Gay sex and interracial sex have ALWAYS happened and have not always been socially unacceptable in all cultures. The same cannot be said of incest, which is taboo for a good reason. Anyone who can't understand that should speak to a shrink ASAP.
What are you talking about? It was perfectly acceptable in several cultures especially among the nobility. Granted we can use those examples to highlight the problems of breeding within a closed group. But still it shows your argument to be false.
BS. Name some with links. I have work, but I'm going to be checking back.
So basically, you are supportive of incest, is what you're saying?
One does not have to support a position to point out an untrue argument. For example I did not support Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, but I pointed out the error of people arguing that he hadn't been in office long enough to earn it.
Yes, only royal families did this, and this was usually between cousins only, and it led to birth defects and other such issues after generations of these practices, and that's just one reason why it's not done anymore. The people involved in such marriages normally didn't have a choice in the matter either. It's not like they were sexually attracted to one another; that was just what was expected of them. BIG difference there.
But it was still socially acceptable which counters your previous argument. Personally desirable and socially acceptable are two different things.
It is an unhealthy practice. THAT is the reason why it's disgusting to people. People are disgusted by things for a reason. There was also a recent study done where there were findings that the "smell" of relatives seems to be a turn off to "normal" people. Because incest is NOT natural. It's not natural to be attracted to your son, daughter, mother, father, etc.
Go back to the previous threads on this. There was a link that showed that there is no "smell" of relatives. A father and daughter who never knew each other(mother got inseminated via a sperm bank) until she was well into her adulthood years could meet and be sexually attracted. There would be no smell that made them not attracted to each other. The incest taboo comes from having been together while the child(ren) grow. In India, where the child bride of an arranged marriage is sometimes sent to live with the child groom's family until the children are of legal age to marry, the children more often than not do not desire each other and react via the incest taboo.
No it cannot. That is completely different than having sex with your sister or your father. Plenty of people are turned on by anal sex and anuses. :lol:
And plenty of people are turned on by the concept of incest as well as are turned on by people who they are not aware of being related to. What's your point?
Because polygamy is sexist and wrong and incest is the cause of genetic defects in offspring and child abuse.
We have decided to include gays in our standards for marriage because it is the right thing to do. It does not mean we have abandoned all standards.
You can't cause genetic defects if the couple are same gendered or if one or both are sterile. Child abuse occurs regardless of whether incest is involved or not. Since the qualifier is consenting adults the child abuse issue is not part of the argument. Now the grooming idea put forth by Roguenuke would be since that encompasses the consenting adult part.
The standard changed to include interracial when no one thought it would ever happen. Then it changed to include same gendered couples. So why wouldn't it change to include incest and (to try to keep on the topic) polygamy?
Perhaps not, but they aren't hurting anyone else or their offspring (either immediately or down the road) with possible genetic defects either. Incest messes with the gene pool. That is why it is such a disgusting thing to even think about. It's supposed to be disgusting to you.
As I pointed out before there is no messing with the gene pool if children are not produced. Birth control are highly effective, but I do concede not 100%. However, sex between same gendered couples and between couples where one or both are sterile ARE 100% effective in not producing offspring, risk of defect or not. Yet you would deny them as well. Not only that you would NOT deny a couple who have a HIGHER chance of producing a child with birth defects than any random incestuous couple. Quite hypocritical to me.
And this is off topic anyway. The topic is polygamy, not incest.
You kept this offshoot going. I said from the beginning I didn't want to thread jack and that I was just pointing out that your statement that you support the right of consenting adults to make their own decisions was simply not 100% true. Then I pointed out how the arguments that you were using were also used before on interracial marriage and SSM and are currently being used on polygamy, thus staying on topic.