Kevin's Watch

Eh, if it was good enough to start off the human race (Cain or Abel and his sister), then I can't have a problem with it.

Ok, I don't really believe in the Bible. But seriously, there can't really be any religious objection to it, can there? That's supposedly how we all got here.

In social terms, it's not as "icky" to me as two men getting it on. But then, I like women. (Don't mean to offend those who don't.) As for the argument, "Sometimes you just know someone too well," that sounds a lot like a wife. But mine is definitely not "icky."

I don't know what I'm saying here. Maybe I just like arguing.

Malik23 wrote: I don't know what I'm saying here. Maybe I just like arguing.

"Sometimes you just know someone too well,"

That's a large part of it. If left to a purely physical standpoint, you're likely to be more attracted to them than if you weren't related.

Thanks everyone.

*shrug* Don't think there's anything wrong with it as long as its two consenting adults, and there's no chance of procreation. In fact, if you look for the topic called "Taboos" you'll find an interesting discussion on the matter.

In fact, IIRC, with the help of Prebe our resident geneticist, I think we came to the conclusion that a single incest-begotten child of even closely related parents would only be personally marginally more at risk, and, (assuming only that single instance) wouldn't put the bloodline in any noticeable risk at all.

The only possible reason to forbid it lies in the genetic danger as it were. Eliminate that, and I don't give a damn who you sleep with. Like Furls said...love is love.

--A

Love is love... how nice. Sounds great.

I suspect if I loved your 8 yr old daughter, and wanted to have sex w/her to prove my love, you wouldn't answer, well, love is love. I guess what you really mean is as long as you don't have a problem w/it, someone can say its love?

Cybrweez wrote:Love is love... how nice. Sounds great.

I suspect if I loved your 8 yr old daughter, and wanted to have sex w/her to prove my love, you wouldn't answer, well, love is love. I guess what you really mean is as long as you don't have a problem w/it, someone can say its love?

Please learn that Incest does not equate to Paedophilia.

Thank you very much for playing the 'Think of the Children' game.

Did anyone see the X-files episode called "Home" about the Peacock family?

>>>SHUDDER<<<

Yuk. Yeah, I remember that one.

"I kin tell you never knowed the pride the love a mother has fer her boys" - Mrs Peacock

"I'm hongry." (pause) "I'm ready" - Mrs. Peacock

Emotional Leper wrote:Please learn that Incest does not equate to Paedophilia.

Thank you very much for playing the 'Think of the Children' game.

Well, wasn't equating the 2. But whatever.

And besides, why can't I equate the 2?

Avatar wrote:*shrug* Don't think there's anything wrong with it as long as its two consenting adults...

I think its pretty obvious that if its not two consenting adults then it is a different problem.

--A

Cybrweez wrote: And besides, why can't I equate the 2?

Because Pedophilia is specifically between an adult and a child. Incest is only a possible add on.

We're talking bout Incest, not Pedophilia, and as far as I can tell, you're not related to my four year old daughter.

Balon wrote:We're talking bout Incest, not Pedophilia, and as far as I can tell, you're not related to my four year old daughter.

Balon!!

What other secrets have you been keeping from us??

Menolly wrote:

Balon wrote:We're talking bout Incest, not Pedophilia, and as far as I can tell, you're not related to my four year old daughter.

Balon!!

What other secrets have you been keeping from us??

Well, he's obviously Dr. Wily of Mega Man fame, what with those shifty eyes.

But seriously. Thank you everyone for your input.

Malik23 wrote:Eh, if it was good enough to start off the human race (Cain or Abel and his sister), then I can't have a problem with it.

Ok, I don't really believe in the Bible. But seriously, there can't really be any religious objection to it, can there? That's supposedly how we all got here.

I dont think thats how it started. I dont have a bible in front of me but isnt this one of those inconsistancies (or unexplained) things from the bible. Cain killed Able but then he went into the land of Nod and took a wife.
So obviously there were more people created or there would have been no people in the land of Nod for him to go take a wife.

That's the general interpretation. That Adam & Eve were first, not only.

--A

Avatar wrote:That's the general interpretation. That Adam & Eve were first, not only.

--A

And depending on your sources, Adam and Eve were not the first. Atleast, Adam was co-created with someone, and that Eve was not his first wife, or several variations of that.

[edit] While we're on the Subject, everyone should go read the Larry Niven Short Story, "What Can You Say About Chocolate-coated Man-hole Covers?"

SoulBiter wrote:I dont think thats how it started. I dont have a bible in front of me but isnt this one of those inconsistancies (or unexplained) things from the bible. Cain killed Able but then he went into the land of Nod and took a wife.
So obviously there were more people created or there would have been no people in the land of Nod for him to go take a wife.

Yep, this is an example of "inconsistency" in the Bible. A typical example, in other words, easily explained. The law for incest came from Moses. Before, there was no such thing. So, sister and brother together, no problem. And if there's a genetic issue with it, wouldn't it make sense? Adam and Eve were perfect, so the genetic issue wasn't there. After many generations, it becomes a problem. In any case, the law came long after Adam and Eve.

But, its a typical "inconsistency", b/c its much like other ones in that its frequently mentioned, although a simple reading of the actual text w/understanding easily answers the issue.