| | Legalizing incest....Page 7 of 9 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) |
well, lets start from the begining,.. in biblical days, very early right after adam and eve, there kids married each other, they had kids, and so on,.. their genes were excellent, as time went on, our genes got worse, just think how bad they r know, u marrie your cousin or sister, and have kids, they wont be normal. its common sense, law or no law.
Cain went off to nod and there is no mention of who the rest of the boys married... biblically eve had no girls... though in the second creation story adam begets sons and daughters. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 7/9/2007 3:43:25 PM | Well I'm not a geneticist but I'm pretty sure the fact that somebody has "excellent" genes won't make much difference if his sister ends up being his wife. If he carries the gene for Alzheimers and marries his sister (who also has "excellent" genes) their child will now have an "excellent" chance of getting "excellent" Alzheimers.
Most genuine religious scholars will attest to the fact that Genesis isn't all meant to be taken literally. | |
|
| Victimless crimes
Posted: 7/9/2007 4:48:27 PM |
Well if the government doesn't put laws into effect then just who do you propose should ? Garbage men , talk show hosts , and hair-stylists ?
YES! EXACTLY! I think that's the best idea I've ever heard! We should call this idea something... oh oh I know! How about "Democracy"? Sound good to you?
Eventually the buck has to stop being passed and somebody has to provide some concrete rules for the conduct of society in general. Anarchy might sound like a good idea but in practise I doubt many people would be very fond of it.
I am not passing the buck (I need all the money I can get). Nor am I promoting anarchy. Laws that govern the conduct of SOCIETY are exactly what governments are for. But when the conduct of the individual has no effect on society, the government should keep their nose out of said person's business. I suppose we could do things your way - let's make masturbation illegal because you and I believe it's morally wrong. Wow, suddenly every juvenile male between the ages of 13 and 21 is a hardened criminal. We could criminalize smoking because it's detrimental to your health (not to mention second-hand smoke) - I bet you'd like that idea ;) The question I have is - and I want a real concrete answer to this question if you're going to reply at all - what gives you and I the right to call someone a criminal simply because we don't agree with what they do?
PS : That I used the word "koan" doesn't suggest I'm a self-styled philosopher , it suggests I know what a koan is.
"Koan" is hardly a common term in the English language. It's like "simulacrum". Anybody who can use those words in every day conversation has spent way too much time philosophising. It's nothing to be ashamed of. I'm as guilty as the next self-styled philosopher. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 7/9/2007 9:54:47 PM | Most ironic sentence ever.
Do I get a prize? You have made a few your self that people could have called you on. You assume that you know my thoughts on immigration and I believe I answered you in the post #140. I have stated that I believe incest is wrong and why. It is your right to believe it is all right if you so desire. My opinion is my own and I do not try to influence anyone else. I was not being sarcastic. I answered every thing in Mike M's post in my post #140. He knows he is wrong in what he said but hell will freeze over before he admits it. He is not debating, he is making fun of what I said. If he did not want an answer from the Bible then he should not of directed his smart mouthed words at me. His first sentence is really ironic. Have a nice day!
| |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 7/9/2007 10:34:47 PM | | Um you didn't answer a single thing I asked, you diverted everything and didn't respond to a single thing directly. I am debating, you diverting. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 7/10/2007 11:15:21 PM | I believe the entire law system and everything we choose to create laws for should be based on one simple fact. There shall not be victim-less crimes. Two consenting individuals who choose to enter into sexual relations regardless of age or relations, should not be charged with a crime. Would there be problems with the children if the two individuals ended up procreating? Most likely. Is there a victim when two related individuals procreate? Most likely the child and any defects he or she may have to suffer with. You can look at many other issues where the law creates criminals out of nothing. Drug laws and the laws that create criminals should be eliminated. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and there is no way it will work for drugs. To continue to make drugs and their users criminals is to not learn from our past mistakes. Drug Prohibition has only made these drugs easier to get and dangerous to use.
I definately think if something were to change with the laws that we should get rid of the punishments for the sexual act, while looking at the specific consequences for the procreation of children.
Here's a quote a found interesting. It's okay for a brother and sister to produce offspring as long as it's artificially inseminated, but it's not okay if one was incapable of having children at all, and the two individuals decided to have some sexual fun? What if it's two gay brothers?
That's because Germany's incest law only punishes heterosexual intercourse between close relatives such as siblings or parents and their children. That means that infertile siblings would face prosecution while a sister who gets inseminated artificially with the sperm of her brother would not have to stand trial. | |
|
| |
9 Daily 3 Org 9search3 Men 7search0
search 
0
Christian ssearcha%CA%DE%BD%BB%D4%DA%CF%DF%B5%E7%D3%B0c Org 5 Dating 7search3 Christian 4 Dating _R