Q&A: Outlawing Incest by Law
Outlawing Incest by Law
Question
From what I understood, the Rabbi supports allowing couples to marry even if it is incest, assuming they are adults and it is consensual. Likewise regarding LGBT couples, etc.
Does the Rabbi support recognizing them as a married couple in every respect, giving them the benefits that ordinary couples receive (mortgage interest rates and the like), allowing them adoption rights, and basically considering them a family like any other family? Or is it only the sexual relationship itself that you would not restrict?
Is the problem here only a halakhic one? Does the Rabbi not see a moral problem in a male couple separating a child from his mother and raising him as an orphan without a mother?
Does the Rabbi want to live in a society that gives legitimacy to such distorted family structures?
And another question:
From what I know, the Rabbi argues that every person has a right over his own body, and therefore morally there is no problem with a person harming himself and even committing suicide.
If so, does the Rabbi think suicide should be prohibited by law, or should the state not intervene in such matters and therefore everyone should be left alone?
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. When I said I’m in favor, I meant regarding the rights the state grants. Obviously. I am not dealing with sexual relations, and the state should not be dealing with them either. I don’t know whether there is currently a prohibition on consensual sexual relations between adult siblings, but it is clear to me that in any case it would not be enforced.
Separating a child from his mother is an entirely different discussion. And it exists with respect to every egg donation or surrogacy arrangement.
I also don’t understand the question about suicide. If you are quoting me as saying there is no problem with it, then what are you asking—whether in my opinion the state should prohibit it?
Are you sure you thought a little before formulating these questions here?
Discussion on Answer
Even if you repeat the same question 15 more times, my answer won’t change.
I am definitely in favor of stopping a person standing on a bridge, but only because of the concern that he hasn’t thought it through properly (because of his mental state).
That’s it. I’m done.
Sorry for continuing, but you’re not really answering the questions, and it really is important to me to understand.
You’re not concerned about the breakdown of the family institution? About harm to children who will be born into such a distorted reality?
What about more than two, such as polygamy or several friends who want to marry (for example, 2 men and 2 women)—does the Rabbi support that as well?
And if not, then why not, and where does the Rabbi draw the line?
Regarding adoption, does the Rabbi support such couples having adoption rights like a normal couple, or only allowing them to live together?
16
Even if I were concerned about it (and I’m not), that is not grounds for using the state to impose my views on others.
And I’m not concerned, because if that is what the majority wants, then the family institution will in any case fall apart. And if it remains a small minority, then it won’t fall apart.
I’m not talking about imposing my views on others,
but I’m asking this:
The right to adopt is not a self-evident right like the right to life, or even like the right to freedom in having consensual sexual relations with any person.
The right to adopt is a right that requires certain criteria from those seeking to adopt a child.
Since an additional person is involved here, one who is not choosing to join the family institution, it may be that there is indeed harm to a person here.
This is not only about two adults who decide to live together by choice,
but about bringing another person into a system that is not necessarily fit to raise him.
I gave several examples:
Polyamory,
several friends who want to raise a child,
incest,
and so on (feel free to suggest your own).
My question is whether, for each of the above structures, you think it deserves the right to adopt a child, or whether there is some boundary beyond which you would not allow a person or a distorted family structure to adopt?
Are there certain criteria according to which you would decide to grant the right to adopt, or can any person, simply by virtue of being a person, come and take a child, and one may not impose one’s beliefs on him?
17
I’m begging—give me a detailed answer and I’ll leave you alone.
It’s important to me to understand, and things still haven’t been clarified.
Do you think each of the above structures deserves the right to adopt a child, or is there some boundary beyond which you would not allow a person or a distorted family structure to adopt?
Are there certain criteria according to which you would decide to grant the right to adopt, or can any person, simply by virtue of being a person, come and take a child, and one may not impose one’s beliefs on him?
18
Begging*
“Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding, but one who is quick-tempered exalts folly.”
One last answer 🙏
You really are pushing my patience (considerable as it is) to the limit. I answered everything. Anyone who wants to should be allowed to adopt a child, subject to supervision of the child’s welfare and independently of value-based questions. One more repetition and I’ll delete this whole trolling thread. You’ve been warned.
I think what Joshua is trying to argue is that you are right only on the technical level. Take the example of incest: if we examine the matter on its own merits and the specific case of a pair of parents who support incest, and we reach the conclusion that *in this case* the child’s welfare would not be harmed if they adopted him, then indeed there is no problem. But Joshua would argue against you that it does not remain only on the technical level, and therefore the empty formalism you are proposing does not work in most cases. Therefore it is indeed correct to categorically reject certain practices.
Or in more general terms: the fail-safe mechanisms you propose are not suited to the real character of the problem.
I didn’t understand. I don’t have any fail-safe mechanisms.
Following the discussion, something interesting came up here. Does the Rabbi basically hold a libertarian view regarding the state? If the Rabbi has written posts or articles on the subject, I’d be very happy if you could point me to them so I can read.
It’s not exactly a libertarian view. I oppose the state’s value-based involvement in citizens’ lives, certainly on disputed issues.
So, you support recognizing a mother and son who want to start a family, or any other distorted incestuous constellation, as a married couple in every respect, and for the state to encourage it with benefits and assistance just as it does for a married couple?
You’re not concerned about the breakdown of the family institution? About harm to children who will be born into such a distorted reality?
What about more than two, such as polygamy or several friends who want to marry (for example, 2 men and 2 women)—does the Rabbi support that as well?
And if not, then why not, and where does the Rabbi draw the line?
Regarding adoption, does the Rabbi support such couples having adoption rights like a normal couple, or only allowing them to live together?
Apparently I didn’t completely understand your position regarding suicide.
Do you think that if I see a person about to jump off a bridge, I’m not supposed to stop him?!
If the state knows about a person who is going to commit suicide, should it not intervene and stop him?!
Is there no moral obligation of “do not stand idly by your neighbor's blood,” or does that not apply to suicide and only when he is being attacked?