NationStates Jolt Archive

So can't incest be socially acceptable... if the only argument against incest is birth defects, with todays modern techonologies they can be identified readily, and defective fetus's aborted within an acceptable time frame.. given these new developments, hasn't the argument against incest outside the context of religion degraded so that a truely secular government should be ready to accept it ?

damn.. screwed up that poll.. dosn't let u edit it T_T all well to try and help people who are confused.. it should read is

"conestual incest RIGHT?"

So can't incest be socially acceptable... if the only argument against incest is birth defects, with todays modern techonologies they can be identified readily, and defective fetus's aborted within an acceptable time frame.. given these new developments, hasn't the argument against incest outside the context of religion degraded so that a truely secular government should be ready to accept it ?
Trust me, we can't test for all of the diseases caused by genetics (hell, we don't even know what half of them are), and its not a good idea anyway as consensual incest is often nothing but...

Depends, but in almost all cases it is probably wrong.

Just... gross. Who'd want to?

homosexuallity... now Incest... what's next? Beastiality?

That's probably one of the shittiest polls I've ever seen. There's nothing inherently wrong with consentual incest, as long as both parties are aware of the risks that could potentially occur with any offspring.

IF the sexual relation is consentual.. (legally) which has happend... and either controception is used.. or abortion to filter out the defective fetus's.. what then is left to argue against incest.. devoid of relgiious/moral belifs

Ooooh tough question...

Well, the genetic defects ARENT always plain genetic defects. It can be like selective breeding - taking the worst cases and putting them together.

Example - pure-breed bulldogs can no longer give birth naturally, because of the amount of inbreeding encourged to keep them pure-breeds. The puppies heads are just too big. So as of yet, incest is still a risk.

A better question would be - Is incest alright with sufficient birth control? If there are no children, then there are no defects.

Just... gross. Who'd want to?
^I second this

Personally, I am suspicious of consensual incest. With the problems going on with child abuse and rape, incest among adults may ( emphasis on the possibility, not the certainty) stem from childhood problems. I understand that it may very well just develop on its own, in which case love is love, and I can't really say anything about that.

The only thing that needs to get out of the way is the random enforcement of archaic fornication laws.

Let me put this as... un delicatly as I can.

First of all, you have to be a sick pervert to put this thread up.

Second of all, the person who is consenting may not actually be consenting at all! The person in the wrong could just claim they are, and threaten the person they are actually raping as being a blood relative. And if that person did not say they were, then the rapper would kill her. *or him*.

I'll just repeat my first judgement: Sick; Twisted. In that order.

Well, it's one of those fun little questions, eh?

I mean ... it is a curiosity. Is there a good secular argument against adult consentual incest?

But, then again, it is legal to marry your 1st cousin in Texas. You may even be able to marry a cow in Texas, but the jury is still out on that one.

Honestly What kind of socity would have incest as an everyday part of life. That is just plain wrong. It even hurts to think about it.

but... I'll play along.
my reasons for being against Beast... err... incenst is as follows.

1) makes family reunions reeaaallly confusing... (hi you remember martha, my sister whom I married... this is janet, my younger sister/daughter...)

2) if taken to the extreme, the genetic material begins to break down, that causes the defects and not all defects are physical.

Let me put this as... un delicatly as I can.

First of all, you have to be a sick pervert to put this thread up.

Second of all, the person who is consenting may not actually be consenting at all! The person in the wrong could just claim they are, and threaten the person they are actually raping as being a blood relative. And if that person did not say they were, then the rapper would kill her. *or him*.

I'll just repeat my first judgement: Sick; Twisted. In that order.

as much of a repugnant thought it maybe.. there are people out there.. first cousins, brothers and sisters who infact may very well much like to be married and have sexual relations... so given our advanced birth control methods.. shouldn't these people be allowed... not all incest cases are rape

However much I wish to believe your statistics, putting fetus's to death because they are "defective" is about as sick as putting a "homosexual" person down as a fetus just because we would have "advanced" technology. This does not mean we can condone that. It will always be wrongful, immoral practice only done by the sinful and the lustful. No one in there right mind would consent to interfamily marragies when they know the consequences, especially if they wanted a healthy, normal family. Humans are not dogs, by the way. Humans are humans, do not put them with "pure" breeding, there is and cannot be such a thing.

Incest, almost by definition, can hardly ever be "consensual." Consensual sex means two informed adults, neither of whom has undue influence over the other, agreeing to have sex. Since almost all incest involves one older member and one younger member of the same family, there is almost always some undue influence.

oh come on! incest?!! arent u supposed to have a mental barrier against things like that? its just....wrong

Incest, almost by definition, can hardly ever be "consensual." Consensual sex means two informed adults, neither of whom has undue influence over the other, agreeing to have sex. Since almost all incest involves one older member and one younger member of the same family, there is almost always some undue influence.

that is an over generalization and simplification.. there are hundreds of cases where first cousins have sexual relations.. it is not always parental vs child.. immediate family, and what we think incest is extends outside the parents/siblings enviornment to encomase cousins/aunts/uncles..

that is an over generalization and simplification.. there are hundreds of cases where first cousins have sexual relations.. it is not always parental vs child.. immediate family, and what we think incest is extends outside the parents/siblings enviornment to encomase cousins/aunts/uncles..

In Britain first cousins can marry legally, it's not deemed as incest. Incest is sexual relations between sibs, or a parent and child or Grandparent and grandchild.

Incest is socially and morally wrong and apart from being medically dodgy (in-breeding) it's nearly always phsycologically devestating to one or both individuals involved.

There are cases of brothers and sisters, separated at birth for any number of reasons (adoption) who meet up and fall in love only to find out later that they are related, in nearly every case the relationship ends, not because of any legal reasons but because inherant morality kicks in and one, or both of them cannot handle it.

I honestly can't see any reason for doing it. But as far as I'm concerned, as long as they're both concentual adults, and not in a porn movie, I don't care what they do in bed.
Of course, to be fair (aka evil), then if they have children they should be forced to completely financhally support the child.. off of government funding. Which won't be hard if it's one of those rare cases where the child has less defects then benifiets.. but those are rare.

Besides, if I don;t have to take part, I honestly don't care.
Under my rule they'd all be shot anyway, why not let them enjoy themselves first?

In Britain first cousins can marry legally, it's not deemed as incest. Incest is sexual relations between sibs, or a parent and child or Grandparent and grandchild.

Incest is socially and morally wrong and apart from being medically dodgy (in-breeding) it's nearly always phsycologically devestating to one or both individuals involved.

There are cases of brothers and sisters, separated at birth for any number of reasons (adoption) who meet up and fall in love only to find out later that they are related, in nearly every case the relationship ends, not because of any legal reasons but because inherant morality kicks in and one, or both of them cannot handle it.

in this country (The United States) marrying first cousins is deemed incestual, and punishable by law.. also from what i know of biology.. first cousins are too close in blood relation, and often reveal the same genetic disorders that sibling incestual relations do.. but of course incest in britian would be more acceptable since there is such a rich history of it there.. and in most european countries..

in this country (The United States) marrying first cousins is deemed incestual, and punishable by law.. also from what i know of biology.. first cousins are too close in blood relation, and often reveal the same genetic disorders that sibling incestual relations do.. but of course incest in britian would be more acceptable since there is such a rich history of it there.. and in most european countries..

Apparently my father's siblings each married into a vastly different gene pool, then. All of the little genetic flukes that manifested themselves in me (unusually high metabolism, lack of incisors, hypersensitivity to light) have failed to manifest themselves in any of my cousins.

I would also like to note there are far many more instances of incestual relationships in nature then there are homosexual instances.. so.. as a matter of nature and science, can't we say that incest is more acceptable then homosexuality ? if not atleast equally so ?

I would also like to note that not every incestual relationships produces defected children.. there is only an INCREASED risk.. because recessive traits are more LIKELY to occur.. so because defects to occur in every instant dosn't mean they dont happen at all

So can't incest be socially acceptable... if the only argument against incest is birth defects, with todays modern techonologies they can be identified readily, and defective fetus's aborted within an acceptable time frame.. given these new developments, hasn't the argument against incest outside the context of religion degraded so that a truely secular government should be ready to accept it ?

damn.. screwed up that poll.. dosn't let u edit it T_T all well to try and help people who are confused.. it should read is

"conestual incest RIGHT?"
Well, your reasoning is absurd. So we don't have to worry about incest, since "defective" babies can just be killed? Who gives you the damn right to decide if a baby is "defective" or not? That's freaking eugenics, or an art Hitler loved to perfect.

In Britain first cousins can marry legally, it's not deemed as incest. Incest is sexual relations between sibs, or a parent and child or Grandparent and grandchild.

Yes, well in Canada, and I believe most of the US, it's incest if it's between any two people less distantly related then third cousin. Where first cousin's is incest.

Incest is socially and morally wrong and apart from being medically dodgy (in-breeding) it's nearly always phsycologically devestating to one or both individuals involved.

I don't think this "theory" has any proof backing it up.
At least not any proof that can be attributed to other things, like social pressures and threats from people outside the relationship.
Although it is medically dodgy, but that doesn't mean all side effects are bad.

There are cases of brothers and sisters, separated at birth for any number of reasons (adoption) who meet up and fall in love only to find out later that they are related, in nearly every case the relationship ends, not because of any legal reasons but because inherant morality kicks in and one, or both of them cannot handle it.

Firstly, I doubt there is an "inherant morality", as morales are those taught to you. What you're more then likely thinking of, is social pressure. In which case it's not the fault of the individuals in the relationship that they break apart, it's the fault of the people outside it who threaten, put down, shun, and any number of other bad social things to the couple.
I'm sure not many people who will reply to this thread have ever had everyone around them, freinds, family, neighbors, everyone, shun them, call them names, and threaten them and their partner, just because of who they chose to relate to. This will cause most relationships to break up anyway, and saying it any other way is the same as saying inter-racial relationships are "inherantly wtong, just those who practise it havn't had their morales kick in yet", or the same for homosexuality, or anything else.
There is no such thing as "inherant morales", since inherant means they are born with them, and can not change them. Feral children raised by animals don't grow up with human values, or the morales of their biological parents, they grow up with those "morales" of the animals that raise them. Same with children isolated from people (I'm specificly thinking of a case in the US a while back that was used to prove language aquistsion theories), they don't automaticly have these "morales" from birth, they have only what is taught to them.
Humans are social creatures, and as such our mind has devloped to easily give in to social pressures. This is why brainwashing works so well, it usually involves lots of social pressure.

Well, your reasoning is absurd. So we don't have to worry about incest, since "defective" babies can just be killed? Who gives you the damn right to decide if a baby is "defective" or not? That's freaking eugenics, or an art Hitler loved to perfect.

advanced birth control methods are able to detect gentic disfunction and disablity early on.. so that an abortion can be induced leagally... and i make the generalization (perhaps im wrong in doing so) that those people who are pro-choice, are almost more prone to be pro-gay marriage.. so using the same arguments in support for gay marriage with the "benifits" pro-choice support has given society.. it should be resonalbe to think that with the birth control methods at our hands, people would be more accepting to incestual relationships (given then are consentual)

I am not fond of it.

But I really can't see what would be wrong with it. A lot of those stories about birth defects and screwed up gene pools seem to be old wives' tales if anything. Sure, there's a chance of such, there's a chance for almost anything.

Feh. Maybe I just have no morals, but I don't think it's our place to say if it is wrong or right. Only the people involved can determine such.

-Asylum Nova

homosexuallity... now Incest... what's next? Beastiality?

There's nothing wrong with consensual beastiality, either - the only problem being that it takes great expertise to be sure that the animal is consenting. Please do us all a favor and open your mind; you're living in the 21st century, the Catholic Church no longer has universal power, and "Satan" has triumphed. There will be no "second coming," homosexuals are not evil, and scientists the world over are working fiercely towards integral body modification (making ourseves into biogenetic androids via scientific and technological body enhancement). Go home - your war is lost, your arguments long-defeated, and I sit here with my androgenous hairstyle and stacks of Japanese gay porn wishing you would just give up. Trust me, it's no use.

Obviously a "Red State" question.

The UK allowing first cousin marriages? I saw some pretty freaky looking Brits when I lived over there, just as well the Royal family got out of the habit. Look what a couple of generations of marrying outside the family did for them. :D

Well, your reasoning is absurd. So we don't have to worry about incest, since "defective" babies can just be killed? Who gives you the damn right to decide if a baby is "defective" or not? That's freaking eugenics, or an art Hitler loved to perfect.

Eugenics is not entirely evil - Hitler has simply given it a bad name. I see nothing wrong with scientifically improving the human race, given that we find the right time and political climate to do so, and it is not done in such a way that those without improved bodies are put at great disadvantage; in other words, we should worry about financial and human-rights equality for all the nations of the world before moving on to eugenics. Hitler's great eugenic evil was that he planned to make "aryans" phyisically and mentally superior, and to gradually wipe out those who did not qualify for eugenic modification. The evil is not in eugenics itself, but in eugenics' potential as a scientific weapon of great power - the hydrogen bomb for a new age of political and socioeconomic evil.

Incest is terrible in humans. Nature prefers variety, and incest directly goes against that. Inbreeding is one of the worst things that can ever happen to the human gene pool.

Incest, almost by definition, can hardly ever be "consensual." Consensual sex means two informed adults, neither of whom has undue influence over the other, agreeing to have sex. Since almost all incest involves one older member and one younger member of the same family, there is almost always some undue influence.

You act as though you have great experience in the matter; do you? Are you some sort of cultural anthropologist? I would love to see statistics supporting your arguments.

Let me put this as... un delicatly as I can.

First of all, you have to be a sick pervert to put this thread up.

Second of all, the person who is consenting may not actually be consenting at all! The person in the wrong could just claim they are, and threaten the person they are actually raping as being a blood relative. And if that person did not say they were, then the rapper would kill her. *or him*.

I'll just repeat my first judgement: Sick; Twisted. In that order.

Please don't flame; "Pervert" is simply a hateful judgement of someone else's actions and beliefs: "I disagree with this person's actions, therefore this person is wrong and evil."

Also, please correct your punctuation and grammar. Mind you, I don't demand perfection, but readability would be nice - it hardly speaks well of a debater when they can't complete a sentence without using nonexistent punctuation marks and misspelling every other word.

I still think consentual incest is wrong because sure, the two parties could agree on it, but when the child is born, the child will have one of the worst lives you could imagine. Think of having your mom and your dad be related, what kind of ridicule you would have to go through every day, on top of that probably being born with birth defects and deseases. It should not be right because of the pain it will inflict on the child.

I still think consentual incest is wrong because sure, the two parties could agree on it, but when the child is born, the child will have one of the worst lives you could imagine. Think of having your mom and your dad be related, what kind of ridicule you would have to go through every day, on top of that probably being born with birth defects and deseases. It should not be right because of the pain it will inflict on the child.

This argument has already been defeated. Please reread the thread.

on top of that probably being born with birth defects and deseases.
I wish people would stop saying "genetic defects". It is such a subjective term, and is incorrect. Certain things considered "defects", such as ADD, actually turn out to have their advantages. Absolute and serious genetic defects are things such as haemophilia. Inbreeding increases the chance of having homogenous haemophilic alleles, and this is why it is wrong. It is very bad for the children indeed, but people must understand just what it is that is bad. It's not that the foetus is defective or anything, it's that it increases the likelihood of homogenous disavantageous alleles. As I said earlier, nature loves variety--that's why sex developed--and incest kind of goes against that.

Apparently my father's siblings each married into a vastly different gene pool, then. All of the little genetic flukes that manifested themselves in me (unusually high metabolism, lack of incisors, hypersensitivity to light) have failed to manifest themselves in any of my cousins.

Vampire? :eek:

nature loves variety--that's why sex developed--and incest kind of goes against that.

I thought sex developed to keep nature going...

Vampire? :eek:
He said "lack of incisors", not "elongated incisors". And incisors are not the teeth typically associated with vampires, those are the canines. Incisors are the teeth between the canines, when the canines are present.

I thought sex developed to keep nature going...
Asexual reproduction long predates sexual reproduction. I believe binary fission is the most primitive of all forms of reproduction we're aware of, to be precise. It is hypothesised that sex first developed primarily as a defence against disease and parasites. According to simulations done, without disease, asexual organisms are far superior to any sexual counterpart, because they can reproduce far, far faster. But when you bring things such as pathogens in, it is quite advantageous.

If it's consentual then whatever. However, pregnancy is another issue: inbreeding can bring out recessive traits which really really aren't good.

Ew. The thought of having sex with my grand mother is disgusting, and the idea of you having sex with yours is just as bad. You sick little man.

Asexual reproduction long predates sexual reproduction. I believe binary fission is the most primitive of all forms of reproduction we're aware of, to be precise. It is hypothesised that sex first developed primarily as a defence against disease and parasites. According to simulations done, without disease, asexual organisms are far superior to any sexual counterpart, because they can reproduce far, far faster. But when you bring things such as pathogens in, it is quite advantageous.

I wonder if asexual reproduction would feel as good as sexual reproduction.

Incest is only bad if done over many generations as in closed societies or through royal families. Studies have shown that there are no statistically significant ill effects from the occasional consanguinous mating, even if a child is produced.

That's pretty much why its considered sinful (if society deems it a bad idea for legit reasons it becomes a moral 'sin') in order to keep it from commonly occurring.

But, if its really consensual, I don't care.

INTERESTING READS:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/22/011445.php

http://www.consang.net/summary.html#BS6

He said "lack of incisors", not "elongated incisors". And incisors are not the teeth typically associated with vampires, those are the canines. Incisors are the teeth between the canines, when the canines are present.

Yeah I know but with the incisors out of the way the canines would be able to grip more flesh.

Ew. The thought of having sex with my grand mother is disgusting, and the idea of you having sex with yours is just as bad. You sick little man.


I'm with him/her.

advanced birth control methods are able to detect gentic disfunction and disablity early on.. so that an abortion can be induced leagally... and i make the generalization (perhaps im wrong in doing so) that those people who are pro-choice, are almost more prone to be pro-gay marriage.. so using the same arguments in support for gay marriage with the "benifits" pro-choice support has given society.. it should be resonalbe to think that with the birth control methods at our hands, people would be more accepting to incestual relationships (given then are consentual)
But what determines a "defect"? Some may think the color of your skin is a "defect." What then? And if so, is that any reason to kill it? Again, that leads to Hitler's idea of "cleansing" the population by removing the "defects."

I wish people would stop saying "genetic defects". It is such a subjective term, and is incorrect. Certain things considered "defects", such as ADD, actually turn out to have their advantages. Absolute and serious genetic defects are things such as haemophilia. Inbreeding increases the chance of having homogenous haemophilic alleles, and this is why it is wrong. It is very bad for the children indeed, but people must understand just what it is that is bad. It's not that the foetus is defective or anything, it's that it increases the likelihood of homogenous disavantageous alleles. As I said earlier, nature loves variety--that's why sex developed--and incest kind of goes against that.

It doesn't even increase the likelyhood all that much. I read a medical paper a few years back that put the birth defect rate for a typical male/female coupling at 2% of all live births. Among cousins, that number climbed to 3%. In brother/sister or father/daughter relationships, that number was about 5%.

So for 95% of incestual relationships birth defects simply aren't an issue. For those 5%, the birth defects experienced are only rarely serious. Inbreeding doesn't become a major problem until several generations of family have had incestual relationships. After as few as three subsequent generations of incest birth defect rates can exceed 50% (e.g. brother/sister have two kids, who have two kids of their own, who in turn have children).

But in response to the original question: I abhor the idea of incestual relationships, and numerous double blind studies have shown that our aversion to incest is genetic and NOT societal. Like most animals, our pheromones have a distinct signature. The pheromones of related humans are extremely similar, and we have a subconcious aversion to mating with anybody who smells like us.

That said, if two adults REALLY want to ignore all of this and hook up, then they should have the ability to do so. Modern society is generally more accepting of "alternative" relationships, and modern technology could prevent the proliferation of genetic abnormalities, so there are really no valid secular arguments against these relationships today.

There's nothing wrong with consensual beastiality, either - the only problem being that it takes great expertise to be sure that the animal is consenting. Please do us all a favor and open your mind; you're living in the 21st century, the Catholic Church no longer has universal power, and "Satan" has triumphed. There will be no "second coming," homosexuals are not evil, and scientists the world over are working fiercely towards integral body modification (making ourseves into biogenetic androids via scientific and technological body enhancement). Go home - your war is lost, your arguments long-defeated, and I sit here with my androgenous hairstyle and stacks of Japanese gay porn wishing you would just give up. Trust me, it's no use.
Moron. Faith is at extremely high levels now, and if the US election and the recent backlash against the attacks on Christmas are any indication, it will continue. "Satan" has not triumphed, there will be a second coming, and homosexuality is evil. The war is lost; for the secular side. (Since when are religious people opposed to biogenetic androids?)

Eugenics is not entirely evil - Hitler has simply given it a bad name. I see nothing wrong with scientifically improving the human race, given that we find the right time and political climate to do so, and it is not done in such a way that those without improved bodies are put at great disadvantage; in other words, we should worry about financial and human-rights equality for all the nations of the world before moving on to eugenics. Hitler's great eugenic evil was that he planned to make "aryans" phyisically and mentally superior, and to gradually wipe out those who did not qualify for eugenic modification. The evil is not in eugenics itself, but in eugenics' potential as a scientific weapon of great power - the hydrogen bomb for a new age of political and socioeconomic evil.
Except for the fact that eugenics involves "purging" those who society sees as "defective."

advanced birth control methods are able to detect gentic disfunction and disablity early on.. so that an abortion can be induced leagally... and i make the generalization (perhaps im wrong in doing so) that those people who are pro-choice, are almost more prone to be pro-gay marriage.. so using the same arguments in support for gay marriage with the "benifits" pro-choice support has given society.. it should be resonalbe to think that with the birth control methods at our hands, people would be more accepting to incestual relationships (given then are consentual)

Heterosexual activity is consentual and there is a heck of a lot more to this than question of consent.

Incest right?? Come now, incest has been wrong becuase of the genetic defects casued by it and it should stay that way. Just look at the the stereo typical inbread hic; do we really want more people like that?

Let me put this as... un delicatly as I can.

First of all, you have to be a sick pervert to put this thread up.

Second of all, the person who is consenting may not actually be consenting at all! The person in the wrong could just claim they are, and threaten the person they are actually raping as being a blood relative. And if that person did not say they were, then the rapper would kill her. *or him*.

I'll just repeat my first judgement: Sick; Twisted. In that order.

I agree that incest is just plain wrong, but with regards to your second point, you could say that about any sex act. I assume by rapper you mean rapist?

IF the sexual relation is consentual.. (legally) which has happend... and either controception is used.. or abortion to filter out the defective fetus's.. what then is left to argue against incest.. devoid of relgiious/moral belifs

Agreed. But personally, I would never want to engage in it myself… it just seems to *ugh*. Just like I’d never want to engage in homosexuality… though I have nothing against homosexuals and defend their rights.

But what determines a "defect"? Some may think the color of your skin is a "defect." What then? And if so, is that any reason to kill it? Again, that leads to Hitler's idea of "cleansing" the population by removing the "defects."

... medical science determins what a defect is.. not some authoritarian figure.. im talking about science and the use of legal abortion to stop medical condtions brought on by rare recessive traits... not what hitlers idea of cleansing is.. stop brining him up.. im talking about metal disfunction, disfiguration.. all reasons on which people get abortions today. Also like other people have pointed out.. the occurance of genetic disorders still occurs in only a small percentage. So even this issue which is basically the basis for disallowing incest maybe inconsequential.

There's nothing wrong with consensual beastiality, either - the only problem being that it takes great expertise to be sure that the animal is consenting


EWWWW.

Yet, I'll be the first to admit what I affectionately call the "eww factor" is not grounds for legislation or discrimination against something. The thing I have against incest, I guess, is that it can(often?) develop during childhood or adolescence, which is a time where humans are particularly vulnerable and impresionnable. Same thing with incestual relationships where there would be an inter-generational problem: one of the two has clearly been at some point a figure of authority. There is a lot of room for possible abuse.

I've yet to hear about a truly consensual and healthy incestual relationship between adults... But I do admit that it can be possible. I'm not truly comfortable with that notion, but adults are old enough to decide what's good for them, and so I'm against trying to decide in their place by enforcing legislation. Although I still find the idea icky.

I put bestiality rather in the same category. It's even more icky, but if neither the person nor the animal is victim of mistreatement... Let's just say I'm more comfortable with turning a blind eye and not thinking about than elaborating legislation and insinuating myself in their private life to try to stop them from doing it.

*shudders*


stacks of Japanese gay porn ...

I envy you. Where'd you get it? :D

I'm pro-abortion, but I think it's sick hearing people saying "filter out the defective fetuses" seriously how could you say that? Don't any of you have a friend with FAS (even a mild case, you probably wouldn't know) or some other disease such as that. If we arbitrarily "filter" (read: kill) these people, some of my best friends would be dead. Well probably not, because they're already born, but again using the example of FAS, you're talking killing someone based solely on the fact that they have an oddly shaped face or a slight mental disorder.

P.S. I see nothing wrong with consentual incest (although I do feel very wrong typing that) besides the fact that in nearly all cases it probably stems from some screwed up childhood. Although I would hope the parties involved would be smart enough to use condoms/birth control pills.

I think the debate needs to leave the angle of genetic abnormalities. (Before anyone tries to attack me for claiming that abnormalities exist, I'd like to say that the whole 'everyone is equally acceptable in every way' concept doesn't hold any weight with me. But that's a rant for another time.)

One generation of 1st cousin-level incest raises the chance of serious genetic defects by a negligible degree; less than 1%. 'Superficial' genetic modifications are approximately 4% more likely. Brother/sister or parent/child relations result in more raised chances of defect, but I couldn't hunt down any specific numbers; sorry. This is still not enough of a problem to warrant panic over. As someone mentioned earlier, it takes around 3 incestuous generations for flaws to become significantly likely.

Looking at it from a purely biological standpoint, I see nothing wrong with incest. The chance of mutation is within acceptable limits, there is no inbred incompatibility in genetic material; the whole thing is scientifically 'kosher.' Sure, the genes are a little less mixed and there's less variety of genotypes possible, but that doesn't strike me as important in today's society.

The only possible objection to incest nowadays is, regrettably, morality-based. I am proud to admit that I am a Roman Catholic, and as such I disagree with any kind of incest. I am not exactly sure which specific Biblical passages refer to the forbiddal of incest, but that's why we have the Magisterium. (I'm even more at a loss for Talmudic or Quranic verses, so don't look at me. :P) So, pretty much, a truly secular government would allow incest on virtually any level. But that's why I'm glad the U.S. government isn't truly secular. Yet...

I'm pro-abortion, but I think it's sick hearing people saying "filter out the defective fetuses" seriously how could you say that? Don't any of you have a friend with FAS (even a mild case, you probably wouldn't know) or some other disease such as that. If we arbitrarily "filter" (read: kill) these people, some of my best friends would be dead. Well probably not, because they're already born, but again using the example of FAS, you're talking killing someone based solely on the fact that they have an oddly shaped face or a slight mental disorder.

P.S. I see nothing wrong with consentual incest (although I do feel very wrong typing that) besides the fact that in nearly all cases it probably stems from some screwed up childhood. Although I would hope the parties involved would be smart enough to use condoms/birth control pills.

.... but ur pro-choice... if you look at the statistics surrounding abortion and the reasons why women get them, you'll find 95% of them are completed as convience not nessesity.. even more basiless grounds are used to terminate a pregnancy just like, wanting to put off parenting.. where you are destroying a perfectly good fetus.. this your ok way.. but filtering out genetic disoders makes you uncomfortable ? perhaps you need to rethink your postion!

i would also like to note i am pro-life ^_^

.... but ur pro-choice... if you look at the statistics surrounding abortion and the reasons why women get them, you'll find 95% of them are completed as convience not nessesity.. even more basiless grounds are used to terminate a pregnancy just like, wanting to put off parenting.. where you are destroying a perfectly good fetus.. this your ok way.. but filtering out genetic disoders makes you uncomfortable ? perhaps you need to rethink your postion!

i would also like to note i am pro-life ^_^

A very good point indeed.

My problems with making abortion illegal stems from two things, one the fact that women will do it anyway (not as many, but it'll still happen) and two is I believe in the right to chose.

That said, in all other ways I am pretty much against abortion. I would never do it (well, I'm a guy, so I couldn't, but my wife/girlfriend/whatever would be hard pressed to try and kill my child), I would attempt to talk someone out of it, etc. I would always promote adoption over abortion any day of the week, but I still can't say in every case abortion should be illegal.

He said "lack of incisors", not "elongated incisors". And incisors are not the teeth typically associated with vampires, those are the canines. Incisors are the teeth between the canines, when the canines are present.


FYI, I'm a female. For further clarification, there is not a single pointed tooth in my mouth.

FYI, I'm a female. For further clarification, there is not a single pointed tooth in my mouth.
did they get pulled out?

or filed down?

I want to file all my teeth into razor sharp points.

GAAAAAAAA!

or filed down?

I want to file all my teeth into razor sharp points.

GAAAAAAAA!

Not me. I do enough damage biting my tongue and cheeks as it is. I'd accidentally sever something! :eek:

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the amish people a perfect example of what happens when inbreeding over several generations occur? A lot the amish children are born with mutations and I honestly think that in about 10-20 generations from now, no 'normal' will be born among them.

Sick, Sick, SICK!!!

'Nuff said.

I don't think that incest is in any way a good idea, but I don't think it should be banned.

homosexuallity... now Incest... what's next? Beastiality?
Note that a key word in the thread is consensual.

But, then again, it is legal to marry your 1st cousin in Texas. You may even be able to marry a cow in Texas, but the jury is still out on that one.
What? So you can marry in your own family, you may be able to marry an animal, but you can't marry an adult of the same sex as you?

Really makes them look like rednecks!

there's nothing wrong with the act itself really. what is wrong and highly damaging to the gene pool is any offspring relatives have together.

ah.... this is an odd, slightly disturbing subject.

I do not like to judge others, so I suppose if it was truly consensual, then...

But on a personal note: GROSS!! :eek:
The thought of having... with my sibling or any other family member... that is just... *shudders and gags*... Nasty.

There are cases of brothers and sisters, separated at birth for any number of reasons (adoption) who meet up and fall in love only to find out later that they are related, in nearly every case the relationship ends, not because of any legal reasons but because inherant morality kicks in and one, or both of them cannot handle it.

There's no such such thing as inherant morality. Morality is learned from parents and society at large.

There's no such such thing as inherant morality. Morality is learned from parents and society at large.
well morality came from somewhere, didn't it?

Moron. Faith is at extremely high levels now, and if the US election and the recent backlash against the attacks on Christmas are any indication, it will continue. "Satan" has not triumphed, there will be a second coming, and homosexuality is evil. The war is lost; for the secular side. (Since when are religious people opposed to biogenetic androids?)

Ok, first of, the US is not the entire world, stop pretending that it is.

Secondly, bush won, not because of faith or anything related to it, he won because he was very good at terrifying the public. A fairly significant number of his voters were democrats who voted for him, basicly "because he'll scare people away from attacking us again". (Which is an incredibly illogical belief, but since when did people make any sense?)

Faith's levels are actually fairly low in the US - the vast majority of "faithful" at least amongst christians are what you could consider "armchair christians". They believe on paper, but not in person, if you know what I mean.

Homosexuality isn't evil. If your god didn't want gays, he shouldn't have made them. He made EVERYTHING remember? Besides, good and evil are nothing more than points of view.

And now back to your regularly scheduled topic...

Moron. Faith is at extremely high levels now, and if the US election and the recent backlash against the attacks on Christmas are any indication, it will continue. "Satan" has not triumphed, there will be a second coming, and homosexuality is evil. The war is lost; for the secular side. (Since when are religious people opposed to biogenetic androids?)
Well, if all "faithful" folks are like yourself, the Christian god doesn't have much hope left. I find it quite disheartening that you would resort to flat retort and insults instead of reason. "Faith" is rising in the United States, and has been at high levels in Central America, India and the Middle East for quite some time. However, Japan, Britain, most of Europe, China, much of developed Africa, and most of the rest of the world is largely irreligious. The majority of the religious world isn't Christian - Islam holds the majority of world believers, with Christianity and Buddhism in tow, followed by Hinduism.
As for your complaints about "attacks on Christmas," I'd like to point out that Christmas isn't even a prodominantly Christian holiday. The legend of Santa Claus comes from the Norse god Woedin (one of several spellings), who was a jolly man with a long, white beard who flew through the sky in a cart pulled by an eight-legged steed, and landed on people's roofs in the middle of the night to slip down their chimneys and give them gifts, with most of this activity happening around the winter solstice (yule). The Christmas tree is an extension of the old Yule custom of decorating a healthy tree near your house with artistic trinkets, good-luck talismans and religious offerings around solstice-time. Such trees often had circles of candles burning around them on Yule's eve. Likewise, the Yule log and Christmas bonfire are both remnants of Norse and Saxon (Irish/Scottish) Pagan ceremonial tradition around solstice-time. It was traditional to burn an herbed and willowed log in one's home on the eve of Yule, and to spend the night partying and dancing around a bonfire with other revelers while the local holy man chanted prayers and blessings. The birth-of-Christ myth is based heavily on the birth of the Persian deity Mithra; the birth of a special child to a poor, unimpregnated shepherd's wife, the arrival of kings and scholars with gifts, the special arrangement of the stars, it's all there.
In other words, by rights we should be saying "Merry Yule," "Merry Solstice" or "Merry Saturnalia" instead of "Merry Christmas."

I envy you. Where'd you get it? :D

I have my sources... Chinese black market, mostly.

I don't dispute that there is a higher potention for emotional and psychological hurt, but that's not grounds to declare something "immoral" in my mind.

Im against Incest, but what you do in your bedroom is none of my business, nor is it anyone elses. Same with Homosexuality. We have no right to tell you what you do in your bedroom, as long as no harm comes to anyone.

Now, Christians, heres a question for you. Adam and Eve. First two humans on Earth. So how do we have 6 Billion + people on the earth, if we started with just two? If god truely intended for us to grow further, why only create two people and have incest?

i would also like to note i am pro-life ^_^
I noticed.
Would you please cite sources when making such rediculous claims? I would appreciate it. I personally believe that prohibiting abortion is barbaric and cruel, but that's besides the point. Prohibiting abortion is impractical - look, if you will, at what happened with the prohibition of alcohol: alcohol consumption rose dramatically, and the production of booze went into the hands of criminals instead of being handled by government-regulated firms.

I noticed.
Would you please cite sources when making such rediculous claims? I would appreciate it. I personally believe that prohibiting abortion is barbaric and cruel, but that's besides the point. Prohibiting abortion is impractical - look, if you will, at what happened with the prohibition of alcohol: alcohol consumption rose dramatically, and the production of booze went into the hands of criminals instead of being handled by government-regulated firms.
If you look at pre-Roe statistics abortions, even back alley ones, are much below current levels. Some pro-abortion advocates from the 70's have even admitted that they inflated numbers on illegal abortions simply to futher their cause. Not to say that coat-hanger abortions wouldn't happen, but that the common conception (which you may not have) of massive numbers of these occurances isn't true.

The arguments against this practice, such as birth defects and genetic and DNA corruption aside, incest whether consentual or not qualifies for a big EWWWW!

Its just wrong, people. No amount of PC whitewashing will change that.

If you look at pre-Roe statistics abortions, even back alley ones, are much below current levels. Some pro-abortion advocates from the 70's have even admitted that they inflated numbers on illegal abortions simply to futher their cause. Not to say that coat-hanger abortions wouldn't happen, but that the common conception (which you may not have) of massive numbers of these occurances isn't true.
Please cite your sources.

Wtf?

Dude, no.

Please cite your sources.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, is quoted as saying this...

How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the "morality" of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason which had to be done was permissible.

Source: Bernard Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America (New York: Doubleday, 1979)

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, is quoted as saying this...

Source: Bernard Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America (New York: Doubleday, 1979)
So there was some Machiavellian action going on within the anti-abortion movement. Would you please cite those "pre-Roe statistics?"

I noticed.
Would you please cite sources when making such rediculous claims? I would appreciate it. I personally believe that prohibiting abortion is barbaric and cruel, but that's besides the point. Prohibiting abortion is impractical - look, if you will, at what happened with the prohibition of alcohol: alcohol consumption rose dramatically, and the production of booze went into the hands of criminals instead of being handled by government-regulated firms.

consumption of alcohol is very different from allowing (what i see in my eyes) the murder of children daily.. i would rather it be regulated, prohibited and pushed underground if need be just to send the single that we will not tolerate the idea that someone (usually a woman) has the right to decide the fate of her child (life or death) without consequences.

if you were suggesting my claims on statistics for abortion rates.. here is once source

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

which i belive to be quite unbias, but if you feel they arn't say so.. i can dig up simiarl studies showing the same results

Go incest!

I'm all for incest. If it weren't for those stupid "Puritanical beliefs," my sex life would have been bliss! :p

And abortion sucks! :mad:

It's evil! :mp5:

I voted on the poll and was very surprised to find out how many were ready to legalize it. I hope that most of the votes were in jest! I mean ,is the person who proposed this poll serious? :eek:

Well, if all "faithful" folks are like yourself, the Christian god doesn't have much hope left. I find it quite disheartening that you would resort to flat retort and insults instead of reason. "Faith" is rising in the United States, and has been at high levels in Central America, India and the Middle East for quite some time. However, Japan, Britain, most of Europe, China, much of developed Africa, and most of the rest of the world is largely irreligious. The majority of the religious world isn't Christian - Islam holds the majority of world believers, with Christianity and Buddhism in tow, followed by Hinduism.
As for your complaints about "attacks on Christmas," I'd like to point out that Christmas isn't even a prodominantly Christian holiday. The legend of Santa Claus comes from the Norse god Woedin (one of several spellings), who was a jolly man with a long, white beard who flew through the sky in a cart pulled by an eight-legged steed, and landed on people's roofs in the middle of the night to slip down their chimneys and give them gifts, with most of this activity happening around the winter solstice (yule). The Christmas tree is an extension of the old Yule custom of decorating a healthy tree near your house with artistic trinkets, good-luck talismans and religious offerings around solstice-time. Such trees often had circles of candles burning around them on Yule's eve. Likewise, the Yule log and Christmas bonfire are both remnants of Norse and Saxon (Irish/Scottish) Pagan ceremonial tradition around solstice-time. It was traditional to burn an herbed and willowed log in one's home on the eve of Yule, and to spend the night partying and dancing around a bonfire with other revelers while the local holy man chanted prayers and blessings. The birth-of-Christ myth is based heavily on the birth of the Persian deity Mithra; the birth of a special child to a poor, unimpregnated shepherd's wife, the arrival of kings and scholars with gifts, the special arrangement of the stars, it's all there.
In other words, by rights we should be saying "Merry Yule," "Merry Solstice" or "Merry Saturnalia" instead of "Merry Christmas."

Actually there's about a dozen differant sources for santa clause. The Holly King, for example. There are probably a dozen or more seperate bits and pieces of mythology that got fused into the modern santa. What's more, the guy varies alot from country to country. In some places he still travels with "black peter" for example.

I don't know about that version of Odin (same guy, differant spelling/pronunciation). I've never once heard him accused of slipping into people's houses to leave presents. It would be a bit out of character for him really. (Tangentally, the eight legged horse is Sleipnir, who also happens to be one of Loki's sons, due to some serious lack of forsight on his part. You've really got to feel sorry for Loki sometimes.)

Actually this sounds like the kind of story that crops up when the christians have taken root, and they start rewriting the old legends to undermine the respect the others had for the old gods. The average norse berserk would have a hard time respecting a guy that snuck down a chimney to give stuff away. They were all about kicking in the door to take stuff with them.

It's like Ireland with that St Patrick vs the Snakes thing. The legend of a guy getting rid of all the snakes predates christian influences in ireland by quite abit. He just used to be somebody else.

But yeah, in most places, christmas is about as un-christian a day as you can get. Much like easter. They didn't even manage to corrupt the name of easter very much. It still has the original goddess's name (more or less).

Recurring phrase of mine: "Chsistmas and easter: yet more pagan holidays brought to you by the christians."

Marriage between blood relatives should be banned, incestuous sexual relations should be permitted (I personally dissaprove, but banning it is still wrong.). Incestuous couples should do their best to avoid having children as the handing down of similar genetic material is harmful in the long run. The reason we mate with non-relatives is because having two different sets of chromosomes allows the pairings to correct potential faults. Having the same set of chromosomes means that faults cannot be corrected. Genetic illnesses are far more likely to occur.

What do you call it when a person has faith in God, and Christ... but has lost all faith and hope in his fellow christians and their perversion of the bible to suit their own political needs?

Is that person still a christian?

So there was some Machiavellian action going on within the anti-abortion movement. Would you please cite those "pre-Roe statistics?"
No, he was a pro-abortion activist. Then he changed over, and admitted that he fabricated the numbers in order to to further the cause. There is no way to be completely accurate in guaging the number of illegal abortions going on Pre-Roe, however, if you look at the numbers from when Roe was official to about 1984, abortion measurements go up almost uniformly. Abortions per 1000 live births peaked in 1984 at 364, the total number of abortions increased until 1990. In the first seven years after Roe v Wade, the number of abortions per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 increased. All of this suggests that, following the complete legalization of abortion caused by Roe v Wade, the number of abortions was more than the old legal + illegal.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact.htm

did they get pulled out?

No. Every tooth in my mouth is naturally flat. They have been like that all of my life.

Incest, almost by definition, can hardly ever be "consensual." Consensual sex means two informed adults, neither of whom has undue influence over the other, agreeing to have sex. Since almost all incest involves one older member and one younger member of the same family, there is almost always some undue influence.

Hmm... "Since almost all sex involves one older member and one younger member of the same species, there is almost always some undue influence."

Just because I don't want to make laws against certain actions, that doesn't mean I want to force everyone in my society to engage in such things... in that case I think that the poll is misleading. I neither wish to institutionalize nor to entirely abolish any action I do not wish to take part in myself. Just as I am not a homosexual, yet support same-sex marriages; not a prostitute, yet am against laws prohibiting it; not a druggie, yet against drug laws.

I must say I dislike the polar options on the poll. Why do we need to institutionalise anything?

Incest is illegal in the United Kingdom, but it exists in a don't ask, don't tell type environment. When I say it exists, I do of course mean between brothers and sisters for the most part, since there are two types of incest - between parent and child and between siblings.

Between consenting siblings of a stable age and stable nature, I can't see anything wrong with it except that it hurts the gene pool - but then the gene pool has been decreasing from the time the first Homo Sapiens Sapiens started to copulate.

Between parent and child there is an entirely different and psychological aspect of the relationship to consider. For example, parents wield an awful lot of power over their children and sexual relations between a parent and child can be mindful of stockholm syndrome between kidnapper and hostage. When I say child, I am referring to a young person in general, not necessarily someone underage.

Sexual relations between first cousins are not counted as incest and are legal in many places, and blessed by the Catholic Church upon application to the Pope, or so I am told.

I must say I dislike the polar options on the poll. Why do we need to institutionalise anything?

Incest is illegal in the United Kingdom, but it exists in a don't ask, don't tell type environment. When I say it exists, I do of course mean between brothers and sisters for the most part, since there are two types of incest - between parent and child and between siblings.

Between consenting siblings of a stable age and stable nature, I can't see anything wrong with it except that it hurts the gene pool - but then the gene pool has been decreasing from the time the first Homo Sapiens Sapiens started to copulate.

Between parent and child there is an entirely different and psychological aspect of the relationship to consider. For example, parents wield an awful lot of power over their children and sexual relations between a parent and child can be mindful of stockholm syndrome between kidnapper and hostage. When I say child, I am referring to a young person in general, not necessarily someone underage.

Sexual relations between first cousins are not counted as incest and are legal in many places, and blessed by the Catholic Church upon application to the Pope, or so I am told.

First of all, I've never heard of such a thing that first cousins are not counted as incest and blessed by the Pope.. i would definatly have to ask for sources on that one.. and in atleast AMERICA first cousins are considered too close blood relation and is considered an incestual relationship. As well from what ive heard from all sceince reports.. it is in their agreement that you will have similar percentages for the predisposition of genetic disorders. Perhaps it is more acceptable in Britain because it is more ingrained in socitey as it was such a common practice in more ancheint times.. i dunno.. but in america you need to be atleast second cousins perhaps even thrid to legally attain marriage

I must say I dislike the polar options on the poll. Why do we need to institutionalise anything?
If you look at the first post, you notice that the author said that he messed up on the poll.

What do you call it when a person has faith in God, and Christ... but has lost all faith and hope in his fellow christians and their perversion of the bible to suit their own political needs?

Is that person still a christian?
I suspect that the only person who can answer that question is the person themselves. I can't see any reason why they couldn't still be a Christian; Martin Luther was still a Christian after he nailed his theses to the door of the Whittenburg church, yes? :)

... in america you need to be atleast second cousins perhaps even thrid to legally attain marriage
The law on that varies from State to State.

Hmm... "Since almost all sex involves one older member and one younger member of the same species, there is almost always some undue influence."
I disagree. The question concerned incest, not sex in general, and "undue influence" means having sufficient power [ whether legitimate, referrential, positional, or whatever ] over another person to influence them to do things they might not otherwise do.

ok, get this. My cousin is HOT!
Like a tamale.

So the laast time we had sex, we had this conversation. I was all like, doesn't it suck that if a cop found us, we'd go to jail?

She aagreed.

Thus my point is made. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

ok, get this. My cousin is HOT!
Like a tamale.

So the laast time we had sex, we had this conversation. I was all like, doesn't it suck that if a cop found us, we'd go to jail?

She aagreed.

Thus my point is made. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
pig

"Abort defective fetuses"? What type of person would think of something like that? A human being is only defective in genetic terms - it is not up to anyone who cannot experience another's life to decide what they can and cannot cope with, concerning their physical state. Arrogance on a lethal level . . .

And as to genetic troubles, you mustn't oversimplify the situation by "our technology" - there are so many diseases that we do not understand genetically, and altering known deformaties before birth is really . . . well . . . practically . . . impossible!

There are many arguments against incest, both physical and metaphysical. If two first cousins have sexual relations, harm may or may not come of it and I do not presume to understand any one person's mind or method of approach - however I, for one, would prefer children to vegetables.

Eh...youre kidding right?

pig

This is the kind of discrimination our kind is fighting against!

This is the kind of discrimination our kind is fighting against!
fine I'm gone

This is the kind of discrimination our kind is fighting against!

Unfortunately, fighting against something automatically gets you branded...
:(

I know far too well.

Unfortunately, fighting against something automatically gets you branded...
:(

I know far too well.


Dang!

What do you call it when a person has faith in God, and Christ... but has lost all faith and hope in his fellow christians and their perversion of the bible to suit their own political needs?

Is that person still a christian?

He's a republ--- Oh, sorry, that'd be trolling.

The thought of incest makes me uncomfortable. But so does the thought of homosexuality, and I believe there should be no discrimination there either.

Comparing it with beastiality, or worse, pedophilia, is sick. Both of those involve actual abuse of a living being that cannot possibly consent. Being an animal shouldn't give you any less protection against sexual abuse than being a child. The line to draw, really, is where it harms others. Pedophilia does. Homosexuality doesn't.

Incest is sort of a borderline case. I'm not sure about it.

What do you call it when a person has faith in God, and Christ... but has lost all faith and hope in his fellow christians and their perversion of the bible to suit their own political needs?

Is that person still a christian?
Yes, as a backslid christian myself ,i'd have to say yes. At least you recognizethat you don't fit in to any particular agenda. Follow your conscience :)

I don't dispute that there is a higher potention for emotional and psychological hurt, but that's not grounds to declare something "immoral" in my mind.

Please remember that I never said anything along the lines of it being "immoral". I just said I found it icky.

I find spinachs icky too, but I don't think they're immoral or that they should be banned/erased from the surface of our planet. :P

On a side note, even though I find the idea of incest, even consensual, icky, I've fantasized on twins before. I'm perfectly aware that's a double standard, but I just can't explain it to myself.

consumption of alcohol is very different from allowing (what i see in my eyes) the murder of children daily.. i would rather it be regulated, prohibited and pushed underground if need be just to send the single that we will not tolerate the idea that someone (usually a woman) has the right to decide the fate of her child (life or death) without consequences.

if you were suggesting my claims on statistics for abortion rates.. here is once source

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

which i belive to be quite unbias, but if you feel they arn't say so.. i can dig up simiarl studies showing the same results
"simiarl," eh? Is that a different dialect of English than I'm used to? :headbang:
All that aside, you're arguing that foetus constitutes a "child." With beliefs that anti-killing, you should campaign for a total ban on all forms of weaponry, or at the very least become a vegetarian. After all, a cow is killed for every 15-or-so steaks delivered to your local meat market! Not to mention that a turkey had to die for your Thanksgiving meal. Essentially, what you imply by these beliefs is that human life is so superior to animal life that it's okay to kill animals, but sacrilege to touch even an unborn, partially-developed foetus. I would also expect you to be highly anti-war, given that every human life is so valuable, as you say.
Explain yourself.

I voted on the poll and was very surprised to find out how many were ready to legalize it. I hope that most of the votes were in jest! I mean ,is the person who proposed this poll serious? :eek:

Yes. Please, get over yourself and have an open mind. I'm sorry that you have such an intense irrational fear of things foreign to your environment, but I must point out that this is the same state of mind that continues to allow the oppression of homosexuals.

We should allow it because the Japanese love it.

Actually there's about a dozen differant sources for santa clause. The Holly King, for example. There are probably a dozen or more seperate bits and pieces of mythology that got fused into the modern santa. What's more, the guy varies alot from country to country. In some places he still travels with "black peter" for example.

I don't know about that version of Odin (same guy, differant spelling/pronunciation). I've never once heard him accused of slipping into people's houses to leave presents. It would be a bit out of character for him really. (Tangentally, the eight legged horse is Sleipnir, who also happens to be one of Loki's sons, due to some serious lack of forsight on his part. You've really got to feel sorry for Loki sometimes.)

Actually this sounds like the kind of story that crops up when the christians have taken root, and they start rewriting the old legends to undermine the respect the others had for the old gods. The average norse berserk would have a hard time respecting a guy that snuck down a chimney to give stuff away. They were all about kicking in the door to take stuff with them.

It's like Ireland with that St Patrick vs the Snakes thing. The legend of a guy getting rid of all the snakes predates christian influences in ireland by quite abit. He just used to be somebody else.

But yeah, in most places, christmas is about as un-christian a day as you can get. Much like easter. They didn't even manage to corrupt the name of easter very much. It still has the original goddess's name (more or less).

Recurring phrase of mine: "Chsistmas and easter: yet more pagan holidays brought to you by the christians."

Odin, as you spell him, had these characteristics from early on in the Northern Norse and Saxon traditions. I can ask my father, who wrote his thesis paper on the origins of the Christmas legends, for sources if you're interested. However, I agree with you overall.

And yeah, "Easter" comes from "Oastar"/"Oastharr" or "Ostara."

What do you call it when a person has faith in God, and Christ... but has lost all faith and hope in his fellow christians and their perversion of the bible to suit their own political needs?

Is that person still a christian?
Yes, that person is, and I'd recommend that such a person study Enlightenment-period and Humanist Christian scholars, and, were such a person interested in stimulating conversation on the subject, drop me a line. :)
I find nothing wrong with being Christian - rather, it is the irrational zeal and political perversion with which Christian writings and organizations are being used to spread hatred and fear that I despise. Also, I can't stand biblical literalists; I don't take my own religious and spiritual texts literally, and neither does most of the religious and spiritual world.

ok, get this. My cousin is HOT!
Like a tamale.

So the laast time we had sex, we had this conversation. I was all like, doesn't it suck that if a cop found us, we'd go to jail?

She aagreed.

Thus my point is made. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Such relations are actually quite common. I'd be curious to know whether you're serious about this or joking (I honestly can't tell), but you can message it to me if you'd like. Don't worry, I can keep it private - I'd just be interested in what sort of psychological barriers you had to go through, etc.

pig

Please refrain from flaming and name-calling.

He's a republ--- Oh, sorry, that'd be trolling.

The thought of incest makes me uncomfortable. But so does the thought of homosexuality, and I believe there should be no discrimination there either.

Comparing it with beastiality, or worse, pedophilia, is sick. Both of those involve actual abuse of a living being that cannot possibly consent. Being an animal shouldn't give you any less protection against sexual abuse than being a child. The line to draw, really, is where it harms others. Pedophilia does. Homosexuality doesn't.

Incest is sort of a borderline case. I'm not sure about it.
I would really like to thank you and your kind, the rational thinkers who, despite their discomfort with homosexuality, still remember human rights. You and your ilk have made the world a much better place for those of a different stripe, and must be thanked.
I think there are two different issues here: incest and pederasty (the act, whereas pedophilia is merely *liking* children sexually). A relationship between siblings or cousins reasonably close in age is purely incest, whereas a parent-child relationship is also pederasty. As such, I'm just fine with incest, as long as they keep in close contact with their doctor and are careful around sex, whereas pederasty is too naturally unbalanced to be safe.

No, he was a pro-abortion activist. Then he changed over, and admitted that he fabricated the numbers in order to to further the cause. There is no way to be completely accurate in guaging the number of illegal abortions going on Pre-Roe, however, if you look at the numbers from when Roe was official to about 1984, abortion measurements go up almost uniformly. Abortions per 1000 live births peaked in 1984 at 364, the total number of abortions increased until 1990. In the first seven years after Roe v Wade, the number of abortions per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 increased. All of this suggests that, following the complete legalization of abortion caused by Roe v Wade, the number of abortions was more than the old legal + illegal.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact.htm
I appreciate that you study statistics - many (on both sides) don't. I amend my statement:
So there was some Machiavellian activity in the pro-choice movement.

We should allow it because the Japanese love it.

All hail the mighty Japanese! :worshipworship: :D

That's a very good question, as to whether it's right or not. Honestly, I think it should be left up to to the people involved; if it's consensual, and they have protection to prevent pregnancy, then by all means let them; it's their business, and we have no right to interfere in their personal lives.

The idea of incest makes me violently queasy. However, if two other people wanna do it, that's none of my business. So, no, it's not wrong in my opinion, because noone is harmed by it.

In all honesty, the answer for all of these questions are pretty much the same, people.

Homosexuality, Incest, Sexually Deviant, and even for JuNii, I'll stick in Beastiality.

Morales stem, originally, from religion. Athiests morales do come from religion in a indirect sense, as they no longer need religion to follow moral and just lifestyles. However, the original thoughts that define good and bad are essentially a product of the Long-Ago 'gods' telling us what was right or wrong, be they real or otherwise. Different parts of the world have seperate morals because of conflicting relgions.

So in essence, there are very few things that a secular government can denounce. Let's face it - there IS no secular government.

Before I go any further, let me make it clear that I harbor no ill will towards Homosexuals, Consensual Incesters/Incestees, The Sexually Deviant, or Beastiality People (Couldn't figure a good way to make it a noun, heh.). I do not particularly approve of these activities, but it's not my problem.

I do not believe the author of this particular article was speaking of a 40 year old 1st cousin raping his 13 year old family member, or the 24 year old brother screwing his 14 year old sister. She was referring to two consenting, of age adults. Anything else is unacceptable because of entirely seperate reasons that any other two people who may not be relatives have as well.

In that sense, the two consenting, of age related adults only have one problem, which is genetic birth defects in children, suggesting that nature had not intended for such a union.

But hey, since when did people really care for what nature intended, right? If those two don't have kids, let it be their problem.

Although I'd hate to have to call my niece grandma ;)

"simiarl," eh? Is that a different dialect of English than I'm used to? :headbang:
All that aside, you're arguing that foetus constitutes a "child." With beliefs that anti-killing, you should campaign for a total ban on all forms of weaponry, or at the very least become a vegetarian. After all, a cow is killed for every 15-or-so steaks delivered to your local meat market! Not to mention that a turkey had to die for your Thanksgiving meal. Essentially, what you imply by these beliefs is that human life is so superior to animal life that it's okay to kill animals, but sacrilege to touch even an unborn, partially-developed foetus. I would also expect you to be highly anti-war, given that every human life is so valuable, as you say.
Explain yourself.

"Foetus"... now your starting to speak my english :sniper:

Yes well.. there is at best in my opinion only a small argument one can make against abortion in secular terms. However, in this case I dont belive the debate has to be secular. In these conditions, it is obvious why I am pro-life. My philopshy of the contions by which personhood is reached is for the clear potential of mental development indictative to that of human development to exist. As well the individual must be a human, because only humans can be people. To this note, feuts are along my line of thinking considered people at their inception because if left to continue through natures path they will ultimatly develope into people. If you argue some level of development is required, then the counter argument can be posed, why are people who are considered vegtables still "people". Why are children who do not fully develop mentally considered.. people. Is personhood simply atained by being human.. or are there other requirements.

I also do stray from your prediction.. I am not HIGHLY anti-war and anti-gun though some. I simply refuse to accept the idea that one person.. has the given RIGHT to take the life of another person, which is condoned by the government. I do not see animals in the same light either, because humans are unique.. (having souls) or some mental higher ability, making them superior.. War is far less comparable as it is not nearly celebrated as a right, or a choice.. Entering and participating in war is an occurance which is not taken lightly.. not simply decided on a whim and devoid of consequence. A solider (perhaps drafted has no choice but to enter war.. or atleast has reservations) the act of abortion is belived to be a person exercising some RIGHT they have.. which is wrong!

Its your brother/sister for gods sake...its sick.