Would liberals defend incest?

[MD]

I just saw the picture of a model mom and her sons in a very provocative pose and to be honest it made me queasy. It has a lot to do with the moral degradation of our society. Here's the link: Yahoo!

I guess I would pose a question to the liberals here asking:

Would you defend the right for mothers and sons/fathers and daughters to marry?
Would you defend the right for siblings to have sex and mate?
Would you march and champion such rights and 'fight' for such things?
If not why not? Don't they have a right to love each other?

A question to the rest of us is how far is the media and fashion willing to go? What's after incest? Animals? Excrement?

A society which permits incest would allow genetically unfit children to enter such a society. I wouldn't want live in one.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Would you defend the right for mothers and sons/fathers and daughters to marry?

I have and probably will again.

Would you defend the right for siblings to have sex and mate?

Mate? Eh...

Would you march and champion such rights and 'fight' for such things?

Not really. That's more for the devoted.

If not why not? Don't they have a right to love each other?

Certainly. I just don't like marches.

A question to the rest of us is how far is the media and fashion willing to go? What's after incest? Animals? Excrement?

Animals can't consent...and what do feces have to do with any of this? Eating feces? Marrying it? No comprendo.

A society which permits incest would allow genetically unfit children to enter such a society. I wouldn't want live in one.

We allow Down's syndrome and all sorts of genetically unfit children to coexist.

Given the proper motivation I'd be against them too.

 

[MD]

How can you defend their right to marry and deny their right to mate?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

How can you defend their right to marry and deny their right to mate?

One is for the right of two committed consenting adults for various governmental rights, the other is child abuse.

 

[MD]

One is for the right of two committed consenting adults for various governmental rights, the other is child abuse.

How can you make the decision that it's child abuse? How would the liberal agenda deal with incestous children? How can you even control such a thing?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

How can you make the decision that it's child abuse?

By saying it.

How would the liberal agenda deal with incestous children? How can you even control such a thing?

Depends how far they want to dip into eugenics.

 

[Valjean]

What is this "liberal agenda," anyway? *
You're giving us too much credit -- we're not that organized.

 

[Father Heathen]

It is disgusting and disturbing, but, "consenting adults, etc." I guess (on the stipulation that they don't produce deformed, inbred offspring).

I would however strongly discourage it as it's surely not psychologically healthy.

 

[Sees]

If they are adults it might be wisest that the most we do is condemn it socially. We really don't want big brother to get the idea that they can decide relationships based off healthiest offspring.

One day it could be a crime to have children if you don't have a perfectly healthy genetic history and such and such IQ...

 

[idav]

Looking at sin as a matter of what sort of harm it causes is much more efficient than some arbitrary rules from the sky. There are no absolutes which gets bible god in trouble cause he says dont kill, then he kills. Secular morality takes scenarios into consideration. As far as genetics is concerned, diversity causes the least suffering cause it makes our genes that much stronger, so interracial should be considered.

 

[MD]

Interesting so all the liberals support incest, which leads to my next question. Do liberals believe morality is an illusion, something like a relic of religions?

And idav, although interracial relationships may increase genetic variation that's not how natural selection really works. It helps with disease resistance but generally speaking there are genes which were selected for a reason and may be lost through interracial relationships. If the earths' equator became a wasteland and we had a bad famine, and all of us had to move far north, fair skin would be more 'strong' than other types of skin color for ex.

 

[idav]

The opposite can be said to be true, people with strands that are too similar end up with issues, so though diversity is helpful, it cant hurt if the genes are good to boot.

 

[Quintessence]

I just saw the picture of a model mom and her sons in a very provocative pose and to be honest it made me queasy. It has a lot to do with the moral degradation of our society.

What moral degradation? Did slavery become legal again in the United States when I wasn't looking or something?

Don't know if I'd call myself one of "the liberals" exactly, but...

Would you defend the right for mothers and sons/fathers and daughters to marry?
Would you defend the right for siblings to have sex and mate?
Would you march and champion such rights and 'fight' for such things?
If not why not? Don't they have a right to love each other?

I would advocate the right of any two consenting adult to conduct their personal affairs and relationships as they see fit, because frankly, it's nobody else's ruddy business. Would I get all political activist about it in a way that would be a complete contradiction to my introverted personality? Of course not. But I might write letters, support the people who are the sparkly extroverts in the streets, or start petitions. If the political climate was amenable to the idea. Which it isn't.

A question to the rest of us is how far is the media and fashion willing to go? What's after incest? Animals? Excrement?

I have to confess I have no idea what you mean by excrement there. It's not physically possible to have sex with excrement. :sarcastic

A society which permits incest would allow genetically unfit children to enter such a society. I wouldn't want live in one.

We allow "genetically unfit" to enter society on a minute-to-minute basis. If your sole reason for wanting to disallow incest is for a reason like this, I insist that you also be consistent with your values and advocate the euthanasia of any child born to any coupe that has, say, Down Syndrome or the wrong color of hair.

 

[Sees]

Interesting so all the liberals support incest, which leads to my next question. Do liberals believe morality is an illusion, something like a relic of religions?

I don't see where you get the info that all liberals support incest or that any do? Liberal tends to be a catch all for "people I/we don't like"...is there anybody on this forum or related to the article that identify as a liberal?

 

[MD]

The opposite can be said to be true, people with strands that are too similar end up with issues, so though diversity is helpful, it cant hurt if the genes are good to boot.

You missed my point, natural selection is blind. There is a medium, get too interracial and you lose specific genes which might help in certain environments, get too inbred and you have genetic problems.

 

[Quintessence]

You missed my point, natural selection is blind. There is a medium, get too interracial and you lose specific genes which might help in certain environments, get too inbred and you have genetic problems.

. . .

And the human species is in no immanent danger whatsoever of extinction, making all of these pretty much irrelevant?

Also, getting interracial doesn't result in loosing genes. It may result in heterozygosity rather than homozygosity, but not allelic loss.

 

[MD]

. . .

And the human species is in no immanent danger whatsoever of extinction, making all of these pretty much irrelevant?

Also, getting interracial doesn't result in loosing genes. It may result in heterozygosity rather than homozygosity, but not allelic loss.

Actually this has to do with the argument that interracial pairings result in stronger offspring. It's an academic argument, and besides i was using skin color as an example. It could apply to any genes.

Alleles may not be lost but they will become rarer if dominant genes suppress recessive ones, the latter of which might be more genetically 'fit' in certain environments.

 

[Quintessence]

Actually this has to do with the argument that interracial pairings result in stronger offspring. It's an academic argument, and besides i was using skin color as an example. It could apply to any genes.

Alleles may not be lost but they will become rarer if dominant genes suppress recessive ones, the latter of which might be more genetically 'fit' in certain environments.

But again... who cares? The human species is in no danger of extinction. The only cases where concerns like this become relevant is in conservation biology, where careful management of genetic diversity is critical to the success or failure of a recovery program. Humans entirely lack any need for any sort of recovery program and are suffering no lack of evolutionary fitness whatsoever. We epically lack threatened or endangered status: we're overpopulated. I don't see how this argument even matters. Sorry.

 

[Valjean]

Incest is a red herring, not a serious issue.

As for morality, I think the golden rule is a pretty good start, and I'm a fan of most of the Christian Gospel values.

I think what generally distinguishes liberal from conservative morality is that conservatives are more likely to equate unconventional behavior, lack of respect for authority, lack of respect for 'sacred' symbols, and disloyalty with morality.

 

[Sunstone]

I guess I would pose a question to the liberals here asking:

Would you defend the right for mothers and sons/fathers and daughters to marry?
Would you defend the right for siblings to have sex and mate?
Would you march and champion such rights and 'fight' for such things?
If not why not? Don't they have a right to love each other?

There are far more important things for me to spend my time defending than those particular things.