Incest rears its ugly head

[findingZzero]

point being?

Don't believe everything you read in the bible?
It's tough being a religion?
I you want to justify incest, quote the bible?
Necessity is the mother of incest?
Don't need it anymore. Don't do it anymore.
The bible tells stories to guide morality, but sometimes contradicts itself.
It's more about belief than accuracy.

 

[rambone]

But morality is now out, and you don't want the government having any say in breeding.

So incest is okay?

I think its great to talk about morality. But lots of things are immoral, like worshipping idols, cursing, coveting, drunkenness, pride, selfishness.... the list goes on and on.

The moral code that I follow was not written to be a blueprint to form a human government. I could list hundreds of actions (and inactions) that are immoral but would be totally improper to be regulated by government. The first thing to go would be free speech.

It is completely consistent for a moral person to want the government to play a minimal role in our lives. Things like incest, drug use, and prostitution are not "OK" by me, but I don't want government to spend my tax dollars to stupidly prohibit them. I don't want to be ruled by a bunch of Pharisees.

 

[singlesix]

Don't believe everything you read in the bible?
It's tough being a religion?
I you want to justify incest, quote the bible?
Necessity is the mother of incest?
Don't need it anymore. Don't do it anymore.
The bible tells stories to guide morality, but sometimes contradicts itself.
It's more about belief than accuracy.

So you go back far enough in the evolutionary tree aren't we all product of incest?

 

[KLB]

So you go back far enough in the evolutionary tree aren't we all product of incest?

That is what they say.

 

[HoughMade]

Don't believe everything you read in the bible?
It's tough being a religion?
I you want to justify incest, quote the bible?
Necessity is the mother of incest?
Don't need it anymore. Don't do it anymore.
The bible tells stories to guide morality, but sometimes contradicts itself.
It's more about belief than accuracy.

Thanks for your opinion. To stay in the rules, I will not delve into why some of your observations are inaccurate.

 

[HoughMade]

I think its great to talk about morality. But lots of things are immoral, like worshipping idols, cursing, coveting, drunkenness, pride, selfishness.... the list goes on and on.

The moral code that I follow was not written to be a blueprint to form a human government. I could list hundreds of actions (and inactions) that are immoral but would be totally improper to be regulated by government. The first thing to go would be free speech.

It is completely consistent for a moral person to want the government to play a minimal role in our lives. Things like incest, drug use, and prostitution are not "OK" by me, but I don't want government to spend my tax dollars to stupidly prohibit them. I don't want to be ruled by a bunch of Pharisees.

I know you and I will disagree about about where the lines are drawn, but on these principles, we agree.

 

[steveh_131]

Honest question... Isn't these folks very existence punishment enough?

I don't care what government permissions slips they get. These people need God.

 

[rambone]

I know you and I will disagree about about where the lines are drawn, but on these principles, we agree.

That's good to hear.

But should there be such a disparity in the "line" that is drawn, between people with the same moral code? I don't get why we arbitrarily pick and choose when to make government a moral enforcer.

I mean, why not make the Ten Commandments illegal? You'd be hard pressed to find anything with wider support as a guidepost of morality. If there were ever a place to rally for government prohibitions, then there it is.

Honestly, why not make them illegal? Adultery is just as abhorrent as incest.

This can be answered by anybody who says they think incest should be banned for "moral" reasons.

 

[AllenM]

 

[cobber]

I'm asking, is this your rationale?

True or false? It is proper for the government to prevent breeding where health risks are present.

I have no rationale. Just observing that the walls are tumbling down. And things that weren't supposed to happen may start, erm, happening.

Is it proper for the government to regulate guns where health risks are present?

And conduct no-knock raids, when someone is brewing up glyphosate in their garage?

 

[oldpink]

The flippant comments about something that any rational person would consider distasteful in the extreme say it all: we have already done what Daniel Patrick Moynihan described as "defining deviancy downward."
Yeah, father and daughter already having sex and demanding state sanction to call it a "marriage," HILARIOUS stuff.

 

[rambone]

I have no rationale. Just observing that the walls are tumbling down.

Come on, take a stand.

Is society going to crash to the ground before or after they move to New Jersey?

 

[oldpink]

It's safe to say that we can put Rambone in the the "proudly depraved" box.

 

[rambone]

It's safe to say that we can put Rambone in the the "proudly depraved" box.

Did you even read the thread? Please respond to Post #48 where I take on the morality argument directly.

 

[oldpink]

Gee, when someone makes an obviously sarcastic comment to the effect of 'how will this lead to the destruction of our civil society?" on the subject of incest, I take it that he finds it acceptable, and post #48 rendered to the incoherent babble that it actually was in the first place.

 

[KLB]

Gee, when someone makes an obviously sarcastic comment to the effect of 'how will this lead to the destruction of our civil society?" on the subject of incest, I take it that he finds it acceptable, and post #48 rendered to the incoherent babble that it actually was in the first place.

You equate acceptable with legal? It shouldn't be hard to find something unacceptable without wanting the government to pass laws making whatever it is illegal.

 

[HoughMade]

Gee, when someone makes an obviously sarcastic comment to the effect of 'how will this lead to the destruction of our civil society?" on the subject of incest, I take it that he finds it acceptable, and post #48 rendered to the incoherent babble that it actually was in the first place.

Morality is only determined based upon pragmatism? in other words, if an act does not cause immediate societal collapse, it's not immoral?

 

[rambone]

Gee, when someone makes an obviously sarcastic comment to the effect of 'how will this lead to the destruction of our civil society?" on the subject of incest, I take it that he finds it acceptable, and post #48 rendered to the incoherent babble that it actually was in the first place.

Adultery is FAR worse for the civil society, and also immoral.

Why don't we ban it? Please, someone, anyone, explain.

I challenge the guy who calls me "incoherent" to offer a coherent answer.

 

[HoughMade]

Adultery is FAR worse for the civil society, and also immoral.

Why don't we ban it? Please, someone, anyone, explain.

I challenge the guy who calls me "incoherent" to offer a coherent answer.

We used to....but apparently there's a pro-adultery sect that wants it legal. It was not included in the Model Penal Code which most states have used as their criminal template, so it is no longer illegal most places....and the eggheads who wrote the MPC must have had a reason...perhaps a personal one.

 

[T.Lex]

Adultery is FAR worse for the civil society, and also immoral.

Why don't we ban it? Please, someone, anyone, explain.

[cynical answer]
Because the people that make the laws are more interested in adultery being legal than incest.

Here's the not-quite-so-cynical answer, and it goes back to a point you made in a different thread (and I honestly can't remember which one). It is a representative democracy, so a majority of the elected legislators want one to be legal and the other to not be. It really is as simple as that. There's no lobbying group to get incest laws repealed. The voters, overall, consider incest to be bad and laws preventing it to be good.

So, regardless of the potential harm, it comes down to the laws people want and the laws they don't (or can't) pass.