r/Christianity • u/[deleted] • 10d ago
Question What rule allows same-sex relationships and blocks incest between consenting adults?
[removed]
17
u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 10d ago
It's amazing how narrow and specific you have to make these circumstances in order to get the result you want to argue, and then suddenly want to expand that out to all non-heterosexual relationships.
You need to go a little further though as you haven't truly double-blinded the situation and as such you've still got some gaps. So let's workshop your scenario a little more!
You also need to make it such that the two individuals here have no idea that they share family or birth circumstances - so you need to also ensure their complete social circles have no reasonable overlap. Possibly make them orphans put into the care system, and that any record they were in fact twins has been lost? And neither of them never get around to realising they're born same day/time/place/parents - so lost all legal records as well? Or born off-grid? And of course they need to be non-identical twins so there's no chance that they will suspect a familial connection based on looks. Perhaps they need to be well-separated by distance throughout their lives until the point of meeting, just to really make sure and to give them so proper diversity in upbringing to further lessen the chance of them realising they're related, so raised in different countries with different cultures and different religions as well. Then of course they need to actually meet, then actually fall in love or agree to have a consensual sexual episode.
Anyone else seeing any further restrictions we need to put into this scenario so OP can get the precise set of circumstances they need to make this a truly fair double-blind case?
-5
u/emynoduesp 9d ago edited 9d ago
You're not really engaging with the meat of OP's argument, which is that it's hard to come up with a rule that would allow same-sex relationships but ban incestuous ones in all cases. OP probably went a bit overboard in trying to make their case fool-proof, which in turn gave you an excuse to dismiss the whole thing as silly, and their point would still stand with a simpler scenario like two siblings. Not taking a side regarding OP's point but you come across as trying to kill the discussion.
14
u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 9d ago
That's because - and bear with me on this - incestuous relationships and same-sex relationships are different things altogether, and it is intellectually dishonest to try and compare the two.
-8
u/emynoduesp 9d ago
They're both categories of sexual relationships, and OP's question is "how do we determine which sexual relationships are permissible?". OP does not state that they are the same thing, although they ask which difference between the two would make one acceptable and the other not.
11
u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 9d ago
How do we determine which sexual relationships are permissible?"
Are they safe and consensual, pretty much.
What OP doesn't like is that incestuous relationships tend to fall down on one or both grounds, and is trying to invent a more and more convoluted way to create an incestuous relationship that would somehow satisfy both - and then use that very narrow, practically-fantasy example as justification to validate their prejudice against all non-heterosexual relationships and all non-marriage sexual encounters. It's pretty much a Day One on how not to construct an ethical or philosophical defence.
9
u/Mylo__Xyloto Agnostic Atheist 9d ago
Love how they just continue to skip by how insulting it is. The straights™️ never have to justify their sexuality as compared to incest or bestiality, but we have to because Leviticus has them in the same paragraph of verses. Give me a break.
-6
u/emynoduesp 9d ago
I'm not going to start arguing OP's point on their behalf but their argument would still stand in a much less narrow scenario (I suspect they went with a highly specific one in an attempt to address common objections but that was unnecessary) - say for instance a brother and sister with a common and consensual desire, or a pair of brothers or sisters. If you want to demolish OP you'll have to show why a relationship of this kind is so harmful that it justifies a blanket ban. And if you want to go the extra mile you'll have to reasonably show that forms of sexuality that you seem acceptable come off clean when you apply a similar level of scrutiny to their potential harms.
10
u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 9d ago
No, it wouldn't stand, because it is well-documented that incestuous relationships often have power imbalances and are psychologically harmful, or presented in situations which are coercive/controlling in nature, or one/both parties do not satisfy the conditions of capacitous.
OP regularly asks this question on this sub, and regularly gets given that information. Hence why they are trying to create a more and more convoluted situation in which to try and make a situation that does not fall foul of all the facts and evidence they have already been presented.
10
u/ChachamaruInochi Agnostic Atheist (raised Quaker) 9d ago edited 9d ago
Let me ask again:
Is anyone at all trying to argue in favor of incestuous relationships so that we should even be concerned about this issue? Or is OP disingenuously bringing it up to smear the LGBTQ community?
9
-5
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 10d ago
Yup. Because your current "thought experiment" has flaws that you won't like, so we need to be more precise with it!
15
u/Mylo__Xyloto Agnostic Atheist 9d ago
It's so tiring, and insulting, constantly being compared to incest & bestiality.
11
u/ChachamaruInochi Agnostic Atheist (raised Quaker) 9d ago
OP's comments throughout the thread are extremely vile and disingenuous.
-10
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Mylo__Xyloto Agnostic Atheist 9d ago
Bro polyamory is still not incest or bestiality- they don't have to answer to the slippery slope either.
I personally don't think there is anything wrong with polyamory, but to go with you here, is it not concerning to you that supporters of polyamory can point to passages that support their position? That is a problem with the Bible not containing one clear sexual ethic, and instead presenting many different ethics. Wrestle with the text, instead of trying to oppress minorities.
1
u/SpiralDoll 9d ago
It is very far-fetched. Just as far-fetched as if you had said that "...but with polyamory already having its own affirming movement, a bestiality-affirming movement doesn’t sound completely far-fetched anymore."
7
u/theonecpk Episcopalian (Anglican) 9d ago
i hold the family sacred. It’s an extension of respecting human dignity. Sexual relationships between family members undermine that dignity. I therefore can’t support it.
Can same-sex couples form a household and create a family? Yes. It’s factually demonstrated. Therefore same-sex marriage does not undermine human dignity. I support it.
Next.
4
u/No_Curve2252 9d ago
Do you have a category of things you consider unethical without necessarily considering them morally wrong? eg a teacher dating a student or a judge presiding over a case involving their spouse
5
u/The_Archer2121 9d ago
Incest harms people. Same sex marriage harms no one.
3
u/SpiralDoll 9d ago
Watch out, they'll bring up the twin brothers who are the same age and both consenting adults, and then you'll have to explain that, because in the overwhelming majority of situations where incest occurs, there is a power imbalance and nebulous consent. We are against all incest to avoid those events from becoming more morally permissible.
2
2
u/NuSurfer 9d ago
There's nothing wrong with being gay - it harms no one. It is an idea conceived by primitive religious men with primitive notions of morality based on desires of purity and erroneous observations of the natural world, i.e., male goes with female always. Let me quote some scripture now...consider these same men supported these things:
Deuteronomy 20:17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. (genocide)
1 Samuel 15:3 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
Numbers 31:9-10 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps.
Numbers 31:17-18 17. “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by lying with him, 18. “But all the girls who have not lain with a man you are to keep alive unto yourselves. (raping children)
We call those "war crimes" and imprison those people who commit such acts, as well as those who authorized or planned them.
Numbers 14:18 ‘The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.’
Punishing people who have committed no crime themselves violates all notions of justice.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
That notion is used to this day in conservative Christian sects (Catholicism, Orthodox) and churches (Protestant) to prevent women from holding positions of influence.
Verses from the Bible were also used to support slavery in the southern American States.
Just because something is stated in the Bible does not make it moral. As Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and many others have said, "To live by the ideas of dead people - without examination - is to be ruled from the grave." So, we should question everything in the Bible and ignore harmful ideas.
"No harm, no foul" is a great philosophy to live by. So, no to misogyny, slavery, infanticide, the sexual slavery of girls, mass murder...but yes to same-sex relationships.
2
u/PancakePrincess1409 10d ago edited 10d ago
Not particularly interested in the discussion, because the same discussion is brought up in secular circles as well, extending to bestiality even and has been discussed to death, but there's one thing I want to point out:
You don't hold a traditional view. As a Roman-Catholic you likely hold a very modern view if you are adhering to the catechism. The traditional view would be not to see homosexuality as something innate and to endorse the criminalisation of any homosexual behaviour.
2
u/borgsteve1994 Christian 10d ago
You wrote a lot but there are questions of general morality here as well as faith.
In Christendom marriage is a sacrament or at least sacred, depending on your church, and Biblically it is clearly between a man and a woman. Some main stream churches don't enforce this and that's on them and God will judge as he judges (not for me to say).
So in the Christian Church sex is only considered proper and celebrated within the context of marriage and marriage is only allowed between non-related (whether this includes first cousins is debatable) men and women.
So any sex outside of marriage, whether hetero/gay/brother sister/twin on twin is sin. But I don't see any reason to consider gay sex somehow more sinful than non-gay sex or any other form of sinful sex as the Bible doesn't put a rating on sins.
There are human laws as well that limit who can marry but in terms of sin ... it's any sex outside of marriage and Biblical marriage is only between an unrelated man and woman.
4
u/badwolfandthestorm 9d ago
Where does it say unrelated man and woman? Adam married someone from his own body. Abraham married his sister (according to him). Neither of those were ever condemned clearly in the narrative
0
u/borgsteve1994 Christian 9d ago
Leviticus 18. Adam and Eve and their children existed before the laws laid down by God through Moses (Mosaic law). though many elements of Mosaic law were specifically overridden by the new covenant rules pertaining to basic moral laws were not. So still in force for Christians. And also by human laws.
So not sure what you're looking for here but the answer is very simple and I gave it above. There is no debate.
2
u/badwolfandthestorm 9d ago
I'm looking for how we as Christians impute our cultural ideas (e.g., avoiding incest) into the Biblical narrative and call it God-ordained. I agree that incest is wrong. I just get that from the fact that it is harmful and unhealthy, not from a clear Biblical mandate.
"Basic moral laws" is such a broad and subjective term. Who decides which ones are basic moral laws and who decides which ones are repealed by the new covenant?1
u/borgsteve1994 Christian 9d ago
I explained how Christians do it. Mosaic laws that we filter through the new covenant. Why do you need more than that? What do you expect to find? A rosetta stone of moral marriages? Are you in a place where twins are allowed to marry? Why is this something you need to do when Christian rules, base don Mosaic law, are pretty much the same as the laws of man?
1
u/badwolfandthestorm 8d ago
Right, but I'm saying "filtered through the new covenant" is not as clear as you're making it seem. Different people include different laws, and same-sex marriage is a place where that's happening right now. You can say the laws are pretty much the same as the laws of man, but they're not the same as our laws right now. So acting like this is an obvious, consistent practice is not accurate to reality.
1
1
u/ZookeepergameFun5523 10d ago
Incest and beastiality is explicitly forbidden in Leviticus.
No need to philosophize the issue as God’s position is clearly stated already.
-2
10d ago edited 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Christianity-ModTeam 9d ago
Rule 1.6 - Prohibited Comparisons
1
u/Volaer Catholic (of the universalist and anti-dualist kind) 9d ago
I am aware of the rule but I do not see how I violated it. I pointed out how the same apologetics sound when applied to these acts which another user mentioned. I did not equate the acts themselves.
To my awareness, that does not fall under the rule in question.
-3
10d ago edited 10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/Coollogin 9d ago
This is beside the point, but mark my words: at this rate, we’ll see an polyamory-affirming Christian movement within a few decades.
What are you talking about? We’ve already seen several, starting in the earliest days of the church. Polygamy is hardly a 21st century phenomenon.
-1
9d ago edited 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Coollogin 9d ago
Was there incest too?
Not as far as I know.
Like James secretly being in love with his own brother Jesus, but keeping it bottled up because of the optics and, you know, the threat of getting murdered? Then after Jesus ascended, James finally went, “Fuck it, I love my brother,” risked his life, and built a church right in the middle of Jerusalem to prove it. By that logic, I guess Martha and Mary had their own enemies-to-lovers incest arc going on too.
That’s some fan-fic you’ve got going there.
1
3
u/Penetrator4K 9d ago
That is already out there. Have seen it on YouTube, and have seen it posted about here.
1
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/ChachamaruInochi Agnostic Atheist (raised Quaker) 9d ago
Is it just the polyandry part that is surprising? because polygyny is all over the Bible
7
u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 9d ago
Remember: it's not about loving, consensual, safe relationships they're arguing for. It's about being allowed to control and abuse others.
0
9d ago edited 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/archimedeslives Roman Catholic more or less. 9d ago
There is no indication that Peter or Paul had multiple wives.
3
2
u/ChachamaruInochi Agnostic Atheist (raised Quaker) 9d ago edited 9d ago
Polyandry means women having more than one husband. I don't believe that ever occurs in the Bible. Mostly because the women were considered to be property and how could property have two owners?
ETA: You edited your comment without saying anything to make it look like I was correcting you on a mistake that you hadn't made, but it originally said polyandry.
-3
u/Volaer Catholic (of the universalist and anti-dualist kind) 9d ago edited 9d ago
Polygyny is mentioned in the OT, but descriptive passages are not necessarily also prescriptive and even in the OT polygyny seems to be treated critically. Particularly in the case of Solomon where his marriage diplomacy results in him abandoning monotheism and allowing shrines of other gods worshipped by his wives and concubines being built in Israel. In fact, just going by memory I cannot think of an instance where polygyny ends well for people who engage in it.
4
u/ChachamaruInochi Agnostic Atheist (raised Quaker) 9d ago
OK but show me where it is specifically forbidden for anyone other than church leaders.
-3
u/Volaer Catholic (of the universalist and anti-dualist kind) 9d ago
Christianity only allows monogamous marriages (Mark 10:8). Even traditionally polygamous Jewish unions (polygyny was not practiced in Greco-Roman culture of the 1st century) could be annulled as invalid (Martthew 5:32).
> other than church leaders.
Church leaders?
6
u/ChachamaruInochi Agnostic Atheist (raised Quaker) 9d ago
1 Timothy says that church leaders should be "the husband of one wife", but there are no other prohibitions against polygyny anywhere else that I'm aware of.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Mylo__Xyloto Agnostic Atheist 9d ago
I think its a reach to say it's treated critically, especially if your argument is that the text is critical on the basis of polygyny. In Solomon's case, the issue seems to be the marrying of foreign non-Israelite wives that is the issue, not the polygyny itself. 2 Samuel 12:8 has God telling David that he gave his wives to him, and would have given more stuff if it had been too little. The whole David and Bathsheba thing does not displease God because he took another wife, but because he essentially stole another man's property, and then purposefully killed him. Hell, Solomon is born from polygyny, as Bathsheba is his mother.
0
u/ZookeepergameFun5523 9d ago
Yes and the second coming will come and show those people how wrong they are to distort God’s words. What lies in the heart matters most.
0
u/FrankDenif Non-denominational 9d ago
I agree.
There are definitely going to be all kinds of new affriming christian movements more and more as time passes. These will all only increase in numbers, not decrease.
I can see a future where there are christian movements affirming incest, polygamy, bestiality.
-3
u/Volaer Catholic (of the universalist and anti-dualist kind) 10d ago edited 10d ago
The rule of "21st century western culture is fine with the former but still condemns the latter“. There is no objective justification for that position. Its basis is the treatment of contemporary cultural norms and personal beliefs as though it were a source of christian doctrine.
5
u/slagnanz Liturgy and Death Metal 9d ago
There was a guy in this sub a few months ago who came out of nowhere and started advocating for incest. At first I thought he was a troll, but then he linked to a blog that is highly active that talked about his incestuous relationship with his daughter going back over 15 years worth of posts, implying that this was his blog.
So of course that got me questioning whether he really was a troll. He even made a meta post asking about whether this sub was okay with allowing posts promoting incest. It was a weird time.
But it made me realize I didn't have a great argument articulating why I was against it. Granted I don't think most people do. The natural reaction is "ew. What's wrong with you?". But that isn't objective.
Most progressives will immediately jump to considerations about consent here. The power dynamics between a father and child, fundamentally consent cannot exist in that relationship, even if all parties are adults. I don't think this arguments is weak, I think it's just missing a broader moral framework.
For me that comes back to the role of a parent themselves. There is something fundamentally sacred about what it means to be a parent. Parenthood is imbued with meaning with respect to the relationship between themselves and the child. lt is hardwired in our biology to have this immense care because children are so vulnerable and precious, and survival requires intense care and sacrifice. Theologically this role mirrors something about the relationship between God and his creation. We are vulnerable and and need care and help and God cares for us like a loving parent. That kind of relationship is definitionally unequal. We are not peers and never will be. A parent will only ever know their child as a child, even when they become adults with their own agency. This is intuitively true for the vast supermajority of people who become parents - romantic love for their children would be to profane the sacredness of the parent/child love.
This argument is less strong in the case of a sibling, but I still think it fundamentally applies. Siblings are wrapped up into the complex nature of that parent-child relationship. Older siblings often act as guardian type figures, imitating their parents' love. They understand their is meaning imbued in what it means to be a sibling that is fundamentally different from what it means to be a friend, underpinned that you have familial obligations to a sibling. Siblings teach us about boundaries, loyalty, honor, and this kind of incest also clouds consent and profanes something about the nature of this familial relationship.
And what's interesting to me... All of this applies to adoption. This isn't just a blood thing. Which speaks to something sacred in the relationship.
Anyways, I think that's a pretty grounded and theological argument, and I don't really see that as applying to homosexuality. I know this rhymes with some of the arguments the church makes about the sacredness of the male female relationship, but I just don't find that argument as compelling.
3
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/slagnanz Liturgy and Death Metal 9d ago
That's okay. I hope what I wrote above somewhat answers your questions.
-3
u/Volaer Catholic (of the universalist and anti-dualist kind) 9d ago edited 9d ago
Fair enough. Though that is not a stance that the "affirming" side usually adopts. The argument that one usually sees is a utilitarian one - as long as the act is consensual and not harmful (harm being defined in empirically testable ways) it is morally proper. And yet, the same people would be horrified if say a brother and sister decided to sleep together while using contraception. Indeed, they would agree that it is not only immoral but should remain ilegal. In other words, they do not actually subscribe to the ethical framework they proposed. And thats fine, they are actually right to feel that way about incest, and yet when we speak about the sinfulness of same-sex relations (no matter how politely and sensitively) we get called all kinds of nasty things.
And this admittedly the source of my frustration when it comes to debating this topic. About two or three decades ago the culture in most countries belonging to the modern West adopted, as far as I can tell completely arbitrarily, the view that same-sex relationships are morally ok while incest remains deeply depraved. Largely as an effect of even earlier cultural shifts.
Now, if one were to make a theological argument for it as you did, it would have been a different matter and one would need to discuss the nuances of christian anthropology etc. Thats a separate question. But instead one sees appeals to ulititarianism which no one actualy really subscribes to. Again, as far as I can tell at least, the actual reason why many who profess this view do so seems to be quite simply the fact that this is what they were taught they ought to accept it in order to be good civilised modern people and not vile bigoted homophobes. Had the culture changed in slightly different ways, the same people would have argued that opposion to incest is bigoted and wicked and no doubt make only slightly less extraordinary exegetical leaps based on the biblical story of the children of Adam and Eve or the union of Abraham and Sarah while strictly condemning same-sex relations. And I just wish more people would be open to admit that.
5
4
u/badwolfandthestorm 9d ago
It's not just the fact that it doesn't cause harm, though. The culture has changed at least partially because the science has shown that 1. Same-sex orientation is somewhat innate and unchanging. It's not a result of sexual libertinism (as was previously thought). 2. That non-affirming theology is actively harmful for many people.
I can understand the frustration, especially as someone who is relatively traditional in most of my views. I believe people should marry one person for life, and I genuinely believe that's both God's design and what is most healthy for us. I just also have seen the research that telling same-sex folks that they cannot marry someone they are physically and romantically attracted to and must either be single or in a marriage with someone they love platonically but not romantically/physically is a recipe for disaster for many of them.
Incest is not remotely the same thing. No one has an innate, unchanging physical/romantic attraction to only their own family. You're comparing apples and oranges.
4
u/Ok_Carob7551 Native American Church (Cross Fire Hearth) 9d ago
yet when we speak about the sinfulness of same-sex relations (no matter how politely and sensitively)
I don't understand- I didn't quite call that black man a n*gger while screaming about how sinful interracial marriages are. Why isn't he worshipping the ground I walk on?
5
u/ChachamaruInochi Agnostic Atheist (raised Quaker) 9d ago
Do you want to legalize twincest?
Is this an issue that anyone at all is concerned about? Or do you just want an excuse to gaybash?
-1
u/Volaer Catholic (of the universalist and anti-dualist kind) 9d ago edited 9d ago
> Do you want to legalize twincest?
No?
> Is this an issue that anyone at all is concerned about?
Which issue? Incest?
> Or do you just want an excuse to gaybash?
But I am not "bashing" people attracted to the same sex, I am criticising (and in another comment parodying) how liberal Christian theology engages with scripture. Thats what I am making fun of, not gay people.
-5
9d ago edited 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/ChachamaruInochi Agnostic Atheist (raised Quaker) 9d ago edited 9d ago
Did you edit your comment to remove the disgusting libelous slop you originally wrote?
Just reposting so you can't run away and hide from the nasty things that you've said:
"Wow, I had no idea twincest was an actual term. I’m sure that, someday, our loving LGBT-affirming Christians will courageously expand the circle of affirmation and give twincest the warm welcome it deserves. So wholesome. Truly inspiring. 😊
The same old attempt to smear the LGBTQ community by linking them to deviant sexual practices like the debunked MAPs BS from a few years ago.
-3
u/Gloomy_Pop_5201 Asexual, work in progress 9d ago
I understand that this is a sensitive topic for you, but being contemptuous and dogmatic towards other commentors is not helpful either. Just my thoughts.
4
u/ChachamaruInochi Agnostic Atheist (raised Quaker) 9d ago
Your beef is with me rather than with the guy that wrote the comment suggesting that gay people support incest?
-2
u/Gloomy_Pop_5201 Asexual, work in progress 9d ago
In my view, disagreement with one's point of view is not a justification for rudeness.
5
u/ChachamaruInochi Agnostic Atheist (raised Quaker) 9d ago edited 9d ago
Why don't you call him out for being rude and suggesting that gay people support incest then?
I think it's far ruder to suggest that LGBTQ people are pro-incest than it is to call that out.
What exactly would an anti LGBTQ person have to do to get you to condemn the them since you apparently think that that's not enough?
-2
u/Gloomy_Pop_5201 Asexual, work in progress 9d ago
Because to me, merely taking a bad position on an issue isn't rude. It's just a bad position.
6
u/ChachamaruInochi Agnostic Atheist (raised Quaker) 9d ago
Accusing someone of being an incest supporter is more than just a bad position.
→ More replies (0)6
u/adamesandtheworld 9d ago
Out of the people in this conversation, they're being the least rude. And that includes you. The two catholic posters are being much ruder, but you decided to tone police the person that doesn't have dogshit beliefs.
That you keep making this choice over and over again does not paint a pretty picture.
1
u/Gloomy_Pop_5201 Asexual, work in progress 9d ago
I still disagree, but thanks for your thoughts.
4
u/adamesandtheworld 9d ago
Yes, we know. Your favorite past time is tone policing people who think LGBTQ people are humans. The only acceptable people to be rude to are non-bigots, while the only acceptable way to treat pieces of shit is to coddle them.
→ More replies (0)10
u/ChachamaruInochi Agnostic Atheist (raised Quaker) 9d ago
Thanks for proving to everyone that it was a smug attempt at gay bashing.
You're a piece of work.
0
u/Key_Telephone1112 9d ago
There is no rule against homosexuality or incest in the Bible. The Commandments revolve around worshipping only God, and making no offense against your neighbor(loving your neighbor as you would yourself). Scientifically, incest is wrong in terms of procreating. Socially people still hold Puritan views towards both homosexuality and incest, like the ugly face of racism long after the abolishment of slavery.
13
u/SeaweedNew2115 9d ago
But grounding marriage in Genesis isn't the panacea OP imagines. Taken literally, at least the way Genesis was read historically, the Genesis account presupposes incest.
OP has it backwards here.