Incest

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 22 2004, 11:34 PM']
One, to set the record straight. That was not my um yea thread.[/quote]
I figured it wasn't...if you share your computer, I would recommend that you log out to avoid that kinda stuff.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 22 2004, 11:34 PM']Two, I had a feeling you might point that out as you pointed it out in the last.. or that someone else might. If it causes genetic problems, I'm against it. If it does not, then I'm not.[/quote]
The threshhold of "if it causes genetic problems" is nebulous.

On a bit of a tangent, "genetic problems" was one of the reasons for neutering handicapped people and others in the first half of the 20th century.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 22 2004, 11:34 PM']I knew I should have made this just one sentence or structure it differently. You have to note the "just as long as" section. Besides, you know what I mean.  [/quote]
I appreciate you clarifying your earlier post. I don't want to infer too much into what you write...you know what they say about people who assume...

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 22 2004, 10:34 PM'] One, to set the record straight. That was not my um yea thread.
[/quote]
VINDICATION!!!!!!



WOOT!!!

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]I wish that society would (could) realize that science and religion cannot contradict each other.

Science itself would say that incest is wrong. Animals mate to increase genetic diversity.

Is science to blame, or secularism?[/quote]

Dreamweaver animals mate to eliminate genetic diversity animals breed to procreate their own genetic code. That is why male lions kill the cubs of prides they take over, they eliminate another males genome and bring the females into heat to procreate their own. Genetic diversity is not only not the goal of animals but the opponant of the entire instinct to reproduce. the biological drive is to eleminate all other competing genomes and relplace them with ones own. The expantion of mine into ours where the goal becomes "my pack/troops" genome or even the intellectualization of it into "my people/tribe/ nations"genome should survive and every one elses should either be exterminated or subjected.... why do you think in ancient times when one people conquered another they killed the men to the women as slaves and concubines and castrated the little boys-- that is mans instinct just like it is any creatures instinct to propetuate ones own line. No agian the only reason incest should be prohibited is on religious grounds.

[JP2Iloveyou]

I think I can prove that incest and homosexuality, pretty much any sexual relationship other than that between a man and a woman, should be prohibited without appealing to God or to religion. First though, I want to know from those who think it should be OK, is your only reason for allowing sexual relationships consent, or is it just the primary reason?

[Krush2k2]

How come incest worked fine with Adam and Eve?

[Guest Aluigi]

St. Augustine had the same problem which is why he was a Manichean for a while, but God applies morality differently in different ages. We are in the final age, the age of the new covenant, God is not going to change His application anymore. But for the propagation of the species in the very beginning God did not strictly enforce the objective morality that says incest is wrong and that says polygamy is wrong, but He did enforce strict obdience-centered laws upon the Jews in the age of the Old Covenant (not evening it out, but you could kindof think of it like that). God did not enforce morality regarding this because of His plan for the multiplication of mankind.

as to the biological way it worked, i'm pretty sure there is a scientific at least theory that shows something about primitive man's DNA that made it compatible between any man and any woman because the gene pool had not gotten so mixed up. at some point through history the gene pool became so adapted that within immediate family such a close coorelation of DNA would make it clash more.

[Guest Aluigi]

it's like, as the line of the human race goes down, the dna gets more complicated, but in one line it is more and more complicated in a similar patern so that a mix of that would clash easier. i'm starting to remember reading this somewhere so my explanation might be becoming clearer now.

[Krush2k2]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 23 2004, 01:33 AM'] St. Augustine had the same problem which is why he was a Manichean for a while, but God applies morality differently in different ages. We are in the final age, the age of the new covenant, God is not going to change His application anymore. But for the propagation of the species in the very beginning God did not strictly enforce the objective morality that says incest is wrong and that says polygamy is wrong, but He did enforce strict obdience-centered laws upon the Jews in the age of the Old Covenant (not evening it out, but you could kindof think of it like that). God did not enforce morality regarding this because of His plan for the multiplication of mankind.

as to the biological way it worked, i'm pretty sure there is a scientific at least theory that shows something about primitive man's DNA that made it compatible between any man and any woman because the gene pool had not gotten so mixed up. at some point through history the gene pool became so adapted that within immediate family such a close coorelation of DNA would make it clash more. [/quote]
Props.

[Guest Aluigi]

no prob. God blessed me with this memory of issues in the lives of saints that seemingly will never be applicable but i've had to use that issue Augustine dealt with actually numerous times. I either learned it from EWTN or reading New Advent, so give props to them and to God.

alright, now that that intraChristian issue has been resolved, back to the topic at hand about incest and homosexuality.

[JP2Iloveyou]

My question still is out there for someone to answer. Is mutual consent between the two parties the only requirement for if a sexual relationship should be permitted or is it just one of many? If it is one of many, is it primary? Basicly, is consent necessary or sufficient?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Nov 23 2004, 01:08 AM'] I think I can prove that incest and homosexuality, pretty much any sexual relationship other than that between a man and a woman, should be prohibited without appealing to God or to religion. First though, I want to know from those who think it should be OK, is your only reason for allowing sexual relationships consent, or is it just the primary reason? [/quote]
The [i]reason[/i] for allowing sexual relationships is personal freedom. The factor that makes them criminal is lack of consent.

[Guest Aluigi]

as i have consistantly argued, if we are merely talking about a policy of the government recognizing and giving union benefits to gay couples, we are not discussing their freedom. they are free to do as they want, they can even get "married." the question is whether the state ought to recognize that marriage and grant benefits thus in doing so promoting the type of union.

i have given numerous oppurtunities to refute those points i said the government exists for, but it has not been refuted. therefore, when the freedom is secure and protection of the "right" to be able to have homosexual sex if one so desires, the question shifts to if the government should promote this action. it promotes heterosexual marriage with it's stamp of recognition and marriage benefits. it believes that the married family is the fundament unit of society and thus in recognizing it it is promoting the general welfare. the question has to be posed whether or not promoting homosexual unions would be promoting the general welfare of society. my contention, provided in all the statistics and medical studies i have posted (i know you have posted counterexamples but they do not trump mine nor really refute the facts put forth in mine, other than a possible alter-explanation for suicide rates though the rates didn't decrease in other countries with homosexual marriage legalized), is that it does not promote the general welfare. therefore, it shouldn't be promoted by the government.

the freedom to do it is SECURE. if we were debating anti-sodomy laws, which i would probably be up for, it'd be different. but we're debating whether the government should promote the actions, not whether it should allow them. it does allow them.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 23 2004, 09:53 PM'] The [i]reason[/i] for allowing sexual relationships is personal freedom.  The factor that makes them criminal is lack of consent. [/quote]
So if a daughter consents to sex with her father its Ok?

Edited November 24, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 24 2004, 08:21 AM'] So if a daughter consents to sex with her father its Ok? [/quote]
Assuming that they are both of age I can't see why it is any of my business.

[cmotherofpirl]

Define the age.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 23 2004, 08:00 PM'] as i have consistantly argued, if we are merely talking about a policy of the government recognizing and giving union benefits to gay couples, we are not discussing their freedom. they are free to do as they want, they can even get "married."

--snip-- [/quote]
I have no idea what this has to do with this topic. I'm not arguing for gay marriages on the basis of freedom...and I don't think that has come up in any of my arguments. I was simply responding to JP2Iloveyou's question.

Now, why hasn't anyone responded to mine?

[JP2Iloveyou]

Burnsspivey, let's assume for a moment that you are correct. What matters is consent. So, I have two more questions for you. Should a person be allowed to have sex with an animal? And, is there a limit on how many people have sex at once? For example, suppose there are ten people who all want to get together for a little "fun," should that be allowed?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 24 2004, 11:10 AM'] Define the age. [/quote]
This is defined by the state, though I'm not sure that there shouldn't be a federal age of consent of 18. *shrug*

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Nov 24 2004, 11:18 AM'] Burnsspivey, let's assume for a moment that you are correct. What matters is consent. So, I have two more questions for you. Should a person be allowed to have sex with an animal? And, is there a limit on how many people have sex at once? For example, suppose there are ten people who all want to get together for a little "fun," should that be allowed? [/quote]
An animal cannot give consent.

A person can give consent to any number of people, so yes, in theory, 10 people could get together and do whatever they like.

[cmotherofpirl]

free love - its the 1960's all over again.