Incest ok in same-sex relationship?

[Alicia05]

I believe that the Church’s teachings on sexuality are correct , but hypothetically…

Suppose someone believes that sex between people of the same gender is moral, especially if they’re in a committed, long-term relationship. Does it matter whether or not the people involved are blood relatives?

It is my understanding that the main reason incest is immoral is because the children resulting from such a union might have genetic defects. But if no biological children will ever result from a same-sex union, doesn’t it make incest ok?

Any thoughts?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The principle reason incest is sinful is because it is a disordering of family relations, and that evil would still be present in a homosexual situation.

 

[dshix]

This question is splitting hairs. Incest is not ok because it is… incest. Same-sex sex is not ok because is… what it is.

 

[Philotheatoo]

Incest is never ‘okay’, nor is any sexual relations which are outside of marriage.

In the case of incest; there is an imbalance of ‘power’ in familial relationships therefore; one person is unfairly influencing another.

Regardless of what the government says is ‘okay’; we, as children of God, know in our hearts what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’. God speaks to us, not only in the Bible but, in our hearts. Hitler said it was ‘okay’ to massacre Jewish people and, because he was ‘government’, most of the citizens went along with him. But countless others didn’t. I like to think those who stood out and risked their lives to help the Jews, were the people who had a good relationship with God.

 

[Robertanthony]

I believe that the Church’s teachings on sexuality are correct , but hypothetically…

Suppose someone believes that sex between people of the same gender is moral, especially if they’re in a committed, long-term relationship. Does it matter whether or not the people involved are blood relatives?

It is my understanding that the main reason incest is immoral is because the children resulting from such a union might have genetic defects. But if no biological children will ever result from a same-sex union, doesn’t it make incest ok?

Any thoughts?

What you could have is two men or two women who find out after some time spent as a couple, that one is the other’s brother or sister that his/her mother gave up for adoption prior to having him/her (anybody still following?). Anyhow, they could go to Oprah, they could get teary at some point, look cute at other points, and the (underlying) question would be: “Who are we to say this is wrong? They love each other.” Or, as the govt-funded ad campain here operates: you have two people of the same gender waiting for the bus seated inside a bus shelter, 15 secs into the ad, they start kissing. Female voice asks: are these people any different from who you thought they were 15 secs ago? (There is a variation of this where a woman is waiting for her female “friend” at the airport). Devious and clever. Of the satanic type.

 

[LisaA]

I believe that the Church’s teachings on sexuality are correct , but hypothetically…

Suppose someone believes that sex between people of the same gender is moral, especially if they’re in a committed, long-term relationship. Does it matter whether or not the people involved are blood relatives?

It is my understanding that the main reason incest is immoral is because the children resulting from such a union might have genetic defects. But if no biological children will ever result from a same-sex union, doesn’t it make incest ok?

Any thoughts?

First as you noted, Catholic teaching allows for sexual relations only between married husband and wife. Further sexual relations must be open to life and same sex activity will never result in life. So the premise fails regardless. But just to add to the other points made:

Prohibitions of incest far predates any knowledge of genetic anomolies (which would be rare regardless). Such behavior would be damaging to the stability of the family unit. You have to figure that in small tribal civilzations, relatives marrying were more the norm than not. This is why the exception for abortion for “incest” is so speicious and pointless OTHER than to identify someone preying upon an underage girl.

But the kneejerk response is to agree that of course in the case of incest, the unborn baby should be aborted because few understand the societal prohibition of incest.

Lisa

 

[Bezant]

It is my understanding that the main reason incest is immoral is because the children resulting from such a union might have genetic defects.

No. Arguably then any couple with a high chance of passing genetic defects to their children shouldn’t marry.

Suppose someone believes that sex between people of the same gender is moral, especially if they’re in a committed, long-term relationship. Does it matter whether or not the people involved are blood relatives?

Yes. It’s one thing to be attracted to same sex in general, but of all people, you had to have sex with your sibling/parent/child?

 

[Ion]

This is sick.

 

[john78]

This has to be the third posting about incest, i am starting to wonder if whom ever keeps posting these questions is having a relationship with a family member and or pondering it and in turn looking for a thumbs up of approval from people on this forum.Though i suppose next we will see our government creating laws to legalize incest, because after all we can not demand anything less when legalizing SS marriage. Though i am more inclined to guess that these questions are only meant as a trolling question to stir up drama. especially when someone takes the time to start off with :

I believe that the Church’s teachings on sexuality are correct , but hypothetically…

If you actually believed the Church’s teaching there is no " but hypothetically ", if the thread started with something like {i am bored and have a hypothetical question}, i would be less inclined to be critical and/or sarcastic. Though it is probably more frightening when people are out in this world thinking incest is actually okay to begin with, how in the world anyone is going to convince someone it isn’t is beyond me and would inturn just leave it to Jerry Springer to explain.

Same with having to explain why a homosexual relationship/ marriage is wrong , though the arguement of " just because everyone else is doing it" seems now to be good enough reason to make it legal or acceptable. Bloody bozo nightmare is what it is becoming.

 

[Robertanthony]

I am bored and have a hypothetical question.

But seriously, morality of tomorrow will be determined by the answer to these questions: 1-Is it consensual? 2-does it hurt anybody? This is where we're heading, so this thread is not as over the top as it might appear at first glance.

 

[snarflemike]

But seriously, morality of tomorrow will be determined by the answer to these questions: 1-Is it consensual?  2-does it hurt anybody?  This is where we're heading, so this thread is not as over the top as it might appear at first glance.

You are absolutely right, and people sticking their heads in the sand won’t help. Sex, including disordered sex of every kind, is the new god. Wonder when the first legal charges will be filed against a priest or minister for refusing to perform an incestuous marriage. The only question is, in our lifetimes or in the lifetimes of our children?

 

[SuperLuigi]

It is my understanding that the main reason incest is immoral is because the children resulting from such a union might have genetic defects. But if no biological children will ever result from a same-sex union, doesn’t it make incest ok?

 

[SachieWhitby]

Eh? If you really believe that the church’s teachings are 100% correct, then you should already have your own answer.

Here in the United States, incest is not just morally questionable but outright illegal in the District of Columbia plus every state except Rhode Island, which has no laws prohibiting incest. Ohio and New Jersey both have more limited incest laws as to who can be punished as criminals. Everywhere else, there is no doubt to the fact that an incestuous relation cannot even be legally married in the first place. I’m pretty sure that since the hypothetical incestuous couple cannot even get married civilly, they’re going to have an even harder time getting religious institutions that frown on incest for reasons that go well beyond “it’s illegal” to marry them. This means that the hypothetical incestuous couple are engaging in sex outside of marriage, which is a sin, regardless of how many hairs we want to split about the incest in the first place.

Incest doesn’t stop being incest just because the couple are same sex and the United States is bending over backwards in an effort to give accommodations to same sex couples [like allowing them to successfully sue business owners who try to exercise their freedom of religion.] It’s still going to have all the legal issues of a heterosexual incest couple to the extent that churches are not likely to be in any immediate danger of having two brothers/sisters walking in and trying to get themselves registered with the church as a married couple.

 

[Alicia05]

Thanks to everyone who responded!

In case anyone was wondering, I’m not contemplating committing incest nor am I in a same-sex relationship. I’m Catholic and believe that the Catholic teaching on sexuality is spot on!

However, not everyone is Catholic. Many people (especially non-religious people I know) even believe that a same-sex, committed relationship is a “marriage”, so…

The reason I posed this question was because I thought that maybe an argument against same-sex “marriage” is that it should allow for incest. But since viewing your responses, I see that I am wrong in thinking that a prohibition on incest is strictly because of genetic defect that could result in the offspring among different-sex couples.
"Robertanthony:

But seriously, morality of tomorrow will be determined by the answer to these questions: 1-Is it consensual? 2-does it hurt anybody? This is where we’re heading, so this thread is not as over the top as it might appear at first glance.

You are absolutely right, and people sticking their heads in the sand won’t help. Sex, including disordered sex of every kind, is the new god. Wonder when the first legal charges will be filed against a priest or minister for refusing to perform an incestuous marriage. The only question is, in our lifetimes or in the lifetimes of our children?

I think you both are right about this. “I just want my son/daughter/loved one to be happy” is said over and over again :whacky:, and perhaps this will be part of the morality of tomorrow. I’m just glad the Church is my rock and will continue to be for many generations to come!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Robert
**
But seriously, morality of tomorrow will be determined by the answer to these questions: 1-Is it consensual? 2-does it hurt anybody? **

It doesn’t matter if it is consensual, every sin hurts somebody.

 

[SachieWhitby]

Robert
**
But seriously, morality of tomorrow will be determined by the answer to these questions: 1-Is it consensual? 2-does it hurt anybody? **

It doesn’t matter if it is consensual, every sin hurts somebody.

Morality of tomorrow will be “what’s a sin?”

 

[livingwordunity]

The principle reason incest is sinful is because it is a disordering of family relations, and that evil would still be present in a homosexual situation.

That’s also been one of the arguments against so-called “same-sex marriage”. But in our culture emotional arguments trump rational ones. The ones who want incest to be called a marriage can easily recycle the same emotional argument that was used for “same-sex marriage” and add to it the historical precedent argument. And the heterosexuals who want incest to be called marriage can argue to the courts the fact that the U.S. government fully encourages and expects that every unwanted child will be aborted. The couple will probably promise to do just that, and with that the court will undoubtedly pass it since by approving “same-sex marriage” they have burned the bridge to objective morality.

 

[belorg]

That’s also been one of the arguments against so-called “same-sex marriage”. But in our culture emotional arguments trump rational ones. The ones who want incest to be called a marriage can easily recycle the same emotional argument that was used for “same-sex marriage” and add to it the historical precedent argument. And the heterosexuals who want incest to be called marriage can argue to the courts the fact that the U.S. government fully encourages and expects that every unwanted child will be aborted. The couple will probably promise to do just that, and with that the court will undoubtedly pass it since by approving “same-sex marriage” they have burned the bridge to objective morality.

I don’t know about the ‘undoubtedly’, but each case should be regarded on its own.
It’s not because same-sex marriage is legal that automatically other relations should be legal too.
But, sure, if they are no other arguments against some other types of “marriages”, then it follows (rationally, not emotionally) that those other forms of “marriages” should also be made legal. If there are no rational arguments against some law, then by definition there is no reason not to have that law.

 

[LisaA]

Morality of tomorrow will be “what’s a sin?”

Or maybe; does sin exist? Is there such a thing as sin? Really it’s all how you look at it. One man’s sin is another’s pleasure. Who is to say one is better than the other?

Hey I am a Catholic raised by atheists too. The Holy Spirit is amazing!
Lisa

 

[belorg]

Hey I am a Catholic raised by atheists too. The Holy Spirit is amazing!
Lisa

I am an atheist raised by Catholics. So, the Holy Spirit is not infallible apperently.