Glenn Beck got jiggy with his sister.

Recommended Videos

AmrasCalmacil

New member
Jul 19, 2008
2,421
0
0
Ninja_X said:
Graustein said:
Ninja_X said:
1st of all, that is retarded.

Even if that did happen, animals (us included) instinctively know not to be attracted to family.
Stop throwing insults around and actually address my question.

I'd also like to mention that in ancient Egypt, among other places, it was commonplace for the aristocracy and royalty to marry within the family. Take Amenhotep and his sister-wife Ahmose-Meritamun. In fact, just read Pride and Prejudice and you'll see that as recently as the 19th Century it was not considered odd for cousins to marry in England. Finally, I would point you to Greek mythology. Did you know that Zeus and Hera were siblings? How about Oranos and his mother-wife Gaia? Kronos and his sister-wife Rhea? Or the Egyptian Osiris and Isis, yet another wedded pair of siblings. These instances are far from isolated. Now why would human cultures have deities - paragons of contemporary conceptions of virtue, the people we wish we were - which participate in brother-sister incest? How does any of this point towards an instinctual aversion?
Ancient cultures married COUSINS not siblings. Also in pride and prejudice, COUSINS not siblings. You can get away with more distant relationships.

As for the gods, you know they aren't real right? That they are just myths? Also, they where gods!!! Not humans, the same rules did not apply to them!!!!!

Gods where not even the "pictures of virtue" you think they where. Even the ancients knew that their gods where a bunch of lunatics that could wipe out whole civilizations on nothing more than a whim. They didn't take all their morals from gods in ancient Greece and such.

There, I addressed your argument and found it full of crap.
At risk of incurring moderator wrath, please remove the metal rod from your arse and stop grasping at straws.

A) Sibling marriages were common in Ancient Egypt, as I believe was given in an example there which you seemingly ignored. So what if different cultures married cousins? Incest is incest, isn't it?

B) What creates myths and legends? People. If the Gods were engaging in incest then it was likely based on the fact that it was socially acceptable in the times that they were worshipped. I don't even think he mentioned 'pictures of virtue', so I don't know where you got that one from.

Did you really address his argument? I don't think you did.
 

Agema

Overhead a rainbow appears... in black and white
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,917
7,080
118
So long as they don't have children, I find it hard to come up with convincing reasons why it has to be so absolutely wrong for siblings to have an affair with each other. However, I still believe it is seriously f***ed up (the only half exception being for early-to-mid teen experiments, as the whole sexual awakening thing can be pretty confusing and difficult for adolescents.)
 

Ninja_X

New member
Aug 9, 2009
616
0
0
Glefistus said:
Back to my challenge: Give me ONE reason it is wrong, if they are not breeding. Leaving OUT emotional and religious reasons.
Making out with a sibling represents a sexual urge that most humans are hard wired not to have. If you make out with someone it is a SEXUAL act, even if it is a small one. That makes it wrong.

Its fact and guess what? THAT ARTICLE SUPPORTS MY ARGUMENT DUMBASS.

Within MHC-dissimilar couples the partners will be genetically different, and such a pattern of mate choice decreases the danger of endogamy (mating among relatives) and increases the genetic variability of offspring. Genetic variability is known to be an advantage for offspring, and the MHC effect could be an evolutionary strategy underlying incest avoidance in humans and also improving the efficiency of the immune system, the scientists say.
"Partners will be genetically different."

"Decreases the danger of endogamy (mating among relatives)"

"Genetic viability is known to be an advantage for offspring"

"Although it may be tempting to think that humans choose their partners because of their similarities", says Professor Bicalho, "our research has shown clearly that it is differences that make for successful reproduction, and that the subconscious drive to have healthy children is important when choosing a mate."
At lest two places in the article that prove I am not talking out my ass. Avoiding incorrect match ups is genetic human instinct.

Get your facts strait or shut up.
 

Graustein

New member
Jun 15, 2008
1,756
0
0
Firstly, Amenhotep and Ahmose-Meritamun were siblings. Brother and sister.

As for the gods, of course they're not real. They are a human contrivance. So their behaviour is based upon our own imaginings. In addition, they were indeed role models for the ancients. Hera was considered the perfect wife, conniving though she was. Soldiers dreamt of being like Herakles or Ares. Women hoped to be as beautiful as Aphrodite. This does not suggest an instinctive aversion to their behaviour. They did what we wished we could do.

Finally, you have not addressed my initial question. Here, I'll repeat it for you: What is morally wrong with two people who share parents to engage in a sterile relationship? Who does it harm? You can't say that all incestuous relationships inherently cause mental scarring to the two involved simply as a result of them being incestuous, because that is simply not the case. If they're unaware, their brains don't suddenly break the moment they kiss. In ancient Egypt, it was not considered wholly abnormal, so there was no social shaming, no guilt, no problems, morally or socially speaking.

Unless you can give me a rational explanation as to why, in all instances/b], incestuous acts cause harm to the individuals involved or anyone around them, I cannot find a reason to condemn those who participate in the act purely on the basis of the act itself.
 

Ninja_X

New member
Aug 9, 2009
616
0
0
Graustein said:
Firstly, Amenhotep and Ahmose-Meritamun were siblings. Brother and sister.

As for the gods, of course they're not real. They are a human contrivance. So their behaviour is based upon our own imaginings. In addition, they were indeed role models for the ancients. Hera was considered the perfect wife, conniving though she was. Soldiers dreamt of being like Herakles or Ares. Women hoped to be as beautiful as Aphrodite. This does not suggest an instinctive aversion to their behaviour. They did what we wished we could do.

Finally, you have not addressed my initial question. Here, I'll repeat it for you: What is morally wrong with two people who share parents to engage in a sterile relationship? Who does it harm? You can't say that all incestuous relationships inherently cause mental scarring to the two involved simply as a result of them being incestuous, because that is simply not the case. If they're unaware, their brains don't suddenly break the moment they kiss. In ancient Egypt, it was not considered wholly abnormal, so there was no social shaming, no guilt, no problems, morally or socially speaking.

Unless you can give me a rational explanation as to why, in all instances/b], incestuous acts cause harm to the individuals involved or anyone around them, I cannot find a reason to condemn those who participate in the act purely on the basis of the act itself.


Love and affection with no sex involved IS what brother and sister relationships are.

Making out is sexual, therefore wrong.

At risk of incurring moderator wrath, please remove the metal rod from your arse and stop grasping at straws.

A) Sibling marriages were common in Ancient Egypt, as I believe was given in an example there which you seemingly ignored. So what if different cultures married cousins? Incest is incest, isn't it?

B) What creates myths and legends? People. If the Gods were engaging in incest then it was likely based on the fact that it was socially acceptable in the times that they were worshipped. I don't even think he mentioned 'pictures of virtue', so I don't know where you got that one from.

Did you really address his argument? I don't think you did.
Get the stick out of yours for 2 seconds and you might see that I DID address his argument, twice.

Furthermore the ancient Egyptians didn't last very long before being conquered by another stronger enamie.

That area was invaded and re conquered several times in it history, the Egyptians who ame up with the original myths are long dead now.
 

Ninja_X

New member
Aug 9, 2009
616
0
0
Glefistus said:
Ninja_X said:
Glefistus said:
Back to my challenge: Give me ONE reason it is wrong, if they are not breeding. Leaving OUT emotional and religious reasons.
Making out with a sibling represents a sexual urge that most humans are hard wired not to have. If you make out with someone it is a SEXUAL act, even if it is a small one. That makes it wrong.

Its fact and guess what? THAT ARTICLE SUPPORTS MY ARGUMENT DUMBASS.

Within MHC-dissimilar couples the partners will be genetically different, and such a pattern of mate choice decreases the danger of endogamy (mating among relatives) and increases the genetic variability of offspring. Genetic variability is known to be an advantage for offspring, and the MHC effect could be an evolutionary strategy underlying incest avoidance in humans and also improving the efficiency of the immune system, the scientists say.
"Partners will be genetically different."

"Decreases the danger of endogamy (mating among relatives)"

"Genetic viability is known to be an advantage for offspring"

"Although it may be tempting to think that humans choose their partners because of their similarities", says Professor Bicalho, "our research has shown clearly that it is differences that make for successful reproduction, and that the subconscious drive to have healthy children is important when choosing a mate."
At lest two places in the article that prove I am not talking out my ass. Avoiding incorrect match ups is genetic human instinct.

Get your facts strait or shut up.
\

The article does NOT support your central argument, it simply states that there are potentially genetic safeties in place to avoid inbreeding. You have yet to come up with one reason why it is wrong, supplying they do not breed. It's JUST like saying someone with Huntington's disease shouldn't have sex if he's had a Vasectomy or if she has had a similar procedure done.

In fact, let's assume the siblings are both sterile. Give me ONE reason, why it is wrong now.


I'll state now, that I think it is VERY gross. But that is an emotional response.
It is wrong because it represents an evolutionary step backwards. As I have said countless times.

Also, that the emotional response that condemns it is there for a vary good reason. Because human nature rejects it.
 

Ninja_X

New member
Aug 9, 2009
616
0
0
Glefistus said:
Ninja_X said:
Glefistus said:
Ninja_X said:
Glefistus said:
Back to my challenge: Give me ONE reason it is wrong, if they are not breeding. Leaving OUT emotional and religious reasons.
Making out with a sibling represents a sexual urge that most humans are hard wired not to have. If you make out with someone it is a SEXUAL act, even if it is a small one. That makes it wrong.

Its fact and guess what? THAT ARTICLE SUPPORTS MY ARGUMENT DUMBASS.

Within MHC-dissimilar couples the partners will be genetically different, and such a pattern of mate choice decreases the danger of endogamy (mating among relatives) and increases the genetic variability of offspring. Genetic variability is known to be an advantage for offspring, and the MHC effect could be an evolutionary strategy underlying incest avoidance in humans and also improving the efficiency of the immune system, the scientists say.
"Partners will be genetically different."

"Decreases the danger of endogamy (mating among relatives)"

"Genetic viability is known to be an advantage for offspring"

"Although it may be tempting to think that humans choose their partners because of their similarities", says Professor Bicalho, "our research has shown clearly that it is differences that make for successful reproduction, and that the subconscious drive to have healthy children is important when choosing a mate."
At lest two places in the article that prove I am not talking out my ass. Avoiding incorrect match ups is genetic human instinct.

Get your facts strait or shut up.
\

The article does NOT support your central argument, it simply states that there are potentially genetic safeties in place to avoid inbreeding. You have yet to come up with one reason why it is wrong, supplying they do not breed. It's JUST like saying someone with Huntington's disease shouldn't have sex if he's had a Vasectomy or if she has had a similar procedure done.

In fact, let's assume the siblings are both sterile. Give me ONE reason, why it is wrong now.


I'll state now, that I think it is VERY gross. But that is an emotional response.
It is wrong because it represents an evolutionary step backwards. As I have said countless times.
Please elaborate on HOW it is an evolutionary step backwards.
I already did, honestly how much do I have to repeat it for you?

Even if they don't breed, they would still have to have sexual feelings for each other, which is wrong because we are hard wired against that. a human without that instinct is defective, therefore the sexual behavior resulting from it is wrong.
 

Graustein

New member
Jun 15, 2008
1,756
0
0
paypuh said:
This is exactly my point. While it would be in their best interests to avoid making it known, and while I would be averse to it, I would not take issue with it
Ninja_X said:
Love and affection with no sex involved IS what brother and sister relationships are.

Making out is sexual, therefore wrong.
Firstly, I think there's a large difference between familial and romantic love, and that difference is more than simply the mere presence or absence of physical intimacy.

Secondly, "making out is sexual, therefore wrong"? You're assuming here that we agree on a key point, that being "sexual activity between brother and sister is inherently wrong".

Finally, you're still yet to address my key question. I even bolded it for you.

Future Hero said:
The MAIN reason incest is condemned is that it would cause deformities to any (possible) possible offspring. Also, religion despises incest because it believes that the relationship between family members is sacred, and changing that relationship into a love affair corrupts it.
I'm fully aware of this, but I have at every stage in this discussion maintained that I am only condoning sterile incestuous relationships. As for the religion aspect, that is an entirely subjective view and one that I simply disagree with.
 

Labyrinth

Escapist Points: 9001
Oct 14, 2007
4,732
0
0
This is being unlocked on the proviso that there's no more slinging around of "You're an idiot!" or similar. I'll be keeping an eye out. We can have a civil conversation around a tender issue without it.
 

lapan

New member
Jan 23, 2009
1,456
1
0
Future Hero said:
Graustein said:
Future Hero said:
The MAIN reason incest is condemned is that it would cause deformities to any (possible) possible offspring. Also, religion despises incest because it believes that the relationship between family members is sacred, and changing that relationship into a love affair corrupts it.
I'm fully aware of this, but I have at every stage in this discussion maintained that I am only condoning sterile incestuous relationships. As for the religion aspect, that is an entirely subjective view and one that I simply disagree with.
Well, then presuming it's a monogamous relationship, you won't be having any kids (the biological kind). So there would be one less kid on the face of the world, and your name won't be carried on. It's a evolutionary stand-still.
Is this really that bad? Earth is overpopulated anyway. And mutations don't always have to be bad, they are also a part of evolution.
 

Pandalisk

New member
Jan 25, 2009
3,248
0
0
hahaahahah Steriotypes are awesome

To be fair i kissed my sister all the time when i was 4, though i guess this isnt the same, I shudder at the thought of it now.