[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..."

[Old Reliable]

The idea of having incest as ok is quite disguisting, it would create that idea that you can have sex with anyone you want, no questions asked. good luck trying to convince one of your relatives to believe in incest, because that most likely wont happen.

[con Brio]

if u have sex with a family member or cousin, you increase the chances of repressed phenotypes to occur in the offspring. Those repressed phenotypes can sometimes be lethal. So dont do your cousins....'


.... i got a hot cousin i'd love to do oOo:

[ED]

Pest has already pointed out the things that I would have thought. Incest on a physical, scientific level certainly isn't a "wrong" - and correct me if I'm wrong but it certainly isn't illegal.

However, morally and socially it IS frowned upon. You "instinctively" know not to want to kiss or have sex with your siblings (and I'm not talking about 'exploring sexuality' as a child), it is a GUT feeling inside you that more than likely would be there had noone said anything regarding it.

And yea, it is just gross. I mean come on. If we're boiling it down to just sex, and physical act, then go jerk it. Sex and attraction ARENT what draw siblings together, or you to be drawn to a sibling. That's bs in my book. There's something ELSE there.

what the fuck is this shit now? man the de-evolution of man-kind appears to be proceeding unabated

[BallisticWookie]

Originally Posted by 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..."

Could'nt have said it better. Well done.