Being supportive of gay marriage, I struggled with whether or not to support incestuous marriage. I wondered if it was hypocritical to give marriage rights to gays, but not to a brother and sister.
I have now come out against incestuous marriage based on the unequal playing field. There is a conflict of interest. The union cannot be fully consenting and free since the two are naturally connected to each other by familial ties and duties.
Is this the right way to look at the issue?
No.
Llamas!
Quote from: Phillip V on May 05, 2009, 04:20:36 PM
Being supportive of gay marriage, I struggled with whether or not to support incestuous marriage. I wondered if it was hypocritical to give marriage rights to gays, but not to a brother and sister.
I have now come out against incestuous marriage based on the unequal playing field. There is a conflict of interest. The union cannot be fully consenting and free since the two are naturally connected to each other by familial ties and duties.
Is this the right way to look at the issue?
Hell no.
I remember back in 2003 I used to ask new people on Languish what they thought on incest, cannibalism and polygamy (or was it something else?). Anywho, it's all good.
Imo, criminalization of incest is based on a double standard. The arguments used against incest can either be addressed by application of other existing laws (e.g. child abuse or power abuse laws can be used to criminalize "problematic" incest, without having to ban all incest) or are concerns that otherwise are not applied equally (e.g. the argument about genetic mutations in offspring, even if it is sound, nonetheless does not hold water, unless we also ban people who suffer from genetic diseases from breeding; besides, if that argument was used to ban incest, we should only ban incestuous procreative sex - sex with contraceptives, non-vaginal sex or homosexual sex should all be allowed).
Personally, I expect that in the next 20-30 years incest will follow the same route homosexuality did over the last 50 years.
Incidentally the definition of incest is rather unclear, it depends on the culture and society.
I usually agree with Martinus on his two usual issues (ghey freedom and the lies of priests) but in this case I'm just disgusted.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2009, 04:35:01 PM
Personally, I expect that in the next 20-30 years incest will follow the same route homosexuality did over the last 50 years.
This just validated the "slippery slope" argument.
Quote from: Viking on May 05, 2009, 04:59:03 PM
I usually agree with Martinus on his two usual issues (ghey freedom and the lies of priests) but in this case I'm just disgusted.
Well I tell it like it is - I see no rational argument for banning incest, especially in such a broad way it is banned now in many countries.
Same goes for zoophilia - sure, charge it under animal cruelty, if the animal is actually being tormented by it, but there is no rational justification for making it a separate crime (especially as, most ridiculously, in many countries zoophilia is penalized more harshly than animal cruelty itself - so you can go to prison for giving a blowjob to a dog, but if you throw the same dog, alive, into a burning furnace, you just pay a fine).
Quote from: DGuller on May 05, 2009, 05:07:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2009, 04:35:01 PM
Personally, I expect that in the next 20-30 years incest will follow the same route homosexuality did over the last 50 years.
This just validated the "slippery slope" argument.
The entire history of human progress is a "slippery slope" argument. "If we give our wimminfolk a right to vote, next thing you know they will elect a negro to be the US President".
Just so long as they don't legalize gay incestual marriages...
:ultra:
Quote from: C.C.R. on May 05, 2009, 05:09:38 PM
Just so long as they don't legalize gay incestual marriages...
:ultra:
I would care if I had a hot brother. Alas, I'm the only child. :(
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2009, 05:10:36 PM
Quote from: C.C.R. on May 05, 2009, 05:09:38 PM
Just so long as they don't legalize gay incestual marriages...
:ultra:
I would care if I had a hot brother. Alas, I'm the only child. :(
:console:
Quote from: Phillip V on May 05, 2009, 04:20:36 PM
Being supportive of gay marriage, I struggled with whether or not to support incestuous marriage. I wondered if it was hypocritical to give marriage rights to gays, but not to a brother and sister.
I have now come out against incestuous marriage based on the unequal playing field. There is a conflict of interest. The union cannot be fully consenting and free since the two are naturally connected to each other by familial ties and duties.
Is this the right way to look at the issue?
No, not at all.
Incest is a crime because of the possibility of genetic defects becoming manifest in the offspring.
As gay marriage (at this point in time) cannot have offspring, the comparison is ill-fitting at best.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2009, 05:08:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 05, 2009, 04:59:03 PM
I usually agree with Martinus on his two usual issues (ghey freedom and the lies of priests) but in this case I'm just disgusted.
Well I tell it like it is - I see no rational argument for banning incest, especially in such a broad way it is banned now in many countries.
Same goes for zoophilia - sure, charge it under animal cruelty, if the animal is actually being tormented by it, but there is no rational justification for making it a separate crime (especially as, most ridiculously, in many countries zoophilia is penalized more harshly than animal cruelty itself - so you can go to prison for giving a blowjob to a dog, but if you throw the same dog, alive, into a burning furnace, you just pay a fine).
Well the rational reason is based on the defense of the family unit and traditional sexuality. If those are your goals and you view sex as an irrational and potentially socially dangerous thing then passing laws against that sort of thing are completely rational.
The Liberal view of society as a bulwark to defend individual rights doesn't mesh with that particular vision but you at least should have a basic understanding of why they exist.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2009, 05:10:36 PM
Alas, I'm the only child. :(
:o I find that incredibly hard to believe. :D
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 05, 2009, 05:16:20 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 05, 2009, 04:20:36 PM
Being supportive of gay marriage, I struggled with whether or not to support incestuous marriage. I wondered if it was hypocritical to give marriage rights to gays, but not to a brother and sister.
I have now come out against incestuous marriage based on the unequal playing field. There is a conflict of interest. The union cannot be fully consenting and free since the two are naturally connected to each other by familial ties and duties.
Is this the right way to look at the issue?
No, not at all.
Incest is a crime because of the possibility of genetic defects becoming manifest in the offspring.
As gay marriage (at this point in time) cannot have offspring, the comparison is ill-fitting at best.
Why is homosexual incest banned then, as well?
And why are we not sterilizing people with genetic diseases? After all, their offspring are more likely to have genetic defects than offspring of close relatives.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2009, 05:10:36 PM
I would care if I had a hot brother. Alas, I'm the only child. :(
Hehe only an only child would say that.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2009, 05:18:42 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2009, 05:08:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 05, 2009, 04:59:03 PM
I usually agree with Martinus on his two usual issues (ghey freedom and the lies of priests) but in this case I'm just disgusted.
Well I tell it like it is - I see no rational argument for banning incest, especially in such a broad way it is banned now in many countries.
Same goes for zoophilia - sure, charge it under animal cruelty, if the animal is actually being tormented by it, but there is no rational justification for making it a separate crime (especially as, most ridiculously, in many countries zoophilia is penalized more harshly than animal cruelty itself - so you can go to prison for giving a blowjob to a dog, but if you throw the same dog, alive, into a burning furnace, you just pay a fine).
Well the rational reason is based on the defense of the family unit and traditional sexuality. If those are your goals and you view sex as an irrational and potentially socially dangerous thing then passing laws against that sort of thing are completely rational.
The Liberal view of society as a bulwark to defend individual rights doesn't mesh with that particular vision but you at least should have a basic understanding of why they exist.
It's like saying it is perfectly rational to wage wars in order to kidnap people and tear their hearts out as a sacrifice to bloodthirsty gods, if you believe that this is the only way to appease them and bring yourself good luck. ;)
Only because someone's delusional ideas are consistent with their irrational paradigm, it does not make them rational. :P
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2009, 05:22:24 PM
Why is homosexual incest banned then, as well?
Is it really banned? I mean how many people get convicted of adult incest every year in the entire Western World? In alot of states in the US it is ok so long as both parties are over 18 and I suspect where it is technically illegal it is rarely enforced.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2009, 05:25:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2009, 05:22:24 PM
Why is homosexual incest banned then, as well?
Is it really banned? I mean how many people get convicted of adult incest every year in the entire Western World? In alot of states in the US it is ok so long as both parties are over 18 and I suspect where it is technically illegal it is rarely enforced.
Well, as far as I know, statutes banning incest do not make difference based on gender of the people involved. I don't know how many people get convicted - I suppose people get convicted for "normal" incest also quite rarely.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2009, 05:25:30 PM
It's like saying it is perfectly rational to wage wars in order to kidnap people and tear their hearts out as a sacrifice to bloodthirsty gods, if you believe that this is the only way to appease them and bring yourself good luck. ;)
Only because someone's delusional ideas are consistent with their irrational paradigm, it does not make them rational. :P
Wow that is one terrible analogy. Way to go Mart!
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2009, 05:27:09 PM
Well, as far as I know, statutes banning incest do not make difference based on gender of the people involved. I don't know how many people get convicted - I suppose people get convicted for "normal" incest also quite rarely.
Right I meant incest itself. It is not really banned nobody really cares about it anymore unless there are children involved. The only reason most of the laws still exist is only because nobody has bothered to change them.
So I simply do not get the comparison with homosexuality 50 years ago.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2009, 05:18:42 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2009, 05:08:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 05, 2009, 04:59:03 PM
I usually agree with Martinus on his two usual issues (ghey freedom and the lies of priests) but in this case I'm just disgusted.
Well I tell it like it is - I see no rational argument for banning incest, especially in such a broad way it is banned now in many countries.
Same goes for zoophilia - sure, charge it under animal cruelty, if the animal is actually being tormented by it, but there is no rational justification for making it a separate crime (especially as, most ridiculously, in many countries zoophilia is penalized more harshly than animal cruelty itself - so you can go to prison for giving a blowjob to a dog, but if you throw the same dog, alive, into a burning furnace, you just pay a fine).
Well the rational reason is based on the defense of the family unit and traditional sexuality. If those are your goals and you view sex as an irrational and potentially socially dangerous thing then passing laws against that sort of thing are completely rational.
The Liberal view of society as a bulwark to defend individual rights doesn't mesh with that particular vision but you at least should have a basic understanding of why they exist.
Besides, the same arguments can be used to defend criminalization of gay sex. So I am not really arguing with that mindset.
I am addressing the mindset (represented by many people on this board), who do not want to make gay sex a crime and even support gay marriage, but consider incest or zoophilia something that should be criminalized. I am trying to find a rationale.
Viking said that it disgusts him - which only shows that the opposition is based on the "yuck" feeling, which is never a good reason to base laws on, especially involving sex. And as much as I find a sex with an animal or a close relative disgusting, I do not see why it should be banned for people who enjoy it and are not otherwise hurting the animal or another human being.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2009, 05:30:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2009, 05:27:09 PM
Well, as far as I know, statutes banning incest do not make difference based on gender of the people involved. I don't know how many people get convicted - I suppose people get convicted for "normal" incest also quite rarely.
Right I meant incest itself. It is not really banned nobody really cares about it anymore unless there are children involved. The only reason most of the laws still exist is only because nobody has bothered to change them.
So I simply do not get the comparison with homosexuality 50 years ago.
I think incest is illegal in many European countries.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2009, 05:32:17 PM
I think incest is illegal in many European countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest
It is technically illegal in lots of places...but they probably are archaic laws nobody enforces.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2009, 04:35:01 PM
Imo, criminalization of incest is based on a double standard. The arguments used against incest can either be addressed by application of other existing laws (e.g. child abuse or power abuse laws can be used to criminalize "problematic" incest, without having to ban all incest) or are concerns that otherwise are not applied equally (e.g. the argument about genetic mutations in offspring, even if it is sound, nonetheless does not hold water, unless we also ban people who suffer from genetic diseases from breeding; besides, if that argument was used to ban incest, we should only ban incestuous procreative sex - sex with contraceptives, non-vaginal sex or homosexual sex should all be allowed).
Personally, I expect that in the next 20-30 years incest will follow the same route homosexuality did over the last 50 years.
To elaborate on my point, a father and a daughter have an intrinsically unequal relationship from the start, so a marriage between the two cannot be reasonably free or consenting.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 05, 2009, 05:46:14 PM
To elaborate on my point, a father and a daughter have an intrinsically unequal relationship from the start, so a marriage between the two cannot be reasonably free or consenting.
While unlikely, it isn't impossible.
I don't think incest between consenting adults should be illegal, including incestuous marriage. However, it's not something likely to come up all that often, since the Westermarck Effect is usually going to make it completely undesirable.
Quote from: Caliga on May 05, 2009, 06:38:56 PM
I don't think incest between consenting adults should be illegal, including incestuous marriage. However, it's not something likely to come up all that often, since the Westermarck Effect is usually going to make it completely undesirable.
Yes, that plus the social stigma nearly makes the legalities redundant.
Except for a few, special cases (Hawaiian royalty is one - where other Tapu was so strong that the very close rulers HAD to marry), the incest taboo is about as close to a cultural universal as one can find...at least that is one of the staples of cultural anthropology (but they are all liars).
I am against everything that is not natural.
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 06:50:39 PM
I am against everything that is not natural.
Who the fuck are you? God I hate all the name changes from old Languish.
Any society that permits homosexuality should also permit incest and pedophilia. At least those things have the virtue of being less evil than faggotry.
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 06:50:39 PM
I am against everything that is not natural.
Everything is natural, foolish immigrant.
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2009, 06:53:00 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 06:50:39 PM
I am against everything that is not natural.
Everything is natural, foolish immigrant.
Racist mothefucker, I'm gonna file an EO complaint against you.
Who's the Equal Oportunity NCO over here?
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 07:00:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2009, 06:53:00 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 06:50:39 PM
I am against everything that is not natural.
Everything is natural, foolish immigrant.
Racist mothefucker, I'm gonna file an EO complaint against you.
Who's the Equal Oportunity NCO over here?
I sense Deja vu all over again.
PTSD, man.
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 07:00:11 PM
Racist mothefucker, I'm gonna file an EO complaint against you.
Who's the Equal Oportunity NCO over here?
Wait, I know. This is one of Mart's sockpuppets, isn't it? Nice namechange, Mart.
Is there anybody in this forum more annoying than PDH?
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 07:04:53 PM
Is there anybody in this forum more annoying than PDH?
This proves it! Good job, Mart.
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 07:00:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2009, 06:53:00 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 06:50:39 PM
I am against everything that is not natural.
Everything is natural, foolish immigrant.
Racist mothefucker, I'm gonna file an EO complaint against you.
Who's the Equal Oportunity NCO over here?
Unfortunately, you have no recourse. When you say stupid things, people are allowed to mock you.
You are stupid!
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 07:20:56 PM
You are stupid!
Well, it's nice to see that you're Army through and through. Why use fancy words and stuff, when acting like a child is just as satisfying to your tiny mind?
You are tiny!
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 07:32:16 PM
You are tiny!
Actually, I'm quite average in size.
Ok, that's an army joke you will never understand.
Basicly, whenever somebody says something, you say "you are (whatever he said)"
Examples:
- "Come on guys, form it up, make a formation."
- "You are a formation!"
- "Hey, I'm going to the shoppette to get me something to eat."
- "You are a shoppette!"
- "Don't forget to fill up the tank."
- "You are a tank!"
- "Who ate my damn cookies?!!"
- "You are a cookie!"
Etc, etc.
I guess it is all in the exclamation.
It is very funny.
It's totally hilarious.
In kindergarten.
Quote from: Maximus on May 05, 2009, 07:40:46 PM
It's totally hilarious.
In kindergarten.
Hey, it's the Army. If they were clever, they'd either be in civilian life, or the one real armed service.
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 07:39:27 PM
Ok, that's an army joke you will never understand.
That's not an army joke, it's a children's joke. Most people outgrow it by the time they're 7 or 8.
What disgusts me? Well, actually male gay sex disgusts me. That hasn't led me to want to ban it or reduce it in any way. I just don't want to be part of it.
We all seem to agree that Incestuous procreation is unwise. I see it has been compared to the procreation of people with genetic defects. Well, we all have some sort of genetic defect. It is a bad analogy. First of all there is a degree, people with genes for alcoholism, cancer and diabetes such as myself can care for themselves and their children effectively and well, people with an extra chromosome (downs syndrome) cannot. Second of all there is choice, my kids will have about half their genes from me regardless, but in the case of incestuous procreation you can choose to do it; or choose to procreate with someone else removing the harm. It is a bad analogy.
Now, on to recreational incest. To be blunt you are in a power relationship towards every single member of your family, blood relation or not. If you permit it, it will almost certainly be abused. Father-Daughter is most common and Sibling Incest is rare. (references 2 and 3 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest) Familiar relationships are easily exploited and used for this purpose, you can't say no to your father or elder brother in the same way you can fob off a drunk guy at a bar. It destroys the family and the trust in the family and is almost always exploitation.
It is assumed that owners protect their pets and that parents protect their children but we have laws to prevent both animal and child abuse.
Quote from: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 08:18:01 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 07:39:27 PM
Ok, that's an army joke you will never understand.
That's not an army joke, it's a children's joke. Most people outgrow it by the time they're 7 or 8.
The guy watches Hannah Montana. He's a well armed and murderous version of Randy Doo Hickey.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 05, 2009, 04:20:36 PM
Being supportive of gay marriage, I struggled with whether or not to support incestuous marriage. I wondered if it was hypocritical to give marriage rights to gays, but not to a brother and sister.
I have now come out against incestuous marriage based on the unequal playing field. There is a conflict of interest. The union cannot be fully consenting and free since the two are naturally connected to each other by familial ties and duties.
Is this the right way to look at the issue?
um no.
incest is hinky whether it's hetero or homo dude. ewwww!
Some good reasoning on Viking's part, but it doesn't address the rare occurrences of sibling incest. However, if that reasoning is followed to its logical extent, we'll never have cause to see a decriminalization of parent-child relationships; even if the biological issues are fully circumvented, there will still always be a blatant conflict of interests.
I can't necessarily wrap my head around sibling incest, but the lessening of the biological issues means I wouldn't automatically condemn such a couple, and as for cousins, well, we've managed to avoid extinction thus far, so I think they're relatively innocuous.
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 07:39:27 PM
Ok, that's an army joke you will never understand.
Basicly, whenever somebody says something, you say "you are (whatever he said)"
Examples:
- "Come on guys, form it up, make a formation."
- "You are a formation!"
- "Hey, I'm going to the shoppette to get me something to eat."
- "You are a shoppette!"
- "Don't forget to fill up the tank."
- "You are a tank!"
- "Who ate my damn cookies?!!"
- "You are a cookie!"
Etc, etc.
I guess it is all in the exclamation.
It is very funny.
The USAF sticks with the "Your mom..." version.
- "Your mom fills up the tank."
- "Your mom ate your cookie."
Etc.
Never heard of these jokes before. :unsure:
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 07:39:27 PM
Ok, that's an army joke you will never understand.
Basicly, whenever somebody says something, you say "you are (whatever he said)"
Examples:
- "Come on guys, form it up, make a formation."
- "You are a formation!"
- "Hey, I'm going to the shoppette to get me something to eat."
- "You are a shoppette!"
- "Don't forget to fill up the tank."
- "You are a tank!"
- "Who ate my damn cookies?!!"
- "You are a cookie!"
Etc, etc.
I guess it is all in the exclamation.
It is very funny.
I think the word "joke" means something else than you think it does.
For one, it is supposed to be funny.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 05, 2009, 10:49:26 PM
Some good reasoning on Viking's part, but it doesn't address the rare occurrences of sibling incest. However, if that reasoning is followed to its logical extent, we'll never have cause to see a decriminalization of parent-child relationships; even if the biological issues are fully circumvented, there will still always be a blatant conflict of interests.
I can't necessarily wrap my head around sibling incest, but the lessening of the biological issues means I wouldn't automatically condemn such a couple, and as for cousins, well, we've managed to avoid extinction thus far, so I think they're relatively innocuous.
Sibling incest is rare, and according to the sources is usually elder brother-younger sister with a significant age difference. The cases which have been identified of similar age sibling incest include the recent one from Germany where the brother had been adopted away from the family and finds his family returning to his birth family just before a tragedy removes the parents.
I am suspicious of any reasoning for incest which you could cut-and-paste swap a few words and post on a NAMBLA internet discussion group.
Habsburgs
what other reasons do you need not to legalise incest?
You have to admit, for a bunch of inbreds, they were pretty successful.
That's fair.
I agree with the Polack, incest between adults should be simply taboo and not illegal. The government should not be in the habit of enforcing taboos.
Queen Victoria, when asked to sign legislation outlawing lesbianism as buggery previously been, refused to sign the legislation on the grounds that she could not conceive of the idea that such a practice might exist.
I don't know if we or anybody else really knows how much sibling or cousin incest there is. In addition to Oedipal lust for parents there should be similar lust for siblings or cousins. I don't really want to opine on laws against consensual sex between adult relatives until we have some sort of idea of how common it is.
I just don't get what motivates politicians to put the effort into banning things like this (same goes for gay marriage). When I see politicians obsessing over people's private lives and victimless "crimes", I worry that they are bored and need more to do. Perhaps we should stage a fake attack from "over the Canadian border" on one of our radio stations. That should keep them busy. :)
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 07:00:52 AM
I just don't get what motivates politicians to put the effort into banning things like this
:huh:
The public either agrees or doesn't care and no politician wants to be known as "that guy who supports incest."
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 06, 2009, 07:03:51 AM
no politician wants to be known as "that guy who supports incest."
Are people really that stupid? Wait, don't answer that. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 07:00:52 AM
I just don't get what motivates politicians to put the effort into banning things like this (same goes for gay marriage). When I see politicians obsessing over people's private lives and victimless "crimes", I worry that they are bored and need more to do. Perhaps we should stage a fake attack from "over the Canadian border" on one of our radio stations. That should keep them busy. :)
Usually the motivation is in reaction to a specific scandal or incident they can play up for political points. If a big incest or zoophilia scandal is in the news then some Pol will try to score points by getting a law passed.
I sense that we've danced around this without making it clear; the taboo is in place because of the chance of
birth defects resulting from a child from an incestuous relationship. The taboo is not 'ooh, gross', although it
has that dimension NOW due to the taboo being in place for so long.
I also fail to see the comparison between incest and homosexuality, although I understand that both were
illegal... homosexual regulations was religion put into law, and the incest regulations were taboo made into law.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 06, 2009, 09:57:09 AM
I sense that we've danced around this without making it clear; the taboo is in place because of the chance of
birth defects resulting from a child from an incestuous relationship. The taboo is not 'ooh, gross', although it
has that dimension NOW due to the taboo being in place for so long.
I also fail to see the comparison between incest and homosexuality, although I understand that both were
illegal... homosexual regulations was religion put into law, and the incest regulations were taboo made into law.
I dunno if this is the only origin of the taboo - after all, we generally frown on father/son incest as much as on father/daughter incest, though there is no possibility of birth defects in the former case.
I strongly suspect that the "ewww" reaction is a reaction against what is seen as a perversion of the loving bond between family members - an abuse of the responsibility that family members have towards each other not to exploit each other. The notion is that a *genuine* loving sexual relationship under such circumstances is very unlikely, and much, much more common is a relationship based on exploitation of love on the one side for base gratification of lust on the other side ("I'll do anything daddy wants, because he's my daddy").
Even a lot of animals will avoid incest. The aversion to it is built in.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 06, 2009, 09:57:09 AM
I also fail to see the comparison between incest and homosexuality
Both are gross and wrong.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 06, 2009, 10:22:46 AM
Even a lot of animals will avoid incest. The aversion to it is built in.
Yes. But that is also one more thing to make a banning law futile.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 06, 2009, 10:22:46 AM
Even a lot of animals will avoid incest. The aversion to it is built in.
And a lot of animals avoid fucking fat fucks, but people like you still get laid.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 06, 2009, 10:43:45 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 06, 2009, 10:22:46 AM
Even a lot of animals will avoid incest. The aversion to it is built in.
And a lot of animals avoid fucking fat fucks, but people like you still get laid.
Is that true? Generally large size is looked at as a positive.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 06, 2009, 10:43:45 AM
And a lot of animals avoid fucking fat fucks, but people like you still get laid.
And a lot of animals avoid fucking dwarves, but people like you still get laid.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 06, 2009, 11:01:23 AM
And a lot of animals avoid fucking dwarves, but people like you still get laid.
Relax.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 06, 2009, 10:22:46 AM
Even a lot of animals will avoid incest. The aversion to it is built in.
Try the Bonobo monkeys - they pleasure each other even within the 'family'.
-----
Regarding the topic, how many of you well meaning hypocrits wouldn't be turned on by the thought of a 3 some with 2 sisters ? That too would be incest, even there'd be a proxy between them.
Anyhow the idea of 2 hot brothers having sex is such a turn on! But that's as far as I'd personally go.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on May 06, 2009, 11:15:41 AM
Regarding the topic, how many of you well meaning hypocrits wouldn't be turned on by the thought of a 3 some with 2 sisters ? That too would be incest, even there'd be a proxy between them.
Well it wouldn't be incest for them. If they were turned on by having sex with their two sisters that would be one thing.
QuoteAnyhow the idea of 2 hot brothers having sex is such a turn on! But that's as far as I'd personally go.
Well yeah because they are not your brothers...do you have siblings?
Quote from: Grallon on May 06, 2009, 11:15:41 AM
Try the Bonobo monkeys - they pleasure each other even within the 'family'.
Here's a quick bit I googled about Chimpanzees and incest.
QuoteThe universal human avoidance of incest seems to arise naturally, since it can be observed that it is embedded so deeply in our nature, that we can see it arise in our primate relatives! Chimpanzees, olive baboons, rhesus monkeys, and Japanese macaques rarely mate with close kin. In Jane Goodall's essay: "Incest Avoidance Among Chimpanzees," she gives as evidence of this through her observations of chimpanzees. Goodall observed that mating between males and their mothers is extremely rare. In the rare case when a male made sexual advances toward his mother, he is rejected, although most advances from other chimps are accepted. The mothers would go so far as to get their back stomped on rather than submit to sexual intercourse with their son. Only persistent males who manage to chase down or corner their mother succeed in copulating with them, and even then, the mother often runs away before ejaculation. Goodall also observed that chimps tend to avoid sexual relations between brother and sister. The female sibling was seen to mate much less frequently with her brothers, as compared to the amount of times with other chimps. When the male sibling displays a sexual interest in his sister, quite often she turns him down by walking away, resisting, or even attacking him. Even in the exceptional circumstance where a chimp was often seen to mate with her brother, she resisted his advances much more often than she resisted the advances of other chimps. It was seen that chimps avoid incestuous behaviour towards immediate family. No account was made with regards to father-daughter relationships, because only the mother stays with the babies to raise them. Consequentially, neither the chimps nor Goodall has any idea as to who any particular chimp's father is.
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2009, 11:18:31 AM
Well yeah because they are not your brothers...do you have siblings?
No I don't. Perhaps it would be different if I had i'll grant you that. But it almost happened. I had an affair with one brother and almost with the other - they were both gay.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on May 06, 2009, 11:41:42 AM
No I don't. Perhaps it would be different if I had i'll grant you that. But it almost happened. I had an affair with one brother and almost with the
The very idea of having sex with your sibling is pretty difficult to fathom. It is psychological thing you just cannot avoid (unless you did not grow up with them). But you having sex with a pair of brothers is totally different...they are not your brothers.
Wow two brothers both gay the chances against that must be incredible.
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2009, 11:45:24 AM
Wow two brothers both gay the chances against that must be incredible.
Not really. Assuming that there is no genetic correlation, a lower bound of 4% gay (see exit polls in US Presidential elections for 2008, 2004, and 2000, which all had a 4% gay/lesbian self-identification), and a higher bound of 10% gay (the famous not-very-well-supported 10%), any family with 2 boys would have somewhere between a 0.16% and a 1% chance. Considering the likelihood of a genetic component to homosexuality, and the real chances would be higher.
Not great odds, but I wouldn't call them incredible.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 06, 2009, 09:57:09 AM
I sense that we've danced around this without making it clear; the taboo is in place because of the chance of
birth defects resulting from a child from an incestuous relationship. The taboo is not 'ooh, gross', although it
has that dimension NOW due to the taboo being in place for so long.
I also fail to see the comparison between incest and homosexuality, although I understand that both were
illegal... homosexual regulations was religion put into law, and the incest regulations were taboo made into law.
We heard you the first time. But we are talking about whether it should be legal or not, not about the taboo.
Quote from: ulmont on May 06, 2009, 12:11:34 PM
Not really. Assuming that there is no genetic correlation, a lower bound of 4% gay (see exit polls in US Presidential elections for 2008, 2004, and 2000, which all had a 4% gay/lesbian self-identification)
Faggots are overrepresented amongst those that vote. Your methodology is flawed. I suggest you kill yourself for being a subhuman fag enabler.
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 12:26:22 PM
Faggots are overrepresented amongst those that vote.
Really. Please provide some evidence to back that up; all anecdotal data I have suggests the opposite.
Quote from: ulmont on May 06, 2009, 12:30:23 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 12:26:22 PM
Faggots are overrepresented amongst those that vote.
Really. Please provide some evidence to back that up; all anecdotal data I have suggests the opposite.
No point in getting into an argument with Neil over this. He doesn't make use of facts beyond his own schtick.
Quote from: ulmont on May 06, 2009, 12:11:34 PM
Not really. Assuming that there is no genetic correlation, a lower bound of 4% gay (see exit polls in US Presidential elections for 2008, 2004, and 2000, which all had a 4% gay/lesbian self-identification), and a higher bound of 10% gay (the famous not-very-well-supported 10%), any family with 2 boys would have somewhere between a 0.16% and a 1% chance. Considering the likelihood of a genetic component to homosexuality, and the real chances would be higher.
Not great odds, but I wouldn't call them incredible.
Excellent point. I had not actually worked out the math for that.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 06, 2009, 12:33:36 PM
No point in getting into an argument with Neil over this. He doesn't make use of facts beyond his own schtick.
Well, yeah. It just seemed like an odd claim to make.
Quote from: ulmont on May 06, 2009, 12:30:23 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 12:26:22 PM
Faggots are overrepresented amongst those that vote.
Really. Please provide some evidence to back that up; all anecdotal data I have suggests the opposite.
Because I say it, it's true. Only 0.1% are gay. Now hear this:
IT IS NOT ALRIGHT TO BE GAY. FAGGOTS ARE A CANCER ON SOCIETY. FAGS ANG FAG-ENABLERS SHOULD KILL THEMSELVES TODAY.
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 12:38:03 PM
ANG
I love how you misspelled "and." Really, it's not a hard word. Only 3 letters.
sheesh Neil... that's a bit flamboyant even for you. Couldn't find a picture of a Dreadnought waving that banner? whatever, hope you are having fun with it at least.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 06, 2009, 12:40:11 PM
Couldn't find a picture of a Dreadnought waving that banner?
Damn. That would have been so much cooler.
Quote from: ulmont on May 06, 2009, 12:39:30 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 12:38:03 PM
ANG
I love how you misspelled "and." Really, it's not a hard word. Only 3 letters.
It's hard to be accurate when you're pounding the keyboard in fury. Just ask Berkut.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 06, 2009, 12:40:11 PM
sheesh Neil... that's a bit flamboyant even for you. Couldn't find a picture of a Dreadnought waving that banner? whatever, hope you are having fun with it at least.
Too large. The point is that gays are my enemies.
Quote from: The Brain on May 05, 2009, 04:24:50 PM
I remember back in 2003 I used to ask new people on Languish what they thought on incest, cannibalism and polygamy.
Best when not practiced at the same time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2009, 02:22:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 05, 2009, 04:24:50 PM
I remember back in 2003 I used to ask new people on Languish what they thought on incest, cannibalism and polygamy.
Best when not practiced at the same time.
Males cannot multitask well. :yes:
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2009, 02:22:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 05, 2009, 04:24:50 PM
I remember back in 2003 I used to ask new people on Languish what they thought on incest, cannibalism and polygamy.
Best when not practiced at the same time.
I wonder if The Brain's dates start with the same question. :D
Quote from: Malthus on May 06, 2009, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2009, 02:22:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 05, 2009, 04:24:50 PM
I remember back in 2003 I used to ask new people on Languish what they thought on incest, cannibalism and polygamy.
Best when not practiced at the same time.
I wonder if The Brain's dates start with the same question. :D
No. Unfortunately they almost always end with it. :(
Quote from: The Brain on May 06, 2009, 02:27:23 PM
No. Unfortunately they almost always end with it. :(
:lol: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 12:43:26 PM
Too large. The point is that gays are my enemies.
It must be sad when your "enemies" just find you mildly amusing. :D
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 06, 2009, 09:57:09 AM
I sense that we've danced around this without making it clear; the taboo is in place because of the chance of
birth defects resulting from a child from an incestuous relationship. The taboo is not 'ooh, gross', although it
has that dimension NOW due to the taboo being in place for so long.
I also fail to see the comparison between incest and homosexuality, although I understand that both were
illegal... homosexual regulations was religion put into law, and the incest regulations were taboo made into law.
Pretty much, but both had logical support because of the linkage between procreation and child-rearing. Now that medical science is catching up to coping with problems of double-recessives and the social norms of the traditional relationship are being chipped away at, the logical argument is losing its teeth, and this is quickly becoming more taboo by tradition than anything else.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 06, 2009, 09:57:09 AM
I sense that we've danced around this without making it clear; the taboo is in place because of the chance of
birth defects resulting from a child from an incestuous relationship. The taboo is not 'ooh, gross', although it
has that dimension NOW due to the taboo being in place for so long.
The taboo predated any understanding of genetics, so i would argue this assertion is unwarrented. The taboo is likelier to be in place for social reasons (societies benefit from inter-family alliances created by sexual relations). The Navajo have as strong a taboo against sexual relations with one's clan (or even allied clans) as they do within the family, and clearly their taboo was not created to avoid birth defects.
QuoteI also fail to see the comparison between incest and homosexuality, although I understand that both were
illegal... homosexual regulations was religion put into law, and the incest regulations were taboo made into law.
The taboo on incest is often expressed as a religious one.
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2009, 02:58:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 12:43:26 PM
Too large. The point is that gays are my enemies.
It must be sad when your "enemies" just find you mildly amusing. :D
So why do they pursue and attack me at every turn?
Lol Neil is living up to his avatar.
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 05:44:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2009, 02:58:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 12:43:26 PM
Too large. The point is that gays are my enemies.
It must be sad when your "enemies" just find you mildly amusing. :D
So why do they pursue and attack me at every turn?
See the esteemed Senator from Alaska, above. :contract: