Would liberals defend incest?

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am seriously having great problems reading this thread.

I mean, this is a joke, right? Some of you people actually are for this? This might just be the most depressing thing I've heard for a while.

Society and societal functions are naught but social manifestations of evolutionary structures. Anything that goes against the evolutionary cause will most certainly bring about the demise of any society.

Freedom is not absolute goodness, and I hope and pray for the day when people see this and see the error in their ways.

It is alarming that we even have to explain why it is not a right thing to do - let alone that there are people advocating it. All this, to me, tells that our society has sunken into deep levels of irrationality.

There's always been people in incestuous relationships. It's not like it's anything new, and humanity is still here. Big deal.

 

[dust1n]

I love it when people who know very little about evolution advocate gene selection on false premises that have very little to do with science, than advocate political institutions to prevent "bad genes." It's hilarious. Pseudo-pop-science, when not being dangerously implemented by power, is amusing, since it relies on making claims in, essentially, the least scientific way. Gene worship might be most right-wing thing I can think of.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I just saw the picture of a model mom and her sons in a very provocative pose and to be honest it made me queasy. It has a lot to do with the moral degradation of our society. Here's the link: Yahoo!

I guess I would pose a question to the liberals here asking:

Would you defend the right for mothers and sons/fathers and daughters to marry?

No, probably not.

Would you defend the right for siblings to have sex and mate?

No, probably not. Cousins? Probably.

Would you march and champion such rights and 'fight' for such things?
If not why not? Don't they have a right to love each other?

Nah, I'm just not much of a marcher.

A question to the rest of us is how far is the media and fashion willing to go?

"Fashion"? That must've been a typo. In any case, I don't understand the question. How far are we willing to go with respect to what?

What's after incest? Animals? Excrement?

On what, your To-Do list?

A society which permits incest would allow genetically unfit children to enter such a society. I wouldn't want live in one.

K.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

A child exists because mommy and daddy got married and felt love.

No, not necessarily. A child exists because an egg was fertilized. For most of history, this meant that intercourse had occurred. Nowadays, it doesn't even mean that.

They leave behind offsprings to repeat the process. That is our existential purpose, nothing else.

Says who? Are you forgetting that biology is not normative?

 

[dantech]

Looking at sin as a matter of what sort of harm it causes is much more efficient than some arbitrary rules from the sky. There are no absolutes which gets bible god in trouble cause he says dont kill, then he kills. Secular morality takes scenarios into consideration. As far as genetics is concerned, diversity causes the least suffering cause it makes our genes that much stronger, so interracial should be considered.

God never said don't kill (If you are speaking about Abrahamic God.)

 

[Willamena]

Would you defend the right for mothers and sons/fathers and daughters to marry?

It's not about what I personally think. If societal norms moved in that direction, I would support it for those who want that lifestyle because they are part of the society that I live in.

Would you defend the right for siblings to have sex and mate?

There is no "right to have sex," just as there is no "right to breathe" or "right to sit."

But again, if a section of society stood up and asked that others recognize them for a particular lifestyle that involved a romantic relationship between two consenting adults, I would not object.

A question to the rest of us is how far is the media and fashion willing to go? What's after incest? Animals? Excrement?

Animals are not consenting adults.

 

[Willamena]

Do liberals believe morality is an illusion, something like a relic of religions?

An illusion, yes; a relic, no. It's an illusion that is still very much alive and active because it is useful.

 

[idav]

God never said don't kill (If you are speaking about Abrahamic God.)

Of course, if you replace kill with murder it still holds. God would have planned out his killings.

 

[Willamena]

You missed my point, natural selection is blind. There is a medium, get too interracial and you lose specific genes which might help in certain environments, get too inbred and you have genetic problems.

All the genes 'help' in all environments.