How is incest wrong?

[Sporadica]

Really? how is it wrong? I mean lets take consenting adults, or maybe twins of same age or a 17 year old and 16 or whatever it is and they both want to have sex with each other, they both consent to it, they have fun, and there was no babies being created and they are still good after and hey maybe they even . have a continuous sexual relationship. What at that point makes it "wrong"?

I mean i've wanted to do some things before with my older sister and my friend has done it with his.

By the way we used to share this account when he had no internet to make his own at home and so some of my posts are not me myself but friends. So this account says I had sex with sister and girlfriend but I have not, friend has.

- thanks in advance ppl.

[huginnmuninn]

right and wrong are absolutes and morality is an opinion and therefore not absolute so it isn't wrong. It could be disadvantageous if incestuous couple if has children for and this continues for multiple generations. besides that there is nothing more wrong with it than it being taboo.

[Skeptical Bear]

It's a very taboo subject. I think if both siblings have the intention to experiment, and there is no procreation involved, then it isn't as bad. Most will say that there's a limit to where you should experiment with a sibling. Even if it doesn't involve the whole kid process, but it's just weird cause' they're your sibling. That's as simple as I can put it. I mean, it'll make things awkward after, depending on what level you take it to. I personally wouldn't care if someone told me they did stuff with their siblings. It's what ever floats their boat and I have no place to criticize.

[TigerBoy]

"Wrong" in these situations is often down to the customs / taboos of any given time and place which are often put into law.

Customs and taboos have varied sources : sometimes from myth and superstition, sometimes from collective learning and experience.

So I'm all for ignoring the former, but the latter need a bit of thought. In the case of incest, the babies are one problem. Other problems could be that two young people form a relationship that prevents them developing as people because they don't have to go outside 'family' for anything, and may end up with an antisocial view of the world.

So if as you say we are talking adults approaching this, so long as they avoided the biological issue its not my business. If they don't hide their relationship they are very likely to get hassled by most societies for it, so given a choice its not a great one but it is their choice to make.

[MisterSix]

Why is incest wrong?
Because thats our culture... and theres a much higher chance your offspring will be retarded
Why is the cannibalism wrong?
Because thats our culture... and it will make use sick

[Mortal Coil]

right and wrong are absolutes and morality is an opinion and therefore not absolute so it isn't wrong.

Yeah, this. As for why it's considered wrong in our culture, it's really for the same reason that homosexuality is considered wrong (HEAR ME OUT BEFORE YOU HATE!) Same-sex couples cannot produce offspring between the two of them, and incestuous couples similarly cannot produce offspring with enough genetic variation.

[FreeFall]

It's taboo in our culture for one. The birth defects and mental affect it can have on those participating aren't exactly beneficial. We all know about the babies, but the ones committing incest are damaging themselves psychologically, and emotionally. If sister wants to bang brother, she'll inevitably start thinking about brother, she'll look for brother in boyfriends or husbands but give up because they aren't brother. So she'll stay in her home, or with brother, there's no need to leave when she's got all she wants in the person that shares DNA with her, even if it's for a booty call. Same thing can happen to brother.
If they have kids that have no defects, eh or if they do, what if she wants her son? Son's both her and brother, that sounds nice. She'll use him as a surrogate husband, first trapping him via emotional incest (google it, it's really more abuse than incest) if Son refuses her she'll give his female friends/girlfriend/baby mama/wife all types of hell. Same with father to daughter, or switched such as mom to daughter.

Personally if I thought for a second my bf was slightly attracted to his sisters/touched them even consensually, I'd be so gone. I'm not exposing my future children to a Father that can't stay in his Father role and try to merge it with sexual pleasure. No.

[Human]

children born from incest aren't always "retarded" or have birth defects. the only thing incest does is narrow the gene pool over MANY generations, and incest doesn't really increase the chance of a child born with a defect, it's only if they have very mutated recessive genes, and everyone has thousands of mutations in their genes. It's just not all of them are bad, some are advantageous even.
I mean, the queen has inbred ancestors. She isn't some kind of mutant.

[DerBear]

I personally think it is all to do with Morals. The words Right and Wrong have nothing to do with it. In our society incest is a taboo subject and is viewed as morally wrong. I believe incest is morally wrong and I don't think it is right. Family is Family and you don't do that kind of stuff with Family.

Also there is the DNA factors and a lot of scientific evidence leading towards how incest can impact on pregnancy.

While the "theory" of incest that you stated at the top may look harmless there is a lot of facts and morals thrown into the equation. You need to think of those as well.

[Gigablue]

I don't really think its wrong as long as its consensual. It is basically a victimless crime. No one is hurt by incest.

There is a slight increase in generic diseases in cases of incest. This is because if someone carries a single copy of a recessive gene, their close relatives are also likely to carry the gene. It is wrong to say that all children born from parents who are closely related will have birth defects. In reality, very few will, but there will be a slight increase in the rate. This problem can be avoided if both people get tested for genetic diseases and don't have children if they are both carriers.

There is a cultural perception that incest is wrong, but that doesn't make it wrong. Many people think homosexuality is wrong, but there's nothing wrong with it. Saying something is wrong because many people think its wrong is a terrible argument.

[TheBigUnit]

Its taboo mainly cuz of all the messed up ppl tht resulted from tht, its not worth expiremnting with sibilings to the degree of sex

[havingfun]

I don't see it as being more wrong than any other sexual relationship that is controversial.

[xXJust Jump ItXx]

Morals plus in the US its technically illegal... My siblings are 10 and 20 years older so to me its weirder but I get what your saying.

[Sugaree]

You come out of your mom's vagina, not IN it.

[Human]

You come out of your mom's vagina, not IN it.

what if she had a caesarean?

[Abnormal]

I'm not going to give some long speech on the birth defects and the almost instant death of children born from incest. Nor am I going to go on about the Westermarck effect and about how a hypothetical psychological effect through which people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years of their lives become desensitized to later sexual attraction.

For all of that you could just read Sigmund Freud's work. No, what I'm going to say is simple and clear. Biologically? Incest is an atrocity. A blight on humanity. Not saying that it is morally. But biologically, we're designed to be instantly turned away from all forms of incest.

Morally? Now that's an opinion. You can think what you want to think, but one thing you can't deny is the science. Incest is not supposed to happen, biologically. And our bodies make that pretty clear when a baby is born fucked to hell as a product of it. That is all.

[Human]

I'm not going to give some long speech on the birth defects and the almost instant death of children born from incest. Nor am I going to go on about the Westermarck effect and about how a hypothetical psychological effect through which people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years of their lives become desensitized to later sexual attraction.

For all of that you could just read Sigmund Freud's work. No, what I'm going to say is simple and clear. Biologically? Incest is an atrocity. A blight on humanity. Not saying that it is morally. But biologically, we're designed to be instantly turned away from all forms of incest.

Morally? Now that's an opinion. You can think what you want to think, but one thing you can't deny is the science. Incest is not supposed to happen, biologically. And our bodies make that pretty clear when a baby is born fucked to hell as a product of it. That is all.
Actually a lot of mammals participate in incest... cheetahs, lions, etc. in fact some lions have offspring with their mothers.
In Iceland, a lot of people are from inbred roots too.
Incest on small scale isn't bad, and remember incest isn't always having babies. It can be anything.
Oh, and inbreeding with a 3rd cousin has shown to be advantageous, with higher fertility.

[Gigablue]

I'm not going to give some long speech on the birth defects and the almost instant death of children born from incest. Nor am I going to go on about the Westermarck effect and about how a hypothetical psychological effect through which people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years of their lives become desensitized to later sexual attraction.

For all of that you could just read Sigmund Freud's work. No, what I'm going to say is simple and clear. Biologically? Incest is an atrocity. A blight on humanity. Not saying that it is morally. But biologically, we're designed to be instantly turned away from all forms of incest.

Morally? Now that's an opinion. You can think what you want to think, but one thing you can't deny is the science. Incest is not supposed to happen, biologically. And our bodies make that pretty clear when a baby is born fucked to hell as a product of it. That is all.

There aren't many more birth defects from incest. The risk is that if someone carries a single allele of a recessive trait that causes disease, it is more likely that their close relatives also carry it. This means that there is a greater chance that their child will be homozygous for the trait and will develop the disease. However. This risk is small. Most people aren't carriers for genetic diseases, and even if they are, it's not guaranteed that their relatives are also carriers. Even if two carriers have children, the chance that the child will be homozygous is only 25%. The risk of birth defects, while higher in cases of incest, is still very small.

Biologically, the risk form incest is still small, and can be avoided through genetic testing. Morally, there is nothing wrong with consensual incest, since no one really suffers. I don't deny that most people, myself included, don't find their relatives attractive, but from a biological and moral view, there isn't an issue.

[FreeFall]

So, if other mammals fling themselves into volcanoes are we supposed to do the same? Lions also eat the cubs of prides they've recently taken over if not introduced properly, I don't think step-fathers are going to eat their new step-children anytime soon.

Biologically we're programmed to spread our DNA, spread our genes, and so aren't "supposed" (terrible choice of words but I have no idea how to say it better) to keep them inclosed in a small space. Sexual attraction is a biological gear to turn us to those that we could use to spread our genes, with a 50/50 already in the family there's no point of that. Sex is now common pleasure more than when it was strictly reproduction purpose, but don't forget in the long run thanks to our instinct it is ultimately reproduction. With long lost siblings, there's no help in that.
I call bull on those that argue when you see your long lost relative you're actually attracted to the genes you share with them, which in your mind is "perfection". I don't believe that.

I never gave my personal opinion but frankly, I don't care who's having sex with whom. People's sex lives are their own business, they probably shouldn't be putting it on blast but hey, and no one has a right to try and tell adults who they can and can't have sex with if both are consenting to it. What happens between two consenting people, should stay between them. There's no room for anyone else.
My double standard, I'll never date a man that's partaken in incest willingly.

[West Coast Sheriff]

You come out of your mom's vagina, not IN it.

Take that from VT's greatest all time poster

I mean, How do you even ask that! It's so wrong! Think, two people who are relatives having sexual intercourse! That's disgusting! Why would you want to do something like that! Ewww!

[Gigablue]

I mean, How do you even ask that! It's so wrong! Think, two people who are relatives having sexual intercourse! That's disgusting! Why would you want to do something like that! Ewww!

I agree that it seems disgusting, but when you think about it, there's not really anything wrong with it. As long as both people consent, no one gets hurt.

[Sugaree]

Take that from VT's greatest all time poster

I mean, How do you even ask that! It's so wrong! Think, two people who are relatives having sexual intercourse! That's disgusting! Why would you want to do something like that! Ewww!

Ewww something that is against public moral code is gross! Ewwwwwwww!

[Sporadica]

notice everyone how in my post I said "NO CHILDREN MADE"!!!!! you guys are still bringing in the messed up children argument, what I'm asking here is peoples opinions and to back them up as to why they are correct. Also messed up children doesn't happen until multiple generations of inbreeding, because it cuts out the traits and usually ends up in double alleles for recessives and such. But in my opinion a brother/sister/cousins messing around isn't too bad, just for fun.

[Human]

So, if other mammals fling themselves into volcanoes are we supposed to do the same? Lions also eat the cubs of prides they've recently taken over if not introduced properly, I don't think step-fathers are going to eat their new step-children anytime soon.

Biologically we're programmed to spread our DNA, spread our genes, and so aren't "supposed" (terrible choice of words but I have no idea how to say it better) to keep them inclosed in a small space. Sexual attraction is a biological gear to turn us to those that we could use to spread our genes, with a 50/50 already in the family there's no point of that. Sex is now common pleasure more than when it was strictly reproduction purpose, but don't forget in the long run thanks to our instinct it is ultimately reproduction. With long lost siblings, there's no help in that.
I call bull on those that argue when you see your long lost relative you're actually attracted to the genes you share with them, which in your mind is "perfection". I don't believe that.

I never gave my personal opinion but frankly, I don't care who's having sex with whom. People's sex lives are their own business, they probably shouldn't be putting it on blast but hey, and no one has a right to try and tell adults who they can and can't have sex with if both are consenting to it. What happens between two consenting people, should stay between them. There's no room for anyone else.
My double standard, I'll never date a man that's partaken in incest willingly.
"in the long run thanks to our instinct it is ultimately reproduction"
you can inbreed therefore reproduce, there is nothing wrong with short term reproduction/incest

[Apollo.]

I'm sorry, I don't care if there is children made or not, to me it is sick I don't mean to offend anyone but it's just wrong in my mind. I could ever look at my sister in that way and think any decent person would be the same!!

[horizonlooker]

It's not wrong, it's looked down upon in our society. Personally, I don't think that it is acceptable, but then again, that's just my opinion. In some society, it's acceptable and seen as a normal thing. It all depends on what YOU personally think.

[Jess]

I'm sorry, I don't care if there is children made or not, to me it is sick I don't mean to offend anyone but it's just wrong in my mind. I could ever look at my sister in that way and think any decent person would be the same!!

What if you fall in love with someone but you don't know he or she was your brother or sister?

[havingfun]

The thing I find ironic is that so many people here say that incest is so wrong and disgusting, yet say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Seems like a double standard. Aside from the genetic 6-headed offspring stuff, why is one labeled disgusting but the other one okay?

(Let's see how many red reps I get for this one...)

What if you fall in love with someone but you don't know he or she was your brother or sister?

It actually happens quite a bit. Look up the term GSA (Genetic sexual attraction), when siblings who have been raised apart and are reunited in adulthood find themselves attracted to one another.

Red rep I got for my post in this thread:

"Don't make general blanket statements like that. You can't compare sexual orientations/sex buddies to brother and sisters having sex."

Please don't triple post. Use the edit button instead. -Gigablue

[FreeFall]

This isn't a "let's see how many red reps I can get" contest...but there is a double standard. I can see how it's seen as "wrong", for both homosexuality and incest. Not everyone has to hold hands skipping saying incest is ok, but no one has the place to tell adults whom they can and cannot have sex with if both are willing. That said, people should learn to keep their sex lives to themselves and that they can have a private life.

[havingfun]

What I said about the red reps was more saracstic than anything else, I could care less what reps I get from anybody. But I am now going to call out anybody who gives them to me just to show how some people can be.

[Amnesiac]

I think the reason why incest is "wrong" in modern society stems more from the concept of the family rather than the lack of procreation. The major religions all emphasize the importance of a strong family unit, traditionally one where each member is respected and has a role in the household. Overt sexuality has also been discouraged for most of the history of modern civilization. Incest is taking one of the most controversial and strictly regulated acts in religion, sex, and combining it with what has almost always been considered the most crucial unit of society, the family. It's clear why it's looked down upon. In the end, a "proper family" just isn't supposed to do that. Most religions, from Christianity to Confucianism, demand respect for elders, a clear family hierarchy, and the restriction of sexual activity to between a man and a woman.

As time goes on, these traditional values will become even less relevant, but the family is still incredibly important in modern society. There's a reason why politicians constantly refer to families, why so many laws and policies are constructed around the idea of "helping families" or "protecting families". Because of that, and scientific evidence that shows incest creates the risk for genetic abnormalities in family lines, incest will remain socially unacceptable for a long time.

[havingfun]

I don't know so much about the religion part. As you can see from many of the posts in this thread, many people opposing it are atheists. I do find it creepy if it crosses generational lines (parent/child, aunt/uncle with neice/nephew).

[donk]

Incest is only wrong if you are a Jew, Moslem or a Christian. For the Ancient Greeks it wasn't wrong. For the Ancient Egyptians, it wasn't wrong - look at the line of Ptelomy from which the Pharaoh's came, their whole perception was an incestual lineage to keep the line of power, strong - and pure! It has to do more with the religious fervour of the Country you live in that makes it right or wrong. In the UK you can be sent to prison if you practice Incest - and if the person in your family you had sex with, is under twenty-one, you can be called a Pediarast or a pedophile - so the water is muddied by age-issues as well. So read what you seen check online and make your choice... might I also add that if you live in Malta having sex with a boy or girl of fourteen or above is not a sex crime as this is permitted in Law in Malta :what:

Remember - it is only humans that think it is Wrong or Right to do this or that. Animals just go ahead and do it! And nothing bad comes from having sex with their siblings, children, or family members. To say we are not Animals ourselves is to set ourselves up as a higher life-form, yet how is that possible since we are destroying the planet we live on by Greenhouse Gasses, kill animals in the name of Medical Research, or Perfume Testing? Then there's the trees we are felling all over the globe - without trees how can we breathe? Trees replace Carbon Dioxide with Oxygen and if there are no trees all life will perish on the planet. Humans are its own worst enemy - and for animals birds and plant-life too - so we are not greater than the animals - but worse for what we are doing!:(

So, gigablue, as a boy you wouldn't have sex with your mum if she asked you? Yet in some societies its the 'done' thing; - It depends where you live and what culture you belong to - not feelings of repulsion begotten from a hypocritical religious upbringing..

Please don't make multiple posts. Use the edit button instead.

[Human]

Yeah, we're the only creatures who seem to disagree with this because of morals. In fact, some people are pretty ethnocentric in here. A lot of people elsewhere not in the 'west' which is where racism generally occurs inbreed.

[duuli]

It usually complicates the relationship you have with your sibling. And its a part of our culture that I don't think is going anywhere.

[wish_master_TWA]

I agree with Sporadica, and that as long as it's consented by both parties, it should be fine. Just don't bring any incest babies into the world, that's all I ask.

[EastBound]

Idk. To each their own I suppose.
I met this cute Muslimah from Pakistan 6-7 Months ago whose parents are First Cousins.
She was telling me how they wanted her to marry one of her cousins, too.

[darthearth]

Brother/sister stuff was perfectly accepted in Ancient Egypt...King Tut's parents were full brother and sister. In that society I think it was even religiously encouraged. It really is just the culture norms. I have 2 brothers, one of which is gay also, we haven't had sex and there was a time where I would have went "no way", that's "icky", when thinking about sex with him. But after a while of that I was like "why not?". But we will probably never have sex, but I'm not really against the idea anymore, I don't really see any reason why not (you just have to get past that "icky" feeling). And I definitely think getting past the "icky" thing requires both siblings to be "hot".

And I can't help to think the cultural norm we have today has a lot to do with this "icky" feeling plain and simple.

[Shaka]

Yep, Alienation I suppose is something to be avoided, but so far as it's in all friendliness, that's just a taboo positive to me.

Yep, Alienation I suppose is something to be avoided, but so far as it's in all friendliness, that's just a taboo positive to me.

I don't suppose that, I know it, alienation is what is hurtful and distancing, and that is what you want to keep from happening.

[Sudds3]

Im not sure if anyone has brought up the genetic wrongs about incest but in meiosis there is a stage called cross over, its when the pairs of chromosomes from the sperm and the egg switch parts of the dna. The eye protein will switch with the eye protein and it will make many options for different outcomes in looks, personality, and disease fighting. The crossing over will allow genetic variety. Since men produce semen from the day they hit puberty until they die and women only have a few eggs there are many many possibilities of human outcomes. The good thing of crossing over is that it will make sure that their children dont look almost identical and that their ability to fight diseases is strengthened. Because the parents will be weaker against some diseases the crossing over will help the children to not be susceptible to the same diseases as their parents. It assures genetic variety so we dont go extinct if there is an outbreak of a disease because the incest will make it that everyone in that family of kids and 2 parents all from the same genetic family wont die from a disease that may enter the family. Make sense?

Its not just wrong morals, its also to help with evolution, to sustain population while disease is around, and to make sure the population doesnt look exactly alike.

[CharlieFinley]

Why is incest wrong?
Because thats our culture... and theres a much higher chance your offspring will be retarded

Except that isn't true.


I'm of the opinion that certain things are objectively immoral. Imposing your personal will on others is, by and large, immoral. Note that this is a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule: for instance, parents frequently have the moral right and sometimes the duty to impose their will on their children. However my point is that certain things are OBJECTIVELY immoral because they violate basic human rights without justification.

Incest is not one of those things. I find it disgusting and sinful, but it is not objectively wrong.

[Archimedes]

You think that incest is disgusting because your parents\friends\etc told you this. Love can be between any people, even if they are brother and sister. Also, it often happens in nature, lion prides, for example, so it could be between humans too, if look from the biologic point of view. And I never had incest experiense and I don't want to. Not because I find it disgusting.

[CharlieFinley]

I find it amusing that gay rights advocates use arguments like "It's natural! Gay penguins!" Or "love is always right!" But when those arguments are applied to incest...

[Aajj333]

I just wrong and gross but even if it wasn't wrong and gross the baby produced would have major health defects and who wants to have sex with their sister

[CharlieFinley]

I just wrong It's wrong because it's wrong, right? Great logic there. You've sure convinced me. and gross Wow. You've made a compelling case for incest being immoral. but even if it wasn't wrong and gross the baby produced would have major health defects I love it when people post without the first clue what they're talking about. It allows me to be so incredibly condescending because, frankly, you deserve it. The genetic dangers of incest occur in a population with REPEATED inbreeding. and who wants to have sex with their sister"And who wants to have sex with other men?" -- Gay Rights Opposers

[Sudds3]

The genetic dangers of incest occur in a population with REPEATED inbreeding.

Well not entirely, for incest, as i said in my previous post in this thread, the crossing over stage of meiosis crosses genetic material that is very similar to the parents and grandparents lessening the genetic variety. This causes that set of Grandparents, the Parents (ones who incstually bred), and their kids are all susceptable to close to the same diseases. This would cause them all to be affected by the same diseases.

And if the dad ir the mom was carrying a gene, for example if the dad had one X chromosome and two Y chromosomes in the 23rd pairing then that would be passed to his son if he had one and to his son's son, that was genetically passed down then then their kids would be at more risk to having that genetic disease. That would only happen if the 2 people who incestually bred and had kids's parents had the genetic diseas, then passed it down to the two kids. And if they had sex and bred offspring then that offspring would most likely have the geneticly diseased gene twice. If any of that makes sense.

So the incestual breeding doesnt hav to be repeated, it only has to be done once to cause birth defects, the increase in geneticly passed on diseases, and less genetic variety between the kids.

[CharlieFinley]

Ah, Sudds3, how are you wrong? Let me count the ways:
Well not entirely, for incest, as i said in my previous post in this thread, the crossing over stage of meiosis crosses genetic material that is very similar to the parents and grandparents lessening the genetic variety. One. Grandparents have nothing to do with anything. Two. The effects of one generation's worth of lower genetic variety are negligible. This causes that set of Grandparents, the Parents (ones who incstually bred), and their kids are all susceptable to close to the same diseases. Three. Grandparents still aren't involved. Four. The parents aren't necessarily more susceptible to diseases that their offspring are genetically predisposed to. In fact, they almost certainly aren't. This would cause them all to be affected by the same diseases. Five. Even if your earlier statement was accurate (it wasn't), either it would marginally increase the likelihood of them all suffering from a given disease (which is incredibly frequent in families anyway), or it would have no effect.

And if the dad ir the mom was carrying a gene, for example if the dad had one X chromosome and two Y chromosomes in the 23rd pairing Six. The extra Y chromosome is not part of the 23rd pairing. You can tell because "pair" means "set of two," and XYY has three characters in it. then that would be passed to his son if he had one Seven. The XYY karyotype is not inherited. and to his son's son Eight. Still not inherited. that was genetically passed down then then their kids would be at more risk to having that genetic disease. Nine. Either you have an abnormal chromosome or you don't. You can't inherit the risk of having the syndrome. That would only happen if the 2 people who incestually bred and had kids's parents had the genetic diseas Ten. There are other, much more common causes of abnormal karyotypes. , then passed it down to the two kids. Eleven. Still not inherited. And if they had sex and bred offspring then that offspring would most likely have the geneticly diseased gene twice. Twelve. You should be able to figure out the problem on your own.

So the incestual breeding doesnt hav to be repeated Thirteen. To create a near-certainty (or even a likelihood) like the poster above implied, the incestuous reproduction would have to be multi-generational in nature. , it only has to be done once to cause birth defects, the increase in geneticly passed on diseases, and less genetic variety between the kids.Fourteen. The increase is negligible.


Wow, fourteen mistakes in only 224 words! That's one major error every sixteen words.

[Aajj333]

It's wrong because it's wrong, right? Great logic there. You've sure convinced me. Wow. You've made a compelling case for incest being immoral. I love it when people post without the first clue what they're talking about. It allows me to be so incredibly condescending because, frankly, you deserve it. The genetic dangers of incest occur in a population with REPEATED inbreeding. "And who wants to have sex with other men?" -- Gay Rights Opposers

Sorry, I didn't realize you we're an expert in incest. Your an ass. Is this better?

1. I never said ANYTHING was wrong about homosexuality.
2. In Egypt, Pharos like King Tut were born with birth defects because of incest, which they thought was strengthening their blood line, but really it was hurting it.
3. A sexual relationship between a parent and a child is especially destructive to a family unit.
4. Children need to be protected from sexual exploitation by parents, because it is too easy for them to be abused. Parents are strong and lustful, but children are weak and vulnerable.
5. Incest decreases the variety of the gene pool and thus allows (detrimental) recessive mutations to become obvious and cause phenotypes and disease.
6. It is illegal . They don't make something illegal if there is not something wrong with it.
7. Read the first response
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070919192228AAHVTyx
8. Your repeated population statement isn't really true, while that would make it worse you will still have birth defects.

Notice how I said nothing about a persons right to love someone or that homosexuality is wrong. That is my opinion on it and you are entitled to your own but please don't go around saying stuff like "I love it when people post without the first clue what they are talking about" because I don't need people to tell me what I know or what I am.

[CharlieFinley]

Sorry, I didn't realize you we're an expert in incest. Your an ass. Profanity in debating is the refuge of the stupid.
1. I never said ANYTHING was wrong about homosexuality. I was comparing your statements about incest to anti-homosexual bigots' statements on homosexuality.

2. In Egypt, Pharos like King Tut were born with birth defects because of incest, which they thought was strengthening their blood line, but really it was hurting it. You'll notice that they did that in every single generation. I never argued that iterated incest would have no repercussions.

3. A sexual relationship between a parent and a child is especially destructive to a family unit. I agree with this. I don't believe that's enough to justify imposing my own beliefs on others, though. Adultery is also destructive to the family unit. We don't ban adultery.

4. Children need to be protected from sexual exploitation by parents, because it is too easy for them to be abused. Parents are strong and lustful, but children are weak and vulnerable. There are already laws against sex in situations in which one party is unable to withhold consent.
5. Incest decreases the variety of the gene pool and thus allows (detrimental) recessive mutations to become obvious and cause phenotypes and disease.
Not after one iteration. Also, we allow people with severe genetic diseases to reproduce.

6. It is illegal . They don't make something illegal if there is not something wrong with it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA. Oh, you're funny. It was wrong to teach slaves to read, right? Or to help them to escape? It was wrong of the colonies to rebel, and of the French peasantry to rise up? It was wrong of the 14-year-old girl who got shot to burn a Koran, and it's wrong of reporters everywhere to find the truth about oppressive regimes?

You're telling me it was wrong of workers to unionize and strike against laws that favored corporations, and it was wrong of Martin Luther King to protest inequality nonviolently?

What sorrow awaits the judges who issue unjust decrees.


7. Read the first response
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070919192228AAHVTyxAbuse is one thing. Consensual relationships are another.

8. Your repeated population statement isn't really true, while that would make it worse you will still have birth defects. 1. We allow carriers of severe genetic diseases to reproduce. 2. I invite you to prove your claim.

That is my opinion on it and you are entitled to your own but please don't go around saying stuff like "I love it when people post without the first clue what they are talking about" because I don't need people to tell me me what I know or what I am.Clearly, you do, because you're wrong.

[Aajj333]

Profanity in debating is the refuge of the stupid. I was comparing your statements about incest to anti-homosexual bigots' statements on homosexuality.
You'll notice that they did that in every single generation. I never argued that iterated incest would have no repercussions.
I agree with this. I don't believe that's enough to justify imposing my own beliefs on others, though. Adultery is also destructive to the family unit. We don't ban adultery.
There are already laws against sex in situations in which one party is unable to withhold consent. Not after one iteration. Also, we allow people with severe genetic diseases to reproduce.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA. Oh, you're funny. It was wrong to teach slaves to read, right? Or to help them to escape? It was wrong of the colonies to rebel, and of the French peasantry to rise up? It was wrong of the 14-year-old girl who got shot to burn a Koran, and it's wrong of reporters everywhere to find the truth about oppressive regimes?

You're telling me it was wrong of workers to unionize and strike against laws that favored corporations, and it was wrong of Martin Luther King to protest inequality nonviolently?

What sorrow awaits the judges who issue unjust decrees.

Abuse is one thing. Consensual relationships are another.
1. We allow carriers of severe genetic diseases to reproduce. 2. I invite you to prove your claim.

Clearly, you do, because you're wrong.

And I invite you to prove yours

[CharlieFinley]

And I invite you to prove yours

The burden of proof is on you. Absent any reason it is wrong, it is not actually wrong. I could withdraw my statement and you would have proven nothing.

[Aajj333]

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of incest
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incest

Proof

1. Just read my posts

2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100216-king-tut-malaria-bones-inbred-tutankhamun/

3 and 4.
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/12/15/so-why-is-incest-wrong/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201012/is-incest-wrong

5. The link I tried to use is wrong but google "inbreeding in humans" and the respons titled "inbreeding in humans" with the website labeled www.as.wvu.edu is correct

6. While this acquisition is near impossible to prove, think about it like this- the people who vote in Congress to make laws preventing stuff like this are elected by the people. We choose weather we think something should be passed. We have congress who voices the people, the President to check their decisions, and the Judicial system to make sure it's Constitutional. I am not saying that their haven't been slips in the system.

7. While I can't prove she is telling the truth, here are more stories

http://www.pandys.org/escapinghades/Survivors26.html
(Nikki's story)
http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Am-An-Incest-Survivor/59111


8.QUOTE=Sudds3;2035563]Well not entirely, for incest, as i said in my previous post in this thread, the crossing over stage of meiosis crosses genetic material that is very similar to the parents and grandparents lessening the genetic variety. This causes that set of Grandparents, the Parents (ones who incstually bred), and their kids are all susceptable to close to the same diseases. This would cause them all to be affected by the same diseases. Thank you!

And if the dad ir the mom was carrying a gene, for example if the dad had one X chromosome and two Y chromosomes in the 23rd pairing then that would be passed to his son if he had one and to his son's son, that was genetically passed down then then their kids would be at more risk to having that genetic disease. That would only happen if the 2 people who incestually bred and had kids's parents had the genetic diseas, then passed it down to the two kids. And if they had sex and bred offspring then that offspring would most likely have the geneticly diseased gene twice. If any of that makes sense.

So the incestual breeding doesnt hav to be repeated, it only has to be done once to cause birth defects, the increase in geneticly passed on diseases, and less genetic variety between the kids.[/QUOTE] Thanks!

The burden of proof is on you. Absent any reason it is wrong, it is not actually wrong. I could withdraw my statement and you would have proven nothing.

Now to answer other questions you have asked me:

Is it wrong to teach slaves to read?- no

Is it wrong for colonies to rebel?- no

The French peasently to rise up- no

Was it wrong of the 14 year old girl who shot to burn a Korean?- that makes no
sense

Was it wrong of reporters everywhere to find the truth of represive regimes?- no

Your telling me it was wrong of workers to unionize and strike against laws that favored corporations? No, once again I never said anything in any of my posts on this website that would make it sound like I think that

Was it wrong for Martin Luther King to protest against inequality and nonviolence? No and He protested for nonviolence, not against it

What sorrow awaits judges who issue unjust degrees? I can't answer that and don't think anyone can but I am open to your opinion on it

ONCE AGAIN that is my own opinion and you are entitled to your own but please don't go around saying stuff like "I love it when people with out the first clue what they are talking about" or "clearly you do because you're wrong" because I don't need people telling me what I am or what I know.

Now that I have given my proof, the burden of proof is on you, but not just your acquisitions on my posts, but on all posts in this thread.

[Aajj333]

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of incest
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incest

Proof

1. Just read my posts

2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100216-king-tut-malaria-bones-inbred-tutankhamun/

3 and 4.
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/12/15/so-why-is-incest-wrong/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201012/is-incest-wrong

5. http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535__2004/Inbreeding_Humans.htm

6. While this acquisition is near impossible to prove, think about it like this- the people who vote in Congress to make laws preventing stuff like this are elected by the people. We choose weather we think something should be passed. We have congress who voices the people, the President to check their decisions, and the Judicial system to make sure it's Constitutional. I am not saying that their haven't been slips in the system.

7. While I can't prove she is telling the truth, here are more stories

http://www.pandys.org/escapinghades/Survivors26.html
(Nikki's story)
http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Am-An-Incest-Survivor/59111


8.QUOTE=Sudds3;2035563]Well not entirely, for incest, as i said in my previous post in this thread, the crossing over stage of meiosis crosses genetic material that is very similar to the parents and grandparents lessening the genetic variety. This causes that set of Grandparents, the Parents (ones who incstually bred), and their kids are all susceptable to close to the same diseases. This would cause them all to be affected by the same diseases. Thank you!

And if the dad ir the mom was carrying a gene, for example if the dad had one X chromosome and two Y chromosomes in the 23rd pairing then that would be passed to his son if he had one and to his son's son, that was genetically passed down then then their kids would be at more risk to having that genetic disease. That would only happen if the 2 people who incestually bred and had kids's parents had the genetic diseas, then passed it down to the two kids. And if they had sex and bred offspring then that offspring would most likely have the geneticly diseased gene twice. If any of that makes sense.

So the incestual breeding doesnt hav to be repeated, it only has to be done once to cause birth defects, the increase in geneticly passed on diseases, and less genetic variety between the kids.[/QUOTE] Thanks!

The burden of proof is on you. Absent any reason it is wrong, it is not actually wrong. I could withdraw my statement and you would have proven nothing.

Now to answer other questions you have asked me:

Is it wrong to teach slaves to read?- no

Is it wrong for colonies to rebel?- no

The French peasently to rise up- no

Was it wrong of the 14 year old girl who shot to burn a Korean?- that makes no
sense

Was it wrong of reporters everywhere to find the truth of represive regimes?- no

Your telling me it was wrong of workers to unionize and strike against laws that favored corporations? No, once again I never said anything in any of my posts on this website that would make it sound like I think that

Was it wrong for Martin Luther King to protest against inequality and nonviolence? No and He protested for nonviolence, not against it

What sorrow awaits judges who issue unjust degrees? I can't answer that and don't think anyone can but I am open to your opinion on it

ONCE AGAIN that is my own opinion and you are entitled to your own but please don't go around saying stuff like "I love it when people with out the first clue what they are talking about" or "clearly you do because you're wrong" because I don't need people telling me what I am or what I know.

Now that I have given my proof, the burden of proof is on you, but not just your acquisitions on my posts, but on all posts in this thread.

Also, I'm not debating that your an ass, I'm stating the facts

Proof: all of your posts in this thread

[CharlieFinley]

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of incest
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incest

Proof

1. Just read my posts I have, and I've found nothing of value in any of them.

2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100216-king-tut-malaria-bones-inbred-tutankhamun/Brother married sister for generation upon generation in the Egyptian royal families.

3 and 4.
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/12/15/so-why-is-incest-wrong/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201012/is-incest-wrong "Whatever it takes" is rarely a compelling argument, and in this case certainly is not. Furthermore, not only are there other actions that cause irreparable damage to the family unit that are not regarded with nearly such vitriol, this argument does not address all cases of incest, but rather only those between parents and children.

5. The link I tried to use is wrong but google "inbreeding in humans" and the respons titled "inbreeding in humans" with the website labeled www.as.wvu.edu is correct Already addressed.

6. While this acquisition is near impossible to prove, think about it like this- the people who vote in Congress to make laws preventing stuff like this are elected by the people. We choose weather we think something should be passed. We have congress who voices the people, the President to check their decisions, and the Judicial system to make sure it's Constitutional. I am not saying that their haven't been slips in the system. And that doesn't mean we are correct. North Carolina chose that it wanted gay marriage to be illegal. That means gay marriage is wrong, right? They don't make something illegal unless there's something wrong with it.

Hey guys, this guy thinks there's something wrong with gay marriage!

7. While I can't prove she is telling the truth, here are more stories

http://www.pandys.org/escapinghades/Survivors26.html
(Nikki's story)
http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Am-An-Incest-Survivor/59111
Those are (a) anecdotal and (b) allegations of abuse, not consensual incest that caused harm.

8.QUOTE=Sudds3;2035563]Well not entirely, for incest, as i said in my previous post in this thread, the crossing over stage of meiosis crosses genetic material that is very similar to the parents and grandparents lessening the genetic variety. This causes that set of Grandparents, the Parents (ones who incstually bred), and their kids are all susceptable to close to the same diseases. This would cause them all to be affected by the same diseases. Thank you!

And if the dad ir the mom was carrying a gene, for example if the dad had one X chromosome and two Y chromosomes in the 23rd pairing then that would be passed to his son if he had one and to his son's son, that was genetically passed down then then their kids would be at more risk to having that genetic disease. That would only happen if the 2 people who incestually bred and had kids's parents had the genetic diseas, then passed it down to the two kids. And if they had sex and bred offspring then that offspring would most likely have the geneticly diseased gene twice. If any of that makes sense.

So the incestual breeding doesnt hav to be repeated, it only has to be done once to cause birth defects, the increase in geneticly passed on diseases, and less genetic variety between the kids. Thanks!
[/quote] I already ripped that post to shreds, thank you. He showed an astounding lack of knowledge of basic genetics.


Now to answer other questions you have asked me:

Is it wrong to teach slaves to read?- no But they don't make it illegal unless there's something wrong with it!

Is it wrong for colonies to rebel?- no But they don't make it illegal unless there's something wrong with it!

The French peasently to rise up- no But they don't make it illegal unless there's something wrong with it!

Was it wrong of the 14 year old girl who shot to burn a Korean?- that makes no
sense Read the news once in a while. A (mentally-challenged) girl burned a Koran in some Middle-Eastern hellhole, was nonfatally shot for it, and is held to be guilty of blasphemy (a crime).

Was it wrong of reporters everywhere to find the truth of represive regimes?- no But they don't make it illegal unless there's something wrong with it!

Your telling me it was wrong of workers to unionize and strike against laws that favored corporations? No, once again I never said anything in any of my posts on this website that would make it sound like I think that But they don't make it illegal unless there's something wrong with it!

Was it wrong for Martin Luther King to protest against inequality and nonviolence? No and He protested for nonviolence, not against it I encourage you to reread my post.

What sorrow awaits judges who issue unjust degrees? I can't answer that and don't think anyone can but I am open to your opinion on it It was a Bible verse, thank you.

Now that I have given my proof, the burden of proof is on you, but not just your acquisitions on my posts, but on all posts in this thread.
That's completely untrue. My proof consists of your lack of proof, and as long as I continue to demonstrate your lack of proof, I need none of my own.

[Zoe16]

If you believe in Adam and Eve, didn't all their children practice incest? Incest may be unlawful but I think it may be one law two people in love should ignore. No one need know that you are related. Live your life and be happy for each other.

[Aajj333]

YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED.

I have, and I've found nothing of value in any of them.
Brother married sister for generation upon generation in the Egyptian royal families.
"Whatever it takes" is rarely a compelling argument, and in this case certainly is not. Furthermore, not only are there other actions that cause irreparable damage to the family unit that are not regarded with nearly such vitriol, this argument does not address all cases of incest, but rather only those between parents and children.
Already addressed.
And that doesn't mean we are correct. North Carolina chose that it wanted gay marriage to be illegal. That means gay marriage is wrong, right? They don't make something illegal unless there's something wrong with it.

Hey guys, this guy thinks there's something wrong with gay marriage!

Those are (a) anecdotal and (b) allegations of abuse, not consensual incest that caused harm.
Thanks!
I already ripped that post to shreds, thank you. He showed an astounding lack of knowledge of basic genetics.

But they don't make it illegal unless there's something wrong with it!
But they don't make it illegal unless there's something wrong with it!
But they don't make it illegal unless there's something wrong with it!
Read the news once in a while. A (mentally-challenged) girl burned a Koran in some Middle-Eastern hellhole, was nonfatally shot for it, and is held to be guilty of blasphemy (a crime).
But they don't make it illegal unless there's something wrong with it!
But they don't make it illegal unless there's something wrong with it!
I encourage you to reread my post.
It was a Bible verse, thank you.

That's completely untrue. My proof consists of your lack of proof, and as long as I continue to demonstrate your lack of proof, I need none of my own.[/QUOTE]

You are saying that I
1.hate black people
2. Hate the mentally challenged
3. Don't think that America should of rebelled and freed them selves
4. I hate homosexuals, which I fucking don't. Which is what pisses me off the most about you. YOU DON'T SOUND ANY DIFFERENT IN YOUR POSTS THAN IF I WERE TO SAY, "THIS GUY RIGHT HERE EATS BABIES AND USES THEIR BONES FOR DILDOS" WHEN PEOPLE READ THEM. Your so called "lack of proof" is you making them sound like idiot on a website where people go and share their opinions of life.

Ah, Sudds3, how are you wrong? Let me count the ways:
One. Grandparents have nothing to do with anything. Two. The effects of one generation's worth of lower genetic variety are negligible. Three. Grandparents still aren't involved. Four. The parents aren't necessarily more susceptible to diseases that their offspring are genetically predisposed to. In fact, they almost certainly aren't. Five. Even if your earlier statement was accurate (it wasn't), either it would marginally increase the likelihood of them all suffering from a given disease (which is incredibly frequent in families anyway), or it would have no effect.
Six. The extra Y chromosome is not part of the 23rd pairing. You can tell because "pair" means "set of two," and XYY has three characters in it. Seven. The XYY karyotype is not inherited. Eight. Still not inherited. Nine. Either you have an abnormal chromosome or you don't. You can't inherit the risk of having the syndrome. Ten. There are other, much more common causes of abnormal karyotypes. Eleven. Still not inherited. Twelve. You should be able to figure out the problem on your own.
Thirteen. To create a near-certainty (or even a likelihood) like the poster above implied, the incestuous reproduction would have to be multi-generational in nature. Fourteen. The increase is negligible.


Wow, fourteen mistakes in only 224 words! That's one major error every sixteen words.. Let me start by saying you are being a complete asshole to him. You tell me "I all ready butchered this one up" when you don't give a speck of proof, you sound like an asshole. BREAKING NEWS you are not always right

It's wrong because it's wrong, right? Great logic there. You've sure convinced me. Wow. You've made a compelling case for incest being immoral. I love it when people post without the first clue what they're talking about. It allows me to be so incredibly condescending because, frankly, you deserve it. The genetic dangers of incest occur in a population with REPEATED inbreeding. "And who wants to have sex with other men?" -- Gay Rights Opposers
You twist their words to make them sound like they are evil Natzis bent on destroying the world.
Except that isn't true.


I'm of the opinion that certain things are objectively immoral. Imposing your personal will on others is, by and large, immoral. Note that this is a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule: for instance, parents frequently have the moral right and sometimes the duty to impose their will on their children. However my point is that certain things are OBJECTIVELY immoral because they violate basic human rights without justification.

Incest is not one of those things. I find it disgusting and sinful, but it is not objectively wrong.

Thank you for using "in my opinion" and not making them sound retarded when they say theirs.


I am not just standing up for me when I say this, I'm standing up for everyone else who you have made feel stupid. I gave you my proof while yours is "because they are wrong". Tell me who made you the smartest person in the world and then we will talk.

[CharlieFinley]

YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED.
You're so inarticulate that you resorted to a combination of obscenity and slurs viewed by offensive by most of the people to whom they originally referred. I think I may be winning.

You are saying that I
1.hate black people
2. Hate the mentally challenged
3. Don't think that America should of rebelled and freed them selves
4. I hate homosexuals, which I fucking don't. Which is what pisses me off the most about you. YOU DON'T SOUND ANY DIFFERENT IN YOUR POSTS THAN IF I WERE TO SAY, "THIS GUY RIGHT HERE EATS BABIES AND USES THEIR BONES FOR DILDOS" WHEN PEOPLE READ THEM. No, I'm saying that you said something spectacularly stupid, never retracted it, and then tried to pretend that you didn't say it. You said, and I quote: "They don't make something illegal if there is not something wrong with it." You then pretended that you never said that when I gave you multiple examples of how that inaccurate statement can be generalized in such a way as to conclusively demonstrate its inaccuracy. Then you had the gall, the nerve, the goddamned temerity to accuse me of being "fucking retarded" for making a fool of you.

Your so called "lack of proof" is you making them sound like idiot on a website where people go and share their opinions of life.My "lack of proof" is completely acceptable, because I have nothing to prove. It is your job to prove that incest is immoral. You attempted to do this in three ways: (a) you attempted to demonstrate that reproduction from first-generation incest (never mind that we have very effective condoms, pills, IUDs, and reversible vasectomies) will have such a detrimental effect on the gene pool as to render it immoral. You failed. Not only have you not produced statistical evidence on the genetic effects of first-generation incestuous reproduction, you have not produced evidence that would justify calling protected incest, even after several generations of inbreeding, immoral.
(b) you attempted to demonstrate that parent-child incest is detrimental to the family unit, to the point that it renders parent-child incest immoral. Let me preface these comments by saying that I find parent-child incest to be much more objectionable than sibling incest or incest between first cousins, but you still didn't demonstrate that this is a big enough problem to justify the vitriol against it, and you certainly didn't demonstrate that this should be generalized to all forms of incest.
(c) you attempted to use a red herring of abusive cases of incest to demonstrate why all incest is wrong. This is as off-base as me using cases of homosexual rape to demonstrate why all homosexual sexual activity is wrong.

This summarizes why I do not need evidence.

. Let me start by saying you are being a complete asshole to him. Let me start by saying that I really don't care. You tell me "I all ready butchered this one up" when you don't give a speck of proof, you sound like an asshole. And I did already tear his argument apart. It's clear he doesn't have a basic understanding of the topic he discussed.
You twist their words to make them sound like they are evil Natzis bent on destroying the world. A well-constructed argument is difficult to twist. This was not.

Thank you for using "in my opinion" and not making them sound retarded when they say theirs. They hardly needed my help, but I'll thank you to not use the word retarded.


I am not just standing up for me when I say this, I'm standing up for everyone else who you have made feel stupid. I gave you my proof while yours is "because they are wrong". Tell me who made you the smartest person in the world and then we will talk.I can't make them feel anything. You know what makes them feel stupid? Realizing that they are wrong. It makes me feel stupid, too, when it happens to me. That's why I do my damnedest to ensure it rarely happens.

[Aajj333]

You're so inarticulate that you resorted to a combination of obscenity and slurs viewed by offensive by most of the people to whom they originally referred. I think I may be winning.
No, I'm saying that you said something spectacularly stupid, never retracted it, and then tried to pretend that you didn't say it. You said, and I quote: "They don't make something illegal if there is not something wrong with it." You then pretended that you never said that when I gave you multiple examples of how that inaccurate statement can be generalized in such a way as to conclusively demonstrate its inaccuracy. Then you had the gall, the nerve, the goddamned temerity to accuse me of being "fucking retarded" for making a fool of you.
My "lack of proof" is completely acceptable, because I have nothing to prove. It is your job to prove that incest is immoral. You attempted to do this in three ways: (a) you attempted to demonstrate that reproduction from first-generation incest (never mind that we have very effective condoms, pills, IUDs, and reversible vasectomies) will have such a detrimental effect on the gene pool as to render it immoral. You failed. Not only have you not produced statistical evidence on the genetic effects of first-generation incestuous reproduction, you have not produced evidence that would justify calling protected incest, even after several generations of inbreeding, immoral.
(b) you attempted to demonstrate that parent-child incest is detrimental to the family unit, to the point that it renders parent-child incest immoral. Let me preface these comments by saying that I find parent-child incest to be much more objectionable than sibling incest or incest between first cousins, but you still didn't demonstrate that this is a big enough problem to justify the vitriol against it, and you certainly didn't demonstrate that this should be generalized to all forms of incest.
(c) you attempted to use a red herring of abusive cases of incest to demonstrate why all incest is wrong. This is as off-base as me using cases of homosexual rape to demonstrate why all homosexual sexual activity is wrong.

This summarizes why I do not need evidence.
Let me start by saying that I really don't care. And I did already tear his argument apart. It's clear he doesn't have a basic understanding of the topic he discussed. A well-constructed argument is difficult to twist. This was not.
They hardly needed my help, but I'll thank you to not use the word retarded.

I can't make them feel anything. You know what makes them feel stupid? Realizing that they are wrong. It makes me feel stupid, too, when it happens to me. That's why I do my damnedest to ensure it rarely happens.

You must feel pretty good about your self. You win again. I look like the biggest dumb ass that ever lived.

All I wanted to do when I first posted here was get my point across and move on with life. That's what everyone here wanted to do. Then you come in and say "this is wrong you dumb ass I'm always right no matter what." You are too ignorant to realize that most of the acquisitions you make about other people (you accuse people of having no evidence and change it to what you think is right and when I ask for your proof you refuse to give it to me.

So ya, good for you, you are a genius. Never been wrong in your life. I look forward to your response and what you will twist this into.

[CharlieFinley]

You must feel pretty good about your self. You win again. I look like the biggest dumb ass that ever lived.

All I wanted to do when I first posted here was get my point across and move on with life. That's what everyone here wanted to do. Then you come in and say "this is wrong you dumb ass I'm always right no matter what." You are too ignorant to realize that most of the acquisitions you make about other people (you accuse people of having no evidence and change it to what you think is right and when I ask for your proof you refuse to give it to me.

So ya, good for you, you are a genius. Never been wrong in your life. I look forward to your response and what you will twist this into.

The word is "accusation," but that's beside the point.

This is a debate forum. If you wanted to hit and run with an unresearched, prejudiced, backwards opinion, you were free to do so. If, of course, you would rather debate, you are also free to do so. The purpose of a debate is not to show off your opinion and then talk about sports or something else with bugger-all to do with the topic at hand, it is to rationally discuss a topic.

Here is my argument that incest should not be generally considered immoral.

1. Actions are not by default immoral; it is required that one prove a specific action is immoral.
2. You have not done so.
3. Ergo, incest should not generally be considered immoral.

I do not NEED proof, because until you satisfy your burden of proof, the defense can sit on its ass and smoke crack if it wants, because you will never convict. Savvy?

And stop sniveling. You're a victim of your own prejudices, nothing more.

[ayelove100]

Thats sooo gross....wow how could you think if wanting to have sex with ur sister. Its totally wrong and its even wrong health wise. You need help really if u wanna ever do it with any family member....

[ayelove100]

I find it amusing that gay rights advocates use arguments like "It's natural! Gay penguins!" Or "love is always right!" But when those arguments are applied to incest...

You are seriously dirty....incest is sooo wrong and i think gay marriages is too...no effence. And incest is bad for ur health as well, not only is it distgusting.

What if you fall in love with someone but you don't know he or she was your brother or sister?

Well i would think thats a total different story because that does happen sadly. But if u know their ur bro or sis, its soo wronge.

Please don't double-post. Use the "Edit" or "Multi-quote" buttons instead. ~TheMatrix

[CharlieFinley]

Thats sooo gross....wow how could you think if wanting to have sex with ur sister. Its totally wrong and its even wrong health wise. You need help really if u wanna ever do it with any family member.... I'm harder than I need to be on Ajj33. Partly this is because he's actually exceeded my expectations, and I feel like he's raising his game due to being harshly criticized. After my reply to his first post, I either expected him to leave or flip out on me with no evidence. Now, I don't believe his evidence is sufficient, but at least it's evidence, so props to you on that, Ajj33. You, on the other hand, legitimately fill me with contempt. I am literally struggling with myself to prevent myself from swearing at you because the sheer magnitude of your idiocy transcends the mundane and becomes a thing of grandeur.

It's said that you should never argue with an idiot because she will drag you to her level and beat you with experience, but I'll give it a shot anyway. What is your reasoning for incest being wrong? You know, there are things called contraceptives, and they're remarkably effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies, so let's ignore the health argument.

You say, "that's soo gross..." as if your opinion that something is gross makes it wrong (never mind that I agree that incest is disgusting). If I said it was "soo gross" that you wanted to reply to this thread, that would make it immoral for you to do so, correct?

No, of course it wouldn't, because morality doesn't work like that. Try again.



You are seriously dirty....incest is sooo wrong and i think gay marriages is too...no effence. And incest is bad for ur health as well, not only is it distgusting. Never mind that I've said I find incest disgusting so many times I've lost count. Never mind that incest is bad, after REPEATED GENERATIONS OF INBREEDING, IN SOME CASES, FOR THE HEALTH OF THE OFFSPRING.

Well i would think thats a total different story because that does happen sadly. But if u know their ur bro or sis, its soo wronge.
And your evidence is...? Your reasoning is...?

[ayelove100]

I'm harder than I need to be on Ajj33. Partly this is because he's actually exceeded my expectations, and I feel like he's raising his game due to being harshly criticized. After my reply to his first post, I either expected him to leave or flip out on me with no evidence. Now, I don't believe his evidence is sufficient, but at least it's evidence, so props to you on that, Ajj33. You, on the other hand, legitimately fill me with contempt. I am literally struggling with myself to prevent myself from swearing at you because the sheer magnitude of your idiocy transcends the mundane and becomes a thing of grandeur.

It's said that you should never argue with an idiot because she will drag you to her level and beat you with experience, but I'll give it a shot anyway. What is your reasoning for incest being wrong? You know, there are things called contraceptives, and they're remarkably effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies, so let's ignore the health argument.

You say, "that's soo gross..." as if your opinion that something is gross makes it wrong (never mind that I agree that incest is disgusting). If I said it was "soo gross" that you wanted to reply to this thread, that would make it immoral for you to do so, correct?

No, of course it wouldn't, because morality doesn't work like that. Try again.



Never mind that I've said I find incest disgusting so many times I've lost count. Never mind that incest is bad, after REPEATED GENERATIONS OF INBREEDING, IN SOME CASES, FOR THE HEALTH OF THE OFFSPRING.


And your evidence is...? Your reasoning is...?

haha i kind of respect u....but ur real rude. Anyways i got a message from skyfall saying we shouldn't talk cuz u have a problem with me. I dunno why though. Anyways, like u say ur opinion i say mine. I never tried to get u angry sometimes i feel like ur my teacher or something......:what: but yeah, u r too hard on ppl. And if u wanna swear at me go ahhead but i never did anything to u.

[CharlieFinley]

He said we should take it to the debate forum. Fortunately, this is the debate forum.

You know what you did to me? You decided to judge people based on your own intolerant biases without even considering that perhaps morality isn't as one-sided as you want to believe it is. You decided that you had something to add to this thread not once but thrice, and each of your posts was an intolerant, bigoted piece of shit full of hate. You decided that you were the arbiter of morality who could tell people that they were "like, totally gross."

What gives you the right to decide that? Please. Walk me through your reasoning, step by step. What gives you the right to impose your morality on other consenting adults and tell them that they are wrong or gross or what have you?

[Jess]

You are seriously dirty....incest is sooo wrong and i think gay marriages is too...no effence. And incest is bad for ur health as well, not only is it distgusting.

What if they don't plan to have children? What's wrong with that? It's not like it's hurting YOU. And I don't see how you can think gay marriage is wrong...it's not hurting you either.

[ayelove100]

What if they don't plan to have children? What's wrong with that? It's not like it's hurting YOU. And I don't see how you can think gay marriage is wrong...it's not hurting you either.

Incest is wrong in many ways. It is bad for your health, and it is bad for your family relationship. Its not hurting me in particular but its probably going to hurt people in the future when it becomes popular and more people want to do it. Then many sibling that live with eachother will get uncomfortable of the other. And about the gay marraige thing, i seems wrong to me, but who am i to judge.

[saul1026]

thats just wrong

[CharlieFinley]

Incest is wrong in many ways. It is bad for your health I addressed this. and it is bad for your family relationship. That shouldn't give you the right to impose your values on others. So is divorce. Its not hurting me in particular but its probably going to hurt people in the future when it becomes popular and more people want to do it. And you should have the right to tell consenting adults that what they both want to do is immoral... because...? Then many sibling that live with eachother will get uncomfortable of the other. And about the gay marraige thing, i seems wrong to me, but who am i to judge.

You're grasping at straws.

[ayelove100]

I addressed this. That shouldn't give you the right to impose your values on others. So is divorce. And you should have the right to tell consenting adults that what they both want to do is immoral... because...?

You're grasping at straws.

The pregnant pills dont always work idiot. -.- what does grasping on the straws mean....sorry im not a 50 year old like u......

[CharlieFinley]

The pregnant pills dont always work idiot. -.- what does grasping on the straws mean....sorry im not a 50 year old like u......
They usually do, though. Furthermore, we do not prohibit carriers of the same genetic disease from reproducing together.

"Something something idiot!... Sorry I don't understand this incredibly common phrase."
-- Ayelove100

[ayelove100]

They usually do, though. Furthermore, we do not prohibit carriers of the same genetic disease from reproducing together.

"Something something idiot!... Sorry I don't understand this incredibly common phrase."
-- Ayelove100

*shrugs* i thought you'd say something more smart smh

[saul1026]

wow selene youre really giving it to him

[CharlieFinley]

I'm done with you. If Ajj33 cares to resume his defense of his position, I will be glad to discuss it with him.

[ayelove100]

wow selene youre really giving it to him

thanks ii guess. haha

[saul1026]

haha if there were no mods...omg what i woulda done....but anyway thanks ii guess.

no probs

[World Eater]

haha if there were no mods...omg what i woulda done....but anyway thanks ii guess.

ಠ_ಠ

Really kids? Really?

[CharlieFinley]

This isn't the place. Sorry about that, guys.

[TheMatrix]

The pregnant pills dont always work idiot. -.- what does grasping on the straws mean....sorry im not a 50 year old like u......

*shrugs* i thought you'd say something more smart smh

wow selene youre really giving it to him

haha if there were no mods...omg what i woulda done....but anyway thanks ii guess.

Okay! If we can't keep it civilised and mature here, infractions will be handed out. The moderators are watching, and we will infract anybody who decides to keep bickering and insulting. We're all teens, we should be able to do better than that.

[Aajj333]

I'm done with you. If Ajj33 cares to resume his defense of his position, I will be glad to discuss it with him.

Oh really, thanks I just might do that!

Some questions like...

What if you don't plan to have children? Sure! Go at it! The reason I don't think people should practice it is the potential problems inbreeding can cause.

So just say in the near future people practiced inbreeding and like you said, if disorders are only caused by repeated cases of inbreeding, they start up again would you have supported it? I am not talking about two people loving each other, I'm talking about them actually having sex.

[CharlieFinley]

Oh really, thanks I just might do that!

Some questions like...

What if you don't plan to have children? Sure! Go at it! The reason I don't think people should practice it is the potential problems inbreeding can cause.

So just say in the near future people practiced inbreeding and like you said, if disorders are only caused by repeated cases of inbreeding, they start up again would you have supported it? I am not talking about two people loving each other, I'm talking about them actually having sex.

I'm not a fan of inbreeding, but I wouldn't try to restrict it for the same reason I wouldn't try to stop people with inheritable deficiencies from reproducing.

[Aajj333]

I'm not a fan of inbreeding, but I wouldn't try to restrict it for the same reason I wouldn't try to stop people with inheritable deficiencies from reproducing.

So what we are getting at is people can love each other, just don't inbreed?

[CharlieFinley]

So what we are getting at is people can love each other, just don't inbreed?

No, they should be allowed to do that, too. I would prefer that they didn't, but I would also prefer that they didn't romantically or sexually love their siblings, either.

[Aajj333]

No, they should be allowed to do that, too. I would prefer that they didn't, but I would also prefer that they didn't romantically or sexually love their siblings, either.

Ok I agree. Are we done here?