I'd hit it.

 

Sounds like the Peacock family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_%28The_X-Files%29

 

Wouldn't an obsession with racial purity promote inbreeding? We've got a law like that here too, and I'm pretty sure we were against the Third Reich.

 

It's a universal taboo for a reason. There's isnt a single culture that promotes incest. (Unless it was a means to show how above normal humanity they were...AKA Egyptian royalty) That and it's icky.  

 

its not normal and against the law for a reason.

where it occurs in nature subsequent generations of those animals do start to develop genetic problems - usually nature reserve people are heard saying this and how it causes problems with captive animals.


i can kind of see how this situation is different as they had not known each other all their lives etc so may not feel like bro+ sis - but end of they day they are and well....eww.

 

Captive animals are mating with their own families? Man, they really need to get out more.
*rimshot*

 

The same could be argued for other certain sexual activities.

 

but other sexual activities don't give way to ******ed abnormal children.

 

You're right. They're completely devoid of an end. I'm just question whether it is right for people to say, "Oh, this kind of sex that has been looked down upon for millenia is wrong still, but now, this other other kind of sex that has been looked down upon for millenia is ok."

 

You answered your own question - they are completely devoid of an end, in other words it doesn't hurt anyone if it's between two consenting adults, on the other hand incest can result in disabled and or ******ed or deformed children and increases the chance of inheriting adverse recessive genetic traits.

 

Its like those slippery slope prophecies that people used to post in N+P gay rights threads are coming true, the end times must be near.

 

But where will Walmart get their greeters?

 

Historically, the other practices, if and when they've been looked down upon (because none of them have been frowned on as universally as incest), were looked down upon for religious reasons and/or because the cultures that looked down upon them encouraged rapid population growth. Times have changed. Law in the "free world" shouldn't be based on religion, and we need rapid population growth as much as we need cancer. Based on what we now know about bonobos, we can also say that most of those sexual practices (homosexuality and oral sex in particular) are not "unnatural acts" which is the traditional reason fabricated for their outlaw. On the other hand, incest is inhumane to any defective children that are born, and is taboo even among wild primates living in their natural state.

 

lol

Oh once I was at a Walmart with my then girlfriend and we stopped at the exit and we kissed, cause thats what love birds do. Anyway, the greeter started freaking out at us screaming "What the fuck's wrong with you?! Standing there blocking people like that just to sin! You must be idiots!"
So I just turned around and told him to fuck off and he flipped! Started coming after me telling me to say it to his face and so I did "Fuck off you stupid hick. Me kissing my girlfriend is less sinful than your mom and uncle doing the two back beast that produced you" at which point my girl and I jumped in the car. When we pulled out we threw donuts at him. Oh what memories

 

Ew. Thats all I can say.

 

I was never too involved in that, I think I only ever posted in 1 tread in that forum. However, I think it is a valid question. If we can blame everything on religion to get rid of it, then where, in our "enlightened" society, do we draw the line? I know people have made arguments that it's inhumane to the kids of incestual relationships, but where can they judge that from?

With the expulsion of religion, or any other moral authority from the framework of society, where can anyone get off telling someone that what they are doing is wrong? Because if it really is all about me, who are you (figurative you) to tell me that I can't have sex with my sister, or a goat, or a toaster?

 

Let all remember our logics class back in college, slippery slope is never a valid argument.

 

Just remember to unplug the toaster. Safety first.

 

I'm fine with it really being all about you, personally. But as long as it's only about you, and any other consenting adults.

When you have a child with a sister, who is disabled because of your choices, it's not about you anymore. You're affecting other people. That's when it becomes a problem.

The goat? Can't provide consent, so I'm not okay with it, but I'll concede that the nature of animals is highly subjective.

Toaster? Little weird, but it doesn't affect anyone else. Go for it.