Sorry, it is well after my bedtime, and I have work tomorrow morning, but I shall try to answer your rebuttal as quickly as possible.
psionic11: 1) If a non-traditional couple or group successfully raises well-adjusted children, then is that group both morally and societally acceptable?
Look, let’s consider the story of Adam and Eve (by the way I do not credit such biblical notions as reality and neither do a lot of churches, they are just ‘fables’) – it is logical that incest must have occurred, if not within the biblical terms but then definitely throughout eons of evolution within the organic kingdom. Henceforth, it has been proven that incestual relationships can foster generations that can survive and thrive and hence live capable lives. However, times have changed, morality has been established as a fact of nature within society and any violation of this is seen as an aberration. For the reasons I stated on my argument before I would not consider it as socially acceptable, not so much for the children, in your assumption the children were raised healthy, after all, they probably lucked out.
I never grew up with my father but I had a close relationship with him and still do. The lack of separation for most of my life (opposing sides of the globe) left me no recourse but to establish different fatherly role models for me to cope (not to mention memories of my father still held for a role model), ie: Conan the Barbarian, its comics, and values in English chivalry. The children of incestual couples would ‘probably’ have to grow up with ‘ignorance’ in the notion that their parents were actually siblings (I think I have seen this in Oprah before, maybe Jerry Springer, can’t remember). I do not know the odds of genetic mutation between siblings but I would predict it is higher than first cousins, which I just do not know. *looks up youtube* Look, you can actually ‘youtube’ ‘incest’ and an array of links will show up, and what can be noted is that in all cases the parents actually hid such incestual natures from their progeny, so unless you can prove to me that an openly incestual relationship bore fruit to stable non-tormented progeny then I see little point as to why I should bother arguing further, but let’s carry on.
psionic11: Some examples: the single wealthy father who hires a nanny; the clan or extended family where grandparents and uncles/aunts raise the children; an orphanage; a single mother, her sister and her mom; etc. If other successful examples produce well-adjusted children, then this can also include homosexual couples and a brother-sister incestual relationship, correct?
No, it is not correct, by the way, I agree that homosexual couples can raise proper children, I am a supporter of gay marriage. But when you delve into the realms of incest you are committing a greater taboo than anything out there but not quite as severe as bestiality. If the ‘environment’ calls for incest then by all means it can be done, it is Force Majeure, and such cases do happen. Now, we could analyse all this by methodical ‘ethics’ criteria, pre-determinants, and directives. Universalising the maxim (a Kantian example) do you think humanity could foster with incest? It can with gay marriage because mutations do not occur due to mutations and surrogates, however this law does not hold valid for incest I am led to believe – and there you have it, that is just one maxim, now pick up your ethics book and think of the others.
psionic11: 2) If a traditional couple raises children who become highly dysfunctional in society, then is this couple then an abomination?
Look, stupidity is an abomination, just look on the ‘religion’ forum and check up “lindoooo’s” threads, hehe. If a traditional couple raises highly dysfunctional children it is because; a) the parents were never fit to be parents, hence not ‘traditional’, b) The environment and Force Majeure, c) Sheer bad luck.
psionic11: Since most of your argument assumes that a non-traditional brother-sister unit hypothetically will not be able to raise well-adapted children (because societal consequences hypothetically make it impossible to raise successful children), then is not the dysfunctional traditional couple as morally reprehensible for raising ill-adapted children? What of the couple that unfortunately has children with defects -- autism, cerebral palsy, retardation, Down's syndrome, etc.... is this couple morally guilty for not having healthy children who contribute back to society?
Listen, if it was up to me I would support the notion of restriction in number of children between couples of more ‘prolific’ races and the encouragement of stable genetic diversity in this world – this would eliminate all traces of racism in the world in some day and may even pave way for admiration of beauty in different obscure races. What I am trying to say is that there are serious moral issues with incest, and it does lead children to become ashamed of their parents over time. Although such children can become successful, rich, stable, and happy, this all may occur with the detrimental side effect of GREAT personal suffering at the shame, embarrassment, and complexes nature can impose out there. I actually am friend’s with a bisexual girl who bore a child with Down’s syndrome, her life, in all effects, became ruined for the next 18 years, and I feel for parents who have to care for disabled children and I believe more government support should be given to such parents in order to relieve the burdens from such traumas.
Think of the case in which a father (or mother) commits incest with his/her child. Think of the implications even! This individual (the growing child) will perceive this very act as being normal, and you may argue, ‘what is wrong with it?’. I am going to be honest, I do not have a good argument to this because at an extreme (maxim) we could visualise a society that would be entirely comprised (or near entirety) of incestual relationships, mayhap not for progeny, but maybe for sexual pleasure. Thing is, morality has been dictated and set firm through the course of history, that is nature, and incest is WRONG and you know it. I further related ‘incest’ to ‘polyandry’ I think/believe. Now, what I am going to ask you is to watch the following Australian cartoon on ‘youtube’ (very good series, watch them all if you can find them), and if from this cartoon you can ‘see’ or ‘perceive’ the ills of ‘polyandry’, even in the slightest sense (after all, this is just a miniscule fraction of a hint of what such immorality can do) then maybe you can understand the implications of ‘incest’ in society:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuVS0b3Cseg
psionic11: Of course not, but the point does follow from your argument. Your argument, also taken to its logical conclusion, could defend a brother-sister family unit with successful well-adapted children to be superior to a traditional loser husband-wife who beat and neglect their children who then grow up to be misguided criminals. Is this your assessment as well?
I think you are missing the point altogether... Sure, if the children are socially secluded and conditioned to a GREAT extent they can indeed succeed and become apparently ‘super people’, but do you understand the deformation in mentality that has to be taken place for this to happen, and do you understand that such strict conditioning (I use this term wrong, I mean brainwashing) defeats the very ethical nature of ‘free-will’ and hence individuality and ‘true-happiness’?
Ok, that is my spiel, enjoy the toon(s)... :-)