Tuesday, 15 July 2008

"Vice is nice, but ...

... 'cest is best," as we used to joke about incest when we were teenagers.

For anyone who is any doubt that this is 'next on the list', go to this article in the Times: I had sex with my brother but I don't feel guilty. You can skim the article, but read the comments carefully.

Then say to yourself, "How would I dispute their conclusions?"

As one comment puts it, "It is only through airing experiences such as this that any progress in society can be made. 100 years ago it would have been an article on homosexuality..."

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.


  1. Depends what you mean by 'next on the list'

    Already, there are a variety of legal responses to incest, but I don't think that anyone would look upon it as a sexual orientation, so the linkage with homosexuality is bogus. They are both about 'sex' but that's about as far as it goes.

    As someone in a civil partnered long-term monogamous gay relationship, all the legal and obvious comparatives are with civil marriage.

    That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be consideration of whether people should be imprisoned for incest or not (which I think is a legitimate question to ask) but I think it needs to be considered as an issue in its own right rather than attached to other unrelated topics.

    Mike Homfray

  2. The article in question was also printed in The Press (Christchurch, NZ). It's claim (it's ok, no one got hurt, no guilt incurred) highlights for me the weak point in the revisionist approach to Christian ethics. Remove the Leviticus plank in the structure and little, if anything is left, to argue for the unique significance and importance of marriage, and against adultery ... incest ... bestiality.

    I say this not to close down discussion in the church about the case for same sex blessings etc. I am uneasy about a 'no to such blessings because it might encourage incest' approach: that seems to burden one group with the sins of another! Rather, I look for better arguments to come forth from the revisionist side.

    Peter Carrell
    Nelson, Aotearoa New Zealand