18-Year-Old Plans to Marry Her Father

marriage-is-about loveI’ve been seeing a story floating around recently on Facebook.  Apparently, there’s a young girl who reconnected with her mostly absent father.  After doing so, they discovered a mutual sexual attraction which they chose to pursue.  They will eventually move to a state where incest is legal and marry.

The common reaction to this is that it’s “just gross” or it’s “wrong.”  I’m not seeing anyone bold enough to affirm it, even among a crowd who is quick to affirm other kinds of non-traditional sexual relationships.  Thus far, any possible approval is only held in timid silence.

The daughter gave an interview where she lays out her story in detail.  In it, she’s offered some of the following rationalizations for her attraction and life choice.

  • We love each other
  • It’s consensual
  • We’re adults
  • I just don’t understand why I’m judged for being happy
  • It’s more common than you think
  • Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) is a real thing… people need to research it because they just don’t get it
  • I’ve never felt comfortable with another man
  • I’ve never been in a more passionate, loving, fulfilling situation
  • Everybody just needs to deal with it as long as nobody is getting hurt or getting pressured

The problem for those troubled by the story is that in order to sustain your objection you will have to reject each of the above rationalizations.  In doing so, you invalidate them for any other sexual interest group who also choose to employ them, and we’ve certainly heard them from the homosexual community.  If these points fail for one group, then they fail for all groups.  Any prevailing support must rely on some other consideration(s).  This means that such rationalizations are ultimately meaningless.

But if these points hold for one group, they hold for others.  If you accept them from gay advocates, then you must consider swallowing your objection to this incestuous relationship (and, by the way, to polygamists, who use these defenses as well).  Any overriding objection must be based on something that supersedes these “valid” rationalizations, but that implies these points — even if supportive — are not in themselves adequate.

The bottom line is that either these justifications are like moral pixie dust that sanctify any persons who can employ them, or they are of little to no consequence in the debate — any real justification requires something deeper.  Or, perhaps it requires no justification at all beyond, “this is what we want to do, reason be damned.”  That makes it nothing but a popular preference issue, with legal rights as the only concern.  Curiously, few go here and prefer, instead, to make a moral case for themselves, no matter how thin.

We are moral creatures through and through.  But if there is a moral component to sexuality at all, then perhaps there is a way that sexual relationships ought to be.  Ah, but there’s the rub; for if that is so then there is a line over which it is possible to step, even while uttering defenses like those used by this young lady.  That implies that no matter how you feel or love or consent, you could be wrong to pursue a thing.


Posted on January 18, 2015, in Ethics, Homosexuality and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging and commented:

  2. “We love each other”

    People keep saying that, but love is not the same thing as sexual attraction or emotional intimacy.

    Also, I read through some of the comments in the interview link. Some of the commenters are claiming the story is fake. While that would be nice, merely typing in Genetic Attraction Syndrome shows that it’s not the only story about this new….”misunderstood nature”.

    How long can I our society keep trying to support these behaviors before it explodes in our face?

    • The very name for sex has come to be called “making love,” and the secular ethic for sex (as I often see in movies) is that you should save it for those you love. Additionally, relationships are often pursued based upon “chemistry,” which implies to me physical attraction. Given this, for many, sex and love have come to be indistinguishable. And since one can have “sex” with all manner of people (and animals and things), then one can love them, too. And isn’t love the ultimate thing that even god wants for us?

      In being free to define “love” for ourselves we are freed to define the very will and boundaries of god. It is no wonder, then, that Paul’s characterization of rebellion toward God would include the idea of rejecting even the natural sexual design of the genders. At least the father & daughter in this story have not done that much; the moral case against them requires more work, which I believe classical Christians have the tools to do. I’m not sure how liberal Christians and secularists can ultimately sustain an objection given that they’ve already undercut their moral framework for defining proper romantic relationships in the rush to affirm homosexuality. I wonder how many would even try to make the case. I think in doing so, they would end up handing over much ammunition to their own critics.

  3. Ironically, Jesus’ exhortation against homosexuality fits well here. (Parphrasing) A man must leave his father and mother to be joined with his wife.

    • Good point. It occurs to me that one strike against a father and daughter marrying is that it depends upon an estranged relationship between a husband and wife (or perhaps the product of fornication). It is, by nature, the product (or cause) of something broken. It cannot then be a morally ideal arrangement, on par with traditional marriage.

  4. Society’s sense of morality comes from the Bible, from God. Without God there is no basis for morals. That being said, this could never be morally right. It goes against the Bible, it is sin. Incest is wrong in God’s eyes. That does not mean people who participate in incest are going to Hell. They can still be saved, they can still repent and look to God. I sincerely hope they do.

  5. So, I recently learned about this article and was wondering if you’ve heard of it.


    And if so, is this one of the aspects of academia that disillusioned you over the impartiality of today’s academics?

    • I’ve not read this article, but I’ve seen enough like it. My perspective comes from years of watching the media at work, personal dialogs, and the occasional outright admission of bias (see Lewontin’s famous confession, for example). And the most profound examples have been on display in the years covering this current president’s administration.

      The biggest frustration is that liberals seldom perceive (or admit) their own biases. They simply believe they are right and view everything through that lens. Everything that differs ceases to be seen as competing ideas worthy to be measured, but instead is (to quote Dawkins) ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked. The implication is that “bias” is only something other people have.

      I think it is not so much objectionable that liberal news, academics, politicians, and media exist as that it does so from a position of alleged objectivity. And they get so exercised at conservative media and think tanks as though they, alone, are biased. Where they do admit to bias (e.g., MSNBC), they suffer it in silence because it happens to align with what is “true” in any case. In fact, I’ve seen a number of news and science stories supportive of liberal ideology later get debunked, but are simply shrugged off because “something like that is true anyway.” Part of being biased is that one’s views are immune to counterfactuals.

      I am quite confident that my worldview is correct, but I’m also aware of when I am dealing with a conservative source and that those who share my perspective can mishandle data.

  6. Michael Ejercito

    Love is no excuse for sin.

    • If it is sin, then it does not properly qualify as “love” in the first place. The term “love” has been redefined to merely be the object of one’s personal sexual appetite. It is no accident that sexual intercourse has been given the name “making love.” If they can be made indistinguishable, and “love” can remain an unqualified good, then any number of things can be sanctified by baptizing them in the language of love.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s


A place where ideas, not people, are under assault.


...integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

The Poached Egg Christian Worldview and Apologetics Network

"Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it." - Blaise Pascal

%d bloggers like this: