Say Anything Blog

Is Consensual Adult Incest Okay?

No.

Anna: You have to stop this excessive verbiage in your replies! Cut it back some, get to the point! 

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

LOL, Actually… I was reading the article, but I was having a difficult time.
Normally, I can disassociate my personally feelings from something while reading but… THIS IS JUST WRONG! It’s down right sick.
I was expecting perhaps 2nd cousins or the likes of that, but… ooooh no, this is brother and sister!!!!!.
Not to mention only 1 out of 4 children turning out normal? What more proof do they need?
Obviously, something is seriously wrong with these people.

Consenting adults with legal competency should be able to marry/have sex/etc.  The state has no business outlawing it.  This includes gay people, and people related yet even by blood.  Danger is with blood relations, the chance of birth defects goes way up.  But so true is it when people live next to toxic waste dumps, but the gov’t allows that, right?

"Ewwww gross!” is neither a logical nor rational argument.

The only problem I have with these two is that they had children together.  Had they refrained from breeding then there would be nothing to complain about.  The fact that they’re siblings makes the whole issue disturbing and disgusting, but those are not moral issues. 

What two adults do in private that affects no one else, is beyond the scope of legitimate government regulation.  When people are punished for what they do in private that affects no one else, it is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority.  The fact that most people find their choice abhorrent is not legitimate cause to deny them the right to make that choice.  Unless someone’s rights are being violated, the public (and the state by extension) has no business interfering in private matters.

I would venture to guess that there have been studies of nature showing that closely-related mammals have a natural incest aversion when they are closely related.  The natural function to this built-in aversion would be to prevent in-breeding which gives rise to birth defects.

The function of any government is to promote the common defense and welfare.  Normally, marriage is something for religion, but government condones and regulates marriage because, first and foremost, the salutary effect of marriage between a man and a woman is that it ensures procreation and the continued existence of the country.

The second salutary effect of marriage is that citizens that are products of a family unit are more stable, wealthier, more likely to be productive and less likely to become social burdens in the form of demanding welfare payments and getting involved in criminality.

One of the side effects on experiment of the Great Society and War on Poverty, creating a social safety net, was to encourage illegitimacy, and it has been these single-parent families that disproportionately gave rise to multiple generations on welfare and criminality.

We have experimented with welfare and it has never lived up to the public socialist promises, but has given rise to a permanent underclass of voters who will always vote for those who will continue to push to take taxes from the working to give to the non-working.

I am certain those who are very familiar with the Bible can point to the chapter and verse which deem those too-closely related by blood from ‘knowing’ one another.

I would venture to guess that on a religious basis, incest is wrong.

Biologically, and therefore legally, it makes good sense for the State to not condone incestuous marriage.

Lastly, the laws in any given society should be a reflection of social morays.  If enough people deem a given practice to be wrong they elect lawmakers to outlaw or otherwise regulate that practice.

Thus, if enough people think ewwww!  yuck! about any given practice, it is their right to vote for representatives to outlaw that behavior. That is the function of lawmaking in a Constitutional Republic.

Then again, there’s something to be said for common sense—after all—who wants to be a mutherf*cker?

...for great justice

Quite frankly, to me that certainly provides strong evidence that procreation places their children at risk and poses an avoidable finacial burden on society.

I do not necessarily condone incest, but I think that what’s done with two consenting adults is their business and not the business of the government.

I don’t care if they’re brother and sister, or cousins… love is love… and I’m sorry, as much as you try, you can’t outlaw love.

If the two parties have openly, in sound mind, and of legal age, chosen to have sex or do whatever… who are we to tell them they are wrong? Bash me all you want.

People will love who they love, even if it is an immediate family member or someone of the same gender.

The government needs to step out of people’s personal lives and just let them live. If they’re not harming anyone I don’t care what they’re doing.

If they’re not harming anyone I don’t care what they’re doing.

What if they have children? Wouldn’t causing their offspring serious deformities and defects constitute as harming someone?

Is Consensual Adult Incest Okay?

Only as long as no retarded kids are produced.

you can’t outlaw love

Between little boys and fat, sweat, 54-year old men?

Between men and cows?

Between fathers and daughters?

Between ladies and mules or German Sherpards?

There’s good love and depravity.

Just because it works for you doesn’t make it right.

Sicko