Julius Skrrvin
I be winkin' through the scope
Do people really have to explain you the biological basis as to why incest should be discouraged among direct family members? You could find that with a wikipedia search.
Gay Marriage about to take a big step forward
- Thread starter the next guy
- Start date
Fillerguy
Veteran
marrying family members and children arent abominations according to the bible breh
the next guy
Superstar
Retarded babies for one...
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,675
- Reputation
- 8,104
- Daps
- 121,565
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
fillerguy said:
Ummm, Leviticus 18 says otherwise, but don't worry about it. The Bible's all nonsense anyhow.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,675
- Reputation
- 8,104
- Daps
- 121,565
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Kool G Trap said:
That doesn't explain why most find it morally wrong, though.
Also, Birth Control + Abortion = No children.
Also, Birth Control + Abortion = No children.
The Old Testament is conflicted on this issue. God seems to have given Abraham a pass for marrying Sarah his own (half) sister, and there are a few other such instances of incest that are not condemned.
filial_piety
Banned
Who said anything about children and procreation? After all the up coming debate is about contracts...inheritance, federal pensions etc...that being said why should anyone be legally discriminated against just because they want to marry their brother or sister?
Shouldn't they receive equal protection of the law considering that the parties are two consenting adults?
Why should anyone be in a moral position to tell them otherwise?
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,675
- Reputation
- 8,104
- Daps
- 121,565
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
The Real said:
Ex post facto.
Are you saying that Abraham was retroactively condemned or criticized for his incestuous marriage? Is there a citation for this in the text?
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,675
- Reputation
- 8,104
- Daps
- 121,565
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
The Real said:
Nope. Prior to the Mosaic Codes, incest wasn't a sin. 'G-d' wasn't too happy about it, though. Check what happened with Reuben & Bilhah in Gen 35:22, then go to Gen 49:4.
There are plenty if biological reasons as to why homosexuality should be discouraged as well.
well then wtf was it when adam and eves offspring were fukkin each other until we had a sizable human population 
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,675
- Reputation
- 8,104
- Daps
- 121,565
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
the cac mamba said:
Necessary "until we had a sizable human population".
The question now is: Why is incest a morally wrong concept if you don't believe in a 'G-d' and the only issue is genetics?
Haven't quite figured that one out yet......
The question now is: Why is incest a morally wrong concept if you don't believe in a 'G-d' and the only issue is genetics?
Haven't quite figured that one out yet......
Necessary "until we had a sizable human population".
The question now is: Why is incest a morally wrong concept if you don't believe in a 'G-d' and the only issue is genetics?
Haven't quite figured that one out yet......
cause you can produce a retard baby. honestly, i dont find it that morally wrong. its just fukked up
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,675
- Reputation
- 8,104
- Daps
- 121,565
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
the cac mamba said:cause you can produce a retard baby. honestly, i dont find it that morally wrong. its just fukked up
Birth Control + Abortion = No Baby.
So, why is it 'fukked up'?
So, why is it 'fukked up'?