100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Religion and incest | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Incest isn't illegal in all countries. Some believe, it's the obligation of the father to deflower his daughter. I believe it's legal in Arkansas too. isn't 'pursuit of happinesss' one of those inalienable/unalienable rights if two grown consenting adults are happy together, what 'right' should society/government have to tell them they cant be because of their gender OR their family history? they produce genetically damaged offspring... that is not a legal justification because 1) they do NOT always produces damaged offspring , just have a much higher INCIDENCE of producing,, much like homosexuals have a much higher INCIDENCE of certain stds unless 2) consenting adults choose to be 'responsible' everyday in the use of condoms, birth control, much like homosexuals cant be legally restricted from pursuing happiness if they are consenting adults,, in spite of higher risks of stdss,,,,,families wont be legally restricted much longer from pursuing happiness if they are consenting adults, in spite of a higher risk of genetic defect,,, Never took a course in Logic in College, did you? actually, I did,, but your point is? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
TBRich
on
Sat 04/12/14 09:07 PM
|
|
Incest isn't illegal in all countries. Some believe, it's the obligation of the father to deflower his daughter. I believe it's legal in Arkansas too. isn't 'pursuit of happinesss' one of those inalienable/unalienable rights if two grown consenting adults are happy together, what 'right' should society/government have to tell them they cant be because of their gender OR their family history? they produce genetically damaged offspring... that is not a legal justification because 1) they do NOT always produces damaged offspring , just have a much higher INCIDENCE of producing,, much like homosexuals have a much higher INCIDENCE of certain stds unless 2) consenting adults choose to be 'responsible' everyday in the use of condoms, birth control, much like homosexuals cant be legally restricted from pursuing happiness if they are consenting adults,, in spite of higher risks of stdss,,,,,families wont be legally restricted much longer from pursuing happiness if they are consenting adults, in spite of a higher risk of genetic defect,,, Never took a course in Logic in College, did you? actually, I did,, but your point is? Sorry I should have worded it differently. The argument does not flow logically; it over-generalizes and assumes the a priori statement has more reliability than can be demonstrated. Similar to the ad nauseum argument from Rick Santourum that gay marriage will result in sanctioned beastiality. However, it is your opinion and doesn't need validation as such, that is why they are called opions, not facts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
some numbers
1 in 33 children have birth defect (3 percent) http://www.healthline.com/health/birth-defects#Overview  first cousins have twice the rate of the general pop grandparent, uncle/aunt, half siblings have four times the rate full siblings and parents have 8 times the rate ,,,now , similarly "In 2007, MSM [Men Sex with Men] were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women." (Center for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm) 8 times the general rate of deformity and forty times the gerneal rate of hiv infection but we cant/don't discriminate against people based upon their higher incidence of infection, nor can we discriminate much longer based upon their higher incidence of child deformity ESPECIALLY since both have the valid argument that they can be 'responsible' so as not to catch these diseases (or have children) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
some numbers 1 in 33 children have birth defect (3 percent) http://www.healthline.com/health/birth-defects#Overview first cousins have twice the rate of the general pop grandparent, uncle/aunt, half siblings have four times the rate full siblings and parents have 8 times the rate ,,,now , similarly "In 2007, MSM [Men Sex with Men] were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women." (Center for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm) 8 times the general rate of deformity and forty times the gerneal rate of hiv infection but we cant/don't discriminate against people based upon their higher incidence of infection, nor can we discriminate much longer based upon their higher incidence of child deformity ESPECIALLY since both have the valid argument that they can be 'responsible' so as not to catch these diseases (or have children) I was not referring to the incest thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 04/12/14 09:32 PM
|
|
Incest isn't illegal in all countries. Some believe, it's the obligation of the father to deflower his daughter. I believe it's legal in Arkansas too. isn't 'pursuit of happinesss' one of those inalienable/unalienable rights if two grown consenting adults are happy together, what 'right' should society/government have to tell them they cant be because of their gender OR their family history? they produce genetically damaged offspring... that is not a legal justification because 1) they do NOT always produces damaged offspring , just have a much higher INCIDENCE of producing,, much like homosexuals have a much higher INCIDENCE of certain stds unless 2) consenting adults choose to be 'responsible' everyday in the use of condoms, birth control, much like homosexuals cant be legally restricted from pursuing happiness if they are consenting adults,, in spite of higher risks of stdss,,,,,families wont be legally restricted much longer from pursuing happiness if they are consenting adults, in spite of a higher risk of genetic defect,,, Never took a course in Logic in College, did you? actually, I did,, but your point is? Sorry I should have worded it differently. The argument does not flow logically; it over-generalizes and assumes the a priori statement has more reliability than can be demonstrated. Similar to the ad nauseum argument from Rick Santourum that gay marriage will result in sanctioned beastiality. However, it is your opinion and doesn't need validation as such, that is why they are called opions, not facts the flow, as I understood it was incest should not be permitted because 'they produce damaged offspring' my response was to correct that assumption as it is not true in all or even MOST cases ( at least it has not been proven to have been so) and to deny someone the ability to consent to marriage because of a potential to have offspring with a disorder would be argued as prejudicial just as same sex couples argue it is prejudicial to not let them marry whomever the love,,,, people object to that lifestyle because of the disease, but the disease is not affecting EVERYONE or even most in the lifestyle, just has a much higher INCIDENCE in the lifestyle than in others,,, we don't deny straight people licenses because they may pass along hiv, and we don't deny those who carry genetic anomalies from marrying because they may pass them along to a child we wont, in my opinion, be able to deny family relationships on the basis of the latter (potential for genetic deformity) either,,,, Im sorry if it seems disjointed, its just that I have listened and watched as same sex marriage gained validity and acceptance, and the biggest argument I heard was that we shouldn't consider their passing on disease if we don't consider it in heterosexuals similarly, we shouldn't be able to , in fairness, consider the passing along of deformity in family relationships if we don't consider it in non family relationships,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ban on incest has little to do with genetic deformity, but more with psychological damage, in both vic and prep. If marriage was banned due ti incidents of disease, I know a lot of women who should be spinsters. LOL. Perhaps, as a related analogy you may want to review the history of the Buck v. Bell court case, forced sterilization was legal in America until 1972. And what about the Mann Act?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not for legislating sexual activity between 'consenting adults', let them decide the risks they wish to take,,,
Im not for encouraging promoting sexual activity either, accept as a commitment between males and females who are responsible for creating life when they enter into sexual relationships, life that is documented to be better for it ,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys please read complete...may annoy some of you due to complicity or nonreligious views...My view.. Every religion has its theory of human evolution... but human being as a product is considerably same evenif belonging to different religion.... this compels me to believe in scientific view of human evolution/genetics/incest and hereditary deseases... Thought goes like ....... 1.earth evolved 430millian yrs ago. 2.man evolved from different species of monkeys on earth some 10000 yrs ago; so ddifferent people have different origin in various parts of world. 3.even if man in particular area evolved from specific species of monkeys.... there occured great genetic variations due to mutations, recombinations, intetracial physical contacts and many more...thats why genetic diversity in world population is very high. 5.genetic variation is at such level that no two individuals are genetically same... variations in genetics are directly related with pedigree distance bbetween relations...e.g. even if parents are genetically distant..say one nigroid and other Caucasian... their children will have close genetic material but not exactly same..and these children will have some genetic resemblance to their uncle as well as maternal uncle..(here uncle n maternal unkle are genetically very distant... their neice/nephews have some genetic resemblance to both) now we can see that a) if there is sexual relation between niece and her maternal uncle(Incest)> child may get hereditary disease. b) if their is sexual relation between maternal uncle and paternal aunt (not an incest)> their child is verry very less likely to get any hereditary desease as patents of this child are genetically very distant. Evolution for a large period of time has createf genetic diversity... so we cant say that sexual relationship between any two individuals is an incest... do you have any specific Evidence supporting your Timeline? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys please read complete...may annoy some of you due to complicity or nonreligious views...My view.. Every religion has its theory of human evolution... but human being as a product is considerably same evenif belonging to different religion.... this compels me to believe in scientific view of human evolution/genetics/incest and hereditary deseases... Thought goes like ....... 1.earth evolved 430millian yrs ago. 2.man evolved from different species of monkeys on earth some 10000 yrs ago; so ddifferent people have different origin in various parts of world. 3.even if man in particular area evolved from specific species of monkeys.... there occured great genetic variations due to mutations, recombinations, intetracial physical contacts and many more...thats why genetic diversity in world population is very high. 5.genetic variation is at such level that no two individuals are genetically same... variations in genetics are directly related with pedigree distance bbetween relations...e.g. even if parents are genetically distant..say one nigroid and other Caucasian... their children will have close genetic material but not exactly same..and these children will have some genetic resemblance to their uncle as well as maternal uncle..(here uncle n maternal unkle are genetically very distant... their neice/nephews have some genetic resemblance to both) now we can see that a) if there is sexual relation between niece and her maternal uncle(Incest)> child may get hereditary disease. b) if their is sexual relation between maternal uncle and paternal aunt (not an incest)> their child is verry very less likely to get any hereditary desease as patents of this child are genetically very distant. Evolution for a large period of time has createf genetic diversity... so we cant say that sexual relationship between any two individuals is an incest... do you have any specific Evidence supporting your Timeline? Yeah I have.... you can checkout geological timescale on Wikipedia or any authentic site of geography. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. I have a question. is incest or inbreeding. . frowned upon in the Bible..?.. in other words does the maker of all of us.. look down upon it... I will wait for your reply..hmm...hmmm...hmm..hmmmm...hmm...hmmm.hmmm..hmm..hmmm.hmmm... okay you're busy I'll come back in a little bit....lol as with most issues, the bible is complex on the issues, people will take what they will from it,, there are both passages which SEEM to support and condemn the action,, yet my personal belief(what I take from the bible) is that it should be shunned,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. I have a question. is incest or inbreeding. . frowned upon in the Bible..?.. in other words does the maker of all of us.. look down upon it... I will wait for your reply..hmm...hmmm...hmm..hmmmm...hmm...hmmm.hmmm..hmm..hmmm.hmmm... okay you're busy I'll come back in a little bit....lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. another question.
.. who is the author of the Bible. .. that is are the words in it! the words of the maker of us all...???.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys major problem is :::;;;;what if incest between to siblings or relatives is not necessarily leading to Pregnancy and childbirth (say by contraception etc...)??
In this case Genetics is given rest........ NOW WHAT DO YOU THINK....INCEST LIKE THIS IS WELCOME????,,,, I THINK ISSUE OF INCEST IS MORE OF A SOCIAL n MORAL question than a QUESTION OF GENETICS.....what u say.? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. so let me see if I have this straight.
. God. . the maker of us all... the doer of no wrong.. does not make mistakes.. the knower of all.. . following me so far..ok... . makes Adam and Eve.... and God knowing everything.. knows they're going to have children.... and also knows.. that their children are going to have children....hmm.. now if he is against incest....hmm.... what was his thinking. .. I'm against incest.... but I'm going to populate the planet... with inbreeding...ie.. incest... ... so do you think he made a mistake or what?? .. just sayin... I don't like black licorice... so I don't go to the store and buy a bag of black licorice......hmm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys please read complete...may annoy some of you due to complicity or nonreligious views...My view.. Every religion has its theory of human evolution... but human being as a product is considerably same evenif belonging to different religion.... this compels me to believe in scientific view of human evolution/genetics/incest and hereditary deseases... Thought goes like ....... 1.earth evolved 430millian yrs ago. 2.man evolved from different species of monkeys on earth some 10000 yrs ago; so ddifferent people have different origin in various parts of world. 3.even if man in particular area evolved from specific species of monkeys.... there occured great genetic variations due to mutations, recombinations, intetracial physical contacts and many more...thats why genetic diversity in world population is very high. 5.genetic variation is at such level that no two individuals are genetically same... variations in genetics are directly related with pedigree distance bbetween relations...e.g. even if parents are genetically distant..say one nigroid and other Caucasian... their children will have close genetic material but not exactly same..and these children will have some genetic resemblance to their uncle as well as maternal uncle..(here uncle n maternal unkle are genetically very distant... their neice/nephews have some genetic resemblance to both) now we can see that a) if there is sexual relation between niece and her maternal uncle(Incest)> child may get hereditary disease. b) if their is sexual relation between maternal uncle and paternal aunt (not an incest)> their child is verry very less likely to get any hereditary desease as patents of this child are genetically very distant. Evolution for a large period of time has createf genetic diversity... so we cant say that sexual relationship between any two individuals is an incest... do you have any specific Evidence supporting your Timeline? Yeah I have.... you can checkout geological timescale on Wikipedia or any authentic site of geography. which gives a much larger timescale than your Biblically-inspired Timeline! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have said different religions have different timescales.... I dont believe in any of these.
What I have mentioned is pure scientific view... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sun 04/13/14 05:16 AM
|
|
I have said different religions have different timescales.... I dont believe in any of these. What I have mentioned is pure scientific view... man,you are off by a big Factor! Earth's Age is about 4.3 BILLION years,and Man goes back to over a Million years!  Besides,this really has nothing to do with the Topic at hand! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pa... timescale figured in explanation of evolution.
Anyway.....To say sex bet any two individuals is naive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cm'mn man.. what Adam-Eve.. n what abt dat Noah fellow today..
Firstly, man came from Apes, nt dropped a two-legged creature from above.. n abt ur incest n disease thing.. it's all bcoz some genetic disorders r "recessive" type.. that is, both parents must b partially defective to together make a totally defective/diseased baby.. obviously chances r high wen incest occurs coz they both r genetically similar nd so more chances dat partially defective individuals come 2gthr n make dis diseased baby.. chill bro.. our life span is nt shortening due to such crap.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cm'mn man.. what Adam-Eve.. n what abt dat Noah fellow today.. Firstly, man came from Apes, nt dropped a two-legged creature from above.. n abt ur incest n disease thing.. it's all bcoz some genetic disorders r "recessive" type.. that is, both parents must b partially defective to together make a totally defective/diseased baby.. obviously chances r high wen incest occurs coz they both r genetically similar nd so more chances dat partially defective individuals come 2gthr n make dis diseased baby.. chill bro.. our life span is nt shortening due to such crap.. I just want to be pedantic and remind you that evolution does not say that man came from apes. The only people who actually say that are Xian fundamentals who do not understand science. I know many who are freaking out over de Grasse's update of the old Cosmos series |
|
|
|
|
