Contraceptives...and Incest

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-10-30 06:28pm

verilon wrote: Two words: FUCK OFF!!!

How can you get so damn excited over me using the word GAY in it's
pre 1990s meaning?

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-10-30 06:30pm

MKSheppard wrote:
verilon wrote: Two words: FUCK OFF!!!
How can you get so damn excited over me using the word GAY in it's
pre 1990s meaning?

Because I know you're doing it just to spite me because I know you hate me because you know I'm gay and that scares you.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-10-30 06:38pm

verilon wrote: Because I know you're doing it just to spite me because I know you hate me because you know I'm gay and that scares you.

Spite you? Perhaps a little, but naaa, you don't have to worry about me
going after you with a vengeance....you're OK by me...so is Einhander Snowman

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2002-10-30 06:55pm

To tell the truth, It probably doesn't matter about Incest.

Personally, on the other hand, I just can't see my sister as a potential partner. I've known her all her life, and a good portion of mine. I just can't see it, taboos aside(even though she is cute from an astetic viewpoint). That's just the way our relationship has been.

If YOU want to sleep with your sister, however, I'll just look at you funny, but I can't say anything after that.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2002-10-30 07:26pm

Somebody should post this on CreationWeb just to piss them off...

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-10-30 07:32pm

Exonerate wrote:Somebody should post this on CreationWeb just to piss them off...

OMG that would be hilarious! But I'm not doing it...

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-10-30 11:22pm

In a few decades, genetic engineering will have advanced far enough where we can eliminate genetic defects. FTL is doubtful, perhaps impossible, but designer babies certainly are possible.

If so, then siblings can have full relationships and have healthy kids together. And the kids won't have to necessarily look like their parents either.

Also stats show that blondes will become extinct in the next 200 years. Genetic engineering could solve that.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-10-30 11:35pm

Exonerate wrote:Somebody should post this on CreationWeb just to piss them off...

Why should it piss them off? After all, incest seemed to be quite accepted in Biblical times.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2002-10-30 11:57pm

In biblical times, yes. However, we aren't in biblical times anymore. Besides, fundies distort their own religious "literature."

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-31 12:15am

Uraniun235 wrote:
Exonerate wrote:Somebody should post this on CreationWeb just to piss them off...
Why should it piss them off? After all, incest seemed to be quite accepted in Biblical times.

Half of them probably still do practice it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-31 12:22am

Of course! Fundies and inbreeding go hand-in-hand.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-10-31 12:32am

Why should it piss them off? After all, incest seemed to be quite accepted in Biblical times. - Uranium235

Could you provide me some evidence for that? The reason why I'm asking is because if it was so accepted, then why the harsh law found in Leviticus 20:12? I guess you will bring up the example of Lot.

`If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

XPViking

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-10-31 12:34am

XPViking wrote:
Why should it piss them off? After all, incest seemed to be quite accepted in Biblical times. - Uranium235
Could you provide me some evidence for that? The reason why I'm asking is because if it was so accepted, then why the harsh law found in Leviticus 20:12? I guess you will bring up the example of Lot.

How about Adam and Eve and their kids?

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-10-31 12:36am

Not to mention after Noah's Flood....

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2002-10-31 12:48am

verilon wrote:Not to mention after Noah's Flood....

Maybe that would explain all the crazy people in the world today...Alla that inbreeding...

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-10-31 12:51am

Verilon,

Okay. You are referring to Cain. It doesn't appear to say where "his wife" came from. Unfortunately, it is somewhat ambigious as to where she came from. In other words, she may not necessarily be a daughter of Adam and Eve. To me, anyhow, it looks like that Genesis 4:3 is covering a lot of time within a few scant paragraphs.

I'll check into more regarding after the Flood.

XPViking

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-10-31 12:57am

XPViking wrote:Verilon,

Okay. You are referring to Cain. It doesn't appear to say where "his wife" came from. Unfortunately, it is somewhat ambigious as to where she came from. In other words, she may not necessarily be a daughter of Adam and Eve. To me, anyhow, it looks like that Genesis 4:3 is covering a lot of time within a few scant paragraphs.

I'll check into more regarding after the Flood.

XPViking

Well, there was Adam and Eve. And it says their children had children. It's only logical. They either had daughters, or they had kids with Eve . Take your pick.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-31 12:57am

XPViking wrote:Verilon,

Okay. You are referring to Cain. It doesn't appear to say where "his wife" came from. Unfortunately, it is somewhat ambigious as to where she came from. In other words, she may not necessarily be a daughter of Adam and Eve. To me, anyhow, it looks like that Genesis 4:3 is covering a lot of time within a few scant paragraphs.

I'll check into more regarding after the Flood.

It's just not explained. God makes the first man and woman on Earth, but they appear to meet people. God then kills everyone on Earth but Noah's family, so every species on Earth must reproduce from just two of each animal, yet inbreeding is defined as a sin and we KNOW what it does to the gene pool. The Bible is just really badly written, that's all. It's got the kind of continuity that would make Berman and Braga ashamed of themselves.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-31 01:01am

Darth Wong wrote:
XPViking wrote:Verilon,

Okay. You are referring to Cain. It doesn't appear to say where "his wife" came from. Unfortunately, it is somewhat ambigious as to where she came from. In other words, she may not necessarily be a daughter of Adam and Eve. To me, anyhow, it looks like that Genesis 4:3 is covering a lot of time within a few scant paragraphs.

I'll check into more regarding after the Flood.
It's just not explained. God makes the first man and woman on Earth, but they appear to meet people. God then kills everyone on Earth but Noah's family, so every species on Earth must reproduce from just two of each animal, yet inbreeding is defined as a sin and we KNOW what it does to the gene pool. The Bible is just really badly written, that's all. It's got the kind of continuity that would make Berman and Braga ashamed of themselves.

No, they're shameless idiots that took their example from the fundies. Just overlook anything you don't like

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-10-31 01:07am

Darth Wong,

Right. After a cursory look at some other information, apparently the definition of incest changed during the early Biblical times. That is, it seems that the law given by Moses (I'm referring here to my Leviticus quote) appears after the Earth has a fairly sustantial population. Some other viewpoints contend that although inbreeding and was apparently justified in order to increase the early population, it also weakened the robustness of the human race (we don't have people living for 900 years like Yoda for example).

As to why the issue is not fully explained in the Bible is interesting. Oh well, back to the books.

Thanks Verilon for such a quick response.

XPViking

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-10-31 01:11am

XPViking wrote:Darth Wong,

Right. After a cursory look at some other information, apparently the definition of incest changed during the early Biblical times. That is, it seems that the law given by Moses (I'm referring here to my Leviticus quote) appears after the Earth has a fairly sustantial population. Some other viewpoints contend that although inbreeding and was apparently justified in order to increase the early population, it also weakened the robustness of the human race (we don't have people living for 900 years like Yoda for example).

As to why the issue is not fully explained in the Bible is interesting. Oh well, back to the books.

Thanks Verilon for such a quick response.

XPViking

Of course! That's what being the Official Insomniac is all about!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-31 01:15am

XPViking wrote:Right. After a cursory look at some other information, apparently the definition of incest changed during the early Biblical times. That is, it seems that the law given by Moses (I'm referring here to my Leviticus quote) appears after the Earth has a fairly sustantial population.

Ah, so fucking your sister was not incest in Biblical times? *chuckle*

Some other viewpoints contend that although inbreeding and was apparently justified in order to increase the early population, it also weakened the robustness of the human race (we don't have people living for 900 years like Yoda for example).

Nor did we ever. I hate to break it to you, but you can't disprove medicine by using the Garden of Eden fairy tale as evidence.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-10-31 01:18am

Well, there was Adam and Eve. And it says their children had children. It's only logical. They either had daughters, or they had kids with Eve . Take your pick. - Verilon

Fair enough. Two things you may want to consider: 1) the amount of time covered is compressed in a few short paragraphs. How long did Cain live in the land of Nod? By that time, perhaps Adam had a lot more kids who had kids. So Cain may have married some great grand-niece or something. Mind you, in order to achieve these numbers, Adam's kids quite possibly have been committing incest so that Cain could pick a descendant further down the line. 2) the definition of incest changed. In other words, before the Leviticus quote, incest wasn't incest but a practise necesary to build up the human race. See my reply to Darth Wong.

Arghhh. Back to work.

XPViking

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-10-31 01:33am

Ah, so fucking your sister was not incest in Biblical times? *chuckle* - Darth Wong

Looks that way confined to a narrow time period within Biblical times. Like I say, it's a possible explanation.

Nor did we ever. I hate to break it to you, but you can't disprove medicine by using the Garden of Eden fairy tale as evidence. - Darth Wong

Okay. I was merely offering a veiwpoint that some people use to try and explain the incest issue. If anything, if you are to believe that people lived for a really long time a way back when, the the consequences of inbreeding would coincide with medicine (or would a more appropriate term here be evolution?). That is, inbreeding is bad for the species, correct? So, if we are going by the Biblical account, then the bad effects of inbreeding resulted in a shortened human lifespan.

Unless you are saying here that medicine in this case shows that we have never achieved a human lifespan of 900 years. Fair enough. So then there would have to be an alternate explanation.

XPViking

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2002-10-31 02:59am

Incest is wrong, even if it's between two consenting family members. Excluding inbred children, there are still a lot of psychological problems that it can cause. Do you really think someone who likes screwing their mother or sister is mentally healthy? I also find it interesting that a lot of people here think incest with contraceptives is ok, but don't like incest and find it disgusting themselves. Why don't you like incest, when there's nothing wrong with it?

My arguments about drawing the line with incest and other sexual deviances have also been ignored. For example, Newtonian Fury denounced pedophilia because "young children either can't think for themselves or give in to pressure too easily. They haven't had time to choose a morality or too weak to defend themselves." This implies that all children in pedophilic relationships either don't know what they're doing, or are having sex forced on them. However, some children mature faster than others, so why do we prohibit sex with them because of a stupid number like age? Even if they're not mature enough to grasp the moral implications of having sex, why does it matter? A lot of adults do it just for fun. If a 12 year old girl was attracted to her adult neighbor and wanted to explore her sexuality with him, why is that wrong? What's wrong with an adult jerking off to CGI or cartoon porn of children, since no actual kids were being exploited to make that crap? Also, what's wrong with necrophilia? Only one of the people is actually alive, and we already know that he/she has already consented. It's a victimless crime. What's wrong with bestiality? Most people already don't give a crap about violating an animal's rights for their own gain or pleasure. Animals are hunted down for amusement and their heads mounted up as trophys, many of them are herded into concentration camps (farms) where they will be branded, forced into hard labor, or mass murdered for food, and pet owners often give away their pet's offspring. Several species, like turkeys and pigs, have been bred to be fat and stupid, so that they can't even live independently from human bondage. So whaat's wrong with screwing one of them? This is assuming the animal is even intelligent enough to give a crap about it. I'm sure I can make a case for a bunch of other deviant behavior you guys can think of.

I'm drawing a line when it comes to things like incest, and it might seem like I'm only doing so after being indoctrinated with social taboos. But each and every one of you has also drawn a line, except maybe at different things. Why is it that some of you fully support incest here, but denounce pedophilia and jump at the chance to call those dumbass WCOTC donkey fuckers? Face it, there are just some things which are just sick and mentally disturbed, and being PC about it and saying "It's ok as long as it's consentual." is wrong.