Luke and Leia

My point wasn't that Luke and Liea are Christians, but that our very big taboo really doesn't fit in a galaxy far far away. So let me say it's a primative earth taboo, that in our culture is very important to maintain. I know I'm sounding like I wanna screw my sis or something, I don't, but honestly I can't think of a reason to ban incest if the problem of defective offspring is taken care of.

And no, for the record, homosexuality and incest are not apples and oranges. They are the same thing: sex which does not produce healthy offspring and whether the Bible is the work of God or man, that's the purpose behind the ban.

And furthermore, Christians outnumber Muslims 2 to 1. 2.2 billion to 1.1 billion.
 
Konig15 will have to agree to disagree on all issues...

But lets get back to the subject at hand, Leia and Luke wouldn't hook up because of the beliefs of the Jedi, regardless of the fact that there might be some kind of love interest there. Luke cant' have his cake and eat it too!
 
Incest can play havoc with the family unit, introducing rivalries and other dysfunctions. It also crosses the kind of boundaries that children need in order to establish themselves as autonomous individuals.

So the ban on incest is not a "primitive earth taboo" and Luke, Leia, and the rest being recognizably human, it wouldn't be healthy or advisable.
 
Alia, how can you disagree with me on the numbers of Christians and Muslims. You can look that up on Wiki for crying out loud.

Besides, OK, let's drop the incest thing, we'll agree to disagree. But let me say I was talking about brother/sister relationships between concenting adults, not parent/child relationships. That's really really horrible. The whole premise of the prequels was exactly AGAINST the Jedi Code of No Attachments. We all know Anakin was angry and power hungry, the only thing that kept him from the dark side as long as he did was Padme, and it is only through a son's love is he saved.

Besides, while I haven't read all the EU books, as far as I know Luke has never apologized or even blushed about allowing relationships. Asceticism is blantantly unhealthy, and despite the risks, people need to have attachments to aviod the dark side.
 
1st in EU Luke does marry and does have a child so the whole against relationships thing doesn't exist in the new jedi order.

2nd historically in royal and upper class families in the ancient world there was a lot of incest and it was considered normal, in the more recent past first cousins married quite commonly and it is legal in a few states in the US to marry your first cousin. Leia was raised as a princess so she may not have seen a problem with this but it all depends. Let me also say I do not believe incest to be right but on the issue of sex anything that two consenting adults chose to engage in that does not harm another person should be their business.

3rd I do not believe there was any romantic interest between Luke and Leia, Leia and Han were obviously interested in each other from the moment that they met so... and in the EU they marry and have children
 
I don't know how religion got so involved in this disscussion but in reality it has nothing to do with this work of fiction. As for Anikin and Padme It was Anikins feelings for Padme that was a large step towards the dark side, the Jedi avoided love because strong emotions lead to the dark side hence why when Luke went to rescue his friends his emotions nearly lead him to the dark side
 
according to Lucas, he always planned it to be a story about twins. I don't think it was an after thought.

Leah was an affectionate person, only one of the kisses looked slightly sexual and that was after luke almost died on Hoth. She was probably just glad he wasn't dead and emotional about it.
 
Konig15 said:
And furthermore, Christians outnumber Muslims 2 to 1. 2.2 billion to 1.1 billion.

I'm afraid by that logic, Konig, we would have to say that China should rule the world because it has the largest population of any nation.

And with that, a gentle reminder that we do not, as a practice argue about religion or from religion, here on Chronicles.
 
carrie221 said:
1st in EU Luke does marry and does have a child so the whole against relationships thing doesn't exist in the new jedi order.

2nd historically in royal and upper class families in the ancient world there was a lot of incest and it was considered normal, in the more recent past first cousins married quite commonly and it is legal in a few states in the US to marry your first cousin. Leia was raised as a princess so she may not have seen a problem with this but it all depends. Let me also say I do not believe incest to be right but on the issue of sex anything that two consenting adults chose to engage in that does not harm another person should be their business.

3rd I do not believe there was any romantic interest between Luke and Leia, Leia and Han were obviously interested in each other from the moment that they met so... and in the EU they marry and have children
I didn't realize that Luke actually married and had a child. Obviously I hadn't read the books. I'm taking my information from the movies...

On your second point, Carrie, I agree. Very valid point. Although, child born too close in relations more often the not came out metal challenged or deformed... or even died young.

On your third point, Carrie, I again agree. The kiss between Luke and Leia was just Leia showing off in front of Han.

:)
 
Alia said:
On your second point, Carrie, I agree. Very valid point. Although, child born too close in relations more often the not came out metal challenged or deformed... or even died young.

:)

Well no, Alia, that's not quite true. More often than not the children were fine. You just hear about all the cases where they weren't. Most royal families had tons of healthy children. (Although it does seem like a lot of those families ran to girls.)

The most famous instance would be the case of hemophilia being passed down in the royal families of Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It's a disorder that in the fast majority of cases strikes males rather than females. So the female children were quite healthy, or at worst only had a very mild form and it wasn't as though most of the males were afflicted either. But females do serve as carriers for the disease, so they could pass it on to their sons and grandsons without being sick themselves.

Also, in the United States as an example, marriages between cousins and general inbreeding tend to take place most often in rural areas where poverty is high. Therefore poor nutrition and all sorts of factors would contribute to sickly babies and high infant mortality. People outside the region would attribute it to those dang hillbillies marrying their first cousins, because, for one thing, that's easy and more comfortable than thinking we ought to do something about the poor living conditions in those places. In reality, poor diet and poor medical care produce more at-risk children than just about anything. The high degree of inbreeding would contribute to hereditary diseases being passed on, too, of course.

But ... no hereditary diseases in the family means nothing to worry about genetically speaking if people who are closely related by blood have children together. It's only when there is something there that the risk factors go right up. Even then, it would far more likely be something quite different from mental deficiency or deformity. And the incidence of desirable characteristics could go up, too.

That's why basing the argument for or against incestuous relationships on the idea of healthy or unhealty offspring is a poor one. The real problems with incest -- quite aside from the moral and religious issues -- are psychological, and they can be quite serious.
 
*hangs head in shame* I have to admit this is what I have heard through the ages... it has no data support at my end, so... I'm off to do research.

Thank you Teresa for bring that to my attention. :)
 
Teresa Edgerton said:
That's why basing the argument for or against incestuous relationships on the idea of healthy or unhealty offspring is a poor one. The real problems with incest -- quite aside from the moral and religious issues -- are psychological, and they can be quite serious.

Now this I don't get. See, when I was talking about it, I was describing consentual relationships between ADULT siblings. If incestous relationships happened in childhood, and/or were forced and/or involved a parent and child, then I can see where there would be trauma, but between consenting adults, I don't see how this kind of relationship would be traumatizing, except for social pressures.

Besides, there are several instances of brother-sister union among the Pharoes of Egpyt, that by all survivng accounts they were very happy ones. But, the deformity of the children resulted in the collapse of at least three dynasties.
 
For children growing up in the same family to see each other as future romantic partners would play havoc with the family dynamic. It could result in some unhealthy fixations.

And if there was no incest taboo for adults, do you seriously think that children would not consider it OK for their relationships as well? There would be great potential for older siblings to exploit younger ones.

There are reasons why most societies in most times and places have incest taboos -- it isn't just a Jewish-Christian-Muslim thing. Of course it depends on how people reckon their descent, among other things.

I wouldn't hold the Egyptian Pharaohs up as an example of happy family life. The power and the rivalries could be quite poisonous. (See Cleopatra and her brothers.) Throwing in a little incest could hardly make things worse.

To return to Star Wars, however. Why imagine a Luke and Leia pairing in the first place? Surely the two of them were perfectly happy with the way things turned out, romantically speaking. It seems like you are projecting your own agenda on the characters.
 
The only thing is I find Han to be a blowhard and I really don't like the way he treats 3P0. I can see why Han is popular, but I don't care for him too much considering the other characters. Alone he rocks.

I'm not against the Han/Leia pairing, it's just they had this huge dues ex machina to eliminate Luke as a contender. I just don't think it was handled well. If Luke and Lia hadn't been brother and sister, I think a lot of us would have supported the Luke/Leia relationship more than the Han/Leia one.

BTW I never said, Pharoic family life was ideal. Far from it, BUT my point is sound that many of the brother-sister unions functioned quite well is well established.

For children growing up in the same family to see each other as future romantic partners would play havoc with the family dynamic. It could result in some unhealthy fixations.

This happens anyway, not just in families but between young babysitters and their charges, male/female best friends, students and teachers (the last one happened to me several times growing, there was no permanent damage). Fixations like that can destroy ANY relationship, so I don't see the need to single out the family dynamic. Far more damaging would be when Mommy and the kids come hame and find Daddy's gone away, but that's perfectly acceptable behavior.

And if there was no incest taboo for adults, do you seriously think that children would not consider it OK for their relationships as well? There would be great potential for older siblings to exploit younger ones.

Sexual abuse is sexual abuse, and we all know it. And it's NEVER OK. You are equating incest with sexual abuse and while I can certainly understand the predjudice, they are completely different things, espeically under the circumstance I have given. Your argument sounds this 'If we allow women to wear short skirts, it will give men great temptation to rape them.' The central point of both arguments is that an increase in personal freedom will give others a legitmate reason to commit wrongs, and it doesn't fly with either.
 
It's clear that you've made up your mind about this, and nothing anyone can say is going to change that, so there seems little use in continuing the discussion.

But really, I think you should be a little more tolerant of the blowhards of this world. That Han Solo is one seems insufficient reason for Leia to reject him in favor of her twin brother.
 
Konig15 said:
The only thing is I find Han to be a blowhard and I really don't like the way he treats 3P0. I can see why Han is popular, but I don't care for him too much considering the other characters. Alone he rocks.

He is rough but he is sexy as hell and he was always the bad guy with a heart of gold. He was aggrivating but always seemed to do the right thing even if it was at the last minute.:) Besides at least in the EU they fit together really well and when Leia had the chance to marry a prince who was a proper gentleman it didn't work out. They fit together besides Han was an up and coming officer for the empire before he freed chewie.

Konig15 said:
This happens anyway, not just in families but between young babysitters and their charges, male/female best friends, students and teachers (the last one happened to me several times growing, there was no permanent damage). Fixations like that can destroy ANY relationship, so I don't see the need to single out the family dynamic. Far more damaging would be when Mommy and the kids come hame and find Daddy's gone away, but that's perfectly acceptable behavior.

The changing of relationships outside the family dynamic have a much lessened chance of causing problems as those within the family dynamic. Besides I can name you many times where teacher/student or babysitter/charge harmed the parties lives.

And this is the last of my discussing this.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top