<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> On your first point, I do not see the point of exploring exhaustive possibilities, hypothetical couplings; Secondly, you ignore my social argument. The notion of the family unit is disrupted in the case of sibling (sister-sister, bro-bro) incest, it involves a confusion IMO of family roles which can lead to more damaging forms of incest. You can take that one or leave it, its one "hypothetical" (since you're fond of them) outcome... Your last argument is a circular one; homosexuality is immoral, therefore if one believes in morality, one must reject homosexuality. You provide no reason why people "simply think it (taboos) immoral". Homosexuality does not constitute those things which I have classified as taboo. In many societies, across time, homosexuality has existed and been to varying degrees "accepted". [/b][/quote] <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The notion of the family unit is disrupted in the case of sibling (sister-sister, bro-bro) incest, it involves a confusion IMO of family roles which can lead to more damaging forms of incest.[/b][/quote] If destruction of the family unit is your concern then the notion of the family unit is destroyed with a TWO MOMMIES or TWO DADDIES scenario. There can be no greater confusion of family roles than having two father figures or two mother figures. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Your last argument is a circular one; homosexuality is immoral, therefore if one believes in morality, one must reject homosexuality. You provide no reason why people "simply think it (taboos) immoral". Homosexuality does not constitute those things which I have classified as taboo. In many societies, across time, homosexuality has existed and been to varying degrees "accepted".[/b][/quote] In amoral person doesn't see the difference between immorality and morality unless it is against the human laws of the country. So it may be fultile for me to discuss his with you. However, I shall attempt nevertheless..... Homosexuality has been in existence from the early stages of human history but it has invariably been seen as "wrong" by the majority of peole. The reason for this is quite simple, nature has designed (God) that the basic instanct of a male creature is to have sexual intercourse with a female...and vice versa. If this were not naturally so then the continuation of the species would have been in jeopardy from the very beginning. Therefore it is apparent that it is in no way natural for a male creature to wish to couple with another male. This is unnatural, a perversion of the norm, anti-nature, anti-procreation, anti-family....immoral. It is in fact more nature-ally abominable than consentual brother-sister incest...simply because intercourse between male and female is natural and somewhere in the past it would have been necessary for two siblings of opposite sex to have produced offspring together. Besides anyway....many ancient cultures and religions prove that it was acceptable in times past for sibling unions. Tribes were essentially "families" and people married within their own tribes... So once again....if you reject incest as being immoral/taboo or whatever....so have no reason to accept Homosexuality as morally acceptable, objectively speaking...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I gotta tell you all. When I see gays kissing it turns my stomach. I find it disgusting and vile. However, it does not affect me. Who am I to tell people who to love. It is just stupid. I got news for you idiotic so called Christians. If Jesus were alive, he would hang out with homos, poor people, aids victims, aids patients who got aids from buttfuckign and killer H. Those would be his people. He would probably burn Cathedrals and TV Evangelisists. Jesus was the hero for the losers. Not the fucking corporate prude you idiots hold him out to be. I think Jesus was a cool dude. Too bad you Christians fucked his message up. [/b][/quote] Jesus was the son of God, and with your beliefs, you'll certainly be spending an eternity in Hell. [/b][/quote] Jeez I go away for months and Orion is still as ignorant and uneducated as always....... At least he's consistent. [/b][/quote] Opinions vary, I feel the same about you. I guess we're even. Just for the record though, no one even noticed you were gone, no question why.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Exactly. Anthropologists usually go for the sciological explanations of the origens of the taboo for incest. In order to explain why incest has been proverbially verbotten, they usually support their hypotesis with what they call the Role theory, or the Alliance theory. Not the biological theory since this one makes not much sense and it is not widely accepted. Since you know so much about this subject, and I'm sure you could school us all in this arena, I will not take up your time by explaining the Role Theory advanced by Malinowsky or the Alliance Theory proposed by Levi Strauss. Instead, I will refer to the flimsiness of your Biological Theory that, as I have said before, most antrhopologists reject. Exogamy is a universal phenomenon, but not for biological reasons and this is very visible to the naked eye. If in writing laws that prohibit marriage within brothers and sisters the preoccupation was the possibility of inherited diseases, then surely we should have seen laws that prohibit individuals who suffer from dwarfism, for instance, to marry anyone at all since it is evident that dwarfism is an inheritable trait and this is a well known fact that has been recurrent in the history of many families. There are also other sicknesses that are transmitted such as hemophilia, perhaps dementia, etc, but so far no society has enacted laws that prohibit the union of two strangers in holy matrimony even if the risk of genetically inherited malformations, or deadly diseases of all kinds is a concern to both. The reasons behind this lack of probhibition is simply that most societies in the world cherish the union of a man and a woman and view it as desirable no matter what the risks. Even if your child has a good shot of being born a midget, as long as you are not married to your own sister, you can marry all you want and nobody will say a thing. But if you and your sister are perfectly normal, and have no defective gene that we know of, and want to marry each other... well, then society will quietly say: "no." And the reasons are cultural, not scientific. The so called "scientific reasons" you are basing your arguments on are a new phenomena and have nothing to do with anything that has been traditionally an argument against incest. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>How do you think early medicine developed?...according to your notions, without the periodic table, they would have been fucked....[/b][/quote] You lost me here. What does that have anything to do with what we are talking about? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>As for your Egyptians, we already covered that above when discussing homozygocity vs heterozygocity....keep up..[/b][/quote] Sorry I missed your comments on the Egyptians. But since among Egyptians incest was not only normal, but desirable, how do you explain the fact that they kept doing it for centuries and centuries and never caught on the "scientific fact" that, if we follow your line of reasoning, should have wiped them out after perhaps the first or second generation? How come they did it for so long if incest was soooooo harmful and deadly? Evidently, incest is not that harmful after all. And the reasons we reject it are mostly cultural, not scientific. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>You dismiss my science arguments as "crap" and then highlight your limitations by failing to provide an alternative. [/b][/quote] OK. I have provided an alternative now. Actually, two: the Role Theory, and the Alliance Theory. What do you have to say about that? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The burden of proof is upon you to present why homosexuality is "immoral", I don't expect a reply anytime soon.[/b][/quote] Huh... Salaco? Can you please point out where I said that homosexuality is "immoral?" Thanks. [/b][/quote] You present role theory (and alliance, though I'm not as directly familiar with levi-strauss' stuff) as if it is dichotomous with a biological based explanation. If you read above, I specifically state that incest is also likely taboo due to the confusion of social roles, and that biological data feeds into social-based explanations of incest prohibition. I do however think the increased possibility of homozygotes does contribute to the taboo of incest and the introduction of exogamy. I also believe that socially-based explanations like levis-strauss' have a fundamentally adaptive function which are not inconsistent with an evolutionary perspective. In your second point, we do not have routine genetic "screening" for carrier status for a lot of the heritable disorders you mentioned. So, of course we don't prohibit these kinds of unions. In some cases (eg. dementia), no such screening test exists becuse we don't know its genetic basis. It IS interesting you mention it however because the probability of such screening being carried out in the furture and its implications for unions is an ongoing debate. Basically, social and biological theories IMO must be,and are, complementary. As for the origin of the species, thats a separate discussion. If you want to open a separate thread, go ahead. Actually, in the case of the Egyptians, you rarely had incest between direct siblings. In the vast majority it was between cousins, half-siblings. A lot of the confusion is due to the generalised use of the terms "sister" and "mother" and "brother" to embrace other near relatives like cousins, aunts etc. The exception are the royal families where the intention was to keep the titles as close as possible. Therefore, what you pointed out is true but the confusion is "cultural, not scientific". As for homosexuality being "immoral", check the thread title. This thread has turned into a discussion of the origins of incest as a taboo. The point I was making was to show that homosexuality and incest were not comparable.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Just for the record though, no one even noticed you were gone, no question why. [/b][/quote] And no one will notice you came back unless you put up another God-awful photo...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> If destruction of the family unit is your concern then the notion of the family unit is destroyed with a TWO MOMMIES or TWO DADDIES scenario. There can be no greater confusion of family roles than having two father figures or two mother figures. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Your last argument is a circular one; homosexuality is immoral, therefore if one believes in morality, one must reject homosexuality. You provide no reason why people "simply think it (taboos) immoral". Homosexuality does not constitute those things which I have classified as taboo. In many societies, across time, homosexuality has existed and been to varying degrees "accepted".[/b][/quote] In amoral person doesn't see the difference between immorality and morality unless it is against the human laws of the country. So it may be fultile for me to discuss his with you. However, I shall attempt nevertheless..... Homosexuality has been in existence from the early stages of human history but it has invariably been seen as "wrong" by the majority of peole. The reason for this is quite simple, nature has designed (God) that the basic instanct of a male creature is to have sexual intercourse with a female...and vice versa. If this were not naturally so then the continuation of the species would have been in jeopardy from the very beginning. Therefore it is apparent that it is in no way natural for a male creature to wish to couple with another male. This is unnatural, a perversion of the norm, anti-nature, anti-procreation, anti-family....immoral. It is in fact more nature-ally abominable than consentual brother-sister incest...simply because intercourse between male and female is natural and somewhere in the past it would have been necessary for two siblings of opposite sex to have produced offspring together. Besides anyway....many ancient cultures and religions prove that it was acceptable in times past for sibling unions. Tribes were essentially "families" and people married within their own tribes... So once again....if you reject incest as being immoral/taboo or whatever....so have no reason to accept Homosexuality as morally acceptable, objectively speaking... [/b][/quote] Your first point refers to gay adoption, not homosexuality per se. That is an entirely different discussion and one on which I hold less clearcut views. "In amoral person doesn't see the difference between immorality and morality unless it is against the human laws of the country." WTF? :wacko: ....I'm not an amoral person, your assumption is incorrect. As for the rest, we have been through this a fucking thousand times it seems. No, homosexuality has not always been seen as wrong across time and cultures. NO, what is statistically in the minority is not "unnatural", diversity is necessarily part of nature. I have already gone through this with you :stick: . Given that homosexuality is a small minority, of course the continuation of the species was never in danger. Listen, if you want to pin this on God, go ahead, I don't care about what jebus or his predecessors said. Otherwise, either come up with a new argument or admit that you were incapable of understanding the arguments presented numerous pages ago. Ditto for incest and intermarrying within a small community, we have already discussed this indepth. Find me an ancient or contemporary community where marriages between direct siblings was the norm; otherwise, this argument is a dead one.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Just for the record though, no one even noticed you were gone, no question why. [/b][/quote] And no one will notice you came back unless you put up another God-awful photo... [/b][/quote] Weak, playa. Is this the best you can do? :spadafora:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Just for the record though, no one even noticed you were gone, no question why. [/b][/quote] And no one will notice you came back unless you put up another God-awful photo... [/b][/quote] Weak, playa. Is this the best you can do? :spadafora: [/b][/quote] "playa"? :YeahRight:
For some reason, I missed you answer to my post yesterday. And I came to check this thread four times! Oh, well... Here is my answer. No, I present them as the only valid options for deciding why incest became taboo at one point or another in the history of mankind. Again, biological, "medical," or genetical reasons had NOTHING to do with incest becoming taboo. Quite the opposite, people practiced incest for centuries and for all we know, if incest had not conflicted with people's political alliances and power play, it would still be practiced today, genetics or not. You started with the biological explanation because it ties in perfectly with your acceptance of homosexual behaviour under the guise that same sex behavior does not harm anyone while incest does. But I reject this "incest harms the offspring" argument since, if you use some bit of common sense, we could probably conclude that most of us must have been children of some incestuous couple at one point or another in our history. This is an unavoidable truth that even the Bible acknowledges. Whether we also inherited some quirks or genetic defects as a result of that, is another story. But survival of the species, without incest, would have been impossible. The same, however, can not be said of homosexuality which, if practiced widely, may well condemn the species to extinction. As far as I now, nowhere in history is there any evidence of any tribe, community, or nation that has prohibited incest based on biological reasons. Perhaps lately, I don't know. But certainly the ancients didn't. Political alliances may have played a role, but biology? Hardly. By the way, I am not advocating incest here. I clarify this just in case some of you people reading this feel that what I am trying to imply here is that it is OK to fuck your daughter. (Sorry Salaco, I feel I need to make this clear because there are a lot of knuckleheads reading this and they probably get the whole thing upside down. I know you are not one of them but... anyway you know what I mean.) Yes, I know you do, but your stance against the practice of incest as opposed to homosexuality was based on the fact that incest harms others, but homosexuality doesn't. Of course, you never clarified whether you would allow for incest if, for example, a brother and a sister decided to marry after discovering that they were sterile. In that case, your "incest harms others" argument would not be applicable since predictably, there would be no offspring from the couple and hence no chance of harming anyone. Also, since the object of marrying is not necessarily to have children and there are many couples who decide from the outset not to have them... would you be for a brother and a sister marrying if they decided not to have offspring? Yes? Why? No? Why not? No harm to others, there... Again, your argument is untenable no matter how you see it. Biology may be powerful, but it is not a good argument against incest. When everything is said and done, the reasons we all use for our opposition to incest are cultural, and not scientific. No. Only lately we have heard of this argument. I have never read of any tribe or community on this planet that has ever argued along those lines. Perhaps there was something called "intuitive knowledge?" Something they couldn't put in scientific terms but they still understood? Maybe. But I won't believe it until someone proves it to me. Sure. The stigmatization of homosexual behaviour can also be seen that way. I mean... Just about anything society accepts or rejects can be found to be consistent with an evolutionary perspective if we just use our imaginations. Even wars and famine. Well, that was essential to my argument. If societies are so against hereditary diseases passed on among members of the same families ( and that's the reason incest is taboo...) how come they are not bent on preventing malformed people from marrying normal ones? I mean, if I am a hunchback from birth, and I marry your sister who is not, chances are our kids will also be hunchback. Surely society must prevent that from happening! But society doesn't. Society will allow me, a hunchback, to marry your sister, but not you... a perfectly healthy and normal person. Why? So there goes your argument regarding people's concern in relation of hereditary diseases. It is just not tenable. Yes, I don't know much about this but I truly believe it will become an issue in the future. Could Ted Bundy's grandson become a serial killer? Is there a gene related to this? How should society deal with it? They may be complementary but that doesn't mean that one doesn't supercede the other. As far as I know, the scientific reasons you present are pretty flimsy. The moral ones, however, seem more powerful to me. The problem I have with moral principles is that they sometimes are either irrational, or simply arbitrary. But that is an issue for another debate. Yes, that is a separate discussion, but I still sustain that we are all children of incest. I just don't see how else the human race could have survived. Also, I strongly believe that humans, perhaps like any other animals, are naturally hardwired to commit incest from birth in order to allow the spieces to survive. It is only later, and with the development of more civilized, sophisticated societies, that the prohibition of incest takes place. We may not remember its origens, of course, but this makes perfect sense in my head. And from stigmatizing incest to calling incestuous relationships "immoral," and burning people at the stake for engaging in them, there is only one step. But at the dawn of time incest must have been perfectly natural. Even necessary, if you push me... Just like cannibalism or parricide. I mean, anything goes, man. We are animals. Yes, but the danger of passing on defective genes among them were excellent. Also, it is also interesting to note that since they kept doing it for so long, they never caught on this fact, considering that according to you, it should have been very noticeable. I don't deny that at times there could have been some confusion regarding who is who in the genetical scale, but my point is that incest among the Egyptians was a fact of life and was not stigmatized simply because, from their view point, there was no visible, biological reason to do so. That was my whole point. What does the thread title have anything to do with my question? You implied that I consider homosexuality "immoral." But since I never advanced an opinion regarding the morality or immorality of homosexuality, I asked you to point out where, if anywhere, I ever said that homosexuality was immoral. I'm still waiting for your answer. Yes, and that was because you said that the reason incest is a taboo is because of biological concerns. But the reasons behind society's rejection of incest have nothing to do with science. They are mostly consider moral, or political ones, not scientific. Science has nothing to do with it. They are insomuch as incest, as well as homosexuality, are viewed on moral terms by many. And as such, they are perfectly debatable because they belong in the same realm of values, behaviour, and moral principles whose acceptance or rejection people will have to decide on sooner or later. Science, again, has nothing to do with it. If science and evolution had anything to do with this discussion, then we should all be singing the praises of incestual relationships and cannibalism since without them, it is perfeclty possible that the human race would not have survived and as a consequence of that neither you or I would probably be alive today.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Just for the record though, no one even noticed you were gone, no question why. [/b][/quote] And no one will notice you came back unless you put up another God-awful photo... [/b][/quote] Weak, playa. Is this the best you can do? :spadafora: [/b][/quote] "playa"? :YeahRight: [/b][/quote] Did I stutter?
I can't find anything 'right' about dicking another man in the ass...but it's cool...I dick chicks in the butty if they let me. Who am I to talk
Homosexuality! HIFU It is unholy to us vergetarians, I can't allow any animal any way through any opening of my be it my mouth, anus or otherwise.:sportif3: :wavegoodbye:
