Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
I think you underestimate the effects of inbreeding on populations...as for consent and undue influence...they are part of the social disorder I allude to.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Switzerland my allow incest between siblings, and parent and adult children
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
I think you underestimate the effects of inbreeding on populations...as for consent and undue influence...they are part of the social disorder I allude to.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
No, you're warped because you want to punish others for them.
No, I just think your view is funny, especially coming from a Luciferian. I'd think you'd be more likely to not condemn others for behavior that's different from the norm, seeing as how your beliefs are very different from the norm.
And remember, I'm not the one PMing people saying "You make me sick". Clearly it's not you who's touched a nerve.
I don't think either of those things. I'm not supporting incest; just saying in most cases it shouldn't be illegal.
I don't think it's fine. I just don't think it's something that should be legislated. And really, we can do without the insults. If you have an argument other than "You make me sick. This is disgusting. You're vile", please make it.
You're not very good at the whole debating thing, are you?
What I said about your Luciferianism is that you should understand that something being different and therefore disgusting to some people doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Many people would love to outlaw Luciferianism for the same reason you want to keep incest outlawed. And there's nothing inherent about incest that makes it "morally degenerate".
Also, I'm not telling you what to think. I'm trying to get you to make a reasoned argument rather than "This is disgusting, and makes me sick, so it's wrong and it shouldn't be allowed". I don't know whether you're for or against same-sex marriage, but you sound like someone opposing that.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Exactly, the consent and undue influence are the biggest and trickiest issues.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Fawn...and not the Deer.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Looks can be decieving.
Please tell me the two subjects have nothing in common. :ignore:
If I did not know your positions on these subjects, I could see a slippery slope argument here.
Incest and homosexuality are two seperate issues. Actually, sibling incest and parent child incest should be two seperate issues as well.
Matt, my question to you is, what would it matter what someone though about a completely different issue anyway? Where are you going with this?
Overall, it's a good principle.
Comicaze247
See the previous line
Hey, lookie:
I'll admit, there's a basis for the social norms established about incest, due to the observed increase in chance for birth defects. However, incest itself is not responsible for birth defects; it's if both the parents possibly carry a gene that is known to cause birth defects. If there is family history of a certain defect, then the children of that family can possibly carry the gene for it, but it may be recessive. In that case (at least in our society), it would be considered irresponsible for them to have a child together because of the risk that that child would inherit the recessive gene from both parents.
However, couples who are not related to each other can also carry the same recessive genes. Why is it considered 'less wrong' for them to have a child?
On the other hand, what if a family was known to have 'perfect' genes? As in, their family has no history of birth defects or defective genes. Since their offspring would also have 'perfect' genes, where is the risk for birth defects or the passing of defective genes? Why would be any different than non-related couples that have good genes producing a child?
Incest taboo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The irony . . .
Seriously, I'd like to see your responses to this, Primordial Annihilator.
Last edited:
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Yes it would be slightly irresponsible but it depends on level of risk involved...interbreeding substantially increases the risk of the inheritence of recessive genes.
Thats the genetic health side of my distaste for interbreeding.
Also I find it morally reprehensible that parent/child incestuous relationships occur...the damaging psychological effects this must have on the child and wider family in particular I find especially worrying...not to mention the scope for abuse and grooming.
As for the other kind of incestuous relationship...sibling...I do not approve at all for similar reasons in the above answer...but I am willing to accept that as long as they are not reproducing there is little I can objectively object to...unless clearly some kind of abuse is going on.
Basically incest in my little world is a perversion that society should NOT have to tolerate...not if we don't want a nation of inbred village idiots...royalty does the inbreeding...thats their gig.
As for your last comment about irony...what is so morally degenerate about Luciferianism...what do you think we get up to?
Blood sacrifice and sex magik?
lol
Last edited:
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
A healthy gene pool (such as a community, town, city or nation) needs a steady influx of new genes...other wise deletrious and recessive genes turn the pool stagnant...and incest bewteen immediate family members is the best way to stagnate a gene pool quickly...producing some very unusual fish.
Indo European/European people in particular are already very genetically bottlenecked...in comparison with Sub saharan african people...in terms of genotypal diversity...lets not make it worse.
Indo European/European people in particular are already very genetically bottlenecked...in comparison with Sub saharan african people...in terms of genotypal diversity...lets not make it worse.
Last edited:
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Quantify that assurance....and you think the long term implications if incest becomes a trend are likwise overblown?
How strange...
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I think he meant Adam and Steve...
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Lovely couple...
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
So, what you're saying is my attempts to get you to speak rationally about this are wasted?
The only assumption I make about your beliefs is that they are very much not the norm, and are viewed as disgusting by a large portion of the population, just as you view incest as disgusting.
Again, this is all you've got? You don't even care to try actually supporting your opinion?
You seem to have quite a few misconceptions. I don't hold anything higher than health. Making incest illegal isn't helping our health, whether it be psychological, social or genetic. I'd love to find out why you think it is, but I'm guessing the response is "because it's disgusting".
Apparently it doesn't.
Your reason for wanting incest banned is that it's disgusting. Many people find your religion disgusting. It's pretty simple. They also see your religion as morally degenerate.
Good to hear, but all the more reason you shouldn't be making the same argument opponents of gay marriage make.
Again, it really doesn't matter what you think. The point is most people view Luciferianism as weird, many times disgusting and morally degenerate, the same way you view incest. So, it stands to reason that you, more than many others, would understand the need for not banning something simply because it's disgusting or you find it morally degenerate.