PDA

View Full Version : The final taboo... incest



Poliwag2
15th July 2008, 8:01 PM
Incest is defined as sexual intercourse between closely related family members. In this topic, I will use the narrow definition of immediate relatives; i.e. parents and siblings.

In a historical context, incestuous relationships are sparsely documented, but featured prominantly in Ancient Egypt; where Pharoahs often married siblings to maintain royal "purity". The earliest source of stigma can be traced to the myth of Oedipus, where a sexual relationship between mother and son is shown to lead ultimately to disaster. Rightly or wrongly, it remains taboo to this day, having survived the post-war sexual revolution and despite increasingly liberal attitudes. The purpose of this thread is to deconstruct a sensitive subject and debate whether incest can ever be acceptable.

Before we venture further, read this article (http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4332635.ece?pgnum=2).

It is important to differentiate between the two dominant examples of incest. They are:
1. between parent and offspring
2. between siblings

If we agree that morality is a human construct and therefore dependent upon perspective, then can either case ever be acceptable under any (all) of the following circumstances:
a. between consenting underaged siblings
b. between consenting adults
c. active contraception (and abortion in the event of pregnancy)
d. within a homosexual relationship (therefore no risk of pregnancy)

Slayer
15th July 2008, 9:00 PM
wait so whats this thread about. Like whats the debate. Is it if incest is wrong?
cause that already kinda has been answered. Its wrong and has been proven too cause abnormalities
is that it?

Brettt
15th July 2008, 10:07 PM
I personally find incest to be wrong, and even if contraceptives are used to prevent the chance of abnormal children, it creates a moral dilemma.

I doubt the law will ever be repealed, especially in heavily religious countries, though in more liberal ones, incestous relationships between consenting adults may be more acceptable.

Strants
15th July 2008, 10:47 PM
a. between consenting underaged siblings Hmm. . . It's hard to say. My main objection is that it can cause major problems. Ethically? I'd really think that if two people really love each other, it will last until adulthood, but. . . Overall, I'm pretty split, but I'm no more against this than any other form of underage sex.

b. between consenting adults If proper measures are taken to prevent a more likely disability, I'm for it.

c. active contraception (and abortion in the event of pregnancy) I believe abortion should only be used as a last resort. So, I'm against this.

d. within a homosexual relationship (therefore no risk of pregnancy) Well, not being against homosexuality, I find it pointless to answer this question in any more depth than I have already.

Why do people seem to think that only certain kinds of love is acceptable?

Arahabaki
15th July 2008, 11:05 PM
that article was gross. incest is gross. who would do thier close relative?

Carlisle
15th July 2008, 11:14 PM
Honestly, it should only be between two consenting adults. In case of a male/female relationship ending in a pregnancy, abortion should be mandatory.

Gibbis
15th July 2008, 11:53 PM
I don't think its any of my business to say no to their lifestyle unless


underaged

or non consent

Iga
16th July 2008, 12:05 AM
Besides the simple fact that I personally find incest a pretty disgusting thing, it's also definitely not biologically recommended due to the birth defects and abnormalities from the offspring resulting from it. In a homosexual relationship, I would personally just find that really weird, and this is totally beside the fact that I personally don't condone homosexuality. But now I digress.

I guess the best way for me to sum my opinion up is: if the family tree doesn't fork, I don't see it going too well.

Josiah
16th July 2008, 12:12 AM
The thing about gay marriage is that they aren't going to have kids (unless adopted) let alone inbred ones. Honestly, I would probably vote against no matter what if it was brought to the table simply because of the off chance that they have to have an unnecessary abortion. If it were legalized, there would be no way to make sure that they used condoms and birth control, and I'd be willing to bet that quite a few babies would get past the government radar.

Carlisle
16th July 2008, 12:12 AM
i agree with you makaveli
Such amazing debators and thought provokers you two are. Please, show me how you pull that off.

Oh, and I'd totally screw a cousin or two. ;]

GhostAnime
16th July 2008, 12:25 AM
hm.

i don't support incest marriage.

i think consenting adults in the same family shouldn't have the government bother them if they're using protection (it's not like they can do anything anyway).

however if a child is ever to come out of it, they need to abort.

GoldenArcanine
16th July 2008, 12:28 AM
yeah but abortion is wrong, but in this i would say they should. but this mostly happening's in 3rd world countrie's.

GhostAnime
16th July 2008, 12:44 AM
i don't believe abortion is anymore wrong than tearing your arm off but that's another debate.

besides, even if you think abortion is murder, it's just putting a possible retarded kid out of his misery.

Othin
16th July 2008, 2:49 AM
Honestly, it should only be between two consenting adults. In case of a male/female relationship ending in a pregnancy, abortion should be mandatory.
Agreed completely. Don't really have much else to say.

Ethan
16th July 2008, 3:32 AM
No I don't support it. It's not like homosexual relationships where there are no exclusive ramifications. A sexual relationship between a brother and sister or between son and mother results in genetically deformed children. Knowingly giving your offspring genetics deffects is morally apprehensible and completely unnacceptable. Letting them marry is certianly not a solution to that probem. Labeling incestual relationships as merely a social taboo is not only stupid, but ignorant and naive. To those that have suggested so I suggest that you go talk to your biology teacher.

Willow's Tara
16th July 2008, 6:15 AM
I wouldn't ever do incest, mostly because when someone is considered my family, I just look at them in that way (Like my hopefully future sister in laws, I just see them as sisters now although in the beginning of their relationshops with thier boyfriends aka my brothers I may have had been attracted to them).

But I think, as long as its consent then let them do whatever they want. My opinion on Incest stands strong as my opinion on Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual does, and I am sure we all know how I stand on that.

Edit: One more thing, about having children, I think incest couples should just adopt instead of having children, if they want to risk thier chance of yhaving a child and praying it won't have problems (Not trying to offend anyone, but I doubt the child would be happy if he/she knew that thier parents had a choice). When it comes to Incest marriage, let them. Whether it's girl/girl or boy/boy or girl/boy, let them because in the end, Love is Love really and nobody can;t fight that even if they are your relatives.

Regan
16th July 2008, 6:57 AM
a. between consenting underaged siblings - fine
b. between consenting adults - fine
c. active contraception (and abortion in the event of pregnancy) - fine
d. within a homosexual relationship (therefore no risk of pregnancy) -

I personally don't see anything wrong with it, just as long as their are no kids involved. Do what you want to each other, just don't bring someone else into it (or give me gross images).

pikablue
16th July 2008, 7:00 AM
wait..you're okay with incest, but not with gay marraige?
..i'd find the former a much more difficult topic.
don't get me wrong, i dont judge incest, and i believe in rights but...children become a problem here. i say adopt.

duncan
16th July 2008, 7:05 AM
Oh, and I'd totally screw a cousin or two. ;]

That's legal in several states, actually. There's less than a three percent increase of birth defects that way, which is about the same as with a woman over forty giving birth.

Dark SpOOn Bender
16th July 2008, 7:11 AM
If you are stable in the head, the relationship is consentual, and are of legal and want to have sexual relations with a non-parental family memeber, then I think you should be allowed to. My opinion is and always will be that it is your sex life and you should be allowed to do what you want behind closed doors.
The reason I say non-parental is because it is the only incest I find to be completely wrong because I do not think you should be having sexual relations with the people who actually spawned you. Also, a parent's natural job is to raise their child, not to have sexual relations with them.
The reason I say stable in the head is because incestual acts have a history of being caused by abuse, especially with a parent, so action should obviously be taken to prevent any sex desires that were driven by abuse.

We could go into the dangers of having a child through incest, but sex doesn't necessarily mean breeding. Many people look down upon incest because of how "gross" they think it is, which is a poor reason imo. Those same people say that the potential child's risk of defects is their reason which is ridiculous since there are ways to have sex without getting pregnant, and yet those methods are still looked down upon and are illegal.

Basically, if the risk of having a child is absent and the reason for the incest isn't abuse, then I see it as a completely victimless crime that has no chance of harming anybody and therefore it should not be a crime at all. If the risk of having a child is still there, it may not be considered a completely victimless crime, but I also do not think that all incestual situations should be denied because of that risk. As it was stated in a previous post, the chance of a child having a defect isn't that high when the incest is between cousins.

Hakajin
16th July 2008, 7:28 AM
As long as its between two consenting adults and precautions are taken to protect against having offspring, I don't have a problem with it. However, if we were to allow it, I think couples would have to be closely monitered to make sure they were using contraceptives. I'm not exactly sure how that would work, but there might be a way.

Regan
16th July 2008, 9:15 AM
wait..you're okay with incest, but not with gay marraige?

Yeah, thats right. Got anything against people who don't like homosexuals, you homophobicphobe?

GhostAnime
16th July 2008, 6:14 PM
uh regan, do you mean 'all right' as in... nasty or you'd make it illegal for homosexuals to have sex?

because that's the silliest thing i've heard in awhile.

GhostAnime
16th July 2008, 6:15 PM
uh regan, do you mean 'all right' as in... nasty or you'd make it illegal for homosexuals to have sex?

because that's the silliest thing i've heard in awhile.

Carlisle
16th July 2008, 6:18 PM
a. between consenting underaged siblings - fine
b. between consenting adults - fine
c. active contraception (and abortion in the event of pregnancy) - fine
d. within a homosexual relationship (therefore no risk of pregnancy) - never alright.

I personally don't see anything wrong with it, just as long as their are no kids involved. Do what you want to each other, just don't bring someone else into it (or give me gross images).
Why is it "never alright" in a homosexual situation?

Dark SpOOn Bender
16th July 2008, 7:27 PM
Yeah, thats right. Got anything against people who don't like homosexuals, you homophobicphobe?
Oh please...

The only reason you don't like homosexuality is probably because you think it is "gross" and "unnatural," and yet you are going to turn around and defend other forms of incest, something that other people find "gross" and "unnatural?" That's a bit of a contradictory opinion right there.


Honestly, it should only be between two consenting adults. In case of a male/female relationship ending in a pregnancy, abortion should be mandatory.

Why is that? If the two people understand the consequences of having a child when they are closely related and they are willing to take care of that child, you think that they should be forced to deny their child of life? What if a "normal" couple found out that their child-to-be had a high risk of having a disorder, should they be forced to have an abortion too? Abortion should always be a choice imo, never something mandatory.


that article was gross. incest is gross. who would do thier close relative?

Nice informative post, it's too bad "grossness" isn't a good enough reason. Come back when you have an actual argument to actually debate with ;/


No I don't support it. It's not like homosexual relationships where there are no exclusive ramifications. A sexual relationship between a brother and sister or between son and mother results in genetically deformed children. Knowingly giving your offspring genetics deffects is morally apprehensible and completely unnacceptable. Letting them marry is certianly not a solution to that probem. Labeling incestual relationships as merely a social taboo is not only stupid, but ignorant and naive. To those that have suggested so I suggest that you go talk to your biology teacher.

Like I said before, sex doesn't always result in children. Oral and anal sex between two family members does not result in a child, and yet those are still illegal. What if it was decided that an incestual relationship would require the male by law to get a vasectemoy, a simple procedure? Would you still think incest was wrong then since the chances of having a child would be pretty much eliminated altogether?

Carlisle
16th July 2008, 8:00 PM
Why is that? If the two people understand the consequences of having a child when they are closely related and they are willing to take care of that child, you think that they should be forced to deny their child of life? What if a "normal" couple found out that their child-to-be had a high risk of having a disorder, should they be forced to have an abortion too? Abortion should always be a choice imo, never something mandatory.
No, they shouldn't. Incestual breeding completely ruins the gene pool and causes more problems.

Dark SpOOn Bender
16th July 2008, 8:52 PM
No, they shouldn't. Incestual breeding completely ruins the gene pool and causes more problems.

Ruining the gene pool is a simple-minded excuse. If you want to defend the idea of preventing incest couples from having their own children, fine, but don't start talking about forced abortions. Regardless of the circumstances, it's a terrible thing to imagine being told that your child isn't allowed to live.

Carlisle
16th July 2008, 9:03 PM
Ruining the gene pool is a simple-minded excuse. If you want to defend the idea of preventing incest couples from having their own children, fine, but don't start talking about forced abortions. Regardless of the circumstances, it's a terrible thing to imagine being told that your child isn't allowed to live.
It's not a child. It's a fetus.

Dark SpOOn Bender
16th July 2008, 9:10 PM
It's not a child. It's a fetus.

...and your point is?

Carlisle
16th July 2008, 9:11 PM
...and your point is?
It's not a human. It's not like it has the "right" to live.

Dark SpOOn Bender
16th July 2008, 10:15 PM
It's not a human. It's not like it has the "right" to live.

This isn't the abortion thread, so I am not going to get involved in a "when does life really start" discussion or a "do unborn humans have rights" discussion.

All I was saying was that I don't think abortion is something that should be forced, regardless of how the child was conceived or whether the child has a disability or not. Forced abortion is not a solution to the riskier sexual intercourse that sometimes goes along with incest.

Maruno
16th July 2008, 10:36 PM
The only difference between incest and any other form of relationship is that it involves two people who are related to each other. Any other relationship is socially acceptable (homosexual relationships are another matter, but are considered nowhere near as bad as incestuous ones). So, what is it about family members that is so terrible?

On the face of things, incest actually seems like a good thing. The two people in question have been around each other for years, know each other well and love each other. They know each other enough to want to be closer, to want to improve their relationship. That's a sign of quite dedicated love there, and that's admirable.

You've probably switched off by now, thinking my opinion doesn't matter because I'm actually saying something positive about the subject. Well, switch on. Not agreeing with what I say (and I've not finished saying what I have to) doesn't mean you can't at least listen.

There was a lot of incest in the past, particularly amongst nobility. This was most likely so that they could keep their blood pure, and not allow outsiders to lay claims to their family's property and titles. Marriage between relatives is often organised for political reasons. Incest is notable in the Torah (otherwise known as part of the Old Testament), in which there are several cases such as Adam and Eve, Noah and his family after the flood (because everyone else was washed away, of course), Abraham claims to have married his half-sister, and one of his sons married that son's grand-niece.

And none of this is remarked upon, certainly not in the context of modern incest between regular people. But perhaps it's because they're special cases. Royalty follows its own set of laws, particularly in the past, and it's either pointless or not allowed to complain. Isolated communities (as are often found in the past) simply don't have enough people to disallow incest in one form or another. The Torah is a very old book of stories, which many people interpret as fiction. Either way, it's not a good reliable source. Perhaps incest was frowned upon in the past just as it is now; we just don't know. It just happened.

So what makes incest so bad nowadays? We can see that increased genetic abnormalities would often be bad things, particularly in small communities and in laborious communities (e.g. farming requires strength, which might not be as common in children of incestuous relationships). However, the modern world is a global one. We can fly across the world in but a few hours. Many people in the past never ventured further away than a few miles from their place of birth. Complaints that inbreeding damages the gene pool are entirely meaningless; the gene pool has over six billion people in it, and one person isn't going to make that much of a difference.

Arguing that genetic abnormalities would arise in the child of an incestuous relationship is a better argument, but even so is dismissed if the parents know about possible (NOT certain!) genetic defects and are prepared to deal with it. Thus, any argument referring offspring are irrelevant.

Now we turn to the lesser arguments, ones that are not so much arguments as they are opinions. "It's gross", "It's always been bad", things like that. As I said, they're opinions, nothing more. The laws of society are nothing more than opinions themselves, and only exist because following them allows a society to develop and flourish. But society has changed so much recently that most of these "laws" are either in need of updating, or should be dismissed altogether. People just aren't comfortable with that. Parents bring their children up to respect and follow these "laws" (if they're half-decent parents), and those children will do the same for their children. It's difficult to break habits of a lifetime (such as being willing to dismiss these "laws"), but if we don't move with the times then we don't have much of a future.

But I digress. Next argument.

Traumatic experiences resulting from incest. That's a good one, although it's not relevant here. Why not? I hear you cry. Well, a traumatic experience is most likely a result of rape, coercion, abuse, non-consensual activity, and so forth. Hardly the description of a "relationship", is it? No, we're talking about incestuous relationships here (or at least I am). Consensual willing sexual relationships between two related people. So let's have a think about that.

Heterosexual adults. This is as close as you'll get to the typical relationship - the only difference is the relative thing. The typical relationship is acceptable, but the incest version apparently isn't. So as I've said a couple of times before, it's all about the two people being related. Broadening the scope to homosexual or under-age incestuous relationships only depends on whether they would be acceptable between unrelated people. Homosexuals are doing well for themselves recently, couples with a large age gap don't seem to have any problem either (we hear about "gold-digging" and "cradle-robbing" and such, and as far as I'm aware people think it's a bit odd but say nothing). Under-age relationships and paedophilia are seen in a poorer light (particularly paedophilia), but that's for other debates. I've shown that the only thing to discuss here is whether related people should be allowed to have a non-taboo relationship.

So should they? Personally, I think so. The songs all say that love transcends all boundaries, can pop up in unexpected places, and is the one best thing in this world to aim for (as is money - another topic). They don't mention "...except if you're related". But maybe that's an oversight. Songs aren't the best source of wisdom and universal truths in the first place.

I can't really argue one way or another about this. It's merely a matter of opinion. I'm sorry you had to read or skip through all that above just to find this out. It seems unfair to forbid more than one relation to any other person (e.g. to be cousins AND husband/wife). If you love each other, surely that's all that matters? If you're serious enough, you'll just be with each other in secret anyway. And just because you may not like the idea of incest (an opinion which is probably based entirely on you not fancying your sister), doesn't mean no one else likes incest either. It's love, and that's all that matters. It's not unnatural; perhaps it's even MORE natural to be attracted to someone you already have a connection with.

The only thing I have against incestuous marriages is that it then becomes difficult to describe what relation people are to each other.


This was a long post. Apologies. I did do a bit of mental meandering there, and I'm sure I still haven't said everything I could or want to.

Just remember that incest does NOT imply reproduction, it does NOT imply sex, and it does NOT imply non-consent.

NikoBelic
16th July 2008, 10:46 PM
Like I said before, sex doesn't always result in children. Oral and anal sex between two family members does not result in a child, and yet those are still illegal.

Oral and anal sex are illegal in most states between any two people. Does it make sense? No. No type of sexual interaction between consenting adults should be illegal. If two right-minded, related individuals want to have sex, and furthermore children, that's a risk they take. The law has no right to intervene. Take, for example, people who suffer from dwarfism. They have a fifty percent chance of passing on their defect, does that mean they should be forbidden from having kids? No, it doesn't. Two people that have a strong desire to be together should not be forbidden from doing so by law.

guy133
16th July 2008, 11:01 PM
a. between consenting underaged siblings - fine
b. between consenting adults - fine
c. active contraception (and abortion in the event of pregnancy) - fine
d. within a homosexual relationship (therefore no risk of pregnancy) - never alright.

I personally don't see anything wrong with it, just as long as their are no kids involved. Do what you want to each other, just don't bring someone else into it (or give me gross images).


Wait... You don't have a problem with a brother and sister having sexual intercourse... which COULD result in a baby with a disability...

...But you do have a problem with two gay brothers having sex, which doesn't in anyway, have a chance of a baby?

I just say, as long as the two brothers keep it to themselves, I would say sex between brothers is better than sex between a brother and sister.

Willow's Tara
17th July 2008, 1:58 AM
Regan- You are aware that an incest homosexual relationship wouldn't have a child right? And yes Regan, I dop have a problem with your homophobia but it depends on how homophobia you are, are we talking I don't like homosexuals or I hate homosexuals they all sould burn in hell and not able to get married and adopt children? If option 2 then yes I defiently have a problem with you.

Anways, as I said before I think incest couples of any sort (FYI Regan, I have two incest sisters in my story, too bad if it should never be allowed, it happened) should adopt instead of having, not only the risks ofall the things said in here, also because adopting a child means taking a homeless kid or orphan into a nice home.

Regan
17th July 2008, 2:36 AM
uh regan, do you mean 'all right' as in... nasty or you'd make it illegal for homosexuals to have sex?

because that's the silliest thing i've heard in awhile.

Of course I don't believe it should be illegal, now that would be silly. I just don't like the idea, or support it.


Oh please...

The only reason you don't like homosexuality is probably because you think it is "gross" and "unnatural," and yet you are going to turn around and defend other forms of incest, something that other people find "gross" and "unnatural?" That's a bit of a contradictory opinion right there.

That's a bit of an assumption right there.

I'm not sharing my views on homosexuals here, but i will defend the gross and unnatural part of incest. Whats so gross and unnatural about it? Two consenting adults (or hell, even children) having sex purely for pleasure. It shouldn't matter whether they be brother or sister, strangers, or life long partners. Its got nothing to do with having children, so that rules out the unnatural part, and the whole gross thing there just means you need to grow up and realise people have sex, they've been having sex since the dawn of man, and most of the time its not to create offspring.


Regan- You are aware that an incest homosexual relationship wouldn't have a child right? And yes Regan, I dop have a problem with your homophobia but it depends on how homophobia you are, are we talking I don't like homosexuals or I hate homosexuals they all sould burn in hell and not able to get married and adopt children? If option 2 then yes I defiently have a problem with you.

I don't believe anything bad should happen to them or that they should be punished in any way, but i'm really not that open to the idea. If they wanna do it, i'm cool with it. I just don't want to know about it. Maybe ill change my first post to make me sound a little less like a jackass. Sorry if i offended anyone.


(FYI Regan, I have two incest sisters in my story, too bad if it should never be allowed, it happened)

I guess i didn't really think of Girls as homosexual. I use the term Gay/Homosexual for Men, and Lesbian for Woman. I'm a male, kill me for having double standards.

Ethan
17th July 2008, 4:02 AM
Like I said before, sex doesn't always result in children. Oral and anal sex between two family members does not result in a child, and yet those are still illegal. What if it was decided that an incestual relationship would require the male by law to get a vasectemoy, a simple procedure? Would you still think incest was wrong then since the chances of having a child would be pretty much eliminated altogether?

The thing is we can't control what goes on behind closed doors(I'm not saying we should!) so we don't have any inclination as to what kind of sex these people are having. Secondly let me ask you a question. How many babies do you think come into the world that are actually planned? If the chances of reproduction are completely eliminated then yes, I'm for it.

GhostAnime
17th July 2008, 6:33 AM
you support incest (which actually creates a miserable person), but you think two guys who mind their own business is..

yeah regan and his double standards as usual. i forgot.

Blue_Lightning8
17th July 2008, 6:46 AM
[QUOTE=Regan;8380560]I don't believe anything bad should happen to them or that they should be punished in any way, but i'm really not that open to the idea. If they wanna do it, i'm cool with it. I just don't want to know about it. Maybe ill change my first post to make me sound a little less like a jackass. Sorry if i offended anyone.QUOTE]

I agree with you. Just think of what you say before you say it, right?
But I agree with you about Gay Marriage. I don't think it should be legalized because marriage should be between a man and a woman. I'm not homophobic and I don't care about gay sex or whatever. Just against the marriage part.

And about incest, I think that it's morally repugnant.

Dark SpOOn Bender
17th July 2008, 7:10 AM
The thing is we can't control what goes on behind closed doors(I'm not saying we should!) so we don't have any inclination as to what kind of sex these people are having. Secondly let me ask you a question. How many babies do you think come into the world that are actually planned? If the chances of reproduction are completely eliminated then yes, I'm for it.

There isn't a law about disabled couples having their own children, despite the fact that their child has a higher risk of having a disability. "Normal" couples can also legally have children even if they know that some negative health-related gene runs in both of their respective families. If those people are allowed to take a risk by deciding to have their own child, then why shouldn't incestual couples have the same right? It should be either all or nothing, and personally I do not support the illegality of certain people having children just because of a disability risk. If the parents know what they could be getting themselves into and are willing to do what it takes to take care of their own child then I think they should be allowed to take the chance. Now I'm not saying that adopting wouldn't be a better option for incestual couples (because it probably would be), but I still think it is their natural right decide to have a child if they can take care of him/her regardless of how they are born.


That's a bit of an assumption right there.

I'm not sharing my views on homosexuals here, but i will defend the gross and unnatural part of incest. Whats so gross and unnatural about it? Two consenting adults (or hell, even children) having sex purely for pleasure. It shouldn't matter whether they be brother or sister, strangers, or life long partners. Its got nothing to do with having children, so that rules out the unnatural part, and the whole gross thing there just means you need to grow up and realise people have sex, they've been having sex since the dawn of man, and most of the time its not to create offspring.

Well, I have never heard of any other excuses for being against homosexuality other than "it's gross" or "it's unnatural" (you can stick some religious comment at the end of those too)...but w/e. I'm glad we're on the same page about incest relationships, though.

I believe the only reason to even debate about incest is because of a disability risk on children, but I already explained why that shouldn't be a reason to make it illegal. The other reason others debate about incest is because of how "gross" it is, but a law shouldn't be based on what some people think is "gross." If you are against incest and want to stand there all day explaining why you think it's disgusting, fine, but stop people from doing it. I can have a whole conversation about why I think the taste of pickles is disgusting, but I'm not going to go on and state that nobody should eat pickles because of it. Why? Because most people would think what I was saying was ridiculous, which it would be. Just because it isn't my cup of tea doesn't mean it isn't somebody else's.

Ethan
17th July 2008, 7:17 AM
There isn't a law about disabled couples having their own children, despite the fact that their child has a higher risk of having a disability. "Normal" couples can also legally have children even if they know that some negative health-related gene runs in both of their respective families. If those people are allowed to take a risk by deciding to have their own child, then why shouldn't incestual couples have the same right? I should be either all or nothing, and personally I do not support having it be illegal for certain people to have their own children just because of a disability risk.


Then it's the same principle. My stance still stands in that situation as well. It depends on the severity of the disability. Something like a hearing disorder is not too serious at all, being born paralyzed from the waste down while retaining the intellect of a 4 year old for the rest of your life is another story.



If the parents know what they could be getting themselves into and are willing to do what it takes to take care of their own child then I think it is their right to have a baby and take the chance. Now I'm not saying that adopting wouldn't be a better option for incestual couples (because it would be), but I still think it is their natural right to have a child if they can take care of him/her no matter how the child is born.

What about the childs right? Does the life in question have any rights? From the way you are speaking it looks like your answer to that is a no. Please clarify.

Dark SpOOn Bender
17th July 2008, 7:32 AM
What about the childs right? Does the life in question have any rights? From the way you are speaking it looks like your answer to that is a no. Please clarify.

What rights are you talking about? The child's right to not be born at all because of the risk of a disability? I'm not sure how many disabled people would say that they wished they weren't born or that they are glad to be alive despite their disability. I do, however, know that it is up to the parents to decide to conceive or not despite the risks since they couldn't possibly know whether their child will "enjoy" being alive or not. To be or not to be born isn't exactly a practical right for an unborn child.

Ketsuban
17th July 2008, 7:35 AM
I'm not sharing my views on homosexuals here, but i will defend the gross and unnatural part of incest. Whats so gross and unnatural about it? Two consenting adults (or hell, even children) having sex purely for pleasure. It shouldn't matter whether they be brother or sister, strangers, or life long partners. Its got nothing to do with having children, so that rules out the unnatural part, and the whole gross thing there just means you need to grow up and realise people have sex, they've been having sex since the dawn of man, and most of the time its not to create offspring.

...is it even necessary to point out how hypocritical this is?

Ethan
17th July 2008, 8:30 AM
What rights are you talking about? The child's right to not be born at all because of the risk of a disability? I'm not sure how many disabled people would say that they wished they weren't born or that they are glad to be alive despite their disability. I do, however, know that it is up to the parents to decide to conceive or not despite the risks since they couldn't possibly know whether their child will "enjoy" being alive or not. To be or not to be born isn't exactly a practical right for an unborn child.


Are we delving into a different topic here...?

Willow's Tara
17th July 2008, 8:44 AM
Regan- So you are one of those guys? Hate gays and love lesbians, oh btw Homosexuals means both girls and guys. Sure I might like lesbians a little more but I don't shun a gay man, infact if a guy should hit on me I would be flattered even thought I would have to reject him. But that isn't the discussion about you being an very huge hyprocrite.

And you know what, I don't know what's true or not but whoever made or who the first human (Adam and Eve or evolution from chimps), in a way we are all kinda related. Unless tat's just all nothing and the way it really started was after the dinos went exicint God or whoever put about a billion un related people on earth.

Note: This is not what I really think, I just put it here as an example.


Edit: DSB- I am not really "disabled or Handicapped" but I am hearing impaired and I am glad that I was born, I mean sure my life isn't that perfect, and I hate being deaf but if my parents were told they couldn't have kids because they were going to have a child with hearing disbility or a child with disblity but they did it anyway, I would still be happy. (They wouldn't be told that anyway, nobody knows why I came out hearing impairment)

Othin
17th July 2008, 12:24 PM
f the parents know what they could be getting themselves into and are willing to do what it takes to take care of their own child then I think they should be allowed to take the chance.
It's not what would happen to the parents that anyone cares about.

Regan
17th July 2008, 12:31 PM
Regan- So you are one of those guys? Hate gays and love lesbians, oh btw Homosexuals means both girls and guys. Sure I might like lesbians a little more but I don't shun a gay man, infact if a guy should hit on me I would be flattered even thought I would have to reject him. But that isn't the discussion about you being an very huge hyprocrite.

Thank god we live in a country where i'm allowed to have double standards and not be judged for that :) It's a little mean saying i'm 'of those guys' just because i don't mind lesbians but don't like the idea of two hairy sweaty men carrassing each other.


you support incest (which actually creates a miserable person), but you think two guys who mind their own business is..

Actually, two guys who mind their own business are completely fine. I couldn't care less what men do when they're alone, just as long as i don't have to hear about it. How does incest make someone miserable?


yeah regan and his double standards as usual. i forgot

When have i had double standards before? I'll be blunt here. I'd much rather watch two chicks together than two men. Why? Because i'm a male, and i'm human. Two chicks just doesn't seem so.. abnormal to me.


...is it even necessary to point out how hypocritical this is?

It would be hypocritical, if i didn't have other reasons for not supporting homosexuals. I replied to the points he made. If you want to make your own, feel free to

KetchupO
17th July 2008, 1:16 PM
When have i had double standards before? I'll be blunt here. I'd much rather watch two chicks together than two men. Why? Because i'm a male, and i'm human. Two chicks just doesn't seem so.. abnormal to me.
No. Because you're horny and think with your penis.

Thank god we live in a country where i'm allowed to have double standards and not be judged for that It's a little mean saying i'm 'of those guys' just because i don't mind lesbians but don't like the idea of two hairy sweaty men carrassing each other.
But you're okay with the idea of a brother doing his sister?

Right....

GhostAnime
17th July 2008, 2:43 PM
Thank god we live in a country where i'm allowed to have double standards
damn and you don't even live in america: the king of double-standards!


How does incest make someone miserable?
oh you know what i mean by this.


When have i had double standards before?
plenty of times. the prostitution debate is a good example.

Regan
17th July 2008, 2:46 PM
No. Because you're horny and think with your penis.

No, because its natural to be more attracted to females than male. If that means thinking with your penis to you, then so be it. I call it human nature.


But you're okay with the idea of a brother doing his sister?

And yet you fail to actually show whats wrong with it.


Right....

Mhmm.

GhostAnime
17th July 2008, 2:58 PM
oh, and i'll admit that what regan doing when it comes to lesbians and gays is a double-standard but it is because.. well, he's straight. i don't know a straight guy that would prefer gays having sex to lesbians.

KetchupO
17th July 2008, 3:07 PM
And yet you fail to actually show whats wrong with it.
Like you fail to show whats so wrong about sexual intercourse between two men.

Maruno
17th July 2008, 3:11 PM
Like you fail to show whats so wrong about sexual intercourse between two men.
The mature thing would be to prove your own point first, and then tell Regan he's in the wrong thread for discussing homosexuality. This debate is for incest.

Carlisle
17th July 2008, 3:26 PM
Guys, lay off Regan, he's NOT saying, "FAGS SHOULD BE SHOT. KILL THEM ALL. DOWN WITH GAY MARRIAGE." He doesn't mind the general thought of lesbians because he is a heterosexual MAN. The thought of two men doesn't APPEAL to him. No where did he say he dislikes or hates homosexual PEOPLE.

Jesus Christ, someone can't say they dislike homosexuality anymore without being attacked.



But I agree with you about Gay Marriage. I don't think it should be legalized because marriage should be between a man and a woman. I'm not homophobic and I don't care about gay sex or whatever. Just against the marriage part.


Guess what? No one cares what you think.
Guess what? Petty morals don't belong in the law system.
Guess what? Who marries who is none of your business.

KetchupO
17th July 2008, 3:30 PM
The mature thing would be to prove your own point first, and then tell Regan he's in the wrong thread for discussing homosexuality. This debate is for incest.
You're right :)

I believe incest is wrong because,

Incest has been shown to be one of the most extreme forms of childhood trauma, a trauma that often does serious and long-term psychological damage, especially in the case of parental incest.

Children, whether consenting or not, probably do not know any better.
Sibling incest is most common in families where one or both parents are often absent or emotionally unavailable, with the abusive siblings using incest as a way to assert their power over a weaker sibling and thereby express their feelings of hurt and rage.

The damaging effects on both childhood development and adult symptoms resulting from brother–sister sexual abuse are similar to the effects of father–daughter, including substance abuse, depression, suicidality, and eating disorders.


Yep~

Carlisle
17th July 2008, 3:39 PM
You're right :)

I believe incest is wrong because,

Incest has been shown to be one of the most extreme forms of childhood trauma, a trauma that often does serious and long-term psychological damage, especially in the case of parental incest.

Children, whether consenting or not, probably do not know any better.
Sibling incest is most common in families where one or both parents are often absent or emotionally unavailable, with the abusive siblings using incest as a way to assert their power over a weaker sibling and thereby express their feelings of hurt and rage.

The damaging effects on both childhood development and adult symptoms resulting from brother–sister sexual abuse are similar to the effects of father–daughter, including substance abuse, depression, suicidality, and eating disorders.


Yep~
You're equating incest with sexual abuse.

A brother dating his sister at age 18 isn't going to cause psychological effects.

KetchupO
17th July 2008, 3:47 PM
A brother dating his sister at age 18 isn't going to cause psychological effects.
Right.

But I believe it occurs because the siblings have some sort of psychological effect to begin with.
Such as, absence of a parent when they were younger could cause them to need each other more than necessary.

Most forms of incest is sexual abuse though...

Carlisle
17th July 2008, 3:49 PM
Right.

But I believe it occurs because the siblings have some sort of psychological effect.
Such as, absence of a parent when they were younger could cause them to need each other more than necessary.

Most incest is sexual abuse though...
But you know, homosexuality can be applied in this situation.

As you know, homosexuality is often caused through sexual abuse, psychological trauma, and environments that a person was raised in. IE, a father never being around, a child always being left with his mother.

So by that logic, shouldn't homosexuality be wrong?

Maruno
17th July 2008, 4:00 PM
Incest has been shown to be one of the most extreme forms of childhood trauma, a trauma that often does serious and long-term psychological damage, especially in the case of parental incest.
Under what circumstances? Are you thinking of incestuous rape, perhaps? Because I'll agree, that would be traumatic; but it's not a relationship by any standard.


with the abusive siblings using incest as a way to assert their power over a weaker sibling and thereby express their feelings of hurt and rage.
You've said "abusive", meaning abuse, which again is not a relationship.


Most forms of incest is sexual abuse though...
Perhaps, but we're not talking about sexual abuse. We're talking about incestuous relationships (as far as I'm aware).


Incest is defined as sexual intercourse between closely related family members. In this topic, I will use the narrow definition of immediate relatives; i.e. parents and siblings.

In a historical context, incestuous relationships are sparsely documented, but featured prominantly in Ancient Egypt; where Pharoahs often married siblings to maintain royal "purity". The earliest source of stigma can be traced to the myth of Oedipus, where a sexual relationship between mother and son is shown to lead ultimately to disaster. Rightly or wrongly, it remains taboo to this day, having survived the post-war sexual revolution and despite increasingly liberal attitudes. The purpose of this thread is to deconstruct a sensitive subject and debate whether incest can ever be acceptable.

Before we venture further, read this article (http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4332635.ece?pgnum=2).

It is important to differentiate between the two dominant examples of incest. They are:
1. between parent and offspring
2. between siblings

If we agree that morality is a human construct and therefore dependent upon perspective, then can either case ever be acceptable under any (all) of the following circumstances:
a. between consenting underaged siblings
b. between consenting adults
c. active contraception (and abortion in the event of pregnancy)
d. within a homosexual relationship (therefore no risk of pregnancy)
Here we go. Can incest ever be acceptable? The most acceptable form, I would imagine, is brother and sister, both adults, consenting and in love. Should these two be allowed to be together (I'm not talking marriage or anything; just that they not be made to separate)?

KetchupO
17th July 2008, 4:02 PM
As you know, homosexuality is often caused through sexual abuse, psychological trauma, and environments that a person was raised in. IE, a father never being around, a child always being left with his mother.

So by that logic, shouldn't homosexuality be wrong?
Yes.
But Homosexuality isn't going to lead to abnormal children with disabilities~
Which is a failed argument I know, because the siblings could have a relationship without conceiving children...

So, I guess I've run out of arguments xD
Bai~

pikablue
17th July 2008, 4:29 PM
Yeah, thats right. Got anything against people who don't like homosexuals, you homophobicphobe?
yep. people have to face, until we have acceptance of those who are different, we'll never have total peace and equality.

Hive Mind
17th July 2008, 4:37 PM
This reminds me of the end of Blades of Glory, when the evil siblings make out before they're arrested.

I think as long as they don't have any kids, its alright with me.

Othin
17th July 2008, 5:02 PM
Guys, lay off Regan, he's NOT saying, "FAGS SHOULD BE SHOT. KILL THEM ALL. DOWN WITH GAY MARRIAGE." He doesn't mind the general thought of lesbians because he is a heterosexual MAN. The thought of two men doesn't APPEAL to him. No where did he say he dislikes or hates homosexual PEOPLE.

Jesus Christ, someone can't say they dislike homosexuality anymore without being attacked.

Saying that something is "never okay for anyone to do" is very different from saying that "the thought of it doesn't appeal to you".

If what he said could mean what you're saying it means, while not everyone would like the fact that he had said that, you would be right to say that it's not a problem for him to say that. The problem is that that doesn't seem to be the situation.

Dark SpOOn Bender
17th July 2008, 8:15 PM
Are we delving into a different topic here...?

Well... you are the one that said that a child resulting from an incestual relationship is being denied of its rights. What rights are you talking about? That was the point of my post - trying to figure what rights you were talking about because I don't really see how deciding to have a child that has a risk of a disability is denying that child of any rights.


It's not what would happen to the parents that anyone cares about.

What?
I was saying that if the parents want to have their own offspring and are prepared to take on any challenges that might come up and if they can give their child a good life regardless then I think it is their right to breed. I don't think it is anybody else's place to tell them they can't have a baby just because of disability risk.

Othin
17th July 2008, 8:21 PM
What?
I was saying that if the parents want to have their own offspring and are prepared to take on any challenges that might come up and if they can give their child a good life regardless then I think it is their right to breed. I don't think it is anybody else's place to tell them they can't have a baby just because of disability risk.
You can never say for sure that they'll give the kid a life it'll in the end be glad it lived. Again, them being "ready for the challenge" may mean that they're fine with it, but it says nothing about any kids they may have.

Maruno
17th July 2008, 9:07 PM
You can never say for sure that they'll give the kid a life it'll in the end be glad it lived. Again, them being "ready for the challenge" may mean that they're fine with it, but it says nothing about any kids they may have.
Surely you could say that about any couple wanting a child? Anything could happen after the child is born that then makes it hate its life. That wouldn't have anything to do with the parents.

Strants
17th July 2008, 9:53 PM
As far as disabilities are conserned, insest isn't the only way, you know. It amy have twice the chance of producing a disabled baby, but that still only results in a 7 in one-hundred chance, as apposed to a 3 in one-hundred. Strickly speaking, Africans have a high chance of having sickle cell trait or disease. Should we stop Africans from having children? If it is with another African with sickle cell trait, the child has a one in four chance of having sickle cell disease. That's much greater then the chance of incest producing a disabled child. Even if it doesn't give then the disease, it could give them the trait, 'corrupting the gene pool.' Source. (http://www.4woman.gov/minority/africanamerican/sickle.cfm)

And look at maternal obesity! It causes birth defects, too. I guess fat mommas (put that in for humor value) shouldn't be able to reproduce, because even if their child doesn't have a birth defect (and the ones liked with obesity are very serious) (s)he may inherit the gene that causes obesity, 'corrupting the gene pool'. Source. (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/07/science/sci-obesity7)

Lone--Wanderer
17th July 2008, 10:22 PM
Doesn't being a carrier of sickle cell grant resistence against maleria, though? Because, if I have my facts right, that would be helping the gene pool, not hurting it.

Strants
17th July 2008, 10:55 PM
Doesn't being a carrier of sickle cell grant resistence against maleria, though? Because, if I have my facts right, that would be helping the gene pool, not hurting it. Helping and hurting, maybe. But honestly, as we are doing our best to get rid of malaria, it's not nearly as useful as it was, say, a hundred of years ago. the same way a gene humans have that protects them from one form of HIV allows another in. It's the opposite for chimps, I believe.

Dark SpOOn Bender
17th July 2008, 11:01 PM
To all of those worrying about the gene pool being negatively affected by incest, you are being too dramatic. Humans are not a species limited in number or habitat range. Then you look at the fact that even if incest became legal, the amount of children in the world population resulting from incestual relationships would still most likely be insignificant.


Surely you could say that about any couple wanting a child? Anything could happen after the child is born that then makes it hate its life. That wouldn't have anything to do with the parents.

Thank you. That was exactly my point as to why stable parents should be allowed to have a child even with a risk of disability. If a child is born with a disability, that doesn't always mean they would have been better off not being alive at all. The parent's cannot predict what their child will think of their life.

And like Strants stated, incest isn't the only type of relationship that ups the chances of certain disabilities, and yet none of those are illegal.


Doesn't being a carrier of sickle cell grant resistence against maleria, though? Because, if I have my facts right, that would be helping the gene pool, not hurting it.

Sickle cell causes red blood cells to take on an abnormal shape. This restricts the blood cells' movement through blood vessels, which can deprive tissues of blood and therefore deprive them of oxygen. This can result in intense chronic pain, various organ damage, and shortened life expectancies.

tl;dr Sickle cell isn't good.

Othin
18th July 2008, 5:44 AM
Surely you could say that about any couple wanting a child? Anything could happen after the child is born that then makes it hate its life. That wouldn't have anything to do with the parents.
The chances of it happening with other couples is significantly lower.

Sure, other things could happen later. But there's no way to deal with them in the same way a predicted birth defect could be dealt with.

Dark SpOOn Bender
18th July 2008, 7:02 AM
The chances of it happening with other couples is significantly lower.

How can you be sure about that? Show me solid facts that say that a child born from an incestual couple has a higher chance of wishing they were never born at all.

Othin
18th July 2008, 4:03 PM
Of having the kind of defect that could cause that? You even need to ask?

Dark SpOOn Bender
18th July 2008, 6:44 PM
Of having the kind of defect that could cause that? You even need to ask?

Yes I need to ask. The answer to your question is not a given. If you have no evidence, then you can't make a claim like that.

Maruno
18th July 2008, 6:51 PM
Chances may be lower with non-related couples, but there's still a chance. How about Huntington's disease? It's genetic, and very bad for you. Should someone with the disease be banned from reproducing, even though there's a 50% chance of the offspring inheriting it? I don't think they are, even though it's a huge risk of ruining the child's life.

Genetic defects in incest lines become more pronounced the more incest goes on. Once between cousins barely affects things. Should cousins be banned from reproducing, then? And why?

ninjacop87
18th July 2008, 9:01 PM
Yes.
But Homosexuality isn't going to lead to abnormal children with disabilities~
Which is a failed argument I know, because the siblings could have a relationship without conceiving children...

So, I guess I've run out of arguments xD
Bai~

that doesnt make it right it was adam and eve not adam and steve God made men and woman to be together not man and man why do u think he destroyed babylon there was nothing but ***gots there

ninjacop87
18th July 2008, 9:05 PM
Hmm. . . It's hard to say. My main objection is that it can cause major problems. Ethically? I'd really think that if two people really love each other, it will last until adulthood, but. . . Overall, I'm pretty split, but I'm no more against this than any other form of underage sex.
If proper measures are taken to prevent a more likely disability, I'm for it.
I believe abortion should only be used as a last resort. So, I'm against this.
Well, not being against homosexuality, I find it pointless to answer this question in any more depth than I have already.

Why do people seem to think that only certain kinds of love is acceptable?

abortion should not even be a resort dont go whoring around when you dont want kids go ahead and do it but dont kill the child that will be born its just wrong

Carlisle
18th July 2008, 9:05 PM
that doesnt make it right it was adam and eve not adam and steve God made men and woman to be together not man and man why do u think he destroyed babylon there was nothing but ***gots there
You're an idiot who knows nothing of the world. Kill yourself immediately.

ninjacop87
18th July 2008, 9:06 PM
Hmm. . . It's hard to say. My main objection is that it can cause major problems. Ethically? I'd really think that if two people really love each other, it will last until adulthood, but. . . Overall, I'm pretty split, but I'm no more against this than any other form of underage sex.
If proper measures are taken to prevent a more likely disability, I'm for it.
I believe abortion should only be used as a last resort. So, I'm against this.
Well, not being against homosexuality, I find it pointless to answer this question in any more depth than I have already.

Why do people seem to think that only certain kinds of love is acceptable?

abortion should not even be a resort dont go whoring around when you dont want kids go ahead and do it but dont kill the child that will be born its just wrong

ninjacop87
18th July 2008, 9:11 PM
Hmm. . . It's hard to say. My main objection is that it can cause major problems. Ethically? I'd really think that if two people really love each other, it will last until adulthood, but. . . Overall, I'm pretty split, but I'm no more against this than any other form of underage sex.
If proper measures are taken to prevent a more likely disability, I'm for it.
I believe abortion should only be used as a last resort. So, I'm against this.
Well, not being against homosexuality, I find it pointless to answer this question in any more depth than I have already.

Why do people seem to think that only certain kinds of love is acceptable?

only 1 type of love is acceptable because there is only 1 love dont be a fool GOD created us 4 the opposite sex what happened to babylon it got destroyed can u see what babylon is now iraq where evil dwells that to me is proof that homosexuality is wrong is evil

ninjacop87
18th July 2008, 9:15 PM
that article was gross. incest is gross. who would do thier close relative?

true but if they want to make it your right to marry same sex then they should make it your right to marry your cousin after all its just love right as long as you love each other its all good lets make inbread children and spread aids to all of them i am being sarcastic in case you dont know incest and gay marriage is wrong

ninjacop87
18th July 2008, 9:36 PM
this is debate forum multiposting rules dont take place here and i should report you for cursing ill do so

Lone--Wanderer
18th July 2008, 9:57 PM
We should report you for being stupid. :|

Also, late reply, but:


Sickle cell causes red blood cells to take on an abnormal shape. This restricts the blood cells' movement through blood vessels, which can deprive tissues of blood and therefore deprive them of oxygen. This can result in intense chronic pain, various organ damage, and shortened life expectancies.

tl;dr Sickle cell isn't good.

I meant having the gene, and not necassaily expressing it, helps prevent malaria, not that its great and wonderful and does nothing else. It's a double-edged sword, so to say. Sorry if I didn't clarify my point.

Maruno
18th July 2008, 9:57 PM
Incredible. Every time you open your mouth you prove you're an idiot.

I know I shouldn't be feeding the troll, but he has to learn some way. I know if I was shown I was being an utter moron, I'd think twice about what I was doing. Then again, I have a brain.


that doesnt make it right it was adam and eve not adam and steve God made men and woman to be together not man and man why do u think he destroyed babylon there was nothing but ***gots there
The Adam and Eve story, which obviously you take literally, is the very best example of incest. Clearly incest is just fine to you, although homosexuality isn't. "Homosexuality: good/evil?" belongs in a different debate.


abortion should not even be a resort dont go whoring around when you dont want kids go ahead and do it but dont kill the child that will be born its just wrong
Abortion is up to the individual. You want to take away everyone's right to choose for themselves (to abort or not to abort) just because you don't like it. Somehow you're better than everyone else? "Abortion: right/wrong?" also belongs in a different debate.


only 1 type of love is acceptable because there is only 1 love dont be a fool GOD created us 4 the opposite sex what happened to babylon it got destroyed can u see what babylon is now iraq where evil dwells that to me is proof that homosexuality is wrong is evil
Ah yes, Iraq. That group of people who think different things to you. They're clearly evil, and must die.

No, that was sarcasm. Go read about it in Wikipedia. Oh, and don't use the word "proof" when you mean "opinion".


true but if they want to make it your right to marry same sex then they should make it your right to marry your cousin after all its just love right as long as you love each other its all good lets make inbread children and spread aids to all of them i am being sarcastic in case you dont know incest and gay marriage is wrong
Don't be afraid of punctuation. It won't kill you.

Inbreeding does not equal AIDS. Read about it. And yet again, homosexuality goes in another debate.


this is debate forum multiposting rules dont take place here and i should report you for cursing ill do so
This... isn't even relevant to anything. Really.

ninjacop87
19th July 2008, 12:37 AM
some1 was trying to report me 4 multiposting i was replying 2 that person

ninjacop87
19th July 2008, 12:38 AM
some1 was trying to report me 4 multiposting i was replying 2 that person

The Composer
19th July 2008, 12:46 AM
Incest is just wrong. It is programmed into us to know that it's wrong because of what it can cause (defects and such). Thinking about it logically, it makes sense that family members could fall in love, but it repulses something inside of me. I really do believe that it's internal programming that makes it wrong to us.

Carlisle
19th July 2008, 12:48 AM
some1 was trying to report me 4 multiposting i was replying 2 that person
Yeah, me, and I did report all your posts.

Anyways. We can all stop spamming. :)

I'd just like to point out incest doesn't ALWAYS end up in mutated children. Take a look at the Josef Fritzl case. All the children turned out normal. Er, well, the ones who lived up in the house, the other three WOULD have been if they weren't locked up in dungeons their whole life. But then again, they have recovered.

ninjacop87
19th July 2008, 12:48 AM
Incredible. Every time you open your mouth you prove you're an idiot.

I know I shouldn't be feeding the troll, but he has to learn some way. I know if I was shown I was being an utter moron, I'd think twice about what I was doing. Then again, I have a brain.


The Adam and Eve story, which obviously you take literally, is the very best example of incest. Clearly incest is just fine to you, although homosexuality isn't. "Homosexuality: good/evil?" belongs in a different debate.


Abortion is up to the individual. You want to take away everyone's right to choose for themselves (to abort or not to abort) just because you don't like it. Somehow you're better than everyone else? "Abortion: right/wrong?" also belongs in a different debate.


Ah yes, Iraq. That group of people who think different things to you. They're clearly evil, and must die.

No, that was sarcasm. Go read about it in Wikipedia. Oh, and don't use the word "proof" when you mean "opinion".


Don't be afraid of punctuation. It won't kill you.

Inbreeding does not equal AIDS. Read about it. And yet again, homosexuality goes in another debate.


This... isn't even relevant to anything. Really.

when i said inbred and aids i meant lets allow incest and gay marriage and spread aids to everyone i did not say incest causes aids i meant gay marriage and incase you did not notice i was replying to other peoples comments and things were different in the time of adam and eve how else would they reproduce there not asexual so it is not the same thing as incest and last of all you do have a brain its just too small

Carlisle
19th July 2008, 12:52 AM
when i said inbred and aids i meant lets allow incest and gay marriage and spread aids to everyone i did not say incest causes aids i meant gay marriage and incase you did not notice i was replying to other peoples comments and things were different in the time of adam and eve how else would they reproduce there not asexual so it is not the same thing as incest and last of all you do have a brain its just too small
A marriage contract causes AIDs?

Wow, you're a dumb****.

Doom and Gloom
19th July 2008, 12:56 AM
Everybody in this thread besides ninjacop are a bunch of little whiny *****es. You gotta take shots at his punctuation because you have nothing else. Everything he has said is completely true and correct. I especially agree with his abortion stance. When a woman decides to abort, she is not choosing for herself. Another human being's life is in her hands, and she's throwing that away. Conscious disregard for another's life is not right. Anybody who does something like is is horribly selfish. I don't know how somebody could deny another life because they can't handle the responsibility put on them by their own **** stupid actions. There are so many adoption programs and people desperately pining for the chance to have their own children. These people will even pay for the chance to adopt children who need it, yet you have all be dumb****s aborting their children. It's just vile.

Carlisle
19th July 2008, 1:00 AM
Everybody in this thread besides ninjacop are a bunch of little whiny *****es. You gotta take shots at his punctuation because you have nothing else. Everything he has said is completely true and correct. I especially agree with his abortion stance. When a woman decides to abort, she is not choosing for herself. Another human being's life is in her hands, and she's throwing that away. Conscious disregard for another's life is not right. Anybody who does something like is is horribly selfish. I don't know how somebody could deny another life because they can't handle the responsibility put on them by their own **** stupid actions. There are so many adoption programs and people desperately pining for the chance to have their own children. These people will even pay for the chance to adopt children who need it, yet you have all be dumb****s aborting their children. It's just vile.
Reported. Since when has this thread become a homosexuality and abortion thread?

Peter Quill
19th July 2008, 1:01 AM
My morals against Incest are I find it Absolutely disgusting!

But you c'ant justify your reason and beliefs against people that love eatchother even if they are sibs!

IF I was in love with my sister (EWWW...) i wouldnt kiss her and stuff in public that would disgust people!

And since when is this A abortion thread

either way everyone stop *****in at ninjacop whats the point of attacking some dude you dont know?!?!?!?!

Doom and Gloom
19th July 2008, 1:04 AM
Moogle4ever pwns.


And Carlisle is a f u c k f a c e!!!!!!

ninjacop87
19th July 2008, 1:17 AM
[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Reported. Since when has this thread become a homosexuality and abortion thread?

it became the topic when people started talking about it moron pm me so we can hav a little talk i didnt say gay marriage caused aids i meant gay sex alright idiot GOD is with me and you cant change that you cant change my righteous beliefs because the are nothing but fact go ahead and report me all you want and go shag it up with whoever you want i will be praying for you

ninjacop87
19th July 2008, 1:19 AM
My morals against Incest are I find it Absolutely disgusting!

But you c'ant justify your reason and beliefs against people that love eatchother even if they are sibs!

IF I was in love with my sister (EWWW...) i wouldnt kiss her and stuff in public that would disgust people!

And since when is this A abortion thread

either way everyone stop *****in at ninjacop whats the point of attacking some dude you dont know?!?!?!?!

thank you finaly some 1 with common sense as the same with doom gloom

Dark SpOOn Bender
19th July 2008, 1:19 AM
Maruno and Carlisle, don't bother responding to those posters. It's obvious they are saying that stuff to purposely disrupt the debate and they'll be gone soon enough.


Incest is just wrong. It is programmed into us to know that it's wrong because of what it can cause (defects and such). Thinking about it logically, it makes sense that family members could fall in love, but it repulses something inside of me. I really do believe that it's internal programming that makes it wrong to us.
No, there is no rule book to life that says what's natural and what isn't. The reason you think it's disgusting is because that is what society has taught you; it's just too bad that society has no solid backup to that claim other than "eeew icky."

Carlisle
19th July 2008, 1:19 AM
1. I have faith, no need to pray for me.
2. I already sent you a PM.
3. This ends NOW.

Doom and Gloom
19th July 2008, 1:25 AM
Uh oh...someones getting cranky...

Man, Dark Spoon Bender's a F u c k f a c e too. Tough call, but he just might be as big a one as Carlisle.

Doom and Gloom
19th July 2008, 1:26 AM
Man, Dark Spoon Bender's a F u c k f a c e too. Tough call, but he just might be as big a one as Carlisle.

ninjacop87
19th July 2008, 1:32 AM
To me we are near to the final days and carisle can you hear satan laughing at you he is and all of the other homos as well

Doom and Gloom
19th July 2008, 1:33 AM
I agree... He is da best

Doom and Gloom
19th July 2008, 1:35 AM
I agree... He is da best

Doom and Gloom
19th July 2008, 1:36 AM
I agree... He is da best

Doom and Gloom
19th July 2008, 1:38 AM
I agree... He is da best

Strants
19th July 2008, 1:40 AM
This is REALLY getting old. Is this the debate forum, or the shout-at-other-people-and-try-to-make-them-look-like-total-idoits-and-not-make-any-real-points forum? Make a point or get out.

And if you think it is gross, and that's your only argument, what if I find something ANYTHING about you disgusting? If your only agrument is that something is gross, and as such, wrong, you would have something about you that is 'wrong,' because some people may find it gross.

Please, people, can we just get along and actually debate?

Nny
19th July 2008, 1:42 AM
Man, Dark Spoon Bender's a F u c k f a c e too. Tough call, but he just might be as big a one as Carlisle.
I agree, they both ****ing suck for having different opinions than your own! You go on and tell them how your opinions are really just facts!!!! To hell with them, they both can go have gay incest with satan!!!!!

Any who, if people want to do **** that you two personally believe will result in eternal damnation, you and ninja dork are nobody to tell them that it is wrong. Shut the hell up about people and let them rot in 'hell', its their Goddamn choice.

Incest in my view is something I would never do. Adopt kids or whatever, just don't try and breed.
Also one question, does the bible mention anything about doing it with cousins? What I heard was that they were fair game.

Carlisle
19th July 2008, 1:44 AM
I agree, they both ****ing suck for having different opinions than your own! You go on and tell them how your opinions are really just facts!!!! To hell with them, they both can go have gay incest with satan!!!!!

Any who, if people want to do **** that you two personally believe will result in eternal damnation, you and ninja dork are nobody to tell them that it is wrong. Shut the hell up about people and let them rot in 'hell', its their Goddamn choice.

Incest in my view is something I would never do. Adopt kids or whatever, just don't try and breed.
Also one question, does the bible mention anything about doing it with cousins? What I heard was that they were fair game.
Nny...I really have to quote that. :] It's probably the funniest thing I've seen on this forum in a while.

Peter Quill
19th July 2008, 1:48 AM
Maruno and Carlisle, don't bother responding to those posters. It's obvious they are saying that stuff to purposely disrupt the debate and they'll be gone soon enough.

I really hope you didnt mean me! if you did let's keep it to a PM




[QUOTE=Doom and Gloom;8390914]Moogle4ever pwns.


And Carlisle is a f u c k f a c e!!!!!!

Stop posting such Sh!T


1. I have faith, no need to pray for me.
2. I already sent you a PM.
3. This ends NOW.


Thank YOU

Rave
19th July 2008, 2:07 AM
Because you bunch of spamming idiots and flamers can't control yourself, none of you deserve this thread at all, nor do you deserve to come and fill debates with your ********.

To show you all I'm serious, anyone I caught flaming, spamming and whatever, will be infracted/banned. Regardless if you're new or not. My judgment here is strict, nor is it merciful.

Read the rules, live it, love it, embrace it.

EDIT:

To you BAN EVADERS who are reading this, quit your crying.

If you want to ***** at me, don't. I banned you, simply because I don't like being treated like ****, over a stupid little infraction, that you idiots brought upon yourselves.

Don't ever show your faces here again if that's the way you insolent brats are all going to be acting.