Consensual Incest Is A-ok! Unless Of Course

[Ice_nine]

it produces genetic defects (i.e. inferior people), but in all seriousness I saw this on al-jazeera (a news source I generally favor) http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201410011930-0024190. I haven't watched the program yet but I've read the article and many comments and you know what?

 

I'm not shocked. I think consensual incest was slated to be the next sexual taboo to be thrown in public discourse. Most people are disgusted by it, but give it time. I doubt it will every be as organized as the lgbt movement though. At the very least it's now a serious discussion whereas before it was a joke.

 

Any thoughts? Is this just a natural consequence of sexual ethics being divorced from religion? One more notch down the slippery slope caused by widespread contraception? The valorization of personal choice (to borrow a phrase from Fr. Barron) over social and moral responsibility?

 

Also comments about producing defected children irk the hell out of me. I mean, people are saying it's irresponsible and immoral to bring children in the world when you know that they will probably suffer a defect. Because those things are a drain on resources and it's really for us to decide whether someone else's life is worth living and there is no value in suffering etc etc.

 

 

Edited October 7, 2014 by Ice_nine

[truthfinder]

The Germans have recently voted in some manner that it shouldn't be illegal or something.  Said the threat of genetic defects was controlable through birth control (and seemingly abortion).

Here: see this, and their twisted reasoning why it's acceptable: http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2014/09/hey-remember-what-that-nutjob-santorum.html

[puellapaschalis]

The Germans have recently voted in some manner that it shouldn't be illegal or something.  Said the threat of genetic defects was controlable through birth control (and seemingly abortion).

Here: see this, and their twisted reasoning why it's acceptable: http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2014/09/hey-remember-what-that-nutjob-santorum.html

 

If you're referring to the same case that I read about, then they pulled an equality card - other couples with genetic problems aren't prohibited from marriage, so why should they, just because they're closely related?

 

My inner eyes rolled hard (I live alone so there's not point in actually rolling my eyes).
 

[CatherineM]

The same people show up repeatedly on my family tree that it's a wonder that I don't have an extra ear in the middle of my forehead. It's the thing that royalty and hill billies have in common.

I saw a show with people in Australia pushing for this. One couple was a father and daughter. She didn't meet him until she was an adult, but it still gave me the willies.

The thing is, with sperm banks, surrogates and infidelities of all sorts, unless we start requiring DNA tests to marry, you can't know that you aren't related. One of my adopted son's sisters had a child with a half brother. They didn't find out until the child was 6 months old and needed a bone marrow transplant. She scoured back alleys looking for her homeless father to get him tested. That's how they found out they have 5-8 half siblings running around.

[superblue]

This topic right here is what got me kicked out of C.A.F,

 

now for this topic, i am not sure if one is speaking in regards to having intercourse with a sister / brother,  or distant cousin, to me it doesn't matter, it is inbreeding.

 

BUT the trouble is supposedly, ( and i say supposedly because i can not find any document or link on the matter ) with the consent of a bishop, a heterosexual couple who are distant cousins can get married with in the church, ( pending of course they are catholic ).

 

 

The moral ground on it is , " reproduction " and i swear they went nanners on C.A.F spouting off, GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY, and well what do you expect humanity to do if they are dwindling down or well what about this such n such colony back in the day that did it because they were so far from other populations they had no choice.

 

ad nausia ,   if the fate of humanity rested on me marrying a distant female cousin of mine to repopulate the earth, i would have to tell God, to bad so sad bye bye, it aint happening and stop being gross and just make more people.

 

 

 

 

Though for what ever this is worth, i think i have heard or read some where that back in the times of Royality  Egypt, Roman era, those in power kept the royalty through incest, so that the would have some kind of pure royal blood line.  dunno if i got that right or not , but it just seems like i heard it before.  I know i at least saw it in that movie Gladiator.

 

anyhow if anyone finds a link / document that supports that the Church would allow distant cousins to marry i would like to see it, i also find it disturbing, because it is on the premis of reproduction, and thus the debate of genetics comes in to play, yet the church poo poos , in vitro fertilization and i guess in this situation would prefer to have a naturally born genetically defective life, than a life from two healthy heterosexual human beings ,that was put together in a lab and then put in a womb, ( least i think the church poo poos it, if not then i take the comment back )

 

so then this all leads back to " natural law " which then one could ask, why would God find it acceptable and okay for two heterosexuals of the same blood line who are in the church to be married to have child,  which more than likely would have some kind of health problem  due to the incest, vs a homosexual union raising and adopting a child, who thus becomes an outstanding person in society and also becomes Catholic...

 

 I find the topic, way to convoluted to just pin it all on natural law, reproduction, and you better not disagree or else you're a bad catholic, God has some answering to do on things like this, and to just quote scripture and pretend humanity has it all figured out via the Church i find it to be a cop out to the fact that people do not want to accept that perhaps the " church " gets things wrong sometimes.

 

 

[truthfinder]

The thing is, we're all cousins to a certain degree.  The canons on consanguinity have two motivations: natural law and juridical.  Marrying one's 2nd degree breaks God's law (brother, sister, mother, father, child).  3rd degree (cousin) is generally a bad idea if it's done repeatedly, thus canon law says 4th degree.  

[PhuturePriest]

This topic right here is what got me kicked out of C.A.F,

 

now for this topic, i am not sure if one is speaking in regards to having intercourse with a sister / brother,  or distant cousin, to me it doesn't matter, it is inbreeding.

 

BUT the trouble is supposedly, ( and i say supposedly because i can not find any document or link on the matter ) with the consent of a bishop, a heterosexual couple who are distant cousins can get married with in the church, ( pending of course they are catholic ).

 

 

The moral ground on it is , " reproduction " and i swear they went nanners on C.A.F spouting off, GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY, and well what do you expect humanity to do if they are dwindling down or well what about this such n such colony back in the day that did it because they were so far from other populations they had no choice.

 

ad nausia ,   if the fate of humanity rested on me marrying a distant female cousin of mine to repopulate the earth, i would have to tell God, to bad so sad bye bye, it aint happening and stop being gross and just make more people.

 

 

 

 

Though for what ever this is worth, i think i have heard or read some where that back in the times of Royality  Egypt, Roman era, those in power kept the royalty through incest, so that the would have some kind of pure royal blood line.  dunno if i got that right or not , but it just seems like i heard it before.  I know i at least saw it in that movie Gladiator.

 

anyhow if anyone finds a link / document that supports that the Church would allow distant cousins to marry i would like to see it, i also find it disturbing, because it is on the premis of reproduction, and thus the debate of genetics comes in to play, yet the church poo poos , in vitro fertilization and i guess in this situation would prefer to have a naturally born genetically defective life, than a life from two healthy heterosexual human beings ,that was put together in a lab and then put in a womb, ( least i think the church poo poos it, if not then i take the comment back )

 

so then this all leads back to " natural law " which then one could ask, why would God find it acceptable and okay for two heterosexuals of the same blood line who are in the church to be married to have child,  which more than likely would have some kind of health problem  due to the incest, vs a homosexual union raising and adopting a child, who thus becomes an outstanding person in society and also becomes Catholic...

 

 I find the topic, way to convoluted to just pin it all on natural law, reproduction, and you better not disagree or else you're a bad catholic, God has some answering to do on things like this, and to just quote scripture and pretend humanity has it all figured out via the Church i find it to be a cop out to the fact that people do not want to accept that perhaps the " church " gets things wrong sometimes.

 

IVF is not condemned because it might create "defective" babies, it's condemned because there are two purposes of sex: Procreation and bonding. When either of those two is divorced from the act, it is inherently sinful. IVF divorces bonding from the act, therefore it is condemned.

[puellapaschalis]

If you count an individual as the zeroth generation, then for the nth generation before him, he should have 2^n distinct ancestors (so you have 2^1 = 2 parents, 2^2 = 4 grandparents, and so on). However, this cannot be the case, as at a certain point the number of ancestors a person as would surpass the number of humans alive at that point in history on the entire planet, to say nothing of the locale in which his ancestors were related. As such, barring even short-distance emigration, the chances are that somewhere, somehow, some (distant) cousins will be married.

 

The rules on affinity in the Church have changed over time, being first based on old Roman law, which stated that marriage was prohibited to within the 4th degree - that's anyone in the following chart with a number less than or equal to 4:

 

 

[attachment=3306:kurt_nilson_degrees_kinship.png]

 

 

But they were at one point forbidden up to the 7th degree, which must have been interesting (to say nothing of roundly ignored) in some remote areas.

 

Currently it is forbidden, and no dispensation can be granted, to marry any direct ancestor or descendant. The same goes for what's called up to the second degree in the collateral line, which basically means no marrying your sibling, aunt, uncle, nephew, or niece.

 

Marrying a first cousin is normally prohibited, but it's possible to apply for a dispensation.

[Aragon]

I think there will be a greater push for this kind of thing as sexuality becomes more and more divorced from its procreative foundation and place in the divine order of creation. I've actually had a conversation with someone about whether incest between two brothers or sisters would be wrong and it's interesting to see that from a secular point of view, because the possibility of producing genetic defects is not possible in these situations, there's really very little to be rationally said against it.

As sex becomes increasingly degraded in our culture, and youth become sexualised at increasingly earlier ages, I think this will cause people to reconsider traditional sexual ethics.

[Ice_nine]

So even though this departs slightly from the original topic, the thing about first cousins marrying each other, it happens quite frequently in certain cultures. Is it objectively morally wrong? I don't think so. The reason, so I've been told by the tv and internets, that us US Americans are so opposed to the idea is that we've been conditioned to believe that cousin marriage is a hillbilly practice and look how defected (again see "inferior to us") so let's avoid that shall we?

 

I can't picture myself marrying any of my cousins because that conditioning is a strong force. And lots of my cousins are like siblings to me. I imagine there are people who not grow up not knowing their cousins though.

 

As an aside I wonder if the church would grant a dispensation to cousins who wanted to marry in states where it's illegal. I doubt it since the church gives much more deference to the state than she needs to :sadface: Also you might be surprised to know where it IS legal (NY, CA, MA- not exactly your hillbilly states) and where it is illegal (WV, KY, AK, LA. In TX and OK it's a criminal offense).

If you count an individual as the zeroth generation, then for the nth generation before him, he should have 2^n distinct ancestors (so you have 2^1 = 2 parents, 2^2 = 4 grandparents, and so on). However, this cannot be the case, as at a certain point the number of ancestors a person as would surpass the number of humans alive at that point in history on the entire planet, to say nothing of the locale in which his ancestors were related. As such, barring even short-distance emigration, the chances are that somewhere, somehow, some (distant) cousins will be married.

 

The rules on affinity in the Church have changed over time, being first based on old Roman law, which stated that marriage was prohibited to within the 4th degree - that's anyone in the following chart with a number less than or equal to 4:

 

Thanks for all the fun facts! Even growing up in America, if you're not growing up in a city, and you're marrying someone from the race ethnic group in your community, well there's a good chance you'll be distantly related no? But we're not talking about distant relations here.

 

Where talking about brothers and sisters. Parents and their children. Aunts and Uncles with their nieces and nephews. Idk, color me old-fashioned but I think those familial bonds are sacred and not meant to be sullied with sexual tension. Freud really has had quite the influence on our present day culture though has he not?

 

 

I always knew that this would eventually be a topic of serious consideration. I mean it's just following the logic of "my personal choice" to what was once considered an extreme. I think pedophilia and pederasty are next in line, although I think that will take considerably longer. People always fire back that "well children can't consent!" as if it's a done deal and it ends there. But if you press them, and say, "well what's the real difference between a 17 year old and and 18 year old? and then between a 16 and 17 year old" and so on, "should it be a crime for a 19 year old to sleep with a 17 year old? A 20 year old?" etc. The line we use to legally demarcate an adult from a child is rather arbitrary, could be just as easily redefined in the law books as marriage was. Maybe not for outright pedophilia, but pederasty or ephebophilia. 

 

End story, if a culture chooses not to set some strict parameters around sexual mores, it will run amok. Just to be clear, I don't blame the gays, I think the acceptance of homosexual behavior was just another rung on the ladder, consequently arising from acceptance of contraception and divorce/remarriage.

[puellapaschalis]

I know nothing about the reasons why marriage between first cousins should be banned, so the following is my speculation.

 

First, I'd hazard that it's arbitrary to a certain extent; the line has to be drawn somewhere, right? And the balance has to be struck between guarding against (genetic) weirdness if the degree level is too low, and not being able to marry anyone in your village if it's too high.

 

Secondly, I wonder if it isn't influenced by things like crowns, succession, and inheritance. If marrying young Prince Bobby Joe to Princess Maggy Jane is the only way to prevent your lands and power from falling into the hands of the filthy heretic apostate Protestant branch of the family, then you're probably not going to be told by a piffling bishop that it can't happen because they're first cousins.

[truthfinder]

 

 

Secondly, I wonder if it isn't influenced by things like crowns, succession, and inheritance. If marrying young Prince Bobby Joe to Princess Maggy Jane is the only way to prevent your lands and power from falling into the hands of the filthy heretic apostate Protestant branch of the family, then you're probably not going to be told by a piffling bishop that it can't happen because they're first cousins.

Canon law specifically envisioned this, and it continues to remain the rationale behind the current law (1983). 

Further, since marriage has always had a sense of joining families and properties together, many cultures saw the advantage of marrying cousins.  It would keep the hard earned and worked for property in the family.

(On a side note, in Downton Abbey, Matthew is a cousin, and since I can't remember his actual relation to the rest of the family, he's either second or third cousin, making him 6th or 8th degree - perfectly far enough out for roman catholic law, and most certainly anglican law of the time.)

[superblue]

IVF is not condemned because it might create "defective" babies, it's condemned because there are two purposes of sex: Procreation and bonding. When either of those two is divorced from the act, it is inherently sinful. IVF divorces bonding from the act, therefore it is condemned.

 

 

Yeah i still dont buy it, the other arguement to that is, two heterosexual catholics can still " bond " in many other ways it doesnt have to be through sexual intercourse, and why cry foul to procreation through science, it is a barbaric mind set that got many good people killed and shunned from the church back in the day.

[superblue]

I know nothing about the reasons why marriage between first cousins should be banned, so the following is my speculation.

 

First, I'd hazard that it's arbitrary to a certain extent; the line has to be drawn somewhere, right? And the balance has to be struck between guarding against (genetic) weirdness if the degree level is too low, and not being able to marry anyone in your village if it's too high.

 

Secondly, I wonder if it isn't influenced by things like crowns, succession, and inheritance. If marrying young Prince Bobby Joe to Princess Maggy Jane is the only way to prevent your lands and power from falling into the hands of the filthy heretic apostate Protestant branch of the family, then you're probably not going to be told by a piffling bishop that it can't happen because they're first cousins.

 

 

I suspect that is all it is, to try to some degree to maintain ones power, and since the mind set is that every good Catholic must obey their bishop, well then in turn lets create a law that favors the powers that be.

 

but then you have someone who will always try and refute that through bending scripture and claiming reproduction and yada yada, but no no, No one would ever bend scripture to suit their needs, only bad people do that, so we know that no one in the church would ever twist the truth to suit them let alone the power structure of the church.

[superblue]

And Ice it is boiling down to, if it is okay to marry a cousin so far down the road then eventually the trail runs backwards and someone is inevidbly going to want to push the limit of natural socital acceptance, forget the church for a moment, anyone wanting to marry their father, sibling or aunt or uncle, we all vomit and gag, and go wth they need counseling, and for some reason we are to think just because we go farther down the road it isn't just as disgusting ?? i find it ironic to set a line in the sand and say okay at this point it is acceptable an permitted.

 

i mean if even if we are talking about the end of humanity, then i think would say perhaps it is time and it is Gods' way of signaling it, let humanity go and let what ever God is doing take its toll.   We in this day n age do not need to worry about the end of humanity, or a lack of being able to reproduce, we have enough arugments groaning and complaing about population control as it is, abortion, and other human rights issues , it isn't that we are lacking heterosexuals to mate with.  All it is fear to say what is wrong is wrong, there is no compromise meaning no one gets what they want so everyone settles for just a crappy answer or settlement so instead the topic gets bashed over the head with rules explaining why there will be no compromise to even think that perhaps someone got it wrong on this topic.   

 

Luckily we can not be forced to believe and swallow every mistake that history and the church makes from time to time.