How many times do I have to call Godwins law on this topic?
Printable View
How many times do I have to call Godwins law on this topic?
Tal, do like I did and just stop trying. This is going nowhere...
:brickwallQuote:
Originally Posted by kandaurov
Just move on. Plenty more topics to discuss....
I'm all up for freedom of speech but not when it's for the sake of provoking others. After this post I refuse to come here again. Good day.
Wow, the threads you come across when looking down search results....
I'm surprised that the vast majority of people voted 'No'. I thought most people here were open-minded.
In the context of the Internet, this is an extremely "old" thread.
You can't really discuss this topic as a real life possibility-- there's too much of a "yick!" factor. But it does appear in literature. It exists as a theme in mythology (the ancient gods and goddesses.) By the way, whom did Adam and Eve's children marry? Back in '09 some Litnutter mentioned "Middlesex," an excellent novel by Jeffrey Eugenides, but a century earlier Thomas Mann had a short story (maybe a novella) about a brother and sister. The title was their names, but I can't think of it! I believe the boy and girl shared their names with characters in the Ring cycle. Anybody know what the title
is?
I just find it remarkably bigoted that most people seem to think that just because they personally find it disgusting (as I do too, the notion of having sex with one of my siblings is horrific to be quite frank) that means other people should not be allowed to do it. It's not as though it hurts anyone else (with the possible exception of their children, but we haven't made lots of other things that hurt children illegal).
Well this is a blast from the past.... Good Times, Good Times...
oh my should even the question arise how does one begin let alone be.
anyway it is not about legality people would still what they want to do.
it is about the concept. I guess it is the pharaohs all around.
Reproduction has to be avoided; or the fetus screened for genetic problems and aborted if they have them. The thing itself is alright; if consensual - why shouldn't it be? People had the same reaction about miscegenation once.
I had two male cousins who dated each other. Didn't bother me and there's no risk of a 'special needs' child.
For the people who are offended that more people on here aren't "open-minded" enough, what does open-mindedness really mean to you? Just blindly condoning everything or considering the arguments from both angles and thinking them over carefully before coming to a conclusion? The latter is the real thing. The first one is just stupidity and refusing to think. I am not saying that if you support incest you're stupid, but don't be offended if not everyone supports it for other reasons.
Personally, incest to any degree does not sit well with me. But if two consenting adult siblings want to hit the sack, I guess what they do in privacy is their private business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
i agree. open mindedness is to recognise that other people may differ in opinions.
incest is medically/genetically wrong to start with and that should be enough to deter people from doing it.
two of my mother's cousins married and have two grown up children who are now both on wheelchairs for the rest of their lives.
same blood situation. .
i went to school with this girl who use to sit next to me. she was tall blond and quite nice looking but she was completely disabled. she could not talk walk properly. she was disabled from head to toe. here parents were cousins. again same blood situation. i felt sorry for her.
it was not her fault.
not a very nice thing to do incest. you could imagine the worseness of it even more when tow siblings are it. utter wrongness for the reasons i stated.
open minded about incest?Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
open mindedness is to accept that other people would have a different opinion from you.
that is what it means. incest is not right to the majority of people and that is an opinion that must be accepted. that is open mindedness.
indeed LOL it is them it is not you. you can't stop it but you can prevent it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buh4Bee
how is Godwin to do with it Taliesin? i live on Godwin road as it happens ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Taliesin
Freudian slip may have a take on it or two.
I don't believe incest is right and I'm not referring to 'incest property' laws which bore no threat of inbreeding but was self serving marital laws from the dark ages classified as incest to ensure that families didn't lose their property. I mean incest in its truest form both as a moral and biological wrong - although there is probably a stronger argument for the biological but I don't have any shame in throwing my moral standard in here for good measure having been a victim of incest myself. Having said that, it doesn't take experience to know that incest is a moral wrong. As responsible beings, we can discern rights and wrongs without having to be subject to them. It just means we have a deeper understanding and appreciation of the affect the wrong can have upon us if we do experience it.
Most of the arguments against non-reproductive, consensual incest - what we are, in the main, discussing here - center around two main themes.
The first is rationalisation of personal dislike; I would argue that you shouldn't oppose two people of age doing a thing they both wish to do because - simply and entirely - it makes you feel 'icky'. Remember that only a few decades ago, or even less, we would have seen exactly the same arguments used against gay and lesbian couples - in fact you can modify many of these arguments to refer to homosexuals without too much modification, and the arguments have the same merit in both cases.
The other is a resort to the naturalistic fallacy - again, for the longest time, homosexuality was 'unnatural', and now, because of a different set of biases in society, it is not. Exactly the same could happen for incest.
Again I do not refer to incest that results in reproduction. Today, however, we have any number of ways to prevent birth; and we do not prevent two people with recessive genes that could result in defects from reproducing, if they are not related: why is this different?
You can put that argument forward if you like. I guess some sisters like their brothers to f uck them and others don't. I'm definitely in the don't category and would campaign heavily to uphold the laws which make incest illegal.
What about the ick factor of consent? I mean can you f uck the family dog as well even though it can't actually say ok? And if that's the case, why the need to ask for a family member's permission? I'm sure there are families that bring the meaning of 'honour thy father and mother' to a whole new level anyway without ever having 'asked' but were raised to do as they were told. What do you have to say to this sort of practice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
I wish that I could see the correlation here between non-consensual sexual relations with animals and consensual relations between people who are related by accident of birth. According to the recent Vegetarian Times study, more than 300 million people in America alone don't subscribe to vegetarianism, and yet none of them seems concerned with obtaining the consent of the animals they eat, so I don't see much validity in a once-removed comparison at all, but for the vegetarian, there's one heckuvan "ick factor" in other people eating animals without their consent.
Again, I'm uncertain what Ephesians 6:2, or Deuteronomy 5:16 (or the Fourth or Fifth Commandment, depending upon your slant on Life) is doing here, but I'd always thought that these verses were geared primarily toward obedience in Children, so as to make order out of chaos. Wouldn't "****ing" someone with whom you shared no Love - no intimacy on the intellectual, emotional nor Spiritual levels - be at least as dishonourable to one's Parents as would enjoying physical intimacy with a Cousin with whom you already shared Love, intellectual intimacy, emotional intimacy and Spiritual intimacy? I suppose that would depend upon one's Parents in the end. Those who referred to sexual congress within a Loving relationship as "****ing" - and who encouraged their progeny to do likewise - probably wouldn't feel particularly "dishonoured" that their offspring were communing with one another anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
isn't nature telling you something if it is defective? there is a reason for it. it is defective so do not do it is what nature is telling you. incest is wrong and in now way should be encouraged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oedipus
would you drive a car if it does not take petrol ? no you would not you could not.
I don't use the word love when it comes to incest. I love my brother but that's because he's my brother and I don't see why my love for him should be used to justify incest. Sure, we can have 'nice' incest and 'bad' incest if you like. Consensual incest where two family members love each other and say it's ok to be intimate with each other and those who don't actually get afforded such a privilege but are raised in an environment where such practices are the norm but incest is incest however it gets dressed. Either way, I object to it.
Someone I once knew bore the child of her father and is now a chronic alcoholic. He was a very gentle, loving parent and she trusted him always and strove to please him in every way possibly imaginable. She was coerced through love into that situation. It wasn't her who reported him and she was distraught when he went to jail. Her father could not deal with her husband taking his place and things just fell apart for him - that's how the child came about.
Your comments are baseless. You don't ask bugs or flora if it's ok to kill them either so get off your circle of life high horse. This isn't a biblical debate thread (I was being witty - get a SOH) You are well acquainted with the other two threads that would welcome them!
Delta, I don't understand how you can't see you are being just as prejudiced as a homophobe.
There is nothing wrong with incest as long as it is consensual and is non-reproductive. I personally find the notion gross, I also find the idea of putting my penis in another man's mouth to be gross, but I have no problem if other people want to do that in their own time.
Volya I hear what you're saying but even you are putting a standard on incest. So long as it is consensual. So long as it is non-reproductive. It's the same argument when people say that abortion is ok so long as..... You're either ok with incest 100% no matter how it comes about or you're 100% against it. Who are you to pick and choose when it's ok and when it's not ok? Should family members submit incest application forms and get approval from you based on criteria?
Why do I have to be 100% for or against it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Who am I to pick and choose? Who are you to outright ban people from doing it? I know that the majority of people think it should be illegal and that the odds are it will never be legal in my lifetime, but that shouldn't stop me from putting forward my opinion of it and doing my best to change the minds of others.
incest is not healthy it is something no one should practice. the whole idea is that you have a brother and a sister a family and that you keep it at that. it is family. intimacy is to be practiced outside the family circle because it is healthier and people go on reproducing to make more families. to say there is nothing with it is not the way forward. those who practice incest suffer deep seated psychological issues which should treated rather then encourage to be practiced. it and say it is Ok because it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
surely a better progressive way of looking at it is to address it in order to move on from it rather then stagnate it.
'homosexuality is not healthy it is something no one should practice. the whole idea is that you have a wife or a husband and that you keep it at that. it is family. intimacy is to be practiced outside your gender because it is healthier and people go on reproducing to make more families. to say there is nothing with it is not the way forward. those who practice homosexuality suffer deep seated psychological issues which should treated rather then encourage to be practiced. it and say it is Ok because it is not.
surely a better progressive way of looking at it is to address it in order to move on from it rather then stagnate it.'
How does that sound cacian.
LOL Ok let's see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
homosexuality is different. one is born gay and therefore that one person will move on later on in life to be with the same sex partner.
incest is not. a brother and a sister are born to the same mother or father and therefore areof the same blood line family related.
this means they are born brother and sister first and by that they are to fulfil that bond of brother and sister which means no sex between them. that is the meaning of brother and sister. the minute they enter into sex it becomes incest.
that is quite different from homosexuality.
I can see I'm not going to change anyone's mind here so I have nothing further to add to this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
You wouldn't do something personally so you want to make it illegal for others?
The rest is incoherent; I clearly said we were considering consenting adults.
Also: I guess some men like other men to f uck them and others don't. I'm definitely in the don't category and would campaign heavily to uphold the laws which make homosexuality illegal. See how it's no different to what you said?
As has been pointed out before, people are born gay. Incest is not a sexual orientation. For many its a learned behaviour and they would grow into consenting adults. You might not have a problem with that but I do especially if the family pattern is going to repeat itself.
What part of 'non-reproductive' don't you understand? "or many its a learned behaviour"? Unless you have some evidence, that's just an argument by assertion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
So society doesn't have a right to say who can f uck each other but it can say who has the right to reproduce? What hypocrisy!
please do not put homosexuality next to incest. it is not the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oedipus
one is born gay and so naturally one pursues a life style of that of same sex relationship. this does not involve others being hurt or molested when two gay people get together.
incest involves non-consensual sex too. where by one imposes sex on the other.
a brother and a sister are blood related. by definition a sister and a brother means they have the same mother or father which means they are to apply to what a sister and a brother mean. this include no sex between them otherwise they are no longer seen as brother and sister.
look at it like a role play:
four people get a card each telling them they are : gay/gay then brother/sister. they all four act out what their titles/roles are.
the two with a cards that says gay on them will act out a gay relationship which m ay or may not involve sex depending.
those with a card that says brother/sister will act out their roles as that and therein no sex is involved whatsoever just family bond.
because they are brother and sister born to that title and therefore must stick to the definition of family.
Perhaps you ought to look up 'hypocrisy' in the dictionary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
We are talking about consensual incest only. Non-consensual incest would be wrong because non-consensual sex is wrong, not because incest is.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Go ahead pick on my use of words instead of admitting where you think society has a say. I say no from the get go while you think there is healthy incest which can be controlled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oedipus
How come the law doesn't prevent bad heterosexuals from reproducing or marrying? We don't do background checks on whether a couples relationship is healthy or not because its none of our damn business. All heterosexuals - even convicted rapists and murderers cannot be excluded so why should incestuous families have the door slammed in their face if the incest law is lifted?
You can't pick and choose a select few from one group when the same law doesn't discriminate at all for another group .
Incestuous reproduction results in disorders in offspring - the state has a vested interest in preventing this. This has no impact on the morality of consensual sex that does not result in children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
yes it has. it sets the wrong example to others that it is ok when it is not. it is very clear what the role of a brother and sister in a family set up means. anything outside this compound that results in sexual contact between them is outside the frame of what a sister and a brother mean. it is borderline lunacy to think it has no impact on anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oedipus