Or maybe they'll have to make up a new word along the same lines as 'homophobic' to be applied to people who hold to traditional morals.)
Guess what, I'm not 'phobic' of immoral behavior, regardless of flavor, I just recognize it is immoral, and will regardless of which flavor the liberals decide is 'in vogue' next. And regardless of what intelligence-insulting drivel they use to try to sooth their shriveled conscience.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a disappointing post. I know you and I disagree about many things politically and socially, but I can usually respectfully disagree with your opinion. However, here you argue against incest without talking about genetic make-up, and you argue in favor of a "traditional family" that no longer exists in mainstream society. 50% of married couples get divorced, so no matter where you look, most families are not going to be father, mother, children. My point here, and I'll keep it short, is that if you want to use incest as an argument against homosexuality, you can't ignore the very large detail of genetic deficiencies. Likewise, if you want to argue against homosxuality in favor of traditional families, you can't ignore the reality of divorced couples, remarried couples, never-been-wed couples, etc.

As always, I hope none of this affects our personal relationship. ;-) (I'm not really posting anonymously per se, I just don't want to attach my comment to my own blog. This is your SIL!)

7:46 PM  
Blogger Jespren said...

So this is actually in response to a reply, which it's telling me is here and I can read as the author but for some reason it hasn't actually shown up yet here...hmm...odd. so, anyway, if it doesn't show up by tomorrow I'll copy/paste so you all can see it.
To my anonomous sil ;) (is it not allowing open name/ulr or just open names? It's supposed to) actualy this is not my arguement against homosexuality or incest, it's my response to the Slate piece and asumes you've read it. The Slate author dismisses genetics as a way to immoralize incest since incestious relations need not be fertile, and he brings up a sterilzed brother/sister pair as one example. The Slate piece also defines father/mother/children as the traditional family.
I have written/spoken before how no-fault divorce is a horrible thing and distroys marriage. I also point out that, in places where same sex couples are allowed to 'marry' their divorce rate is significantly higher and the marriage longevity lower, so pointing to the divorce rate (which isn't 50% btw) doesn't really help their cause.
My point, I have previous blog posts about homosexual marriage and the slippery slope, this was purely a short piece in response to his article. (Also, divorced or not, a kid still has a mother/father ina traditional relationship)

Ps: I think if anything either of our thoughts on this subject were going to put a strain on our relationship it would have done so by now.

8:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fair enough on the relationship aspect. ;-)

8:24 PM  
Anonymous Rachel said...

K...the main reason...from my understanding is that the reason incest and polygamy are illegal (though in some states it depends on what you mean by incest --cousins or not--and in some even polygamy is leagal) are that they have typically shown to involve nonconsensual relationships, coersion and what not. The issue with these is consent and these two relationships often times deny consent. As far as polygamy if all parties are cool with that (some religions support it and have biblical evidence to back it up) I have no real problem with that. But if we allow laws to forbid homosexual couples to get married, adopt children, and serve in the military where does that end. You see is as a moral bankruptcy in this country and I see it as backsliding back to before Civil Rights. The difference between us is really that you can see a difference in descriminating against persons of color and sexual orientation...I cannot. Gender is not always black and white and there are some medical (ie genetic) varients that blur these lines. A person may look like a woman but be geneticaly male...or look male and be geneticaly ambiguous (XXY). If these variations occure why is it so hard to believe that a person in geneticaly programed to become attracted to the same or opposite sex. You see these laws as protecting our society and I see them as a way to allow fanatics to legitimize heinous crimes (Matt Shepard--regardless what you may think of his life I hope that you would agree that he did not deserve the death he recieved). But we agree on the question of where does it end...just not the meaning. It is the who will come for me argument. When Hitler began killing his own people...we did nothing, when he began killing Jews we did nothing, when he took Poland we did nothing, then he bombed England and we said will he come for me next and we acted. If we allow laws descriminating agiains homosexuals to exist how much longer before we rule that inter-racial marriages are illegal again. How long before we lock up those who are mentally disabled again. How long before we test all children geneticaly at birth and then choose their sex for them if there are questions of gender. Also if a person is born visibly female but geneticaly male what is considere homosexuality in that case. If one is XXY (forget for a moment that it usually causes severe retardation) how are they ever not homosexual. Also I hate the internet because I am horrible at trying to convey the tone I want...I always sound angry but really I am not.

4:56 PM  
Blogger Jespren said...

I said I would repost my SIL reply if it didn't show up by today, and it hasn't, but now I find myself unable to copy/paste it with my cell, so, sorry Karen.

@ Rachel. Trying to go in order:
1) consentual/nonconsentual: 30% of pediophilic crimes in this country are commited by self-labled homosexuals, who make up only 3% of the population. According to a study in Archives of Sexual Behavior 86% of convicted pedophiles self identify as homosexual or bisexual but less than 3% of the male population self-identifies as the same. Mainstream homosexual literature romantizes and praises youth/adult sex. The homosexual lobby in Canada protested raising the age of consent law up from 14. In the UK the successfully lobbied to lower the age of consent for homosexual acts twice in the last 10 years and they have lobbied to lower it further. This is not a 'fringe' side group. Kenny Jennings, the so-called 'safe school czar' and one of the founders of GLSEN is on record as not only dailing to report the statutory rape of his 15 yr old student but of simply advising him 'i hope you use a condom'. A study done in 2002 showed a lifetime rate of 55% for homosexuals verses 36% for heterosexuals when looking at victims of domestic violence. Not all homosexuals will abuse, coherse, or force, but significantly higher rates of nonconsentual relationships manifest in homosexuals than in heterosexuals (con)

7:06 PM  
Blogger Jespren said...

@ Rachel con: 2) sexuality is not color, nor is it gender: there is no 'gay gene' decades of study have found no genetic link to homosexuality. Rather the opposite, studies done on identical twins show there is no genetic cause. Which is not to say that there may be some chemical/environmental aspects to same sex attraction. There have been some studies done that suggest expose to certain chemicals in utero or during infancy increased likelihood of homosexual expression during adulthood. But, ultimately, it is immaterial. Many people have a predisposition towards certain sins. Thankfully humans have free will and the ability to resist sin. It might very well be that certain people are predisposed to same sex attaction, but a predisposion towards attraction DOES NOT EQUAL a free pass on homosexual action. A cleptomaniac is predisposed to thieft, yet we still arrest them for their crime. An alcoholic is predisposed to drink, yet we expect them to deny the urge and live soberly. A pedophile is predisposed towards child attaction, yet we still arrest them.
Just because someone struggles with a particular sin is not a reason to abandon them to that sin, it is a reason to help them overcome it. And many do. People go from heterosexual to homosexual and back to heterosexual (and visa versa) all the time. I personally know more than one current homosexual who was previously in long term marriages with kids and would have previouslt considered themself heterosexual. Likewise I personally know more than one currently heterosexual, some married, some with kids, some just dating or single, that once identified as homosexual or bisexual.
One can not chance ones race, or one's gender (even with extensive surgery you will still always be male or female), and being black, Asian, Greek, or white isn't something you DO, it's a physical and inmutable trait that is independant of what you do.
'Gender' and the antiquated use of the word 'sex' refers to the physical and biological unchanging concept that is being male or female (for a human, some other species have the ability chance sex). Yes, there are 'intersex disorders' such as a true hermaphrodite or, as you mentioned XXY, chromosomal abnormalities. These are DISORDERS, things that have gone wrong with the natural order of things. This are corruptions of the normal biological order, on par with other medical disorders. Are you claiming homosexuality is a disorder? Something gone wrong with the natural order of things? If not, trying to use medical problems to bolster your case seems a bit short sighted! It's similar to saying, well some wives are in daily pain do to medical issues so it must be ok for an abusive husband to put his wife in daily pain. I'm sure you would agree that it sounds utterly foolish when I say that, but I'm using the same logic you used to try to legitmize homosexual behavior!
Furthermore race and gender are benign concepts, while homosexuality is a dangerous and damaging action. (Tb continued, bedtime for kiddies and I must wrap presents)

7:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home