NationStates Jolt Archive

In most cases, incest was made illegal because of resultant genetic deformities in children. However, as long as there are no children born out of the relationship, what's wrong with it? I mean, I can see what's wrong with homosexual sex -- obviously, it's quite unnatural from a both physical and reproductive standpoint. But incest is physically natural, although reproductively unnatural, the same way having sex with a condom is. So what's the problem with it?

How is Incest natural? mother fucker! sorry couldn't resist

it's dangerous to family stablity, it's way to easy for one partner to be taken advantage of, and it's just wrong imo.

Hold up, what's going on here?

Incest, interracial dating, 'Which is Worse'...What's up, seriously?

Honestly - I don't know. I wouldn't want to have sexual contact with any of my family, but if someone else does that's fine by me.
I'm not sure about the numbers, but I think that offspring among close relatives these days is still less likely to show the effects of inbreeding than it did in villages 100 years ago when everybody kept marrying their cousins...

I hope you're going to recycle that can when you've got all the worms out.

Oh, and Sinuhue did this thread better.

How is Incest natural?

It is a normal physical act of heterosexual sex. Physically, there is nothing wrong with the act itself -- the only thing most people have a problem with is with whom the act is conducted.

Well, it happened in the Bible, soooo. . . .:rolleyes:

it's dangerous to family stablity, it's way to easy for one partner to be taken advantage of, and it's just wrong imo.

I mean, nobody should be coerced into having sex with a family member and the laws should be more stringent regarding it. However, having a drunk dad is also dangerous to family stability, yet it is perfectly legal. As long as both partners agree, why not?

How is Incest natural? mother fucker! sorry couldn't resist

As in, it occurs in nature?

Hold up, what's going on here?

Incest, interracial dating, 'Which is Worse'...What's up, seriously?

The pervs are overunning NS!

It is a normal physical act of heterosexual sex. Physically, there is nothing wrong with the act itself -- the only thing most people have a problem with is with whom the act is conducted.

it's not psychologically healthy.

In most cases, incest was made illegal because of resultant genetic deformities in children. However, as long as there are no children born out of the relationship, what's wrong with it? I mean, I can see what's wrong with homosexual sex -- obviously, it's quite unnatural from a both physical and reproductive standpoint. But incest is physically natural, although reproductively unnatural, the same way having sex with a condom is. So what's the problem with it?
Ah shit..Can open ... worms everywhere...

it's dangerous to family stablity, it's way to easy for one partner to be taken advantage of, and it's just wrong imo.

exactly, hence why it normally doesnt occur (there is no incest gene), its unnatural, unlike homosexuality for which there is a gene

it's not psychologically healthy.

Very few things are.

In most cases, incest was made illegal because of resultant genetic deformities in children.
Speak for your own family.:p

However, as long as there are no children born out of the relationship, what's wrong with it? I mean, I can see what's wrong with homosexual sex -- obviously, it's quite unnatural from a both physical and reproductive standpoint. But incest is physically natural, although reproductively unnatural, the same way having sex with a condom is. So what's the problem with it?
"Reproductively unnatural." I like that, it's a euphemism I hadn't heard before. I would have said "reproductively neutral," myself. You may have heard that the size of the Earth's population is putting strains on the resources available. Limiting the size of families or perhaps opting not to have children is quite acceptable these days.

I mean, nobody should be coerced into having sex with a family member and the laws should be more stringent regarding it. However, having a drunk dad is also dangerous to family stability, yet it is perfectly legal. As long as both partners agree, why not?

You would be surprised how someone could get taken advantage of aside from being coerced into having sex with a family member against their will.

As a former counselor based on my education I would have to say that having a sexual relationship with a close family member is dangerous and unhealthy from a mental health standpoint.

It is a normal physical act of heterosexual sex. Physically, there is nothing wrong with the act itself -- the only thing most people have a problem with is with whom the act is conducted.

You're intentionally narrowing your view by suggesting if it's a male and female having sex, it can't be wrong since the act of sex is not inherently wrong. That's idiotic. By that reasoning, you wouldn't have a problem with rape either, right? I mean physically, its just plain sex. Right?

As in, it occurs in nature?

So does rape. It's still physically and psychologically un-natural.

In most cases, incest was made illegal because of resultant genetic deformities in children. However, as long as there are no children born out of the relationship, what's wrong with it? I mean, I can see what's wrong with homosexual sex -- obviously, it's quite unnatural from a both physical and reproductive standpoint. But incest is physically natural, although reproductively unnatural, the same way having sex with a condom is. So what's the problem with it?
Both are "natural" and both are "immoral", and those two terms are relative.

The problem with incest that doesn't exist with homosexuality is that incest occurs between two family members, closely related, where as homosexual relations tend not to.

Homosexual relations are natural, though they may be perceived as a sin due to religious conditioning.

exactly, hence why it normally doesnt occur (there is no incest gene), its unnatural, unlike homosexuality for which there is a gene

*lol There's no gene for a preference of older women, yet many guys do.
There's no gene for a preference of blondes, yet many (girls and guys) fall for them.
There's no telling who you might fall in love with, so if it happens to be your brother... why does that have to be a problem?

Very few things are.

true, but someone with a sexual attraction to their father, or a mother who is sexually aroused by her son, is a sign of a serious mental health problem.

What do I care? As long as there are no kids or coercion involved, it's none of my business.

So does rape. It's still physically and psychologically un-natural.

Rape is morally wrong, but hardly unnatural.

true, but someone with a sexual attraction to their father, or a mother who is sexually aroused by her son, is a sign of a serious mental health problem.
Not so very long ago masturbation - especially amongst females - could be considered a similar sign.

So basically the point being argued here that rape and incest are better than homosexuality. I just want to be clear. I also would like a stiff drink.

true, but someone with a sexual attraction to their father, or a mother who is sexually aroused by her son, is a sign of a serious mental health problem.

Is that the only kind of incest, then? I was actually thinking more on the lines of siblings falling in love...

Not so very long ago masturbation - especially amongst females - could be considered a similar sign.

true.

however, in my experience as a counselor (I haven't been one in 2 years so maybe things changed) I haven't ever seen a healthy relationship develop from incest.

You would be surprised how someone could get taken advantage of aside from being coerced into having sex with a family member against their will.

As a former counselor based on my education I would have to say that having a sexual relationship with a close family member is dangerous and unhealthy from a mental health standpoint.

Agreed absolutely … but then we get into the conundrum … should we make things that are not healthy illegal?

Is that the only kind of incest, then? I was actually thinking more on the lines of siblings falling in love...

siblings? never came across that one, only mother/son, father/daughter, father/son, and misc cousin/ misc cousin

By that reasoning, you wouldn't have a problem with rape either, right? I mean physically, its just plain sex. Right?

Rape would indeed be a reproductively positive act. However, both parties would not agree to it, by definition. Incest, on the other hand, involves two consenting adults. There's as much difference there as there is between suicide and murder.

siblings? never came across that one, only mother/son, father/daughter, father/son, and misc cousin/ misc cousin

I've heard of several cases recently. It does happen. Maybe they just don't need counseling ;)

Agreed absolutely … but then we get into the conundrum … should we make things that are not healthy illegal?

no. I thought I was asked if it was wrong. I say it is.

I think that certain relatioships lend themselves to a parnter being abused though, and that the regulation gets sticky.

Rape would indeed be a reproductively positive act. However, both parties would not agree to it, by definition. Incest, on the other hand, involves two consenting adults. There's as much difference there as there is between suicide and murder.

As long as the two incestual people are of the opposite gender?

I've heard of several cases recently. It does happen. Maybe they just don't need counseling ;)

or maybe they didn't come to me, I was a marriage counselor. ;) I tend to forget my limited experience.

Rape would indeed be a reproductively positive act. However, both parties would not agree to it, by definition.

So what? Your argument is that something (homosexual intercourse) is 'unnatural' and therefore wrong. Are you now saying that its morally right, as long as both parties consent? Pick a side and stay on it.

Incest, on the other hand, involves two consenting adults. There's as much difference there as there is between suicide and murder.

Oh ho, all incest involves *adults* and *consent*. Interesting. I did not know that rule existed.

Homosexual relations are natural, though they may be perceived as a sin due to religious conditioning.

I find it to be the complete opposite. I have no problem with gay people engaging in homosexual sex -- I do not consider it a sin or anything like that. However, it is an unnatural act when considered from a reproductive standpoint -- obviously, a such act cannot bear children. Evolutionarily, the goal of sex is to create offspring. Thus, homosexual sex goes against the evolutionary goal of sex.

As long as the two incestual people are of the opposite gender?

Hmm, so if I get it on with my brother, that's okay, and in fact scores positive points because I'm a lesbian, but with my sister ... Desperate Measures, I'll buy the first round.

As long as the two incestual people are of the opposite gender?

Well, I think that it would be morally OK for two family members of whatever gender to engage in sex. However, I think it is wrong if two family members of the same gender do simply because the act is unnatural.

I find it to be the complete opposite. I have no problem with gay people engaging in homosexual sex -- I do not consider it a sin or anything like that. However, it is an unnatural act when considered from a reproductive standpoint -- obviously, a such act cannot bear children. Evolutionarily, the goal of sex is to create offspring. Thus, homosexual sex goes against the evolutionary goal of sex.
Actually, homosexuality is natural from an evolutionary stand point because it's a way of controlling the rate at which the human race reproduces. Homosexuality helps keep the population in check.

In most cases, incest was made illegal because of resultant genetic deformities in children. However, as long as there are no children born out of the relationship, what's wrong with it? I mean, I can see what's wrong with homosexual sex -- obviously, it's quite unnatural from a both physical and reproductive standpoint. But incest is physically natural, although reproductively unnatural, the same way having sex with a condom is. So what's the problem with it?

actually, if incest is only performed for one generation, there is no significant magnification of genetic disorders...that only arises after several generations of incest

What happens if two sibblings have been adopted at birth, meet in later life and form a 'healthy' sexual relationship not knowing that they are sibblings. If somehow they were then to find out thet they are brother and sister this, devalue what they had before finding out?

I find it to be the complete opposite. I have no problem with gay people engaging in homosexual sex -- I do not consider it a sin or anything like that. However, it is an unnatural act when considered from a reproductive standpoint -- obviously, a such act cannot bear children. Evolutionarily, the goal of sex is to create offspring. Thus, homosexual sex goes against the evolutionary goal of sex.

You have such a weird way of using words … no where in the definition of “Natural” does it lend it self to scope limitations. If it exists in nature it is natural simple as that.

It may be reproductively useless but that does not make it “natural” or not

Just saying for the sake of confusion … and for the sake that a lot of us have to put up with people using that reasoning to deny homosexuals rights (even though you are apparently not one of them as far as I can tell)

Rape is morally wrong, but hardly unnatural.

Thus why it being natural does not morally justify anything.

Actually, homosexuality is natural from an evolutionary stand point because it's a way of controlling the rate at which the human race reproduces.

Perhaps, but that's not what I said. I never claimed that homosexuality itself was unnatural, but that homosexual sex was going against the evolutionary function of sex as a means of reproduction.

Hmm, so if I get it on with my brother, that's okay, and in fact scores positive points because I'm a lesbian, but with my sister ... Desperate Measures, I'll buy the first round.

I propose we empty our pockets and leave the money on the bar. Its going to be a long night.

it's not psychologically healthy.

Neither is spending lots of time on NSG, but people do it anyway. ;)

I propose we empty our pockets and leave the money on the bar. Its going to be a long night.

Does the bartender take Euros?

Well, I think that it would be morally OK for two family members of whatever gender to engage in sex. However, I think it is wrong if two family members of the same gender do simply because the act is unnatural.

Dude... whatever you just did to my brain; I hope I can find a number to a hotline somewhere. I feel violated.

What happens if two sibblings have been adopted at birth, meet in later life and form a 'healthy' sexual relationship not knowing that they are sibblings. If somehow they were then to find out thet they are brother and sister this, devalue what they had before finding out?

that senario takes away the problems I have with it, being that neither of them is likely to coerce the other into anything, that it's low risk to the family unit, and that when the attraction began they didn't know they were related which means there was not any psychological reason for the attraction other than what may be considered normal.

Okay, I think this thread officially qualifies as flame-bait. :rolleyes:

Except maybe the side discussion Smunkee's having on psychology.

Well, I think that it would be morally OK for two family members of whatever gender to engage in sex. However, I think it is wrong if two family members of the same gender do simply because the act is unnatural.

:confused: It appears I will be buying a round as well.

As for the OP, if incest occurs between two consenting adults, it is none of my business. And if everybody involved is also able to be healthy and happy with the relationship, then I can see nothing morally wrong with it. Smunkeeville's points about her time as a counselor show that this may be rare.

Dude... whatever you just did to my brain; I hope I can find a number to a hotline somewhere. I feel violated.
MInd if I join you? I just had the same burning sensation...

Calling homosexuality un-natural but supporting incest as natural?

You're a funny lil ass, aincha?

Dude... whatever you just did to my brain; I hope I can find a number to a hotline somewhere. I feel violated.

Damn, I re-read that and it was about as clear as a brick wall. What I mean by "wrong" is that the act is both physically and objectively wrong -- it is pointless in that it does not accomplish anything and it is not how the act was physically intended to be engaged in. However, I have no moral qualms about it -- it's not like homosexuals should be persecuted by factors outside their control, and to them it does seem like a logical act. For example, buying a cake and them prompty throwing it in the trash would be quite an unnatural act -- obviously, the cake is meant to be eaten, not thrown away. However, I'm not going to call the cops on anybody who throws the cake in the trash -- it's not a morally incorrect act. Same thing applies to gay sex, more or less.

Does the bartender take Euros?

He will after we tell him why we're here.

*lol There's no gene for a preference of older women, yet many guys do.
There's no gene for a preference of blondes, yet many (girls and guys) fall for them.
There's no telling who you might fall in love with, so if it happens to be your brother... why does that have to be a problem?

well Im just saying there are specific genes for hetrosexuality/homosexuality. There are none for incest, necrophilia. Preferences for these can be traced to genes determining psychopathy etc. Actually yeah, its all natural, I just thought it was some redneck type thread where I could wind the OP up.

that senario takes away the problems I have with it, being that neither of them is likely to coerce the other into anything, that it's low risk to the family unit, and that when the attraction began they didn't know they were related which means there was not any psychological reason for the attraction other than what may be considered normal.

Just clarifying for my sake...

The problems with incest are:
1. Risk of coercion. I assume this is particularly notable in cross-generational incest, or is a factor among siblings and cousins as well?
2. Risk to the family unit. Self-explanatory.
3. Being attracted because of the whole incest thang. How is this a problem? Not trying to argue. I really want to know.

Thus why it being natural does not morally justify anything.

Never said it was. I merely pointed out that it is wrong to claim it's unnatural and to derive a moral evaluation from that.

Holy crap yet another thinly veiled gay thread!

Damn, I re-read that and it was about as clear as a brick wall. What I mean by "wrong" is that the act is both physically and objectively wrong -- it is pointless in that it does not accomplish anything and it is not how the act was physically intended to be engaged in.

Intended by whom? You are personifying evolution. You may as well just be thumping out Bible versus here.

I may as well also ask, if "evolution" or God didn't "intend" for me to have anal sex, how come it/He made my penis just fit so perfectly into the anus?

Never said it was. I merely pointed out that it is wrong to claim it's unnatural and to derive a moral evaluation from that.

Ahh I see.

Intended by whom? You are personifying evolution. You may as well just be thumping out Bible versus here.

I may as well also ask, if "evolution" or God didn't "intend" for me to have anal sex, how come it/He made my penis just fit so perfectly into the anus?

RealAmerican would be a Religious Right sort. Incest is ok because the bible says so (After Lot raped his daughters and blamed it on a combination of them being temptresses and the booze).

Just clarifying for my sake...

The problems with incest are:
1. Risk of coercion. I assume this is particularly notable in cross-generational incest, or is a factor among siblings and cousins as well?
depending on how close of cousins, but yes, for cousins and siblings coercion and manipulation are problems.

2. Risk to the family unit. Self-explanatory.
yep
3. Being attracted because of the whole incest thang. How is this a problem? Not trying to argue. I really want to know.
it's not always a problem, but more often than not it is. It can be a sign of psychological problems. It can be that they don't feel worthy of anyone else, that they only feel loved within the family and therefore it is an unhealthy relationship, it could be that there is some sort of abuse that ties them to the family, or it may be a form of attatchment personality disorder that keeps them in a relationship that they would not be in otherwise.

In most cases, incest was made illegal because of resultant genetic deformities in children. However, as long as there are no children born out of the relationship, what's wrong with it? I mean, I can see what's wrong with homosexual sex -- obviously, it's quite unnatural from a both physical and reproductive standpoint. But incest is physically natural, although reproductively unnatural, the same way having sex with a condom is. So what's the problem with it?
Incest is not natural, hell even homosexuality is more natural than that. Most animals and humans are genetically programmed to seek mates outside their clans, in order to increase genetic diversity.

I may as well also ask, if "evolution" or God didn't "intend" for me to have anal sex, how come it/He made my penis just fit so perfectly into the anus?

The act of anal sex, while being enjoyable, is nonetheless unnatural in the same way in which its homosexual counterpart is. The point of sex is to reproduce -- doing anything except that transcends the point of sex, but it is not "immoral" or anything. And I'm not religious.

Holy crap yet another thinly veiled gay thread!

All the threads on NS are thinly veiled gay threads. You are being reprogrammed. Stay. Read.

The act of anal sex, while being enjoyable, is nonetheless unnatural in the same way in which its homosexual counterpart is. The point of sex is to reproduce -- doing anything except that transcends the point of sex, but it is not "immoral" or anything. And I'm not religious.

No, you're still personifying evolution by suggesting there is a "point" or "intending" of things to do. There isn't. Evolution isn't a highway with a set "goal." It's just what happens to populations over time.

The act of anal sex, while being enjoyable, is nonetheless unnatural in the same way in which its homosexual counterpart is. The point of sex is to reproduce -- doing anything except that transcends the point of sex, but it is not "immoral" or anything. And I'm not religious.

That would make sex with a condom unnatural.

That would make sex with a condom unnatural.

smart.

I was thinking oral sex.

it's not psychologically healthy.


nailed it -BAM!-:sniper:

depending on how close of cousins, but yes, for cousins and siblings coercion and manipulation are problems.


yep

it's not always a problem, but more often than not it is. It can be a sign of psychological problems. It can be that they don't feel worthy of anyone else, that they only feel loved within the family and therefore it is an unhealthy relationship, it could be that there is some sort of abuse that ties them to the family, or it may be a form of attatchment personality disorder that keeps them in a relationship that they would not be in otherwise.

Thanks. That clarifies things. :)

I will not link to it, obviously, but if you go to the Literotica website and look at the Most Read list, the first twenty or so deal almost strictly with mother-son incest.

Thanks. That clarifies things. :)

I will not link to it, obviously, but if you go to the Literotica website and look at the Most Read list, the first twenty or so deal almost strictly with mother-son incest.

there is a difference between what you read in erotic literature and what you really want to happen. (ie rape fantasy)

I will not link to it, obviously, but if you go to the Literotica website and look at the Most Read list, the first twenty or so deal almost strictly with mother-son incest.

There's also a lot of rape fantasies there too.

All the threads on NS are thinly veiled gay threads. You are being reprogrammed. Stay. Read.

What it gonna make me even gayer? Maybe I'll start randomly redecorating? Lisping? Hitting on straight guys just to make them squirm?

Ok so I already do that last one, it's fun!

Thanks. That clarifies things. :)

I will not link to it, obviously, but if you go to the Literotica website and look at the Most Read list, the first twenty or so deal almost strictly with mother-son incest.

There is a massive gaping divide between what you sometimes fantasize about to push the envelope and what you want to REALLY happen.

ok i understand that just because it is un-healthy dosen't mean you bann it but do you really want that going on in your country if it was not illeagle then it could be going on in your neighborhood. i do not want to live in a world where mr.dodson and his daughter can do somthing like that and not be held accountable by the law.

ok i understand that just because it is un-healthy dosen't mean you bann it but do you really want that going on in your country if it was not illeagle then it could be going on in your neighborhood. i do not want to live in a world where mr.dodson and his daughter can do somthing like that and not be held accountable by the law.

Why is it any of your business?

This has probably been said before: I don`t see why anyone should have a problem with two consenting people having sex, whether they be related or not.

Now, as to the whole disabled childrens problem: nobody complains if two disabled people have kids, which is much more likely to produce disabled children. So why complain about relatives having kids?

Yes, physical attraction between 2 family members (say cousins, or other relations) may be natural, but that does not mean I think it right. It's not for me to say whether it's right or not to perform the actual act, but you have to think of the child if one arises from it. Is it right to risk a child's well-being by doing this, knowing that a birth might occur of a child with a deformity? Even if you do use a condom, there's no guaruntee that it's going to work. It's not right to risk having a disabled child just because there's an physical attraction between 2 people. And besides, it's just gross.

This has probably been said before: I don`t see why anyone should have a problem with two consenting people having sex, whether they be related or not.

the chances of an incest relationship involving to healthy consenting adults is very low.

The point of sex is to reproduce? Maybe if you're a dog or cow. Human's are a bit more advanced for that don't you think?

How could you people decide whether ANYTHING is natural or un-natural?

It all depends on each individual's point of view and moral standards.

Incest, while socially unacceptable, is just sex between two people who happen to be related.

Sure, it might polute the gene pool, but then it's not like the gene pool isn't poluted enough.

we're got ugly people reproducing, we got fat people reproducing. If we really wanted a clean gene pool, we'd get rid of hospitals and kill all the ugly people in the world.

In conclusion, incest, is just sex between two consenting related people, which is fine. a father raping his daughter in a drunken haze is a totally diffrent subject.

The act of anal sex, while being enjoyable, is nonetheless unnatural in the same way in which its homosexual counterpart is. The point of sex is to reproduce -- doing anything except that transcends the point of sex, but it is not "immoral" or anything. And I'm not religious.

There is no "point" of sex. Sex is pretty self-sufficient, all of nature has sex because he/she/it want to have sex. End of story.

There are, however, plenty of side effects of sex, such as feelings of bonding, enormous stress-relief, and in certains circumstances procreation.
The fact that one practice does not have all the side effects doesn't make it unnatural.

There's also a lot of rape fantasies there too.

There are a lot of weird stories on that page, but there are some gems. And keep in mind, these are fantasies some people have. After all, there are stories about sex with vampires and aliens on that page, too.

There are a lot of weird stories on that page, but there are some gems. And keep in mind, these are fantasies some people have. After all, there are stories about sex with vampires and aliens on that page, too.

I know that. I wrote a lot of them.

I know that. I wrote a lot of them.

And I read them. For purely scholastic purposes, mind you.

ok i understand that just because it is un-healthy dosen't mean you bann it but do you really want that going on in your country if it was not illeagle then it could be going on in your neighborhood. i do not want to live in a world where mr.dodson and his daughter can do somthing like that and not be held accountable by the law.

You already do. There's a nice German proverb "Wo kein Klaeger, da kein Richter", meaning as long as nobody takes any legal steps or informs the police, nobody will ever hold them accountable. And chances are that is actually does go on in your neighbourhood.

the chances of an incest relationship involving to healthy consenting adults is very low.

alright: But the question is, what is actually wrong with insectuous relations as such, which do not actually have to involve non-consenting parties. As long as this doesn'nt occur, I don't see the problem.

Yes, physical attraction between 2 family members (say cousins, or other relations) may be natural, but that does not mean I think it right. It's not for me to say whether it's right or not to perform the actual act, but you have to think of the child if one arises from it. Is it right to risk a child's well-being by doing this, knowing that a birth might occur of a child with a deformity? Even if you do use a condom, there's no guaruntee that it's going to work. It's not right to risk having a disabled child just because there's an physical attraction between 2 people. And besides, it's just gross.

You seem to assume that every child born out of an incestuous relationship is automatically transformed. The chances of that happening are actually very slim. These problems only occur after several generations of inbreeding.

I know that. I wrote a lot of them.

Really? I thought about publishing a few of my own... :D

I think most people's position on this is the same as their position on polygamy, which would be that if it works well, leave them alone, but that probably won't happen.

Okay, there will be no dancing on the semantics of a word a clear as evolution. Evolution DOES have a point, that being the continued existance of a species via slow changes over time. Thus, while it is important that a species actually produces offspring, one can not clearly speculate if human reproduction is or is not evolutionarily sound due to factors such a population, resourses, evironment and many other factors.

So in layman's terms you can not clearly prove without a millinium study if homosexuality is sound on an evolutionary basis. What we can prove is that is it quite natural. I've seen two male dogs going at it for hours on end. Seen it in rabbits. I've seen it in horses, monkeys, cats, mice, and lots of other animals. So, it's natural. Let it drop.

Rape is natural. The is a species of weasel they does it. It actually rapes females BEFORE they become sexually reseptive since his semen can actually lay dormat for a fairly long period of time. They is no really matting rite here. The male waits for a female to leave and goes for the youngun's. If she catches him though, she WILL mess him up. And as far as we know any species that has an endurance test before sex (Rhinos) could be a form of the female not really wanting it and just being chased till she gives up.

Incest is natural. This is a no brainer. It often happens that the number of potential mates is so limited that incest is REQUIRED for breeding.

What we are doing here is putting moral values of natural acts. Rape, due to our psycology is wrong. Ir does freakish amount of damage to the one being violated. That's not even something that could be argued from differant stand points. It is a form of unjustifiable attack and does nothing but harm in all it's forms.

Incest is like sodomy. It's a victemless crime (When a parent sleep with a minor, it's child abuse and statutory rape, attackes that do nothing but damage). We are talking about adults in this case, or, at least people of appropriate ages. It's illegal to avoid crimial loop holes, (She's my child, I love her! I'd never hurt her!) and to cut down on the chances of deformity, which are high enough as it is in a species with such a low genetic deferential. (Hell, our dogs have more genetic variance!)

Homosexuality, be it genetic, or by choice harms no one (unless you want to count people sensabilites, which we don't), thus it's legality.

As for morality, that can go spin. Morality is so dang objective that there is no real reason to do into it. Legislation based on morality is inherantly flawed anyway, so I could care less about what another person things is morally bankrupt or sinful.

So, when you break it down, all 3 are natural, two are illegal (for damn good reason) one is not (for damn good reason) and no one should real care about the morality unless they just like to argue since there is no such thing as Right and Wrong in such an argument, just What I believe and What you believe.

That would make sex with a condom unnatural.

No, for an act to be unnatural, it needs to not be intended to achieve its biological goals (yes, sex with a condom applies to this) and it also needs to be an incorrect physical act (however, heterosexual sex with a condom does not apply to this, so your comparison fails).

My opinion: If there is no victim, there is no crime! Period.
Why does the government need to mess with what the people can or cannot do if nobody is being harmed? They should just leave everyone be! It's none of their business!

In most cases, incest was made illegal because of resultant genetic deformities in children. However, as long as there are no children born out of the relationship, what's wrong with it? I mean, I can see what's wrong with homosexual sex -- obviously, it's quite unnatural from a both physical and reproductive standpoint. But incest is physically natural, although reproductively unnatural, the same way having sex with a condom is. So what's the problem with it?

<sniff, sniff> I love the smell of troll in the early eavening . ..

No, for an act to be unnatural, it needs to not be intended to achieve its biological goals (yes, sex with a condom applies to this) and it also needs to be an incorrect physical act (however, heterosexual sex with a condom does not apply to this, so your comparison fails).

Why are humans bound within "natural" actions? Our history seems to show movement away from the natural state and into a more artificial enviroment of our own creation that allows for more "unnatural" inventions and actions.

Why are humans bound within "natural" actions? Our history seems to show movement away from the natural state and into a more artificial enviroment of our own creation that allows for more "unnatural" inventions and actions.

We are not bound by natural actions -- as I previously stated, I have no moral qualms with gay people having sex any more than I have moral qualms with middle-aged people dressed in Teletubbies outfits frolicking in the park all day. That doesn't make it natural, however.

siblings? never came across that one, only mother/son, father/daughter, father/son, and misc cousin/ misc cousin

Its quite legal to marry your first cousin in 19 states (and DC). And you can marry second cousins everywhere.

Not to mention that worldwide, cousin marriages are among the most common types of courtships (statistics I read a while back)

We are not bound by natural actions -- as I previously stated, I have no moral qualms with gay people having sex any more than I have moral qualms with middle-aged people dressed in Teletubbies outfits frolicking in the park all day. That doesn't make it natural, however.If you've got such a big problem with unnatural, stop driving.

We are not bound by natural actions -- as I previously stated, I have no moral qualms with gay people having sex any more than I have moral qualms with middle-aged people dressed in Teletubbies outfits frolicking in the park all day. That doesn't make it natural, however.

If we are not bound by "natural" action, why the concern with "unnatural" actions?

If you've got such a big problem with unnatural, stop driving.

Driving is an extremely natural way to get from point A to point B, provided you drive correctly. However, if you steer the wheel with your feet and press the gas with your hand, then it would be unnatural.

Driving is an extremely natural way to get from point A to point B, provided you drive correctly. However, if you steer the wheel with your feet and press the gas with your hand, then it would be unnatural.Nah, to be honest, simply sitting down for extended periods of time is unnatural, as your body was never intended for any such thing. Using the decayed and fossilized remains of ocean microorganisms to push a piston in order to turn wheels does not occur naturally, either, and is therefore unnatural. Next time you want to have a debate on the issue, be sure to read a dictionary.

Next time you want to have a debate on the issue, be sure to read a dictionary.

And it told me that something unnatural is "at variance with what is normal or to be expected." Partaking in a physical act intended for producing offspring in an incorrect manner without the intent to reproduce is unnatural.

And it told me that something unnatural is "at variance with what is normal or to be expected." Partaking in a physical act intended for producing offspring in an incorrect manner without the intent to reproduce is unnatural.So basically, lefties are unnatural because most people (i.e. the normal people) use their right hand?

So basically, lefties are unnatural because most people (i.e. the normal people) use their right hand?

I believe that particular definition would encompass that cirumstance, yes, but I was more narrow in my interpretation than that.

I believe that particular definition would encompass that cirumstance, yes, but I was more narrow in my interpretation than that.Indeed. Your definition of "natural" seems to be "anything I wouldn't mind doing".

Indeed. Your definition of "natural" seems to be "anything I wouldn't mind doing".

My definition of natural is an act that is either performed correctly or is performed with the intent of achieving a correct result (ie, sex and reproduction or cooking and food).

My definition of natural is an act that is either performed correctly or is performed with the intent of achieving a correct result (ie, sex and reproduction or cooking and food).

No, you're still personifying evolution by suggesting there is a "point" or "intending" of things to do. There isn't. Evolution isn't a highway with a set "goal." It's just what happens to populations over time.

"correct result" once again implies Evolution, or God, or some other authority 'intends' that sex only be to reproduce. It's nice that you believe that, but all you're really saying is "God says homosexual sex is wrong." Not a very convincing argument.

My definition of natural is an act that is either performed correctly or is performed with the intent of achieving a correct result (ie, sex and reproduction or cooking and food).Eh? And who are you to judge the veracity of the correct result? Sex is meant to produce an orgasm.

My definition of natural is an act that is either performed correctly or is performed with the intent of achieving a correct result (ie, sex and reproduction or cooking and food).

"Correct" implies that there is only one desirable outcome in any action. However, outcomes and their desirability change depending on the individual. In other words, there isn't an objective standard for "correct". People have sex for reproduction and pleasure, food is eaten for both sustenance and taste, or as part of ceremony.

People have sex for reproduction and pleasure, food is eaten for both sustenance and taste, or as part of ceremony.

Nonetheless, there is only one biological reason for sex -- reproduction. Similarly, there is only one biological reason to eat -- for sustenance.

Nonetheless, there is only one biological reason for sex -- reproduction. Similarly, there is only one biological reason to eat -- for sustenance.

So, biological reasons are the most important?

Nonetheless, there is only one biological reason for sex -- reproduction. Similarly, there is only one biological reason to eat -- for sustenance.There's no biological reason for kicking a metal or plastic plate or turning a round device with your hands. Also none for making up bogus definitions.

Perhaps, but that's not what I said. I never claimed that homosexuality itself was unnatural, but that homosexual sex was going against the evolutionary function of sex as a means of reproduction.
But then heterosexual sex with birth control also falls into that category... so, I guess that makes heterosexual sex unnatural too.

Rape is natural. The is a species of weasel they does it. It actually rapes females BEFORE they become sexually reseptive since his semen can actually lay dormat for a fairly long period of time. They is no really matting rite here. The male waits for a female to leave and goes for the youngun's. If she catches him though, she WILL mess him up. And as far as we know any species that has an endurance test before sex (Rhinos) could be a form of the female not really wanting it and just being chased till she gives up.
How dare you say such horrible things about weasels without linking us to a source! :D

But then heterosexual sex with birth control also falls into that category... so, I guess that makes heterosexual sex unnatural too.I wouldn't be surprised if RA agrees with that statement.

But then heterosexual sex with birth control also falls into that category... so, I guess that makes heterosexual sex unnatural too.actually, by his definition and your example, Birth Control is Unnatrual.

and so is any medicine used to stop illnesses, viruses, bacterialogial infections, cancer...

Bionics and prostetics and any surgury at all. they are all "Unnatrual"

don't forget processed foods as well ;)

How dare you say such horrible things about weasels without linking us to a source! :Dactually, the female weasel was "asking for it" with the short cut of her fur, the slinky way she moves... :p :D :D :D

I mean, I can see what's wrong with homosexual sex -- obviously, it's quite unnatural from a both physical and reproductive standpoint. But incest is physically natural, although reproductively unnatural, the same way having sex with a condom is.

Oh. My. God. LMAO.

:fluffle:
so, if these wher brother and sister, you would be cool with it. But if they where two unrelated men, you wouldn't. Come on man, both are radically unnatural and gross.



(I still say both should be legalized, I find spiders unnatural and gross but I don't wipe them out or ban them, same with tomatoes).

Oh. My. God. LMAO.

:fluffle:
so, if these wher brother and sister, you would be cool with it. But if they where two unrelated men, you wouldn't. Come on man, both are radically unnatural and gross.



(I still say both should be legalized, I find spiders unnatural and gross but I don't wipe them out or ban them, same with tomatoes).
I can see from a Genetic standpoint where incest can be a hazard.

which is why there are limits... like I believe anything closer than 1st cousins is "wrong" but beyond that is not.

RealAmerican would be a Religious Right sort. Incest is ok because the bible says so (After Lot raped his daughters and blamed it on a combination of them being temptresses and the booze).
I always thought they were the ones who raped him.
the chances of an incest relationship involving to healthy consenting adults is very low.
By your own admission, your experience is with people who need relationship counciling. Of course you haven't seen people with healthy relationships come through your door.

Incest is like sodomy. It's a victemless crime

Absolutely true.

(When a parent sleep with a minor, it's child abuse and statutory rape, attackes that do nothing but damage).

Do you have anything to base this assumption on, or are you just citing "common knowledge"? (Or as Fry from Futurama put it "a widely believed fact".)

We are talking about adults in this case, or, at least people of appropriate ages.

That does seem to be the gist of the thread, though I still take issue with your use of loaded terms like "appropriate ages".

It's illegal to avoid crimial loop holes, (She's my child, I love her! I'd never hurt her!)

WRONG!!

This is a horrible misconception, and lets so much slip under the radar. You see, there are actually laws PROTECTING incestuous child rape. I'll track you down a link.

Here it is. Sickening, isn't it?
http://www.protect.org/california/pc1203_066Explanation.html

and to cut down on the chances of deformity, which are high enough as it is in a species with such a low genetic deferential. (Hell, our dogs have more genetic variance!)

If we had a problem with physical deformity, we wouldn't allow people born with physical deformities to breed. After all, they're at much higher risk of having deformed children than any ammount of incestuous couples.

No, for an act to be unnatural, it needs to not be intended to achieve its biological goals (yes, sex with a condom applies to this) and it also needs to be an incorrect physical act (however, heterosexual sex with a condom does not apply to this, so your comparison fails).

No, it doesn't. Please re-read what you've just written and see how it fails all attempts at logic. What is an incorrect physical act? Doing a crabwalk is an unnatural way for a human being to walk. Does that make it also immoral?

WRONG!!

This is a horrible misconception, and lets so much slip under the radar. You see, there are actually laws PROTECTING incestuous child rape. I'll track you down a link.

Here it is. Sickening, isn't it?
http://www.protect.org/california/pc1203_066Explanation.html


Doesn't this say that that was struck down recently?
http://www.protect.org/california/caCampaign.shtml

Doesn't this say that that was struck down recently?
http://www.protect.org/california/caCampaign.shtml

Yep. Too bad it also says it wasn't a unique law, so one battle won isn't enough to declare victory.

These sorts of laws are derived from a way of thinking which devalues children until they aren't people, but rather the property of their "guardians". Until that way of thinking dies out, these sorts of laws will keep poping up.

In most cases, incest was made illegal because of resultant genetic deformities in children. However, as long as there are no children born out of the relationship, what's wrong with it? I mean, I can see what's wrong with homosexual sex -- obviously, it's quite unnatural from a both physical and reproductive standpoint. But incest is physically natural, although reproductively unnatural, the same way having sex with a condom is. So what's the problem with it?
Actually, most animals (at least advanced ones) will avoid reproducing with their kin. So there is definitely a drive against it.

Other than that, it can certainly fuck up a family dynamic. (Pun intended, I admit it)

Actually, most animals (at least advanced ones) will avoid reproducing with their kin. So there is definitely a drive against it.

Other than that, it can certainly fuck up a family dynamic. (Pun intended, I admit it)

"When your family tree does not branch..."
Jeff Foxworthy. :D

What do I care? As long as there are no kids or coercion involved, it's none of my business.

Even though I find incest completely appalling, inhuman, and degrading, I agree. If people want to do it, that's their business, provided they aren't hurting anyone else.

Doing a crabwalk is an unnatural way for a human being to walk. Does that make it also immoral?

Unnatural? Yes. Immoral? No, of course not. I said several times that gay sex is not immoral.

Unnatural? Yes. Immoral? No, of course not. I said several times that gay sex is not immoral.

But by this logic, doing a crab walk would be wrong.

Even though I find incest completely appalling, inhuman, and degrading, I agree. If people want to do it, that's their business, provided they aren't hurting anyone else.

Such a relationship would most likely be on an unequal basis or involving some kind of coercion. The idea of people wanting to do it doesn't really seem possible to me. Someone is being taken advantage of in the relationship. Besides if anything is as fundamentally wrong as incest I don't know what it might be.

What Woody Allen did bad enough but doing something with your actual flesh and blood?

*shudders*

Such a relationship would most likely be on an unequal basis or involving some kind of coercion. The idea of people wanting to do it doesn't really seem possible to me. Someone is being taken advantage of in the relationship. Besides if anything is as fundamentally wrong as incest I don't know what it might be.

What do you base your statements on?