So, how long before incest becomes morally acceptable?

Originally posted by Ultimate Hulk43
It goes either way actually. The child could end up a danger to the world and/or himself or could end up trying to help the world. It all depends on what kind of upbringing the child has.

Or the personality of the child...case in point....

My three oldest aunts were all victims of sexual molestation...one turned out great. two turned out with mental problems...

My mother in law was horribly molested by her step father for many years...and her mother knew the whole time!!!! I would have never guessed that that horrible stuff happened to my mother in law...she is such a wonderful person and she show no signs at all of mental problems...seriously...

It just goes to show you that everyone handles things differently...despite their upbringing.

JEEEEEEESUS!

*snooze*

http://ask.yahoo.com/20060223.html

Originally posted by whitewolfgurl
A long time ago, young girls of about 12 or so would marry their uncles! Because of all the wars and stuff happening, very few young unrelated men were not killed, leaving only family to marry. Some had no choice...either they would have to deal with incest or die out I guess. So I guess it was morally excepted back then...I don't fully know. And incest is still excepted today by some people. I forget where they are, but yeah they have been marring into family and having children by them for so long that their skin is actually a pale blue color!

I dont think it will ever be morally or legally acceptable in the western culture. However, it really wouldnt surprise me if one day incest became the new gay. Incest was accepted in ancient times, and in many cultures through history.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
I dont think it will ever be legally acceptable in the western culture.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousin%20map.gif

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?

Anything that doesn't bring unwilling harm to anybody else regarding sexuality etc has never been morally UNacceptable in my eyes.

But on a grand scale, anything can probably BECOME morally acceptable. If you get enough people changing their minds for whatever reason, others will follow. It's happened with homosexuality, nobody wants to be left out of anything. If everyone is starting to get behind one movement, lots more will treat it as gospel.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Anything that doesn't bring unwilling harm to anybody else regarding sexuality etc has never been morally UNacceptable in my eyes.

But on a grand scale, anything can probably BECOME morally acceptable. If you get enough people changing their minds for whatever reason, others will follow. It's happened with homosexuality, nobody wants to be left out of anything. If everyone is starting to get behind one movement, lots more will treat it as gospel.

-AC

Probably....but they aren't hot. no2

No, because that's not my personal preference.

If someone said "Hey, I nailed my cousin last night.", and they were both totally happy with it, I'd find it a BIT odd (As I find incest a bit odd.), but I'd not lose sleep. There are far worse sexual practices out there.

-AC

Is there a point when you draw the line? I mean what kind of damage? Emotional, psychological, physical?

Cause I'm legitimatly curious if there's a line you draw of these liberations. With the way that AC phrased that would pedophilia eventually become morally acceptable?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Is there a point when you draw the line? I mean what kind of damage? Emotional, psychological, physical?

Cause I'm legitimatly curious if there's a line you draw of these liberations. With the way that AC phrased that would pedophilia eventually become morally acceptable?

I've always had a problem with the whole "slippery slope to DOOM!!!" theory people try to apply to society, its evolution and changing morality. Primarily because I rarely see examples of it working like that because it assumes humanity goes utterly stupid.

Like how if we allowed gay marriage next thing people would be marrying VCRs and then the next day no one would be having babies anymore then BAM! Humanity is gone.

Pedophilia, by the way we define it was once morally acceptable - it was normal for girls to be married off young. But with greater understanding most societies have come to understand it is not a good thing. I would say there is a difference between two consenting adults who happen to be related having a private relationship and pedophilia suddenly becoming acceptable.

Humanity just isn't that stupid.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Humanity just isn't that stupid.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: FeceMan politely disagrees with Imperial_Samurai.

So you believe humanity is as stupid the way some exaggerated slippery slopes claims it is?

That is if gay people marry then humanities days are numbered and will likely end with people being married to dogs and toasters and the fact that not everybody expresses moral outrage at the idea of adults being in an incestuous relationships means pedophilia could one day be morally acceptable also?

You think humanity is really that stupid? (And yes, I do remember from the religion forum your rather down view on people in general.)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I've always had a problem with the whole "slippery slope to DOOM!!!" theory people try to apply to society, its evolution and changing morality. Primarily because I rarely see examples of it working like that because it assumes humanity goes utterly stupid.

Like how if we allowed gay marriage next thing people would be marrying VCRs and then the next day no one would be having babies anymore then BAM! Humanity is gone.

Pedophilia, by the way we define it was once morally acceptable - it was normal for girls to be married off young. But with greater understanding most societies have come to understand it is not a good thing. I would say there is a difference between two consenting adults who happen to be related having a private relationship and pedophilia suddenly becoming acceptable.

Humanity just isn't that stupid.

If the child in question is not being harmed then what's the objection? Is not defining a relationship as being between two adults similar to defining it as a man and a woman or two non-related people?

So long as no one's being hurt so isn't it their business and nobody elses?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So you believe humanity is as stupid the way some exaggerated slippery slopes claims it is?

That is if gay people marry then humanities days are numbered and will likely end with people being married to dogs and toasters and the fact that not everybody expresses moral outrage at the idea of adults being in an incestuous relationships means pedophilia could one day be morally acceptable also?

You think humanity is really that stupid? (And yes, I do remember from the religion forum your rather down view on people in general.)

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, because that's not my personal preference.

If someone said "Hey, I nailed my cousin last night.", and they were both totally happy with it, I'd find it a BIT odd (As I find incest a bit odd.), but I'd not lose sleep. There are far worse sexual practices out there.

-AC

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
Yep. Lot's of people already f*ck dogs, it's only a matter of time til they marry them. As for toasters, I don't see that happening as they are not that fun to have sex with(believe me, I know). People are pretty stupid, and many people view pedophilia acceptable(no shit).

(no not the pedophillia thing, its a guy and inanimate objects)

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I see. I really couldn't see myself sleeping with my cousin. My stepsister? *hides*

No physicality in question, ideaology only.

Originally posted by Creshosk
If the child in question is not being harmed then what's the objection? Is not defining a relationship as being between two adults similar to defining it as a man and a woman or two non-related people?

Because pedophilia does harm the child - as any reasonable study shows that such activities can be highly detrimental to a child's emotional and mental wellbeing as well as to their ability to develop normally

Of course then it is pointed out that teens themselves can be active young, yet such laws are there as blanket protection for all children/young as it is assumed a great number lack the maturity to make such decisions or can be manipulated by an adult.

So can you compare the two?:

Two adults, be they related or otherwise making a decision that concerns their private lives vs. something between one person and another who quite likely lacks the maturity to make such decisions and as such could be left with lasting scars of emotional/mental/physical types.

So long as no one's being hurt so isn't it their business and nobody elses?

If they are adults capable of making their own decisions and understanding the consequences and no one is being hurt? Then yes.

Lol I completely forgot about blowup dolls.