Last I checked, those comments were standard in any and all TFW2005 thread regarding stuff like this. Considering how long you've been here, I thought you'd know that by now.

 

So...any chance they're remaking 'Flowers in the Attic?'

 

Sad yet funny, though yeah you do gotta wonder if they are gonna stay with each other anyway.

As on the question about if you would do a female clone of your self, yeah sure, long as she was lighter in weight then me, hell if i were thin i could probably pass as an ok looking girl honestly, and i don't know if thats a good thing or a bad thing heh.

 

Yeah, I know, the idea of siblings doing...that is kinda gross. However, they are two consenting adults and as long as they make it so they can't reproduce, they aren't hurting anybody.

So yeah. Go get yourselves fixed and have at it, you crazy kids you.

 

Adam and Eve, then Adam and Steve, what do we call this?

and on another note, if they had kids, doing their geneology would be really easy at first...

 

I usually avoid these types of threads. Not sure how I got sucked into this one.

 

The problem with siblings dating is because of the possible horrifice genetic offspring they will produce (i.e. inbreeding) and the social stigma and weirdness - which is a product of being raised together. These people are essentially completely unrelated. Assuming they don't have children then there's really nothing wrong here. Of course they can't technically legally be married. Does they mean they should just stop having sex? That's crazy. If you want to justify it religiously, they could still well be married in the eyes of God, just not lawfully.

 

Happens every week on my wife's soap opera's

 

Uncle Daddy and Aunt Mommy

 

Bendimus, I think you need to go read "Time enough for Love." by Heinlein

 

Inbreeding ftl. At work, one of my co-workers from a couple of years back was inbred. I kid you not - some 25 years earlier, her mum did the nasty with her own son, and this unfortunate individual was the result of that most unholy union. It showed, too.

 

You know, kids come to these forums. You better censor that chick's nipple or shit's gonna hit fan.

 

How so? By which standard did you make that assumption? Someone can be not inbred, but can still be a complete wierdo or a nutcase or deranged, ******ed, autistic etc.

As I remember, egyptian pharaohs married their sisters. There are no history records of every child from such unions being impaired. Inbreeding just increases the chance of the child inherating certain diseases and malformities. It is the prolonged inbreeding (several generations) that causes the above things mentioned in almost every offspring.

 

OOOOOOOOOOKAY!

I'll go throw up about something else....

 

 

Anybody read "The Song Of Ice And Fire" from George R. R. Martin??

 

Seriously, what would be the problem?

The risk of mutations and birth defects is the origin of the taboo against incest, even people aren't conscious of that. If one of 'em gets fixed, I can't see it being an issue.

 

Beat me to it.

 

I'm with squirrelcar on this one. The social stigma is due to genetic issues. If the genetic complications are no longer issues, biologically there is no issue. They are both consenting adults.

The book I mentioned above "Time enough for love" it is actually one of the topics brought up in the book. Of course Heinlein was probally more screwed up in the head than Freud, and just trying to rationalize it himself, but that is a discussion for a different thread.