[pest]

Sloi, heres where I disagree.

First - you(the arthor) had to lay conditions on incest to make it ok. Generally when you have to do something like that, its better off left alone. You had to narrow the scope of the word to mean sex only and not procreation. Winning on a technicality isnt really winning.

Second - We are talking morals, not science. Morals are defined by society and one west virginians twisted logic doesnt make it right. You made a comment about religion and society distorting your view of reality....where do you think morals for the majority of the country/world come from. Not science, and definately not from radical roach clip philosophers (sp?).

The guy is saying since no one is hurt, it isnt immoral. Does that mean slavery would be okay if the slaves were in better conditions than they had before? Domination and conquest are natural traits for man. Slavery is a natural progression of that. Does that make it ok?

Its kind of funny, when I read the post, I was reminded of Clinton asking "what is sex?/I didnt know oral sex was considered sex..."