Jump to content


Photo

Incest


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
98 replies to this topic

#31 Sara, Sara, Sara, Sarang-hae-yo

Sara, Sara, Sara, Sarang-hae-yo

    My girlfriend just dumped me. -_-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,154 posts

Posted 11 September 2005 - 01:29 PM

In terms of typical relationships that tend to build within a family while living together, it is very unlikely incest will occur, and if it did, would be something that would be socially difficult for me personally to comprehend. However, social values colour this view of incest being "taboo". I have been reading a book called "brave new world" where social values are entirely different, where test tube babies are the standard way to be born and birth and families are entirely laughable. It depicted that human opinion is subject to change according to social values, which are after all, about what is all around us, based upon what we see around us, and much of it can be manipulated. Personally I cannot sympathise with incest, but if it happens, it happens, I view it as a phenomenon, but nevertheless something as possible and human. The only issue that may render it ethically unjust is the poor offspring that may be yielded.

#32 aNIMEPERSONMAKIKO

aNIMEPERSONMAKIKO

    I'm an official BoA fan!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 18 September 2005 - 01:17 PM

It's inhuman and dangerous to the offspring because of the mixing of blood they are more prone to lifelong retardation and diseases.

#33 char-char

char-char

    CHARmander;

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,610 posts

Posted 25 September 2005 - 03:40 AM

in some cases, theymust be accepted because some don't know that they are cousins or siblings. They are separated from each othersince birth. I think in this case, they must give some considerstion.

#34 BoAFriend

BoAFriend

    My family just disowned me!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,338 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 04:08 PM

I know incest was seen as natural back in ancient civilizations like Ancient Egypt to keep families and power in line, but nowadays....it just seems wrong in my opinion and I think that incest is VERY rare.

To be honest, I think that being gay/lesbian is better than being incest.

Edited by BoAFriend, 28 September 2005 - 04:08 PM.


#35 ( ̄ー ̄)

( ̄ー ̄)

    crazy fangirl

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 09:30 PM

To be honest, I think that being gay/lesbian is better than being incest.


What's that mean? You think incest is wrong, so you'd rather people be gay/lesbian? Are you putting gay/lesbian in with incest as being wrong?

Then again, people are entitled to their opinions~

Anyways. I think incest is wrong mainly because of the health complications but other than that it's just my own personal opinion. Me and my sister? Eeewwww ^_^

Edited by Jeffu, 28 September 2005 - 09:31 PM.


#36 shadowdragon_7

shadowdragon_7

    My family just disowned me!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,342 posts

Posted 29 September 2005 - 08:27 PM

I think incest is wrong. Like other people said, if people in that relationship had a child, then s/he has a high chance of being mentally retarded.

#37 HvnSntGurl

HvnSntGurl

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 262 posts

Posted 10 October 2005 - 08:15 AM

It's wrong because it's your family. When you have a child with someone in your family it's a high chance the child will be deformed.

#38 Locket

Locket

    I can't get BoA off my mind!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 973 posts

Posted 19 October 2005 - 09:00 PM

Well, like kuraudo pointed out, incest leads to problems with genetics, leading to children with a much higher chance of having diseases that one wouldn't normally get, b/c of all that dominant/recessive allele business. That's the biological standpoint, which is linked to the moral view on it.

Incest is just wrong in the minds of many... err actually if you read in Shakespeare's Hamlet I think it deems an affair with an in-law as incest, which we don't consider incest today.

it's just disgusting. that's the general outlook people have... which includes me

i'd think this sort of question is common sense... but whatever

#39 kuraudo

kuraudo

    I belong in a mental asylum!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,266 posts

Posted 19 October 2005 - 09:05 PM

^ Thanks for backing me up.

Why is this so hard to understand? Its basically instinctual.

IF you find a way to debate that it is ok, you are lying to yourself.

#40 aznality

aznality

    BoA is my ONE and ONLY!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,350 posts

Posted 04 February 2006 - 07:36 PM

logic : incest should be allow .... how the offsprings of adams and eve procreate? if people say that incest cause problems, i think, we are the problems already.


Sorry, but who can prove the Christian Bible is legitimate? They claim humans have only been around for thousands of years. Where as in reality, archaeologists have dug up human remains from way beyond those times. In a sense, it shows the story of incest activity from our earliest ancestors is nonexistant. We have been around for a lot longer than we think we have.

#41 kuraudo

kuraudo

    I belong in a mental asylum!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,266 posts

Posted 04 February 2006 - 07:42 PM

^
Sorry Aznality, I am having trouble finding in the bible where it says a claim humans have existed for only 100o's of years, can you find it?
I would like to research this myself.
I agree with you that 1000's of years are too short for humanitie's existence!

Also,
In the bible it does specify that incest is indeed wrong to do, and is an abomination in human nature.

Either way, religiously, socially, or genetically, it still sick.

But in the past, it was allowed to keep a "Royal" line in which royality intermarried within their family, but then as time went on people started to marry other royal families.

But the times keep changing, we are always moving forward.

To keep up with society, I would be strongly puzzled why anyone would disagree. Is your cousin that hot? o_0

Edited by kuraudo, 04 February 2006 - 07:46 PM.


#42 aznality

aznality

    BoA is my ONE and ONLY!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,350 posts

Posted 04 February 2006 - 09:35 PM

^it does not say. but for those who have read it, the bible does describe the number of years to its particular characters' existance and length of events. add it up till christ's supposed birthday on 0 A.D. it is only a few thousand years.

#43 kaminokami2086

kaminokami2086

    I can't get BoA off my mind!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts

Posted 04 February 2006 - 10:16 PM

What happens when there is a limited genepool its near guaranteed
that the children become retarded or very very low IQ.


Okay first I don't back incest, when I saw the topic i was like wtf? But on this statement here:
TIME Magazine ran a few years agot that, that is a myth. They asked scientists and they say yes the occasional retard happens but the chances of retardation is the same with incest as it is with normal reproduction or whatever you want to call it. I mean look at the deep south, rural not urban. you don't have retards running everywhere just the occasional few. Hope I didnt sound too insensitive.

On the Bible issue, I am tired of Christians reading it as literal. It is poetic and figurative words of God, yes some is literal but not the whole. so learn your own religion before you use every single word in the bible as "it has to be" Yes I'm catholic but I know the bible is not literal. Adam and Eve were the first and had children, but who said God stopped creating man after them. After all Adam and Eve only had Cain and Abel to males.

#44 kuraudo

kuraudo

    I belong in a mental asylum!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,266 posts

Posted 04 February 2006 - 10:40 PM

^it does not say. but for those who have read it, the bible does describe the number of years to its particular characters' existance and length of events. add it up till christ's supposed birthday on 0 A.D. it is only a few thousand years.


Well when Christ was born, thats for the NEW testament. The OLD testament spans a lot longer previously
before Christ's birth. Of all the Christians i have talked to, including a minister, and a Catholic Pope, they all agreed we are millions+ years old.

As for myself, I don't group myself in the theory of humans only existing for a few millenia. The earth itself and all we know could easily prove it. :(

You met Christians believing this? What an odd group, i must say :o

#45 Artius

Artius

    I'm an official BoA fan!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 04 February 2006 - 11:05 PM

Probably this whole western culture that spread to a whole bunch of places impacted us and now we're all anti-incest.

Lots of things that are MORALLY right are considered IMMORAL to the western society.


So you approve of Incest?

Is it jsut me or is the serious discussion forum starting to revolve alot around weird sex question.

anyways, its weird and disgusting. Its almost in every major religon that you can't have incest and it's should be against a person's moral code. I mean, would you wat to have sex with your mom or dad? it is just wrong in so many ways.

Also the Christian thing, there are parts that say "several generations or many generations" And yes, its not literally. Furthermore, the "humans" that archeologist discovers are not "humans" but "human-like". In the bible, the humans 'created" Adam and Eve could talk. Spoken language was not used (at least theorized) with most of the older homo-sapien fossiles.

Edited by Artius, 06 February 2006 - 01:29 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users