Columbia Professor/HuffPo Blogger Arrested For Incest

The professor of political science was arrested for having an apparently “consensual” relationship with his 24 year old daughter. What absolutely blows my mind is that the professor, who blogged at the Huff Po, is being vociferously defended by the HuffPo readers. To whit:

This is exactly what conservatives tried to warn people about when gay marriage was being discussed during Lawrence v. Texas. I’ve never been completely annoyed by gay marriage, but I did worry over things like this: that true marriage, one man and one woman, would be weakened by the inclusion of gays because it would spread to poly and incest. While this professor may not have married his daughter, you can see based on 99% of the HuffPo readers that for the left, even incest is just a “lifestyle choice” and if you don’t accept it, you’re a bigoted racist sexist homophobe.

Incest is a horrible crime. The fact that the girl was 24 matters not one iota. And incidentally while all the people on Huff Po were screaming that she’s legal and what happened between father and daughter was nobody’s business, I kept thinking that a 24 year old who has sex with her dad is an adult, but any 26 year old who needs to stay on their parent’s insurance is a child, too immature to even get a job that offers insurance.

Anyway.

The age of the woman matters not, but I have a difficult time believing that he waited until she was of age before having sex with her. He’s a horrible person, and the people who are defending him are horrible people. Really, we have to stop being so polite. We must stop being afraid to call people on their craziness lest they feel “judged.” I can be handle being judged by incest defenders because I know that I am right and I know that I am a better person than they are.

What is next?

About these ads

Comments

  1. Agreed. Thank you for speaking the truth. And while I’m at it– “WE TOLD YOU SO!” :)

    And to think that it’s only just starting to get really crazy.

  2. ilovecress says:

    First off, I agree that this is wrong.

    Second off – could you explain this?

    that true marriage, one man and one woman, would be weakened by the inclusion of gays because it would spread to poly and incest.

    I’ve heard this quite a lot, but I’ve never actually heard it explained. Even if it did spread to poly and incest (which I agree it shouldn’t) – how does that somehow ‘weaken’ marriage?

  3. Ah! Discussion! I don’t have an answer for that (I bet Cara will though!) but it is my personal beleif that the government has absolutely no business being in the marriage business at all. If someone wants to have a pre-nup that defines the marriage agreement, then any litigation surrounding that contract should be a matter for a civil court (or even better, private arbitration) but I don’t believe the government should even have an opinion on the marriage issue. Poly and incest are against the law, so be it. If enough people think they shouldn’t be, the laws will change, as this isn’t really a constitutional matter. The government can not enforce morality and should not regulate morality, leave that to society and our Maker. (But you can bet they’ll TAX morality!!)

  4. ilovecress says:

    So, Jeremy – what does the ‘we told you so’ comment mean. What has this got to do with Gay marriage.

    I could just as well argue that not alloowing gay marriage leads to way more cases of incest and polygamy. Or, to put it more simply – “we told you so. :-)

  5. I think it’s a valid point- that the “slippery slope” rule doesn’t really apply. But I’ll be interested to see Cara’s take on it.

    From where I sit (and not my opinion necessarily, and not “not” my opinion, I don’t know that I even have one here… :) ) I think the logic is something along the lines of “Gay is wrong, poly and incest are wrong, allowing gay marriage legitimizes it and therefore (“ergo, ispo facto, columbo oreo”) will slide society into legitimation of poly and incest, which we’ve already established is wrong.”

    I think it hinges on the “gay is as wrong as poly is as wrong as incest is as wrong as gay” argument.

    Honestly, I’m not sure government should be regulating poly- it doesn’t produce seriously-messed-up offspring like incest. See? I’m sliding down that slope by saying that poly is okay! LOL!

  6. The way I’ve always heard it explained is that claiming inclusion for one “misunderstood” group of people leads to other “misunderstood” groups claiming their own understanding and inclusion. The weakness of that explanation is evident – not all groups are merely misunderstood; our current understanding of incest is quite sound, thank you. One need not lead into the other.

    One thing that IS troubling to me is the current confusion of feeling and thinking that is demanded of society, to ill effect. The idea is that if we don’t think much of a thing, therefore we must not understand the thing. Again – NO. We understand fine. We don’t like incest BECAUSE we have a very clear grasp of the concept, one that this incestuous dirtbag commenter calls “intolerant.” If you have to throw dust in our eyes by failing to distinguish between what we know and what we feel, and appeal to one where the other is needed, then your argument needs a little work.

  7. ilovecress says:

    I understand the slippery slope argument – but I still don’t get why this would “weaken”marriage. How is marriage even something that can be ‘weak’ or ‘strong’? You might as well say “Things like this are going to lead to the fattening of marriage’.

    It is literally a talking point that doesn’t make any sense.

  8. I think you might be missing the parenthetical…

    “…weakens the (spiritual sacredness) of marriage…”

    But that’s just a guess. The “weakens” modifier isn’t directed at marriage, it is directed (I think) at an implied parenthetical that isn’t being explicitly stated.

    Boctaoe.

  9. ilovecress says:

    Again – how does letting gays marry do that? I mean, do you have less respect for my parents marriage in the UK (35 years) where gay marriage is allowed? Is their bond any less ‘sacred’? And if so, could you explain the steps in that happening.

    I know I am coming across very snarky, but I’d really like to understand this meme….

  10. Again, I don’t share these views specifically. I’m not spiritual, and I don’t think that government should even be involved in saying what marriage is or who can and who can not do it. That is something left to the dictionary and to society. The majority of society (worldwide) opposes changing the dictionary definition of marriage (dictionary in this sense refers to the state of the dictionary before the courts changed the dictionary definition against the wishes of a majority of the population.)

    For spiritual people, who believe that (a) marriage is something God created for the purpose of joining a woman and a man forever in monogamy and (b) hates gay people [or by some "hates the actions of gay people"] then intersecting the two diminishes the value, purpose, “sacredness” if you will, overall, of the original joining of man and woman. Diminishes the importance of every marriage everywhere, without regards to any political or geographical boundaries. Like when the FED decides to print a ton of money. It “weakens” the federal reserve note in your pocket so that it doesn’t buy as much.

    When marriage is between any two living or nonliving objects (say, me and my maple tree in the front yard) then when someone who is married traditionally says “I’m married” it just doesn’t mean anything. You’re “married”? So you like him/her/it a lot but might change your mind about it later? Yeah, I was married to a hamburger earlier today, but I got hungry and ate it. It doesn’t mean anything. We have weakened the meaning of the word marriage so that it basically could replace “liked for a little bit” and heck it’s easier to say so why not?

    Gay marriage by itself wouldn’t weaken marriage any more than the >50% divorce rate has. The slide started decades ago. It indicates a general trend by the population to discount vows.

  11. ilovecress says:

    Jeremy – I realise that we’re basically on the same page here, but it’s good to see debate back on this site!!

    “For spiritual people, who believe that (a) marriage is something God created for the purpose of joining a woman and a man forever in monogamy and (b) hates gay people [or by some "hates the actions of gay people"] then intersecting the two diminishes the value, purpose, “sacredness” if you will, overall, of the original joining of man and woman.”

    That’s a religious (or sacred) issue though – between you and your church. If you live you life by the rule of the bible, then sure gay marriage weakens ‘the christian version of marriage’ just as planting crops side by side weakens the ‘christian version of farming’. I have nothing against this – it is between you and your priest/imam/wiccan spiritual guide.

    “When marriage is between any two living or nonliving objects (say, me and my maple tree in the front yard) then when someone who is married traditionally says “I’m married” it just doesn’t mean anything. You’re “married”? So you like him/her/it a lot but might change your mind about it later?”

    That’s about not taking marriage seriously though. It’s the exact opposite argument to the gay marriage proponents – who argue that they would like to take the whole issue of ‘lifetime companionship’ way more seriously please.

    The argument that Gay marriage weakens ‘marriage’ has it’s roots in the assumption that Gay people are going to be less committed than straight people.

    I guess that as someone getting married in 10 weeks time, I don’t see the pledge I am about to make as any weaker than the one that my Mother and father did, or the one that Henry VIII did six times. In fact, if I can get anywhere near the commitment, love, understanding and solidarity that a couple of gay friends of mine have, then I’ll be a very proud man indeed.

    But then again, I don’t have to worry about what a deity thinks.

    At the end of the day, I find it odd that ‘small government’ Republicans are so concerned with whether or not the Government approves of a marriage, be it between Phil and Jane, or Phil and Steve. The Government deciding who can and cannot make a contract with each other is big Government whichever way you slice it.

  12. [quote] At the end of the day, I find it odd that ‘small government’ Republicans are so concerned with whether or not the Government approves of a marriage, be it between Phil and Jane, or Phil and Steve. The Government deciding who can and cannot make a contract with each other is big Government whichever way you slice it. [/quote]

    You could then make the same argument about incest, which is where the whole slippery slope comes in. Personally, as a conservative (who has found himself trending more and more towards libertarian) instead of a Republican, I don’t think the government should be involved in most aspects of our private lives, let alone marriage, regardless of my views on homosexuality itself. The big question then becomes, when SHOULD the government intrude into our lives in the “interest” of society? I don’t know the answer, but there ought to be a line somewhere, and incest should be on the other side of that line.

    Also of note, Sweden is considering repealing their incest laws

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html

  13. as a conservative (who has found himself trending more and more towards libertarian)

    I was in that boat a few years ago. With age comes clarity, and it’s become quite clear that the R’s and the D’s, in general are not working in the best interests of the country. I’m not in the “pull our troops out of every country” camp or the “government planned 9/11″ camp, but other than that, you could call me a Libertarian/Ron Paul supporter/Rand Paul supporter. :) [full disclaimer: Rand Paul is the only political candidate I've ever contributed to in my entire life!]

    Without any line, we descend into anarchy, but I also agree that the line must separate “incest” and “okay”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,331 other followers

%d bloggers like this: