Ok. If you're trying to have kids, I guess **** is wrong because your offspring MIGHT be born with birth defects, and who wants to live with a major birth defect? But what if people in the same family find each other attractive and aren't really trying to procreate (assuming that none of the incestual relationships involve adults with minors, no statutory ****). If a brother and a sister of the same age find each other attractive, and don't want to have kids, what's is so morally wrong about them getting together?
PS. Just because something is "nasty," alone, doesn't make it wrong. Chocolate ice cream is nasty, but that doesn't mean it's immoral to eat it. What's nasty to some people isn't nasty to others. So don't try to use "nastyness" as an argument against **** here.... if it's wrong, it has to be wrong for some other reason....
I don't think its as much of a nastiness type deal as a matter of "Why in the hell would you want to screw your sister/brother/cousin/aunt/uncle?" Where I'm from, its a fairly common thing. I've noticed that most people that screw their own family aren't very well socialized. They pretty much live way out in the woods and most of the family that they have is right there in almost a "village" type setting. They honestly don't have much else to do. Their views on life don't really rotate much outside of hatred for other people. So while the moral issue is of little consequence to me, it just seems to me like you end up being a better adjusted, more well rounded person, by f**king outside your family.
Well said. As for me, I don't know who want to risk breaking the law just because they found their cousin, sister or brother highly attractive. I mean, why make things complicated for yourself? It's one thing to know, hey this is my family and they're really hot as opposed to wow, they're really hot...did you say that was my cousin? In fact, I know someone who got together with their cousin unknowingly. As soon as they found out, it was an instant deal breaker.
The biasedness against **** (in the U.S.) comes from the
condemnation of it by Christians from the Bible....Which is strange because **** was a fairly common practice during the time of the Old Testament...
There are also arguments about the genetic danger of inbreeding
Ok. If you're trying to have kids, I guess **** is wrong because your offspring MIGHT be born with birth defects, and who wants to live with a major birth defect? But what if people in the same family find each other attractive and aren't really trying to procreate (assuming that none of the incestual relationships involve adults with minors, no statutory ****). If a brother and a sister of the same age find each other attractive, and don't want to have kids, what's is so morally wrong about them getting together?
PS. Just because something is "nasty," alone, doesn't make it wrong. Chocolate ice cream is nasty, but that doesn't mean it's immoral to eat it. What's nasty to some people isn't nasty to others. So don't try to use "nastyness" as an argument against **** here.... if it's wrong, it has to be wrong for some other reason....
Are you serious? You can't really be serious...Dude, please tell me you making this topic is some type of a joke.
I'm sure he is very serious...
I think that's important that people take an objective look
on all subjects...moral issues like **** being one of them...
The biasedness against **** (in the U.S.) comes from the
condemnation of it by Christians from the Bible....Which is strange because **** was a fairly common practice during the time of the Old Testament...
I would imagine that since it was a fairly common thing, that would be the very reason for the Bible to speak so strongly on it if it was against God's will.
I would imagine that since it was a fairly common thing, that would be the very reason for the Bible to speak so strongly on it if it was against God's will.
When I say practiced during the time of the Old Testament...
I mean by some of the Bibles key characters...
Like Lot...
or some of the early Isrealites (pre-Mosaic law) to carry on the family name..
And then some raise speculation about how the world was populated after Adam and Eve...
and after the Great Flood w/ Noah.
and marriages between kin was common practice...
ie Abraham/Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah...
Are you serious? You can't really be serious...Dude, please tell me you making this topic is some type of a joke.
Why can't I be serious about this topic? Surely, if it's so wrong to be seven serious about it, people can provide me with satisfying and relevant reasons why.
When I say practiced during the time of the Old Testament...
I mean by some of the Bibles key characters...
Like Lot...
or some of the early Isrealites (pre-Mosaic law) to carry on the family name..
And then some raise speculation about how the world was populated after Adam and Eve...
and after the Great Flood w/ Noah.
and marriages between kin was common practice...
ie Abraham/Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah...
*shrugs* Don't get me started to lyin'. Me + Reading the Bible = More Cynicism. I was just trying to apply reason.
