should they legalise incest??

by Guest Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:10 pm

First topic message reminder :

it is between two consenting adults who really love each other...

by Guest Sun Mar 30, 2014 9:54 pm

You were seen through from your first post. Might I suggest you stop the stirring. Gay marriage is here to stay. Live with it.

by Guest Sun Mar 30, 2014 9:55 pm

VOD(original) wrote:read it again Ben ,God created male and female in Genesis chapter 1

In chapter 2 he created Adam

they cannot understand the basics of the bible love don't expect them to grasp anything complex...lol

xx

by veya_victaous Sun Mar 30, 2014 11:22 pm

VOD(original) wrote:
Nems wrote:

why are you so hung up on this?
It's a valid question nems , it happens and so why shouldn't 2 consenting adults who love each other be able legally be together ?

There are many discussions about this in various forums its not so unusual .

Well for the same reason that paedophilia is illegal it does effect someone else. Inbred offspring have genetic defects often quite severe.

Gay marriage on the other hand does not effect someone else I love you

by Lurker Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:29 am

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:26 am

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
VOD(original) wrote:read it again Ben ,God created male and female in Genesis chapter 1

In chapter 2 he created Adam

they cannot understand the basics of the bible love don't expect them to grasp anything complex...lol

xx

Seriously, I just want a straightforward answer from either one of you upstanding Christian folk.

Do you believe that Genesis claims God created more people than just Adam and Eve in the garden, and that the book somehow fails to mention how they left the Garden of Eden while going into great detail about the sin of Adam and Eve and how it led to the fall of humanity?

We're talking about a fundamental belief, not some throwaway detail.

by Guest Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:48 am

Ben we are not experts on the bible but it does read in

Genesis 1:27-28
King James Version (KJV)
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
its says God created man in his own image , male female created he them , it says nothing about forming man from the ground as it does in Genesis 2 -

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2
King James Version (KJV)
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

It doesn't say God created Eve when he created Adam from the dust of the earth and placed him in the garden of Eden , he made her after , but in Genesis 1 it clearly says God made male and female and told them to go forth and multiply . As that reads it seems God made a race of people first to multiply the earth before he made Adam .

by Guest Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:46 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-439288/Forbidden-love-brother-sister.html

by groomsy Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:50 am

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
so you are happy that people discriminate against a minority, they love each other and should be allowed to stay together, who are they hurting...

well tell Jehovah to quit discriminating ass

by Guest Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:29 am

groomsy wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
so you are happy that people discriminate against a minority, they love each other and should be allowed to stay together, who are they hurting...

well tell Jehovah to quit discriminating ass

why the name calling ?

by Guest Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:25 am

groomsy wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
so you are happy that people discriminate against a minority, they love each other and should be allowed to stay together, who are they hurting...

well tell Jehovah to quit discriminating ass

God forgives all sin... Smile

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:07 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
VOD(original) wrote:
It's a valid question nems , it happens and so why shouldn't 2 consenting adults who love each other be able legally be together ?
There are many discussions about this in various forums its not so unusual .
Well for the same reason that paedophilia is illegal it does effect someone else. Inbred offspring have genetic defects often quite severe.
Gay marriage on the other hand does not effect someone else

What if it were an couple where it was certain that no children could be conceived?

Or if the couple were of the same sex?

That wouldn't affect anyone else. And it would just be two people in love etc.

by stardesk Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:18 pm

Dibley, dear lady, quoting you: '. As that reads it seems God made a race of people first to multiply the earth before he made Adam.'

No way does it say that. After the so-called Creation, including animals etc, he then set about creating Adam and Eve. There are no indications or references to Him creating other people, either before or after Adam. Hence someone mentioning above incest, ie; assuming Adam and Eve had daughters then the sons would have taken their sisters as wives.

by Lurker Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:43 pm

You can't debate brain-washed simpletons.

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:45 pm

VOD(original) wrote:Ben we are not experts on the bible but it does read in

Genesis 1:27-28
King James Version (KJV)
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
its says God created man in his own image , male female created he them , it says nothing about forming man from the ground as it does in Genesis 2 -

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2
King James Version (KJV)
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

It doesn't say God created Eve when he created Adam from the dust of the earth and placed him in the garden of Eden , he made her after , but in Genesis 1 it clearly says God made male and female and told them to go forth and multiply . As that reads it seems God made a race of people first to multiply the earth before he made Adam .

WOW, that is nucking futs, congratulations again! I can't wait to tell my priest ::D::

by Original Quill Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:18 pm

And god also created Lilith, Adam's other wife. Clearly Adam had two wives...and a pet snake.

Plus god and noah used to pick up wimmin down at the pub...

should they legalise incest?? - Page 3 Extra-drunk-008

should they legalise incest?? - Page 3 Extra-drunk-008

One man, one woman...my arse.

by Guest Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:35 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
VOD(original) wrote:Ben we are not experts on the bible but it does read in

Genesis 1:27-28
King James Version (KJV)
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
its says God created man in his own image , male female created he them , it says nothing about forming man from the ground as it does in Genesis 2 -

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2
King James Version (KJV)
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

It doesn't say God created Eve when he created Adam from the dust of the earth and placed him in the garden of Eden , he made her after , but in Genesis 1 it clearly says God made male and female and told them to go forth and multiply . As that reads it seems God made a race of people first to multiply the earth before he made Adam .

WOW, that is nucking futs, congratulations again! I can't wait to tell my priest ::D::

good maybe he will learn something and while your telling him that tell him to look up Grace and the fact that Jesus came to fulfill the law and that if he truly has accepted Jesus he doesn't have to fear losing his salvation ever . ::D:: ::D::

by Guest Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:39 pm

stardesk wrote:Dibley, dear lady, quoting you: '. As that reads it seems God made a race of people first to multiply the earth before he made Adam.'

No way does it say that. After the so-called Creation, including animals etc, he then set about creating Adam and Eve. There are no indications or references to Him creating other people, either before or after Adam. Hence someone mentioning above incest, ie; assuming Adam and Eve had daughters then the sons would have taken their sisters as wives.

If there was nobody else why did Cane complain after killing his brother to God that everyone who now meets him will kill him so please put a mark on me so they don't

by Lurker Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:47 pm

If there was nobody else why did Cane complain after killing his brother to God that everyone who now meets him will kill him so please put a mark on me so they don't

That just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Genesis is a poorly written myth.

by Guest Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Well for the same reason that paedophilia is illegal it does effect someone else. Inbred offspring have genetic defects often quite severe.
Gay marriage on the other hand does not effect someone else

What if it were an couple where it was certain that no children could be conceived?

Or if the couple were of the same sex?

That wouldn't affect anyone else. And it would just be two people in love etc.

exactly

by groomsy Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:32 pm

VOD(original) wrote:
why the name calling ?

i wasnt name calling GIG but yes it looks like it

but if god made homosexuality a sin then god himself is discriminating

by Guest Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:06 pm

Lurker wrote:
If there was nobody else why did Cane complain after killing his brother to God that everyone who now meets him will kill him so please put a mark on me so they don't

That just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Genesis is a poorly written myth.

all it proves is you have no knowledge of the bible ..

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:57 pm

VOD(original) wrote:
stardesk wrote:Dibley, dear lady, quoting you: '. As that reads it seems God made a race of people first to multiply the earth before he made Adam.'

No way does it say that. After the so-called Creation, including animals etc, he then set about creating Adam and Eve. There are no indications or references to Him creating other people, either before or after Adam. Hence someone mentioning above incest, ie; assuming Adam and Eve had daughters then the sons would have taken their sisters as wives.

If there was nobody else why did Cane complain after killing his brother to God that everyone who now meets him will kill him so please put a mark on me so they don't

Just another piece of evidence for the Bible being made-up. Nobody used to question it because if they did they thought they'd be tortured for eternity by the all-loving God ...

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:15 am

What about the argument that it's just two people showing love etc and it's not hurting anyone so it's ok yeah?

Just like homosexuality and gay marriage is ok now for the same reasons yeah?

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:19 am

It's getting beyond the score now where religion( a god who may or may not exist) seems to have priority over health, mental welling and everyday struggles.

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:00 am

Where are all the pro gays who bang on about how it's just two people showing love and it's not hurting anyone etc, so it's ok?

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:32 am

And you can't help who you are attracted to.... whoever you are attracted to must mean it's right and therefore also right to start having sex with them?

Two consenting adults - check.
Showing love - check,.
Not hurting anyone - check,.
Attracted to each other - check.

So it's ok yes?

If not, why not?

by Ben Reilly Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:49 am

Tommy Monk wrote:And you can't help who you are attracted to.... whoever you are attracted to must mean it's right and therefore also right to start having sex with them?

Two consenting adults - check.
Showing love - check,.
Not hurting anyone - check,.
Attracted to each other - check.

So it's ok yes?

If not, why not?

As a resident of the Southern United States, I have nonetheless never felt an amorous attraction for a relative, but I've been thinking this thread over since it was started, trying to reason through it while ignoring the ick factor the thought has for me.

There's a theorized process called the Westermarck Effect in which we become sexually desensitized to people we grow up with and that it happens in early life. It might explain why we hear occasional news reports of people who fell in love and later found out they were siblings separated at a young age. Maybe anti-incest laws are just a way of putting that feeling into law.

Rationally I can't find a reason for two consenting adults to be banned from doing practically anything together that doesn't harm others. Rationally, I can't think of a reason to limit that number to two! But the aspect of the question I don't think anybody else has addressed is, where are the people agitating for legalizing incest? I imagine there are a few people out there who are -- you can still find people who think the Earth is flat, of course -- but is there anything even remotely similar to the gay rights movement calling for legal incest?

If there is a fairly large community of people who want to have consensual sex with, or marry, their family members, I imagine they will at some point make themselves heard and the world will debate the issue. For now, though, it doesn't seem like very many people at all are ready to fight for legal incest like the gay community has for equality.

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:17 am

You heard it here first!

Ben the admin says.....

"...Rationally I can't find a reason for two consenting adults to be banned from doing practically anything together that doesn't harm others. Rationally, I can't think of a reason to limit that number to two!..."

So by his own admission, pro incest, in favour of two consenting adults doing whatever and why stop at two family members? Let's have a full on family do! The more the merrier!!!

Please discuss.

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:18 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:And you can't help who you are attracted to.... whoever you are attracted to must mean it's right and therefore also right to start having sex with them?
Two consenting adults - check.
Showing love - check,.
Not hurting anyone - check,.
Attracted to each other - check.
So it's ok yes?
If not, why not?
As a resident of the Southern United States, I have nonetheless never felt an amorous attraction for a relative, but I've been thinking this thread over since it was started, trying to reason through it while ignoring the ick factor the thought has for me.
There's a theorized process called the Westermarck Effect in which we become sexually desensitized to people we grow up with and that it happens in early life. It might explain why we hear occasional news reports of people who fell in love and later found out they were siblings separated at a young age. Maybe anti-incest laws are just a way of putting that feeling into law.
Rationally I can't find a reason for two consenting adults to be banned from doing practically anything together that doesn't harm others. Rationally, I can't think of a reason to limit that number to two! But the aspect of the question I don't think anybody else has addressed is, where are the people agitating for legalizing incest? I imagine there are a few people out there who are -- you can still find people who think the Earth is flat, of course -- but is there anything even remotely similar to the gay rights movement calling for legal incest?
If there is a fairly large community of people who want to have consensual sex with, or marry, their family members, I imagine they will at some point make themselves heard and the world will debate the issue. For now, though, it doesn't seem like very many people at all are ready to fight for legal incest like the gay community has for equality.

by veya_victaous Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:08 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Well for the same reason that paedophilia is illegal it does effect someone else. Inbred offspring have genetic defects often quite severe.
Gay marriage on the other hand does not effect someone else

What if it were an couple where it was certain that no children could be conceived?

Or if the couple were of the same sex?

That wouldn't affect anyone else. And it would just be two people in love etc.

FINE TM

you can fuck you brother ::lovebanan:: ::lovebanan:: ::lovebanan:: ::lovebanan:: ::lovebanan::

that is what you are fighting for right :\\:[: :\\:[: :\\:[: :\\:[:

by Ben Reilly Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:14 am

Tommy Monk wrote:You heard it here first!

Ben the admin says.....

"...Rationally I can't find a reason for two consenting adults to be banned from doing practically anything together that doesn't harm others. Rationally, I can't think of a reason to limit that number to two!..."

So by his own admission, pro incest, in favour of two consenting adults doing whatever and why stop at two family members? Let's have a full on family do! The more the merrier!!!

Please discuss.

I tried to give my honest and thought-through answer, Tommy. It seem like you're just trying to play a game of "gotcha." Ah well, I posted my thoughts to let people decide for themselves, as they always will, but I think you reveal a lot about yourself when that's your response.

by Ben Reilly Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:19 am

Just to add, I knew this was really about gay marriage, as did everyone else who isn't suffering from a concussion. I decided in spite of that to give it sincere consideration and to share my thoughts. (Fuck me, right?)

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:20 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:You heard it here first!

Ben the admin says.....

"...Rationally I can't find a reason for two consenting adults to be banned from doing practically anything together that doesn't harm others. Rationally, I can't think of a reason to limit that number to two!..."

So by his own admission, pro incest, in favour of two consenting adults doing whatever and why stop at two family members? Let's have a full on family do! The more the merrier!!!

Please discuss.

I tried to give my honest and thought-through answer, Tommy. It seem like you're just trying to play a game of "gotcha." Ah well, I posted my thoughts to let people decide for themselves, as they always will, but I think you reveal a lot about yourself when that's your response.

I would not worry Ben, as Tommy alias Twatti, th far right racist anti homosexual has started a whole thread about you on inaflap, though in a hidden section, which if you are still a member is on chit chat

It shows why he is a such a a dummy really and this was my reply to him

What a dummy Matti is.

He never claimed to agree with incest but to admit there is no rational argument against it. You also neglected to show the main reasons why he thought it should not be legal and evaded to post that as well.

What a twat you are Matti, maybe you can provide a rational reason and saying it is wrong is not a rational reason, like I feel it is wrong because ultimately in many cases it is not found between consenting adults, being many victims of child abuse, where there is no attraction of love but sexual attraction. The opposite is found within homosexuality, where it is vastly consenting adults and is not just sexual attraction, but romantic, sensual attraction etc.
Plus again the law already allow incest relationships, with first cousins, though this is not an argument based on whether the law allow incest, but that there is restrictions on this law and it is some daft attempt but anti homosexuals such as yourself thinking you are being smart thinking you have found a reason why homosexuality is wrong whilst not you yourself providing a rational reason why incest is wrong

DOH

What a dummy

http://inaflap.forumotion.co.uk/t19944-the-pro-gay-argument#267803

Got to feel sorry for the poor boy really.

by Ben Reilly Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:33 am

Yeah, nice to know Tommy's just running to Flap with what people say here.

Civil debate? Do I remember asking for that at some point? ::D::

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:38 am

That is all they seem to do over there these days on inaflap, slag off people constantly, the place has become like the Jeremy Kyle show, I find the place quite pathetic now to be honest, shame really but sadly the place has just become a bitch fest with little debate.

by Ben Reilly Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:41 am

Didge wrote:That is all they seem to do over there these days on inaflap, slag off people constantly, the place has become like the Jeremy Kyle show, I find the place quite pathetic now to be honest, shame really but sadly the place has just become a bitch fest with little debate.

I think it's pretty funny how dependent they've become upon us for new content. I guess we can be charitable from time to time Cool

by Ben Reilly Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:43 am

By the way, thanks for the defense, Didge. Though as I pointed out to Tommy over there, the hatred of people like him is the main thing keeping me going some days Smile

by veya_victaous Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:45 am

@didge
All I know is that Tommy "Wants the right to fuck his brother" he is clearly arguing for that right. I cant see what else he is arguing for?

I wish I didn't click your link that is so sad, are they all really old or something? they call everything 'lefties' 'Commie' It's like get the off the internet if you still think it is the 1970's.

And RW sense of humour is really really sad, coming here writing something stupid then going back to write about it there for what looks like all of 4 readers, and having a big back slapping chuckle Laughing

by Eilzel Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:56 am

That's the problem with bumpkins likes Tommy, now and then there is a flash of potential to really debate a subect, but then his juvenile displays let him down- sorry Ben but it was pretty clear from the off what GIG and his lapdog Tommy were doing here; this was never a serious thread Cool

by eddie Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:36 am

Tommy Monk wrote:You heard it here first!

Ben the admin says.....

"...Rationally I can't find a reason for two consenting adults to be banned from doing practically anything together that doesn't harm others. Rationally, I can't think of a reason to limit that number to two!..."

So by his own admission, pro incest, in favour of two consenting adults doing whatever and why stop at two family members? Let's have a full on family do! The more the merrier!!!

Please discuss.

Have you just tommy monked all over yourself? Suspect

Yes, so what if he said that?
He's just agreeing that like two men, there's no rational reason for two people if they are adult and consenting, to have sex.
It's icky, but then I find the thought of a young woman shagging a really old man icky.
Not against the law though.

by stardesk Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:12 pm

Morning all. Incest is usually defined as a parent or sibling having sex with said parent /sibling. Trouble is not so much morals as a DNA problem. Continued sex and resulting babies weakens the strain. Deformaties and diseases can ensue. Therefore incest should still be looked upon as illegal. Quite rightly so.

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:43 pm

stardesk, but some consenting adults such as brother sister or same sex might love each other so what right does anyone have interfering in their lives . The same as homosexuals they are in love and want equal rights and equality has to work for all

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:45 pm

To think a son and mother as having had sex together is completely revolting.

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:46 pm

stardesk wrote:Morning all. Incest is usually defined as a parent or sibling having sex with said parent /sibling. Trouble is not so much morals as a DNA problem. Continued sex and resulting babies weakens the strain. Deformaties and diseases can ensue. Therefore incest should still be looked upon as illegal. Quite rightly so.

I agree Stars.

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:12 pm

Joy Division wrote:To think a son and mother as having had sex together is completely revolting.

I agree and think the same about two men having sex together and two women also i find it repulsive

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:20 pm

VOD(original) wrote:
Joy Division wrote:To think a son and mother as having had sex together is completely revolting.
I agree and think the same about two men having sex together and two women also i find it repulsive

Well none of them are to my taste Dibs but the mother and son thing is just vile and unhealthy...a woman giving birth to her baby son then having sex with him in later years....

It does not come more unnatural than that.

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:31 pm

As I pointed out on another thread, the pro gay arguments can be used to justify any behaviour.
The responses here have been most interesting.

by Fred Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:54 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:because the likeyhood of passing on or indeed CREATING a defect is something like 10,000 greater, for some of the more serious defects.

how would you enforce (effectively) a child free union...

its not a case of "their " decision.......there could be no choice about it....
It would have to be compulsarary sterilisation. and you dont want to open that door...because....???...can you guess why you dont want to go there????........

also on something you might understand a bit better....even in "godless" societies incest is generally considered "bad".......even if not for the increased defect risk It is a threat to social cohesion in a way that homosexuality never was or is.

Yes have you seen that avatar of Sassy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:56 pm

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Oh do put a pic of yourself up, that will be a much better laugh.

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:58 pm

Sassy wrote:://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Oh do put a pic of yourself up, that will be a much better laugh.

....that might be thirsty work for ' Fred' Laughing

by Sponsored content