Question in the thread title, discuss...
Question in the thread title, discuss...
"When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."
My shameful truth.
DUUUUUUUHHHHH.
What a silly question. This is going to be such a troll fest.
Criminalising incest is pretty hypocritical, if two consenting adults wish to pursue a sexual relationship then its pretty much none of my business.
As for genetic defects, this is a reality that cant really be argued against - but I dont see a reason to treat it as if it was a genetic disease with the potential to be passed on. As far as I know it isnt illegal for anyone else with a genetic condition to reproduce.
Besides, reproduction is not necessarily the goal of an incestuous relationship.
In this day of age, there isn't really that much wrong with a incestous relationship.
There are condoms and birthcontrol pills so if you want to have sex with your mother/sister/brother/father/cousin whatever, go ahead.
The emotional problem that might lead to however is your problem.
Kids however is the main problem in such a relationship.
A incestous relationship should not produce any kids.
The first generation child might be fine but it will still carry genes that are no good and increases the chance of the next generation to have problems.
Case in point, look at the Hapsburg family.
They inbred themself to death pretty much.
Just look at Charles II of Spain
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Because incest is what killed the dinosaurs, silly.
"I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof."
- John Adams, on the White House, in a letter to Abigail Adams (2 November 1800)
If incest is a metaphor for meteor then yes.
Well how about retards then, are you saying that homosexuals are allowed to have sex but retards can't?Homosexuality doesn't cause freak-babies, as Phier has demonstrated.![]()
Case in point.Hey, the Egyptian Pharaohs married their sisters, and they had some pretty good rulers.
Homosexuality doesn't cause freak-babies, as Phier has demonstrated.
Of course, if incest doesn't actually culminate in offspring, I don't really care.
"Pauci viri sapientiae student."
Cicero
Weirdly enough, I actually agree with Monarchist on this one. Although I of course (being the commie pinko liberal that I am) do not share his aversion to overt homosexuality.
Because there are disadvantages for incestual behavior when it results in reproduction, whilst homosexuality as a trait has been around for all of recorded human history (and is apparent in all mammals and various other animals) and is therefore at the very worst neutral (and probably beneficial in some way since it's so prevelant).
Hey, the Egyptian Pharaohs married their sisters, and they had some pretty good rulers.
Originally Posted by Dan the Man
Nice Rebuttal
Incest is killing some of the lions in African protected parks.
Try cleaning a glass with it.
They may have intermarried but only to cement their rule. They didn't necessarily produce offspring together. In fact they were more like co rulers than lovers. If I am wrong then I apologize but that is what I read.
It's because of that wonderful, non-reasonable thing called morality. Since reproduction is often shunned upon, but merely hedonistic sex is not, then reproduction that could possibly result in deformed off-spring is often shunned even more upon.
And there's always that Christian element in Western morality too... Which is retained as long as "my" right to be a prick, take drugs and put my penis into holes does not result directly in evil into others, as long as I'm not being an activist with a couple of people on the street. It's complicated.
Suffice to say, that I believe if zoophilia and incest had supporters demonstrating, in twenty years or so it would become "normal" to tolerate them, and people who would shun them would be quite soon labeled as bigots or mentally diseased. The tyranny of tolerance and niceties, they call it.
Last edited by Marie Louise von Preussen; March 11, 2010 at 11:11 AM.
"Romans not only easily conquered those who fought by cutting, but mocked them too. For the cut, even delivered with force, frequently does not kill, when the vital parts are protected by equipment and bone. On the contrary, a point brought to bear is fatal at two inches; for it is necessary that whatever vital parts it penetrates, it is immersed. Next, when a cut is delivered, the right arm and flank are exposed. However, the point is delivered with the cover of the body and wounds the enemy before he sees it."
- Flavius Vegetius Renatus (in Epitoma Rei Militari, ca. 390)
This is an absurd argument. The results of incestuous relationships are evolutionarily harmful variations that harm the ability of a species or single being to function both in an biological and social level. Thus, societies that shun such relationships are, in essence, protecting their own ability to survive in competition with others; it's natural selection at play at its finest.
This just shows, quite frankly, that you have little to no idea how evolution, natural selection or Darwinism functions and what assertions they make.
Patronized by Ozymandias, Patron of Artorius Maximus, Scar Face, Ibn Rushd and Thanatos.
The University of Sydney | Bachelor of Arts III (Majoring in Ancient History and Italian Studies)
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and
billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain
Godless Musings: A blog about why violent fairytale characters should not have any say in how our society is run.
If close family members wanna bang go ahead, just be sure not to have children.
As for cousins, by the time two individuals are say.....3rd cousins whats the standing on that?
-Edit-
Heck, I'll just head out and look for some info but if anyone knows that be nice to share the info.
Last edited by DekuTrash; March 11, 2010 at 09:56 PM.