[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Then don't shout at me dear just because someone dared to post an opinion which (oh my god!!) you don't agree with.

And? Defining 'deviance' is extremely difficult, and I don't care what you say, different people interpret different things in different ways. Just because something is seen as 'morally' wrong...that doesn't mean it actually is, because as I've already said, the fact that it's 'morally wrong' has been constructed by society anyway.

It's seen as 'deviant' to walk down the road with no clothes on. But in reality, is there really much of a problem? I don't think so.

Not really a sound argument. No one would say it's "morally" wrong to parade around naked. It's nothing no one's seen before, it just might be inappropriate and not pleasant to look at.

[Kizzy]

Well....I won't be buying button mushrooms for a while..........

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Well....I won't be buying button mushrooms for a while..........

Nearly choked on my water.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

Gay people can't get pregnant because it's two guys going at it, where as nature is saying something is very wrong about Brother and Sister having children with each other, I wonder why that is.

The bit in bold =

But sorry your post doesn't make any sense. How is nature saying anything is wrong with a brother and sister having sex? In fact, if two gay men can't have sex in what'd be known to some people as say 'the natural way', then surely the brother and sister who can could be considered more natural? Not saying I agree with this obviously...just pointing out a slight flaw in your argument.

Whilst it might not be conventional for brothers/sisters to have sex, so long as they aren't procreating, I don't see that much of a problem? Yes, to me and you it's disgusting, something I'd never want to be a part of...but it's their lives, their choice.

Originally Posted by 08marsh

1 - I took kizzy's comment as a reaction with a tongue in cheek joke on the royal family. Hard to read a tone of voice in words but there's no need to just be rude.

2 - Bible bashing has nothing to do with it. The fundamental purpose of sexual intercourse and the reason for human beings feeling sexual attraction is to procreate and to keep our species alive.

Anyway, Im all debated-out today but I can't believe I'm having to debate why incest is wrong. I mean INCEST!!! lol

1) Well as you said yourself it's hard to read a tone of voice with words, so I could only respond in the way that it appeared she was replying to me, as I'm sure do most people. If I assumed wrong, then fair enough...but that's the way it came across.

2) Right, that's all very well and good except obviously sex for recreational purposes exist so if a brother and sister aren't procreating, what's the problem? If sex for procreation can only exist and recreational forms must be banned...then surely we must then ban homosexuality, no?

At the end of the day there's a lot of things I, me, personally don't like and find disgusting, and would never wish to be a part of it, but that doesn't mean I want to take other people's right away to do it if that's what they wish, and consent to. I don't like the idea of S&M, and know it's not for me...but if that's what some people are into, and all parties consent, then that's not for me to judge, nor is it the business of anybody else.

So long as whatever someone is doing isn't hurting anybody else (S&M excluded as they'd be consenting, before you try and point that out), or endangering anyone, then they should be free to do as they wish. It's their lives and it's their choice. None of mine or anybody else's business. At all.

Originally Posted by kizzy

Blame society jack....

I do...for a lot of things.

[Kizzy]

Im out of this thread.....

[Doogle]

Wtf I thought this was some new chat and games banter thing or something. :S

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Well spotted....tut tut jack, maybe you will pick up on subtle social cues when you are older...

Now who's being patronising.

With relation to the story, it's not something I could comprehend, but if two grown people want to be together (irrespective of their biological relationship), and as long as they are not hurting others, and don't have children (as already mentioned), then that's up to them surely? (Yes I am aware there are laws). We (the human race) spend our lives being so judgmental of others. Yes it goes against the grain, and it's something most of us cannot understand, but trying to be open minded about it, if they are doing no harm then what's the problem?

[Benjamin]

Enough of the petty squabbling, keep on topic please

Edit: I can't believe I'm encouraging everyone to keep on topic about incest.

[Doogle]

Originally Posted by ukturtle

Enough of the petty squabbling, keep on topic please.

Is that really what we want here? :-|

EDIT: Lol, snap.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

The bit in bold =

But sorry your post doesn't make any sense. How is nature saying anything is wrong with a brother and sister having sex? In fact, if two gay men can't have sex in what'd be known to some people as say 'the natural way', then surely the brother and sister who can could be considered more natural? Not saying I agree with this obviously...just pointing out a slight flaw in your argument.

Whilst it might not be conventional for brothers/sisters to have sex, so long as they aren't procreating, I don't see that much of a problem? Yes, to me and you it's disgusting, something I'd never want to be a part of...but it's their lives, their choice.



1) Well as you said yourself it's hard to read a tone of voice with words, so I could only respond in the way that it appeared she was replying to me, as I'm sure do most people. If I assumed wrong, then fair enough...but that's the way it came across.

2) Right, that's all very well and good except obviously sex for recreational purposes exist so if a brother and sister aren't procreating, what's the problem? If sex for procreation can only exist and recreational forms must be banned...then surely we must then ban homosexuality, no?

At the end of the day there's a lot of things I, me, personally don't like and find disgusting, and would never wish to be a part of it, but that doesn't mean I want to take other people's right away to do it if that's what they wish, and consent to. I don't like the idea of S&M, and know it's not for me...but if that's what some people are into, and all parties consent, then that's not for me to judge, nor is it the business of anybody else.

So long as whatever someone is doing isn't hurting anybody else (S&M excluded as they'd be consenting, before you try and point that out), or endangering anyone, then they should be free to do as they wish. It's their lives and it's their choice. None of mine or anybody else's business. At all.



I do...for a lot of things.

Well, earlier you mentioned man-made constructs, man made sex a recreational activity with no intention of conceiving children. There are no "natural" contraceptives. All man made.
Don't think I think recreational sex is wrong, I don't, it's a great stress reliever lol. But it still doesn't make me think that incest is in anyway "moral".

As for homosexuals, as long as there is no relative link between them I don't see anyway why that is wrong. Yes, nature didn't provide a way for them to procreate but then we wouldn't have male/female genders if you could make babies with everyone.

As for your comments on people's sexual fetishes and fantasies and god knows what else, I do think there reaches a point where it crosses over from an acquired taste to seriously perverted (IMO of course). They can get hooked/obsessed with sex, needing more hardcore things (why exposure to porn is quite damaging to young people) which leads into seriously perverted things. And seriously perverted minds tend to lead to pedos and other very immoral dealings.

I put incest inside the perverted category because how damaged and messed up emotionally and sexually do you have to be to actually actively engage in those kind of activities with relatives?

Anyway, I've said my peace I don't really want to dwell on this topic very long.

[Redway]

*Thinks this thread should be closed for going way off topic...*

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

Not really a sound argument. No one would say it's "morally" wrong to parade around naked. It's nothing no one's seen before, it just might be inappropriate and not pleasant to look at.

Well it depends who your on about, say I wouldn't want to see Susan Boyle naked but Christina Perri on the other hand.

[InOne]

Fred and Rose West both took part in incest. Look how well they turned out....