Brother and sister accused of incest in Effingham

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I just think there are too many if's in that situation, again I think it grants a licence to commit abuse.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Duncan is against legitimising sexual abuse and predatory relationships. I don't believe there are many cases of incest that are genuinely consensual.

There is no hypocrisy. This is a stupid, stupid tangent.

You just relativized homosexuality and incest into utter meaninglessness. Again there's nothing to say, its just stupid.

I understand you don't like the logic, but your dislike and attempted dismissal does not negate its existence.

Everyone else seems to grasp that sibling sex, if consensual, has the same legal justification as homosexuality. It has to be fair for both the goose and the gander.

If we have to allow homosexual relationships, then it's only fair to allow a brother and sister to scratch their itch together, too.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

OK fair enough.

I think then the only area of real disagreement would be two people closely related of consensual age choosing to engage in incest. This has to be pretty rare as most are repulsed by the idea.

Well if one has read the bible and believes in the theory of creation as laid out by biblical scholars, incest had to have been the norm at one point.

Didn't the term sodomy cone from a particular city in ancient history?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I understand you don't like the logic, but your dislike and attempted dismissal does not negate its existence.

Everyone else seems to grasp that sibling sex, if consensual, has the same legal justification as homosexuality. It has to be fair for both the goose and the gander.

If we have to allow homosexual relationships, then it's only fair to allow a brother and sister to scratch their itch together, too.

No, they don't. The only other person who directly commented on your point disagreed with you.

Its like you can't grasp the difference between incest and homosexuality. I've seen arguments like that before, they come out of the Rush Limbaugh playbook. Its stupid.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

No, they don't. The only other person who directly commented on your point disagreed with you.

Its like you can't grasp the difference between incest and homosexuality. I've seen arguments like that before, they come out of the Rush Limbaugh playbook. Its stupid.

You're absolutely wrong. I DO understand the difference. And while I disagree with both, I think anyone who says one is wrong and the other right is being hypocritical.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Well if one has read the bible and believes in the theory of creation as laid out by biblical scholars, incest had to have been the norm at one point.

Didn't the term sodomy cone from a particular city in ancient history?

Very true! Though the bible seems to be of two minds on the subject - it also condemns the practice.

Coming from an atheists point of view I would see it as the creation myth being a very remote possibility and confirmation of my "belief".

Edited August 30, 2014 by OnMyWayID

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

No, they don't. The only other person who directly commented on your point disagreed with you.

Its like you can't grasp the difference between incest and homosexuality. I've seen arguments like that before, they come out of the Rush Limbaugh playbook. Its stupid.

Something is stupid but it's not his argument

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You're absolutely wrong. I DO understand the difference. And while I disagree with both, I think anyone who says one is wrong and the other right is being hypocritical.

Why?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Something is stupid but it's not his argument

Why? Because you think there's a solid rationale to suggest that being against incest but having no problem with homosexuality is hypocritical?

Did we suddenly go back in time or something? Do we actually need to point out what the difference is or have you got so little to say on the subject you'd rather fall back on talk radio talking points?

Edited August 30, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[decocker 7,198]

Very true! Though the bible seems to be of two minds on the subject - it also condemns the practice.

yes, i believe incest in the bible is more frowned upon and homosexuality is completely forbidden.

so gross, but they also sold/traded their virgin daughters off and took it seriously when god asked for a child sacrifice. mass genocide was considered justice. such an awesome book!

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Why?

#facepalm

Because you are denying the rights of one pair of adult humans but advocating the other.

When in fact, nature rather supports the concept of incest more than that of same - sex practices (leaving religion out of the argument too many worms in THAT can).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes, for entirely different reasons. Kind of like how I'm against capital punishment but for assisted suicide - because they are not black and white issues, and the arguments for and against each are different. Unless of course you're a religious extremist and then everything is either right or wrong, no thought involved.

Christ, we're not being nature into it are we? Why not, we've already had the ###### Bible.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Yes, for entirely different reasons. Kind of like how I'm against capital punishment but for assisted suicide - because they are not black and white issues, and the arguments for and against each are different. Unless of course you're a religious extremist and then everything is either right or wrong, no thought involved.

Christ, we're not being nature into it are we? Why not, we've already had the ###### Bible.

So you're not only anti - Christian and anti-bible, you're also against nature?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And you were talking about logic earlier lol. That post proves you don't have it.