Re: So, how long before incest becomes morally acceptable?
Originally posted by FeceMan
Not trolling here, but rather I'm honestly interested.There is not one logical reason why incest is morally wrong. Take, for example, a brother and sister who are in an incestuous relationship. They're both older than the age of consent, and they use methods of contraception--let's say vasectomy, hysterectomy, condoms, and the pill. There is virtually no chance of them ever creating a child, so there will never be the pitter-patter of little Quasimodos lumbering about the house one day.
So, how long until it's acceptable and the bans on intra-family marriage are lifted?
To some people (not me) it is morally exceptable.
But it's not legal
Also, the incestous do not seem to start lobby groups or pride movements to conjur political power or change, so I really don't see it happening... ever [/B]
Wrong. Muslims are quite infamous for incest.
In fact Doctors in the UK have publically mentioned concerns a few times about the health risks they are seeing in the Muslim 'community' due to the rampant breeding of first cousins.
And NO ONE lobbies or marches with more tedious noise and passion than the Islamists.
Originally posted by Devil King
There is no room for subjective opinion in either. You have to buy into it or you don't.
It would be a lot easier if both religion and ethics weren't connected and absolute in the minds of those who "practice" them.
Statement: This is an absolute that "rape is wrong."
Declaration: It is unlikely that anyone would argue against this.
This is totally apparent with the statement "This is wrong, and there's no arguing it", which is really just a more formal way of saying "I'm right and you're wrong, as always, and there's just no middle ground."
This is the attitude of a majority of people who haven't learned how not to take themselves or their "religion" too seriously. Dropping words like concoct to describe the position of someone else isn't exactly the most open-minded and tolerent way of describing how easily you dismiss anothers perspective on any number of topics, including religion and "ethics".
But, I suppose that's your point. They need not be considered when passing judgment on others is the basis of your religious and ethical world view. I'm not saying there aren't some absolutes, but not considering the circumstances first would be making a rush to judgment.
Declaration: Actions may be less right or less wrong--or, conversely, more right and more wrong--depending on the circumstances and the intent of the one acting.
Concession: This is the viewpoint of one who does not assume that amorality is inherent.