Incestuous marriage? It begins

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_III

Guest
It began a long time ago. Woody Allen married his step-daughter when he was 62 and she was 27. It’s a sad world we live in. They married in 1997.
 
Casilda said:
It began a long time ago. Woody Allen married his step-daughter when he was 62 and she was 27. It’s a sad world we live in. They married in 1997.
Click to expand...
You can go even further than that.

Didn’t Abraham marry his sister Sarah?
 
Keep up to date please, Charles.

Never heard of Woody Allen?
 
Bradski said:
Keep up to date please, Charles.

Never heard of Woody Allen?
Click to expand...
Woody Allen was not in an incestuous same-sex marriage with his step daughter.

Pay attention to the thread topic … the slippery slope angle … please! 🤷 Thank you!
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Woody Allen was not in an incestuous same-sex marriage with his step daughter.

Pay attention to the thread topic … the slippery slope angle … please! 🤷 Thank you!
Click to expand...
Woody Allen married his stepdaughter. So just as incestuous as this. Which is to say, in my opinion, not particularly incestuous. Scandalous? Yes. A sign of some serious character issues? Most likely. But incestuous? Idk.

I don’t think any of us is going to disagree with you on same-sex “marriage”, or even that slippery slope is a danger. But I don’t think this is an example of it. This is something opposite sex couples have done plenty of times.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Same-sex marriage now slides down the slippery slope leading to incestuous marriage on the premise that everyone has a right to happiness.

latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2016/12/06/argentine-judge-rules-woman-can-marry-her-own-stepdaughter/

Does everyone have a right to happiness by whatever means they like?

How much farther down this slippery slope do we slide?

Do biological parents of children get to marry their offspring because they both have a right to happiness?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
This is nothing new and has always happened. Especially in eg small island communities. Looking at the photos online of eg Great Blasket in Kerry, you can see the inbreeding… the same face down generations,

Same in Scotand where they know who is “sib” to them in great detail and where MS and multiple births are common due to the inbreeding. No one else to marry …

Nothing new ;and in royal circles too where the gene pool became very limited… and in some religious groups,
 
Just to be clear, I do not know that incest exist when their is not actual blood relation.
 
Col103 said:
Woody Allen married his stepdaughter. So just as incestuous as this. Which is to say, in my opinion, not particularly incestuous. Scandalous? Yes. A sign of some serious character issues? Most likely. But incestuous? Idk.
Click to expand...
You and pnewton evidently don’t recognize fathering as both a spiritual and physical relationship.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
You and pnewton evidently don’t recognize fathering as both a spiritual and physical relationship.
Click to expand...
Sure I do. I was questioning the definition of incest, not parenting. It may be incest for all I know. I will run it down if I can.

I found this.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/incest
In a number of jurisdictions, incest statutes extend to relationships among individuals related by affinity. Such statutes proscribe sexual relations between stepfathers and stepdaughters, stepmothers and stepsons, or brothers-and sisters-in-law, and such relations are punishable as incest. It is necessary for the relationship of affinity to exist at the time the intermarriage or sexual intercourse occurs in order for the act to constitute incest. In the event that the relation-ship has terminated prior to the time that the act takes place, the intermarriage or sexual inter-course is not regarded as incest.

Affinity ordinarily terminates upon the Divorce or death of the blood relation through whom the relationship was formed. Following the divorce or death of his spouse, it is not a violation of incest statutes for a man to marry or have sexual relations with his stepdaughter or his spouse’s sister.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
You and pnewton evidently don’t recognize fathering as both a spiritual and physical relationship.
Click to expand...
He never married Mia Farrow, so her (adopted) daughter technically wasn’t his stepdaughter. Still very icky, I know.
 
Sarcelle said:
You can go even further than that.

Didn’t Abraham marry his sister Sarah?
Click to expand...
Paternal half-sister, probably raised apart from him (they wouldn’t have been allowed to marry if they had the same mother). Different culture, secluded part of the world, with a much smaller human population.

Not okay by today’s standards, but circumstances weren’t the same back then.
 
Yes, it’s a slippery slope.

The assumption that human beings can do whatever they want, as long as it ‘makes them happy’ is the great error of our times.

In fact, the closest thing to happiness a human being can have in this life is achieved by following a straight-down-the line Christian morality.

Rather than merely trying to ‘slow down the slippery descent’, I believe (as I suggested elsewhere) that positive steps need to be taken to promote Christian morality. I would suggest making divorces harder to obtain, making open homosexuality illegal, maybe introducing ‘moral values’ into government employment criteria, etc.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Same-sex marriage now slides down the slippery slope leading to incestuous marriage on the premise that everyone has a right to happiness.

latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2016/12/06/argentine-judge-rules-woman-can-marry-her-own-stepdaughter/

Does everyone have a right to happiness by whatever means they like?

How much farther down this slippery slope do we slide?

Do biological parents of children get to marry their offspring because they both have a right to happiness?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Slippery slope is usually a scare-mongering tactic, and in this case Fox News omitted a few things from their El Pais source.

The judge only made a one-off exception, ruling that because the mother and step-daughter hardly had any contact until united “by the pain” of the death of the father, it wasn’t what the civil code intended to be called incest.

And the Argentinian constitution apparently grants the right to the pursuit of happiness, a slippery slope started by Aristotle in the Eudemian Ethics, “For happiness, being the noblest and best of things…”.
 
inocente said:
Slippery slope is usually a scare-mongering tactic, and in this case Fox News omitted a few things from their El Pais source.

And the Argentinian constitution apparently grants the right to the pursuit of happiness, a slippery slope started by Aristotle in the Eudemian Ethics, “For happiness, being the noblest and best of things…”.
Click to expand...
Can’t read your article since it is in Spanish.

But I would argue that the pursuit of happiness is not really a good idea. I think it implies the pursuit of the good things in life, which leads to materialism and the 7 deadly sins: greed, envy, pride… The pursuit of happiness is really a form of egoism. The pursuit of God is a better idea, IMO.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Can’t read your article since it is in Spanish.

But I would argue that the pursuit of happiness is not really a good idea. I think it implies the pursuit of the good things in life, which leads to materialism and the 7 deadly sins: greed, envy, pride… The pursuit of happiness is really a form of egoism. The pursuit of God is a better idea, IMO.
Click to expand...
The article quotes the judge saying the right to seek happiness entails that the law treats everyone with dignity, and that seems to be the only aspect of happiness he was concerned with in his ruling.

I think Aristotle means happiness to be a moral good, as in well-being. The word used by the judge and translated as happiness is defined along similar lines - a state of grateful spiritual and physical satisfaction.
 
Qoeleth said:
The assumption that human beings can do whatever they want, as long as it ‘makes them happy’ is the great error of our times.
Click to expand...
I wonder if Pope John XII would agree that this is purely a 21st century invention.
 
inocente said:
The article quotes the judge saying the right to seek happiness entails that the law treats everyone with dignity, and that seems to be the only aspect of happiness he was concerned with in his ruling.

I think Aristotle means happiness to be a moral good, as in well-being. The word used by the judge and translated as happiness is defined along similar lines - a state of grateful spiritual and physical satisfaction.
Click to expand...
pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/aristotle/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top