Ultimate Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch: Incest is The Next Liberal Sexual Revolution


From the pages of The Ultimates, the Sex, Lies, & DVD story arc:

UltimateIncest1

UltimateIncest2

UltimateIncest3

UltimateIncest4

UltimateIncest5

UltimateIncest6

UltimateIncest7

Well, why not?

After all, traditional (i.e. Judeo-Christian) norms of sexuality are being rapidly eroded… From sex outside marriage, to free sex, to group sex, to homosexuality.

So why not incest?

After all, as I have pointed out before, there is no basis for genetic or health objections to incest.

So why is it still considered wrong or yucky? Especially by atheists and humanists. At least the religious kooks can say that their Ancient Book ‘o’ Rules doesn’t permit it, what excuse do you guys have? Some sort of twisting of your anything-goes relative morality?

So it looks like there’s no stopping the soon-to-come multiculturally tolerant acceptance of hot brother-sister incest action!

And once that unjustified taboo is out of the way, I guess only interspecies sex (read: zoophilia and bestiality) is left on the list of sexual rights facing prejudice and bias.

In fact, methinks America is waaaaay behind in the liberal sexual preferences equality movement. Europe has already taken the lead in this.

Go Democrat Party! Go Liberals! Legalize incest, bestiality and sex with cyborg alien children!

PS. Once again, the liberal forums are luvin my post!

UPDATE: Switzerland debates legalizing incest! So why are US liberals being such anti-love bigots when it comes to private decisions between two consenting adults behind closed doors?

UPDATE: Here you can see citations where people think sex between father and adult, consenting daughter is okay. What do you say?


Tags: , , , , , , ,

64 Responses to “Ultimate Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch: Incest is The Next Liberal Sexual Revolution”

  1. Edi神 Says:

    Lotta cases involve bumis…

    Might need their opinions

  2. kweky@ipoh boy Says:

    whatever it is, incest is legal in someway. refer to the bible. i will find out which chapter of the bible. soon i will let you all know. i remember i came across a chapter of the bible which tells a story of sisters and their father being hunted by pirates and robbers. they went into a cave in a valley. they were trapped inside the cave and the robbers were still looking for them. they hid in the cave for a while and the sisters felt that they have no other choice but to reproduce through their father………….. something like that..

    i will come out with the chapter.

  3. Scott Thong Says:

    The Chapter is Genesis 19, after they had escaped from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

    And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

    And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

    And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

    And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

    The sisters decided to reproduce with their father, so they got him drunk and did it while he was unawares. This is considered a bad thing.

    The children born from this sinful union were Moab and Benammi, who later gave rose to tribes – the Moabites and the Ammonites – that were the constant enemies of God’s chosen people the Israelites.

  4. kweky@ipoh boy Says:

    thanks for the information. is it legal anyway???????? considering the circumstances.

    what if there were no choice??

    but the choices for the sisters were simple. why not just wait for a while??

    but i believe it was more to lust rather that the need to reproduce!!!!!!

  5. kweky@ipoh boy Says:

    also considering the authenticity of the chapter, if you are running away for your life, will you bring wine along??? or will you start making your own wine in such times of trouble???

  6. Jason Verga Says:

    The percentage of children with birth defects among 1st degree relatives is about one out of two. This is why marriage is often legal among cousins while it is allways illegal among siblings.
    Many animals istinctively avoid mating with a close kin unless no other option is viable: lionesses chase away their sons when they become sexually mature and the same happens with horses. The same mechanism applies to humans, but in our case it is strenghtened by social norms.
    I remember a statistic that showed as the number of marriages among children in Israel who grew up in the same kibbutz was extremely low- so I suppose human beings have a deep seated mental mechanism that encourages them to seek a partner outside from their native group. It is reasonable to think that such a trait would have had, by logic, many chances to spread.
    You can look at it like an example of the “simplicity of G-d”: He seeded morality in our very being through our evolution.
    I believe Kissenger wrote something about the social reasons that cause incest to be widely avoided, but it is not really my field.

    About zoophilia, it is worth pointing out that USA is not that behind:
    I found this list of american states that allow it:
    http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2269/zoocurrent.html

    I read one of Singer’s books. I believe he used the “month of grace” more as an example than as an actual porposal, but I cannot be sure.
    It is to say though, that having seen many situations in which a newborn is condemned to a slow, inevitable death, I myself have often wondered about this issue. I still think we have no right to take a life, no matter how worthless it looks to us (except to save another one), but seeing a child that will have to be left to die of hunger because we have no actual way of saving him is something that can leave no man indifferent.
    There is to note that very religious people, such as the Spartans, the Romans and many african tribes, all practiced infanticide.
    Being theists does not guarantees being good. I cannot say I agree with atheists, but many of the ones I know are more than decent people (and a discrete number of them is conservative, believe it or not.).

    As far as bestiality is concerned, well, there are serious heath issues to be considered. I remember of a case I read about years ago: a man contracted a new mutation of pneumonia by having sex with sheeps, that proved resistent to antibiotics. Plus I believe the news of a man killed in a
    uhhhh… “horse riding accident” in the state of Washinghton is pretty recent, so I would say it is really not a good idea.
    Feeling attraction fo an animal is not natural and it indicates deeply seeted psychological problems. It means being unable to confront with a human partner and to share the intimacy that only two intelligent creatures can know.

    There would be more, but I’m running late.
    Good bye.

    PS: kweky, if I remember well they brought the wine with them because they didn’t want to make it look like if they were excaping from the city, so they said they were going on a trip or something like that. I read it in a Jewish fable, so don’t take it for certain.

  7. Verga Says:

    The percentage of children with birth defects among 1st degree relatives is about one out of two. This is why marriage is often legal among cousins while it is allways illegal among siblings.
    Many animals istinctively avoid mating with a close kin unless no other option is viable: lionesses chase away their sons when they become sexually mature and the same happens with horses. The same mechanism applies to humans, but in our case it is strenghtened by social norms.
    I remember a statistic that showed as the number of marriages among children in Israel who grew up in the same kibbutz was extremely low- so I suppose human beings have a deep seated mental mechanism that encourages them to seek a partner outside from their native group. It is reasonable to think that such a trait would have had, by logic, many chances to spread.
    You can look at it like an example of the “simplicity of G-d”: He seeded morality in our very being through our evolution.
    I believe Kissenger wrote something about the social reasons that cause incest to be widely avoided, but it is not really my field.

    About zoophilia, it is worth pointing out that USA is not that behind:
    I found this list of american states that allow it:
    http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2269/zoocurrent.html

    I read one of Singer’s books. I believe he used the “month of grace” more as an example than as an actual porposal, but I cannot be sure.
    It is to say though, that having seen many situations in which a newborn is condemned to a slow, inevitable death, I myself have often wondered about this issue. I still think we have no right to take a life, no matter how worthless it looks to us (except to save another one), but seeing a child that will have to be left to die of hunger because we have no actual way of saving him is something that can leave no man indifferent.
    There is to note that very religious people, such as the Spartans, the Romans and many african tribes, all practiced infanticide.
    Being theists does not guarantees being good. I cannot say I agree with atheists, but many of the ones I know are more than decent people (and a discrete number of them is conservative, believe it or not.).

    As far as bestiality is concerned, well, there are serious heath issues to be considered. I remember of a case I read about years ago: a man contracted a new mutation of pneumonia by having sex with sheeps, that proved resistent to antibiotics. Plus I believe the news of a man killed in a
    uhhhh… “horse riding accident” in the state of Washinghton is pretty recent, so I would say it is really not a good idea.
    Feeling attraction fo an animal is not natural and it indicates deeply seeted psychological problems. It means being unable to confront with a human partner and to share the intimacy that only two intelligent creatures can know.

    There would be more, but I’m running late.
    Good bye.

    PS: kweky, if I remember well they brought the wine with them because they didn’t want to make it look like if they were excaping from the city, so they said they were going on a trip or something like that. I read it in a Jewish fable, so don’t take it for certain.

    PPS: I’m sorry if this post appears twice but it doesn’t seem to have been visualized the first time.

  8. Marcy Says:

    1) The article you linked only mentions first degree cousins. If you took five minutes to check, you would know that the rate of birth defects in a more closely related pair is far higher- ignorance or willing deception?

    2) In your other article you mentioned the power dynamics inside a family- well, they would be screwed up even in the case of two brothers or two sisters having an affair:
    a father or a mother are supposed to be authority figures>
    a mate is supposed to protect his/her mate, often against his/her authority figures (never had a fight with the in laws?).
    This would inevitably lead to conflict.
    Plus it would prevent the detachment of the couple from the family and their independence, which on the short term would be damaging to them, in the long term to society as well.
    Situations of abuse and early sex (which- believe it or not, even some of us satanic liberals think to be damaging for a child) would be common: think how big is the difference in strength between a 16 years old and 1 13 years old. they are both sexually active. They are both adolescents (read: walking hormones factories).
    It would either end in rape or in being completely cut off from social life outside the family- which again would damage them and society as well.

    3) We have for many reasons an instinctive aversion for inbreeding- but the guy before me explained it well enough. this instinct is further strengthened by societal norms.

    4) Every religion around the globe forbids incest (with some exception in the case of royal families.). So are they are all divinely inspired?

    5) A sister who refuses a brother or who broke up with him and is forced to live under the same roof… not very cool.6

    6) The most important reason: family is family. It is the block upon which our society is built. It is supposed to be the only place place where you can be with a bunch of males without wondering if they are staring at your tits.

    I could think of more, but I think this is enough.

    The fact that YOU cannot think of a logical reason to justify a law does not mean that said reason doesn’t exist.

    Adieu!

  9. Scott Thong Says:

    The gist of my post is: Why do atheists think that voluntary and consensual incest between two similarly-aged adult siblings is disgusting at all? What basis do you have for this gut reaction?

    No basis means you have about as much justification for criminalizing consensual adult incest as the next kook religion.

    1)) The article you linked only mentions first degree cousins. If you took five minutes to check, you would know that the rate of birth defects in a more closely related pair is far higher- ignorance or willing deception?

    Selective example.

    Try the two homosexual brothers or sisters example instead, does that help?

    think how big is the difference in strength between a 16 years old and 1 13 years old. they are both sexually active. They are both adolescents (read: walking hormones factories).
    It would either end in rape or in being completely cut off from social life outside the family- which again would damage them and society as well.

    Not an issue with adults. Something which I clarified distinctly in my referenced post. Or is it, on your part, ignorance or willing deception?

    4) Every religion around the globe forbids incest (with some exception in the case of royal families.). So are they are all divinely inspired?

    According to Judeo-Christianity, no. The good parts in them are merely shadows of the original holiness that only Judeo-Christianity retains close to fully.

    Not very politically correct, I know, but that’s what it says.

    6) The most important reason: family is family. It is the block upon which our society is built. It is supposed to be the only place place where you can be with a bunch of males without wondering if they are staring at your tits.

    Totally agree with you!

    Now if only the Liberals would stop demolishing family brick by brick and turning it into an affair of two dads, or two moms, or known gay sex offenders adopting kids, or single unwed teen mother, or etc etc etc…

  10. Marcy Says:

    >>What basis do you have for this gut reaction?
    The basic is genetic, strenghtened by social training. It happens to animals too. the only exception is rarely found among children separated while very young. It is the same reason why many are afraid of spiders istinctively or certain smells feel good and other bad.
    Even in the case of a “safe couple”, like two male brothers separated at birth and without parents, their relationship would be problematic, since the role of lover and brother would overlap.
    Plus an eventual break up would destroy almost any chance of reconciliation- which is sad for a couple, but terrible for a family.
    So relationship should stay on brotherly terms for the sake of long term friendship and to have something that someone cannot find outside our family: relationships end, family is forever.

    >>Not an issue with adults. Something which I clarified distinctly in my referenced post.
    Because everyone starts having sex when they should right? Growing together would influence their future behaviour. Plus, even on workplace
    sexual relationships between colleagues are forbidden. Why? They are damaging to the cohesion of the work enviroment. In this case they would create a second family inside the family, bringing up jealousies and conflict.

    >>gay sex offenders adopting kids
    Would an eterosexual one do? You have to blame the poor quality of social services for horrors like this one. Plus, you should take your time to check your facts about child molesters: contrary to the popular belief, the huge mayority is composed from eterosexual males. What is true is that there is a higher percentage of gays among paedophiles than among normal people. Most of my collegues agree that this is due to the fact that sexual characters in prepubescent children are almost undefined. What the molester wants is not a boy or a girl, but a child.
    About the idea that every gay is attracted from 13 years old…
    I cannot peronally say if this is true or false, but in my experience most males are attracted from extremely young girls. I think that if a male was to be forced to live for one day in the body of a 13yo girl he would lock his daughter inside his house and let her out only when she’s 40. Most will either deny or repress this attraction, which is good, but some won’t (even without realizing it).
    Just ask ANY of your female friends. They will all have at least a couple of stories to tell. You might be tempted to say “well, they are imagining it”.
    Sadly, we aren’t. Most of the time I’ve had one of such experiences
    A) it was far too forward to be just an impression
    or
    B) I later heard voices about said person
    or
    3) I had a male friend telling me it was not just my impression after assisting to the “accident”.
    On the bright side, few things match the pleasure of kneeing on the testicles of a bus molester when you are 14.
    Good times.

  11. Marcy Says:

    >>if only the Liberals would stop demolishing family
    No offense, but for as much as you can blame the liberals
    the most religious part of USA seems eager to oblige: highest incidence of teen pregnancies and highers divorce rate.
    The concept of family is different from place to place: what I mean for family is having a group of people who have your complete trust.
    You could say, doesn’t a sex partner qualify?
    The answer is no. Even in marriages there is a kind of closeness you cannot heve. There is jealousy and possessivness.
    You don’t get to choose who your relatives are, yet you find yourself loving them even though your brain says you can’t stand them.
    Plus think, where does someone go when a relationship ends?
    From his mother. Talk about an awkward situation.

    I’m sorry for the willing deception bit. I got a little bit carried over.You should however point out for the future that there is a genetic reason to forbid incest… you never know who reads. Spoken from someone who has to deal with teens who justify every idiocy they do with “I read on the internet it is OK.”

    Good bye.

    I’m sorry for the willing deception bit. I got a little bit carried over.You should however point out for the future that there is a genetic reason to forbid incest… you never know who reads. Spoken from someone who has to deal with teens who justify every idiocy they do with “I read on the internet it is OK.”

    Good bye.

  12. Scott Thong Says:

    Is ok. I apologize too, much of my postage is geared towards evoking a strongly emotional response from readers.

  13. kolaida Says:

    Yeah, wow! I was shocked when I first found this out. Well, not really, since I’d been reading earlier on and suspected it. That gondola thing just confirmed. But that doesn’t mean I have to be happy about it!! I don’t like the idea!! Of course in the Standard universe, Wanda was in love with an android!! I was kinda hoping the Wanda/Nightcrawler. But, oh well. Though, I did read somewhere where someone pointed out they could’ve been encouraged in that way due to mutant supremacy and it kinda made sense. Still don’t like, though.

    Oh, yeah, I’m religious. One of the reasons I don’t agree with it. Also, like others said goes against societal norms, creates awkward situations, increases chances of giving birth to children with defects. In regard to the homosexual siblings relationships, I also disagree with that. I disagree with the homosexual aspect again back to religion and because I view it as unnatural, two people of the same gender can never reproduce naturally therefore they can never create a family naturally (that’s all done through donors/adoptions. I know the same can be said of some straight couples, but it boils down to not ALL straight couples cannot reproduce unlike homosexual couples). Also prior research had indicated some people experiencing a homosexual orientation might be due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, I have not researched it lately so can’t confirm it 100%. Today that would probably be considered politically incorrect regardless if it were true or not. So, despite homosexual siblings being incapable of having children with defects, I still view it as unnatural.

    I will not even address the bestiality. People experiencing that are the ones that need the most help.

    I have no idea if you wanted to hear all that, but what the hey. Ah, Wanda and Pietro. I used to think they were the coolest thing ever because they were Magneto’s kids, but on the good teams, and they were twins! Definitely faves from back in the day. So, I can’t say I’m thrilled about their relationship. But I still like to read the Ultimates. Haha :sweat:

  14. fengthoughts Says:

    i have a very weird feeling always arousing in my mind and my D***… i wanna f*** my hot aunts… help me guys…

  15. Sirkowski Says:

    The Bible says Lot was a good Christian. Ha!

    Also, Malaysian Neo-Con? That’s hilarious on so many levels, lol.

  16. andrew Says:

    Meh, the incest thing between these two characters started with Mark “Whoreswhoreswhores” Miller as a shock tactic, a pretty cheap on IMO. And Leob just decided to use it further for whatever reason, rest assure liberals are no different then any other group when it comes condemning incest. There are some people who like fictional incest, but find the real thing disgusting. Of course there are people all over the political spectrum who like the real thing, but they are sick quite frankly.

    And lol @ scans_daily being a ‘liberal’ forum. It’s a comics community, that’s the focus. Sure, a lot of its posters are liberal, but there are also a lot of conservatives and librarians as well. Its focus isn’t political at all.

  17. andrew Says:

    >>>verga:

    Many animals istinctively avoid mating with a close kin unless no other option is viable: lionesses chase away their sons when they become sexually mature and the same happens with horses.

    >>>

    I don’t know about lions, but that is not true in horses. In the wild colts are driven off by the herd stallion, not to prevent inbreeding because the colt is a competitor for the stallion’s herd. Fillies are not driven away and will breed with their father unless he is replaced or she is stolen by another stallion. Mares will also breed to their sons, especially in captivity (and I imagine in the wild if their son takes over their herd).

    There are also some animal species the reproduce solely by brother/sister inbreeding, but they have genetic mechanisms in place to prevent fatal defects. With these species outbreeding has many of the same risks we associate with inbreeding.

    Sexual reproduction is a wonderful, mysterious thing.

  18. Scott Thong Says:

    Yeah, but the comments sure are leaning towards the liberal side… Unless they’re all just miffed that I touched on the sacred X line of comics…

  19. Scott Thong Says:

    The Bible says Lot was a good Christian. Ha!

    Also, Malaysian Neo-Con? That’s hilarious on so many levels, lol. – Sirkowski

    Actually, it just lists him as an example of a person with faith. It never says he was perfect, does not condone certain things he did, and definitely did not claim he was a Christian. Ah!

    (For comparison, Samson is also listed – despite his constant womanizing and surly attitude towards his parents – because in the end, he put his faith in God. Same goes for the others listed – Gideon who built an idol after his victory, David who committed adultery and then killed the husband, even Abraham who twice lied in order to save his skin. In fact, as any Christian knows, the only sinless person was Jesus Christ. Every other prophet, patriarch and leader was a sinner.)

    I’m considered a Neo-Con because, social issues like abortion and homosexuality aside, the majority of Malaysians identify with American liberals on matters such as supporting Palestinian rocket launchers, Iraqi suicide bombers and Taliban head-choppers.

  20. billy Says:

    Wow.

    That someone used these comics panels for a conservative agenda, and to say that homosexuals, single parents and liberals responsible for the collapse of family? Laughable.

    I say let two dads or two moms, or whomever wants to have kids or adopt, let them do what they want. I had straight parents, and they certainly had no problem screwing me up all by themselves.

    Christianity, conservatism, homophobes, all seek to blame someone else for the fal of the family unit, well, sorry, it just happened. Our culture cannot support our outdated beliefs.

    As far as incest goes, who cares? Genetically, sure, they shouldn’t be having kids, okay, I agree with that. But two consenting adults should be able to do what ever they want with eachother, end of story.

    I mean that.

    If I’m a consenting adult, and me and another consenting adult want to have sex, smoke pot, hire a prostitute, and we don’t hurt anyone else, why is it anyone else’s business? Brother and sister, brother and brother, or sister and sister, who cares? Like I said, as long as there’s no offspring involved, what does it matter?

    Keep the government, laws, and just plain nosy other people out of your life, and keep out of other people’s lives too. Let there be a live and let live ideal be established.

    If it doesn’t affect you, why do you care?

  21. Scott Thong Says:

    Okay billy, so let me ask you: Is bestiality=wrong an outdated belief? Hot consenting doggie sex that doesn’t hurt anyone? Woof woof unnnnngh! ?

    Yeah, say it, I dares ya: “Hot gay stallion on man action should be totally accepted!”

  22. El-ahrairah Says:

    The difference is that a dog cannot give consent, and as such bestiality is inherently rape. Same with pedophillia since children are incapable of giving informed consent, along with the asimitry of power between an adult and a child prevents this from being a healthy relationship.

    If your not hurting anyone or forceing it on anyone, it’s fine with me.

  23. Scott Thong Says:

    What if the dog likes it, or initiates it, or is in fact sentient?

    e.g. Would it be acceptable for Krypto the Super Dog to ‘do’ Wonder Woman?

  24. Jesus Says:

    Man, say what you will about incest, but I think this pairing is beyond hot.

  25. JohnF Says:

    All right folks, Stop comparing human sexuality to animals. Human sexuality is a munch munch more complicated. Say what you want, but I never heard of a gorilla being sexually stimulated by a shoe, or a Lion with a foot fetish, I also never heard of an elephant breaking up with his girl friend because she wasn’t sexually adventurous enough. I also never heard a gay pride parade in the animal kingdom.

    Incest is illegal because of the risk of abuse and undesired pregnancy, It’s morally rejected. Last time I checked most people who have sex doesn’t necessarily want children, That’s why they use condom. So if the relation is desired by both and they use protection, why should we care so munch? It’s they’re business not ours. The freedom of one stops at the freedom of others… If what they are doing don’t affect me, why should I care???

  26. Milo Says:

    What comic is this from? I’ve never seen this before and the illustration looks great🙂

  27. Scott Thong Says:

    The Ultimates, a reimagining of Marvel’s Avengers in our gritty modern times.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimates

  28. johan v. Says:

    you’re kinda dorky…

  29. Alex Says:

    UGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!

  30. espinada Says:

    Incest is biblical- who do you think Adam and Eve’s children married???
    Or Noah’s children’s children???

    Some people really don’t think do they?

    Most of the weird thinking that people have (especially so called “Christians”) comes from other sources than the bible…

  31. Scott Thong Says:

    Cain and Noah came before the OT laws against incest were codified under Moses.

    ‘Some people really don’t think do they?’

  32. Mr. Beezy Says:

    You’re such a douchebag. First you make a ridiculous statement, then you claim that people agree with it and then you yell at them for “agreeing” with it. You’re messed up in the head dude. The comic book doesn’t say it’s right. The chick is just telling Capt. to leave them alone. And just because people don’t agree with the idiot bible doesn’t mean they agree with bad stuff. Your dumbass book condones rape, incest, pedophilia, murder and slavery so shut the f*ck up.

  33. Scott Thong Says:

    You read through too fast in your haste to get to the comments box and bash me. Re-read my post again slowly.

    I’m not saying that atheists and liberals already accept incest, I am asking why don’t they accept it yet?
    I don’t see any reason not to outside some kooky fundamentalist religious bigotry.

    Whether ‘the chick’ is condoning it or not is besides the point – the comic is just a starting point to get my challenge across.

    SOOOO…. Do you believe in religion, and do you reject incest? Why?

  34. menj Says:

    I have to admit that this is an interesting angle to discredit atheism. I never thought of it this way.

  35. Scott Thong Says:

    I have to admit that this is an interesting angle to discredit atheism. I never thought of it this way – menj

    That’s the beauty of a three way fight, even as you have two opponents gouging at your eyes, you also have an enemy of your enemy to learn new tricks from.

    On that note, here are some posts you might find agreeable:

    The Circle of Life (and Sir Elton John) (one shot posters that speak volumes)

    Irreligious: Why is Animal Rape Wrong, But Animal Slavery-Imprisonment-Murder Okay? (refuting the argument that zoophilia is wrong because animals cannot consent to sex)

    Woman Has Baby With Her Grandson – Liberals, Is This Morally Wrong? (adult consensual incest with no chance of pregnancy – why do atheists consider it wrong?)

    If Homosexual Marriage is a Constitutional Right… (since it is between consenting adults and harms no one – not even the kids – then why isn’t polygamy permissible?

    Atheists are God (one must be omnipotent and omniscient to know for sure God is nowhere in existence)

  36. yurdaddy Says:

    Alright, enough of this . . . let’s have some fun! I’ve been looking for a place where I can share my list of related TV characters I’d like to see hook up with each other. Keep in mind we’re talking ’bout FICTIONAL characters, so Billy Ray and Miley wouldn’t count. (Not that I’d enjoy watching them do anything together anyway.)

    1. Jethro Bodine and Elly May Clampett – “The Beverly Hillbillies”

    I’m starting off with an obvious one. This pair of attractive-but-lunkheaded hillbilly cousins probably DID have relations there in the backwoods before moving out to Beverly. It’s not like they had a lot of options out there, and hey, why mess with tradition!

    2. George-Michael Bluth and Maeby Fünke – “Arrested Development”

    Another pair of cousins who actually WERE attracted to each other but apparently never consummated their forbidden love. Michael Cera was on the male side of this potential coupling, so I’m sure it would’ve been absolutely adorable if they’d ever gotten together.

    3. Chuck and Ellie Bartowski – “Chuck”

    A super-spy with a super-hot sister! If only she hadn’t married that super-awesome guy . . .

    4. Lorelei and Rory Gilmore – “Gilmore Girls”

    I love this show, and much of the appeal of it for me is the fact that this witty mother-and-daughter team are the perfect BFFs. Still, I wouldn’t have minded if they’d gotten even closer.

    5. Jack and Kim Bauer – “24”

    A father and daughter who are just as intense and dysfunctional as those Gilmore gals are frivolous and well-adjusted. Can you imagine how insanely passionate the sex would be if they ever decided to express their complicated love for each other . . . in bed?!

    6. Clark and Martha Kent – “Smallville”

    I think Ma Kent getting down with her super-powered adopted son would be cool just cause they’re such damn fine specimens of humanity. Oh, right, Clark’s not actually of this Earth. Well, SHE’S human, at least.

    7. Nathan Petrelli, Noah Bennet, and Claire Bennet – “Heroes”

    That cute cheerleader who needed saving has TWO dads, one biological and the other adoptive. That led to all kinds of confusing issues between them, so maybe a threesome would’ve sorted things out. (Or at least it would have in MY twisted world.) I think most fathers of extremely attractive girls are conflicted in that they want to protect their daughters’ virtue but also desire to be intimate with them in a not-so-virtuous way. With Claire’s ability to heal at a remarkable rate, Nathan and Noah could have had it both ways by doing the deed and then kicking back until she “mended,” which would’ve allowed them the freedom to pretend she’d never been touched at all!

    8. Buffy and Dawn Summers – “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”

    This is my all-time favorite show, so it was inevitable that the Summers sisters would pop up here somewhere. I wouldn’t have wanted to see an affair develop in the series cause it would’ve seemed so implausible, but I’m sure someone out there devoted some slash fiction to these two at some point. And quite honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Joss Whedon himself had contemplated such a union as well.

    9. Sam and Dean Winchester – “Supernatural”

    Thought I’d add some brotherly love just to cover the bases. I believe most straight women and gay men would agree that these guys would make a pretty hot couple.

    Well, that’s it! Any others you can think of?

  37. PhilosophyOfHumanity Says:

    incest, fine. unmarried sex, fine. sex with children… well, personally i’d wait until they were at least old enough to hit puberty and knew what sex was (depending on rate of physical developement). sex with robots, cyborgs or aliens, every geek’s dream! but bestiality? animals can’t consent in any way, and they’re not even humanoid, so that one should stay illegal. but polygamy’s also fine. sometimes multiple people fall in love with each other, or one person can fall for multiple people. it’s not really fair to make them choose only one to marry, that’s a hard choice. but yeah, bestiality is still a bad idea. maybe it will change when we figure out how to make animals smarter and give them the ability to talk, but until then it should stay illegal. even liberals have to have SOME moral standards and principles.

  38. Gay Green Lantern: Not Exactly Earth 2 Shattering @ queerplanet.net by GaySocialites.com Says:

    […] goes on an Earth 2. Remember those sibling mutants Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver? They’re the reigning incest couple on Ultimate Marvel. But don’t worry, they’re still their former and perfectly wholesome selves […]

  39. Gay Green Lantern: Not Exactly Earth 2 Shattering | MGN: Miami Gay News Says:

    […] goes on an Earth 2. Remember those sibling mutants Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver? They’re the reigning incest couple on Ultimate Marvel. But don’t worry, they’re still their former and perfectly wholesome selves […]

  40. Gay Green Lantern: Not Exactly Earth 2 Shattering | UltimateGreenMachine.com - The eco and Planet saving hub! Says:

    […] goes on an Earth 2. Remember those sibling mutants Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver? They’re the reigning incest couple on Ultimate Marvel. But don’t worry, they’re still their former and perfectly wholesome selves […]

  41. Gay Green Lantern: Not Exactly Earth 2 Shattering | Blue Lantern Shop Says:

    […] goes on an Earth 2. Remember those sibling mutants Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver? They’re the reigning incest couple on Ultimate Marvel. But don’t worry, they’re still their former and perfectly wholesome selves […]

  42. Click here Says:

    whoah this blog is excellent i love studying your articles.
    Stay up the great work! You recognize, a lot of individuals are searching around for this info, you can help them greatly.

  43. Finally we can legalize marriage between brother and sister! | World's Only Rational Man Says:

    […] And there was much mutant rejoicing. […]

  44. army porn forum Says:

    How about this: put down the magazine and go outside.
    Meet people, see that they’re all different and real, and stop blaming the media for your mind being so impressionable. If everyone was the same shape, it be boring, no variety. I’ve never read
    magazines (unless I was in a doctor’s office😛 ) but I can differentiate real? from fake and think for myself. Maybe someone should start a magazine about all kinds of beauty. Although I wouldn’t
    read it cause I don’t read magazines😛

  45. Cash Advance Loans No Credit Check Says:

    In some instances, failure to pay back even a tiny loan can result in a vicious ‘debt cycle’ the
    place that the borrower needs to keep on receiving a new loan to spend the previous loan
    for a long time. Unfortunately, with marketing knowledge so prevalent for the web, it is not too hard for unscrupulous payday companies
    to attract their customers online in targeted Internet campaigns.

  46. stevet321 Says:

    this is for public consumption:…no opinion…just the facts ma’am…

    Abraham was married to his half-sister sarah.
    Isaac married a 2nd cousin (Rebekah). Legal in several states.
    Jacob was married sisters… both his 1st cousin (Leah and Rachel). Legal in some states as long as the female cannot reproduce.

    Not judging…just making an observation.

    The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob blessed marriages of all three generations.

    Anyone who names the name of Christ had better do their homework. Take the 2×4 construction stud out of our own eye before we try to help remove a splinter from our friends eye.

  47. Scott Thong Says:

    Hmm, interesting to know on the various state laws on marriages.

    I forget what the particular nitty gritty on familial relations is in the Mosaic code.

  48. shaundonaldson Says:

    This website was… how do I say it? Relevant!! Finally I’ve found something that helped me. Kudos!

  49. Pietro Says:

    I’m not exactly strongly for or against. In fact, it wasn’t until today that I even thought this debate was happening. Clueless, I know, but now; grooming.

    I’ll give an example from my real life. It was always blatantly aware to me that a certain relative who was SIGNIFICANTLY older than me wanted to sleep with me. That family member never acted out, but more or less treated me like a partner in training. They would tell me what was considered correct of a partner and would scold me for behaving or speaking with opinions that didn’t match up to this.They would show me films with adult relationships depicted, or show me films where characters they were akin to, were played in such a way that would make their behaviour seem acceptable. You know, the tragic villain that always appears in television?

    Being stupid, I had a deep respect for this person because of their ability to not act it out. Cue 18th birthday, which is when I turned of legal age in my country — cue dinner/movie night, cue them telling me that I ‘wanted’ it when I was younger, that they would be ‘helping’ me if we were to have sexual relations, and so on.

    I was f*cking mad. Mostly because I thought they would never act it out, secondly because they lied about my intentions as a child, but thirdly because I felt like I OWED them sexual intimacy because they had restrained themselves for so long. I felt like I was obligated to sleep with them. I felt sorry for them! I didn’t sleep with them, in the end. In fact, I refused to see them, despite family trying to force me to, and uprooted an incestuous back-story in our family as a result! Wonderful.

    So really, my only surfacing fear is that, if made legal, older family members would groom younger family members until they were of legal age. They would prey upon them. That’s it, and I think it’s pretty valid. It is less about pedophilia, as they’re waiting for that legal age, and more of the fact that you won’t feel safe with your family, or you won’t be safe, because everything will not be about safe, trusting, non-sexual family affection and will suddenly be about training someone to be the perfect partner. It isn’t about a man and woman, as it can be across all genders, all family relations. It’s the AGE gap. I wouldn’t see incest as okay unless family members had been raised apart.

    If they’re of the same age? Well, that’s interesting. I suppose that’s why Pietro and Wanda mark an example of what I would consider to be ‘okay’ incest. The homosexual brothers example is another. Neither took advantage of the other, and that’s what it’s about in the end. Legalising incest would mean people would start taking advantage of family members. It wouldn’t be a safe environment.

  50. Carmella Says:

    Hello There. I found your weblog using msn. This is an extremely smartly written article.

    I will make sure to bookmark it and return to learn more
    of your helpful info. Thank you for the post. I will certainly return.

  51. Andre Says:

    Hey there! Would уou mind if I share your blog with my twitteг group?
    There’s a lot of people that I think would really appreciate your content.
    Please let me know. Many thanks

  52. afirmaciones positivas Says:

    Hi to every body, it’s my first pay a visit of this weblog; this blog carries awesome and in fact good data for readers.

  53. hurtlove.info Says:

    This piece of writing will assist the internet people for setting up new blog or even a weblog from start to end.

  54. twitter Says:

    First of all I want to say terrific blog! I had a
    quick question that I’d like to ask if you do not mind.
    I was interested to know how you center yourself and clear your head prior to writing.
    I have had a difficult time clearing my thoughts in getting my ideas out.
    I do take pleasure in writing but it just seems like
    the first 10 to 15 minutes are lost just trying to figure
    out how to begin. Any recommendations or tips?

    Thanks! twitter
    twitter
    twitter

  55. supportusabantsa Says:

    Reblogged this on Patriot News II.

  56. Disney’s THE AVENGERS II: AGE OF INCEST Manifesto | Patriot News II Says:

    […] https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/ultimate-quicksilver-scarlet-witch-incest-is-the-next-li… […]

  57. Rabit_MinRen Says:

    I ship them to death. Twincest for life.

  58. Alice Says:

    There is nothing wrong with incest . It’s still male and female unlike LGBT and unlike LGBT it’s not some mental problem that indicates an unhealthy state of mind . Also it’s not like people are screwing another species with incest . Sex outside of marriage isn’t a problem at all … All marriage is is being tied down to someone and that cripples humans not to mention they can’t handle commitment and as for group sex as long as it has no girl on girl or guy on guy thing it should be fine although with girls it usually does have girl on girl which is just repulsive ironically when one girl takes two guys , usually the guys concentrate on the girl .

  59. Alice Says:

    There is nothing wrong with incest . It’s still male and female unlike LGBT and unlike LGBT it’s not some mental problem that indicates an unhealthy state of mind . Also it’s not like people are screwing another species with incest . Sex outside of marriage isn’t a problem at all … All marriage is is being tied down to someone and that cripples humans not to mention they can’t handle commitment and as for group sex as long as it has no girl on girl or guy on guy thing it should be fine although with girls it usually does have girl on girl which is just repulsive ironically when one girl takes two guys , usually the guys concentrate on the girl . . So .. Yeah , different outcomes sometimes depending

  60. TYRCHOO Says:

    kolaida Says: “I disagree with the homosexual aspect again back to religion and because I view it as unnatural, two people of the same gender can never reproduce naturally therefore they can never create a family naturally”

    Reply: Homosexuality naturally occur in the animal kingdom. In fact, NO species has been shown where homosexual behavior did not exist with the exception of species that never have sex at all. So saying its unnatural is false. It’s a natural occurrence. Non reproductive sex also occurs in the animal kingdom. Animals don’t have sex for the sole purpose of reproduction and the same is seen in humans, so using that argument is irrelevant.
    ———-

    Scott Thong says: “Cain and Noah came before the OT laws against incest were codified under Moses.”

    Reply: How would that make the act any less immoral according to biblical moral codes? Its like saying killing or raping children were permitted until a law came. That’s stupid. Moses isn’t a real historical figure and neither is Cain and Noah.They are characters in a story. Ancient history is full of that. They have been dismissed in archeological and historical records. The bible isn’t a historiography, its a work of literature.
    ——-

    Scott Thong says: “Why do atheists think that voluntary and consensual incest between two similarly-aged adult siblings is disgusting at all? What basis do you have for this gut reaction?
    No basis means you have about as much justification for criminalizing consensual adult incest as the next kook religion”

    Reply: Likely because they have no such attraction with their own siblings. But that’s not necessarily a gut reaction from all people. Some don’t care if it doesn’t affect them. However, incest laws aim to promote security and unity with the family and prevent genetic problems, not necessarily a moral code judgement. This is because, aside from the genetic issue, its been recognized that incest can disrupted the nature of family relationships and power dynamics. A religious moral reason doesn’t offer justification because religious morality is merely another form of subjective morality. Religious faith is itself subjective. But the real world observable effects of an unstable family unit and genetic defects don’t require a belief in a supernatural deity to justify it as criminal.
    ———-
    Scott Thong says: “Atheists are God (one must be omnipotent and omniscient to know for sure God is nowhere in existence)”

    Reply: Uh….what data defines a god? Where is a god measurable to claim to know what defines it? Where has one been detected? Atheists REJECT the unsupported assertion that a deity exists. They don’t think of themselves as a deity nor have supernatural powers, so that’s absurd. Atheism doesn’t claim to know for sure a god is nowhere in existence in the same way no one can know for sure invisible fairies are nowhere in existence. They simply say the nonexistent evidence for any detection of it validate the rejection of the claim. Just as the nonexistent evidence for fairies justifies the position to dismiss claims that fairies exist. We don’t suddenly accept that fairies are real just because someone says “you don’t know for sure of their nonexistence”. That’s illogical. When you start rambling off claims and there’s nothing to justify your claims…then they are usually dismissed.

  61. TYRCHOO Says:

    Alice Says: “It’s still male and female unlike LGBT and unlike LGBT it’s not some mental problem that indicates an unhealthy state of mind”

    Reply: Which is false. Scientific research holds that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects. One of the main reasons it was removed as a mental disorder in the united states back in the 1973 was that it did not produce evidence for it to have been classified as such to begin with. So, they had no choice but to remove it because its placement was unjustified. Scientists have also seen insufficient evidence to support claims that sexual orientation can be willfully changed through psychological interventions, which is why such organizations like Exodus International (reparative therapy) shut down due to the harm it caused. People who are using a religious basis for opposing it are irrelevant since a faith based claim has no justifiable grounding to support itself.

  62. Scott Thong Says:

    kolaida Says: “I disagree with the homosexual aspect again back to religion and because I view it as unnatural, two people of the same gender can never reproduce naturally therefore they can never create a family naturally”

    Reply: Homosexuality naturally occur in the animal kingdom. In fact, NO species has been shown where homosexual behavior did not exist with the exception of species that never have sex at all. So saying its unnatural is false. It’s a natural occurrence. Non reproductive sex also occurs in the animal kingdom. Animals don’t have sex for the sole purpose of reproduction and the same is seen in humans, so using that argument is irrelevant.

    I addressed this point previously.

    There are two ways to define ‘natural’, one is the way you do above, i.e. ‘something without human intervention’. An example would be to say that an untouched jungle is all ‘natural’ since humans have never set foot in it.

    However, the other way to define ‘natural’ is ‘how something is meant to be’ – intelligent design wise for creationists, or evolutionarily for Darwinists. For example, when we see photos of a 2-headed snake that is a result of random mutation, no human influence involved, it is correct to call it ‘unnatural’ despite it not being the fault of humans.

    It is this second meaning that I refer to. Though I cannot say for sure what kolaida refers to, it might also be this second meaning.

    Btw, claiming ‘NO species has been shown where homosexual behavior did not exist with the exception of species that never have sex at all’ is a huge bid… Unless you are confident to have at least one example of every existing species having homosexual relations (including moles in deep earth, angler fish at the bottom of the sea, microscopic dust mites)… Kind of like your atheism example below!

    ———-

    Scott Thong says: “Cain and Noah came before the OT laws against incest were codified under Moses.”

    Reply: How would that make the act any less immoral according to biblical moral codes? Its like saying killing or raping children were permitted until a law came. That’s stupid.

    That depends on one’s basis for morality. For example, bestiality has been considered immoral for most of human history. Yet apparently, it was considered moral enough to be legalized in some European states. One could give a similar example in homosexuality. So were these things always moral/immoral, or is morality determined by who shouts loudest or argues most cleverly?

    And since we’re talking ‘biblical moral codes’ here as you mention, then morality is based on whatever God says. This is not some arbitrary definition either, as since God is good (and nothing else since), therefore whatever God commands = good, by definition.

    And while you do try to justify moral codes or secular law objectively, there are too many cases that put the lie to this claim – for example, the recent legality of homosexual unions in the USA while polygamy is outlawed – despite both being about consent between adults. Laws are unfair and subjective because humans are unfair and subjective.

    Humans are simply not 100% rational creatures. They are fallible and biased, and the wisdom of the crowd in democracy is patently unwise.

    Moses isn’t a real historical figure and neither is Cain and Noah.They are characters in a story. Ancient history is full of that. They have been dismissed in archeological and historical records. The bible isn’t a historiography, its a work of literature.

    Moses may be disputed, but how exactly does one dismiss Cain or Noah ‘in archeological and historical records’? They are claimed to have lived near the very start of human existence plus a global flood. It’s like saying ‘I don’t believe in ichtyosaurs because no human ever wrote about them in ancient Sumerian texts’.

    The Bible contains literature to be sure – see the Psalms or Proverbs – but it also makes claims to be genuine factual record, such as Genesis or Luke/Acts.

    ——-

    Scott Thong says: “Why do atheists think that voluntary and consensual incest between two similarly-aged adult siblings is disgusting at all? What basis do you have for this gut reaction?
    No basis means you have about as much justification for criminalizing consensual adult incest as the next kook religion”

    Reply: Likely because they have no such attraction with their own siblings. But that’s not necessarily a gut reaction from all people. Some don’t care if it doesn’t affect them. However, incest laws aim to promote security and unity with the family and prevent genetic problems, not necessarily a moral code judgement. This is because, aside from the genetic issue, its been recognized that incest can disrupted the nature of family relationships and power dynamics. A religious moral reason doesn’t offer justification because religious morality is merely another form of subjective morality. Religious faith is itself subjective. But the real world observable effects of an unstable family unit and genetic defects don’t require a belief in a supernatural deity to justify it as criminal.

    So incest laws are because of the close emotional relations or imbalance in positional power (e.g. between strong father and submissive daughter).

    Then how about a grandmother and her grandson who had never met before this? They don’t have any prior relationship, and she can’t bear children. So what basis is there for objecting to such a union? Or what basis for rejecting zoophilia, even if the animal is unwilling? After all, we imprison, enslave, kill and eat animals against their ‘will’ every day – why is raping animals anything special?

    In fact, as a political Libertarian (despite what my Blog subtitle is), I fully support the right of humans to do whatever they like as consenting adults, as long as they do not step on the rights or wellbeing of others. Whatever judgment God may strike them with is between them and Him.

    In the perfect, sinless world pre-fall, problems stemming from incest would not exist. Even post-fall, the human genetic code was still relatively sin-free and thus, intermarriage between close offspring (even as close as brother and sister) would not result in negative mutations. By the time of Moses thousands of years later, sin’s mutative effect was so strong that humans no longer lived hundreds of years, and interbreeding would cause degenerative problems – hence the laws against incest.

    And if it’s about ‘real world observable effects of an unstable family unit and genetic defects’ then how about the proven correlation between higher crime and lack of a caring male + female parenta figure – something which homosexual marriage automatically guarantees – or between <a href="https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/smoking-vs-homosexuality/&quot;?homosexuality and STDs? By this standard, should not then homosexuality be outlawed for the good of individuals and society?

    ———-

    Scott Thong says: “Atheists are God (one must be omnipotent and omniscient to know for sure God is nowhere in existence)”

    Reply: Uh….what data defines a god? Where is a god measurable to claim to know what defines it? Where has one been detected? Atheists REJECT the unsupported assertion that a deity exists. They don’t think of themselves as a deity nor have supernatural powers, so that’s absurd. Atheism doesn’t claim to know for sure a god is nowhere in existence in the same way no one can know for sure invisible fairies are nowhere in existence. They simply say the nonexistent evidence for any detection of it validate the rejection of the claim. Just as the nonexistent evidence for fairies justifies the position to dismiss claims that fairies exist. We don’t suddenly accept that fairies are real just because someone says “you don’t know for sure of their nonexistence”. That’s illogical. When you start rambling off claims and there’s nothing to justify your claims…then they are usually dismissed.

    Actually your position is closer to agnosticism.

    Take an example of something more close to home – is Barack Obama actually a current secret Muslim of Kenyan birth? Lack of evidence means that I don’t believe it is true, but I do not dismiss it because I cannot prove it is not true. To outright dismiss it as a lie, I need evidence refuting that claim – which I do not have.

    Hence, I do not have the arrogant audacity to claim that Barack Obama is absolutely, certainly, indisputably NOT a current secret Muslim of Kenyan birth.

    ————–

    Alice Says: “It’s still male and female unlike LGBT and unlike LGBT it’s not some mental problem that indicates an unhealthy state of mind”

    Reply: Which is false. Scientific research holds that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects. One of the main reasons it was removed as a mental disorder in the united states back in the 1973 was that it did not produce evidence for it to have been classified as such to begin with. So, they had no choice but to remove it because its placement was unjustified. Scientists have also seen insufficient evidence to support claims that sexual orientation can be willfully changed through psychological interventions, which is why such organizations like Exodus International (reparative therapy) shut down due to the harm it caused. People who are using a religious basis for opposing it are irrelevant since a faith based claim has no justifiable grounding to support itself.

    ‘Science’ is becoming too much of a religion, where ‘science says so’ replaces ‘God says so’. When in reality, allegedly objective science is manipulated and wilfully misinterpreted by fallible, biased humans.

    Take the allegedly-proven CO2-caused global warming as just one example – such a major, highly-funded science of our modern times, yet full of deception and demonstrably false? (In this case I dare state my claim as a fact, because I do see the evidence refuting global warming theory!)

    And what about all the people who claim to have been former homosexuals, true to the core, but are now heterosexual? Are they all liars or self-deluded? Are they all anti-science nutter religious kooks?

    And what, you didn’t know that bisexuals are currently rebelling against the homosexual-centric view that ‘sexual preference is fixed at birth’? (That is such a bigoted, homo-privileged view!) Bisexuals claim to have had their preferences change at different times of their life – it’s sexual fluidity. To restrict them to predefined boxes is HATE!!!

    And what about Facebook and Tumblr users, where they ‘recognize’ that gender and sexuality are not confined to dichotomies, but exist in an ever-changing, ever-fluid spectrum?

  63. TYRCHOO Says:

    Scott Thong Says: “However, the other way to define ‘natural’ is ‘how something is meant to be’ – intelligent design wise for creationists, or evolutionarily for Darwinists.”

    Reply: Intelligent Design has no scientific basis, therefore what they define as natural is baseless considering it is a religious argument being a form of creationism. There’s no such thing as intelligent design since evolution is unguided. Evolution has no blueprint of “how something is meant to be”. Intelligent design is an argument from incredulity. A two head snake would be uncommon, but that wouldn’t make it unnatural due to the reality of mutations in nature.

    ———

    Scott Thong Says: “Btw, claiming ‘NO species has been shown where homosexual behavior did not exist with the exception of species that never have sex at all’ is a huge bid”

    Reply: That was a statement from zoologists during the exhibition “Against Nature?” Many species have since been documented showing homosexual behavior from mammals to insects. The only species they didn’t not see this in are those like Sea Urchins and aphis who don’t have sex at all. They also noted hermaphroditic species that can act as both male and female (considered true bisexual species) making homosexuality a non-issue.
    ——

    Scott Thong Says: “Yet apparently, it was considered moral enough to be legalized in some European states. One could give a similar example in homosexuality. So were these things always moral/immoral, or is morality determined by who shouts loudest or argues most cleverly?”

    Reply: Morality clearly changes with societal norms. Slavery was once considered moral & condoned. Even religious morality changes through time. Most western religious sects no longer kill people for violating certain religious codes.
    ——

    Scott Thong Says: “And since we’re talking ‘biblical moral codes’ here as you mention, then morality is based on whatever God says. This is not some arbitrary definition either, as since God is good (and nothing else since), therefore whatever God commands = good, by definition.”

    Rely: Not some arbitrary definition?!! Completely baseless because, for one, no god has been shown to actually be REAL. So claims regarding it is entirely subjective. You can’t claim to KNOW a god is good or bad when it is indistinguishable from non-existence. You have nothing to ground those claims on. The definition itself has no support. You are claiming “what ever god says equates good”…Yet…..based on…..what? Certainly not evidence. A faith-based position is not objective. So its just baseless assertions. Morals can be grounded in objective facts of reality. I would assume the arguments against polygamy is similar to that of incest. Studies found that certain human rights abuse occur, particularly against women, in those types of arrangements. You have one gender who benefits at the expense of another. Again, there’s a security and unity upset in family: There’s jealously among wives and other fathered children. There’s also the societal conflict: since, in polygynous societies, low status men don’t typically get to marry at all, or there is an upset in the numbers of male to female pairings. Humans are not 100% rational…but they can certainly be more rational using real world facts instead of supernatural mythology.
    ——-

    Scott Thong Says: “Moses may be disputed, but how exactly does one dismiss Cain or Noah ‘in archeological and historical records’? They are claimed to have lived near the very start of human existence plus a global flood.”

    Reply: Well, for one, the global flood is dismissed by the geological record. The global flood claim ignores the majority of geological evidence and misinterpret the rest. Second, the book of Genesis was composed mostly around 6th-5th centuries BCE during the Babylonian Exile. The non-eyewitness writers certainly wouldn’t have known any better regarding whether the stories are true. A lot of the stories were Israelite adaptations of older well known Mesopotamian myths of the time. Israel is known to change and modify these myths for their own purposes, something seen quite clearly with the Noah flood story. They kept almost the exact same narrative and details but changed the characters and gods. The biblical writers wrote their own version of history in a way they wanted it depicted and in the form of myths and legends, not necessarily what real history was. Israel’s history is more corroborated during the 1000s BCE era, certainly nothing before 1200s BCE. They more originate as indigenous Canaanites than anything else according to the archaeological record. We can trace civilization far older than Israel, and the humans species even far older than the first civilizations by hundreds of thousands of years. Biblical stories certainly have nothing to do with “the very start of human existence” anymore than any other creation myth in ancient history.
    ——-

    Scott Thong Says: “Then how about a grandmother and her grandson who had never met before this?”

    Reply: For one, there are questions about the legitimacy of that story. There’s no date to the story. It claims the couple live in New Zealand but the story originated from The United States. Its a story that went viral on the web six years ago in 2010, but no source confirms it as true. Neither the women nor grandson in the image emerged or was identified to confirm the story leading many to suspect the photo might have been used as a prank web invention.
    ——

    Scott Thong Says: “Or what basis for rejecting zoophilia, even if the animal is unwilling? After all, we imprison, enslave, kill and eat animals against their ‘will’ every day – why is raping animals anything special?”

    Reply: likely for the same reason of cruelty to animal laws regarding inflicting suffering or harm to animals for purposes other than self-defense or survival. There’s no rational position to torture animals for no reason to justify it as moral.
    ——

    Scott Thong Says: “In the perfect, sinless world pre-fall, problems stemming from incest would not exist. Even post-fall, the human genetic code was still relatively sin-free and thus, intermarriage between close offspring (even as close as brother and sister) would not result in negative mutations.”

    Reply: Completely baseless statement. Sin is a human construct. There is no such thing as “the Fall”. Moses and the exodus is completely dismissed by the Egyptian and archaeological record of the region. The story itself was written during the Persian period. The Adam and eve story is a mythical tale debunked by evidence in the genome itself. The mutation rates show the human population never got below 10,000 at any point in our evolutionary history. There were never two original parents. That dismisses the sin narrative of the bible. We evolved as a population from existing populations of primates (supported by the fact of shared common ancestry in the primate order), exactly as evolution suggest. Has nothing to do with genetic code. The genetic code is merely sequences of molecules. It is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act. Most mutations are neutral. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on the environment an organisms finds itself in. Harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer. The effects of inbreeding is not dependent on supernatural claims nor support supernatural claims.
    ——-

    Scott Thong Says: “Then how about the proven correlation between higher crime and lack of a caring male + female parenta figure – something which homosexual marriage automatically guarantees – or between homosexuality and STDs? By this standard, should not then homosexuality be outlawed for the good of individuals and society?”

    Reply: that was debunked. Research since the 80s actually demonstrated that same-sex couples are no more or less harmful to children than heterosexual couples. One study among he American Academy of Pediatrics showed: “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” A 2010 review of research on same-sex parenting carried out by LiveScience found no differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian parents and in some cases children in same-sex households may actually be better adjusted than in heterosexual homes. A 2013 preliminary study in Australia found that the children of lesbian and gay parents are not only thriving, but may actually have better overall health and higher rates of family cohesion than heterosexual families. It was the world’s largest attempt to compare children of same-sex parents to children of heterosexual parents. As for STDs, you seriously cannot blame homosexuality for that since STDs have everything to do with unsafe sexual practices rather than the sexual attraction itself. There are gays who don’t have STD because they use safe sexual practices. STDS aren’t exclusive to gays. In other parts of the world like Africa, AIDS, is spread primarily by heterosexuals. Now should be attribute that to heterosexual attraction and outlaw heterosexuality, or do we use rationality and say unsafe sexual practices spread STDs?
    ——

    Scott Thong Says: “Actually your position is closer to agnosticism.”

    Reply: No it’s not. Agnostics don’t actively reject assertions that a god exist as atheist do. The atheist position is equal to that of observable reality. The existence of god is faith based and atheist regularly reject them just the same as other faith based claims of the imaginary. Atheists aren’t so egotistical to think the universe revolves around humans on a tiny planet out of billions of planets…given everything we’ve discovered about the universe. Atheists do not have the arrogant audacity to claim a supernatural entity is even a real concept beyond the imaginary with absolutely NOTHING to support the claim with or ground it in, which is needed for it to be a truthfully honest claim. How do you think the claims got started if nothing is even detectable to form the claim with? How do you think stories are made? The fact that human history is full of stories claiming different types of gods should tell you it is likely a human invention. People can say Barack has Kenyan family and ancestors from Kenya. But that’s not the same as a Muslim which is a follower of a belief, not dependent on geographical location. Second, a Muslim is a real person and Kenya is a real place. A belief in a god is not based on any real facts whatsoever. It is entirely identical to the imaginary. We don’t say “lack of evidence means those flying magical unicorns or any other imaginary creature like Medusa….can’t be outright dismissed.” If that’s the case any imaginary thing is permissible, including all the magical gods and mythical creatures and entities devised down through human history. That’s stupid.
    ——-

    Scott Thong Says: “To outright dismiss it as a lie, I need evidence refuting that claim – which I do not have.”

    Reply: An illogical statement since any non-existing thing cannot be disproved. That’s why we use evidence to validate a claim as truthful. You cannot disprove invisible leprechauns living in a forest. You can reject the claim since it has no evidence to support that the claim was truthfully made. If there is no way to detect or measure such a thing to distinguish it from non-existence…then claims detailing information about it are…..baseless.
    ——–

    Scott Thong Says: “‘Science’ is becoming too much of a religion, where ‘science says so’ replaces ‘God says so’.”

    Reply: Science reports what it find from observational and measurable evidence. Religion does not. Faith based claims are not dependent on evidence. Science can be manipulated and misinterpreted by humans, but that’s not the fault of science itself and the method of collecting and studying data. Your position on global warming is faulty since global warming isn’t dependent solely on surface temperature measurements. This is because the oceans are intricately tied to the climate system….absorbing about 90 percent of the heat of global warming, particularly the Southern Ocean. The oceans temperature varies in different areas due to wind current changes. Which lessens the impact on surface temperatures. That doesn’t dismiss global warming however. And scientists can’t conclude that this will continue for ever since current evidence this year suggests the oceans’ heat-buffering ability may be weakening. Carbon dioxide is causing the world’s oceans to slowly acidify. Data supports that changes in winds and currents can influence changes in carbon uptake by the oceans. As for that Forbees article by James Taylor about the polar ice caps: growing sea ice around Antarctica don’t undermine concerns about climate change in general. The Antarctica polar ice isn’t rising as much as sea ice in the arctic is declining. What’s crucial to Antarctic sea ice is wind patterns which can increase the ability for new ice to form. Increases in Antarctic sea ice do not equate with increased volume. Sea ice melting usually don’t contribute substantially to sea level rise the way melting frozen ice sheets on land do. His piece is misleading. Also, articles linking Bob Tisdale (a frequent contributor at Anthony Watts’ blog with Watts admitting that he himself is not a degreed climate scientist)…are not really credible. Tisdale does a lot of misrepresentations. It also ties to the Heartland Institute…an american conservative public policy think tank. As expected their NIPCC reports fail the credibility test. They don’t follow the same rigorous scientific evaluation process to ensure its assessment reports are accurate and inclusive. The Heartland Institute also has a long history of valuing the interests of its financial backers over the conclusions of experts.
    ——-

    Scott Thong Says: “And what about all the people who claim to have been former homosexuals, true to the core, but are now heterosexual?”

    Reply: evidence supports some are liars, willfully or self deluded, since plenty have come forward admitting so. Not hard to believe especially when there’s history of such among those who are religious and so many of these reparative therapies are religiously based. Others were likely bisexuals who merely changed labels on who they identify with, since studies have shown bisexuals are more likely to do so as a result of being stigmatized. Studies have not supported any such claims from reparative therapy that people can change sexual attraction at will and find that attempting to do so can cause significant mental distress.
    ——-

    Scott Thong Says: “you didn’t know that bisexuals are currently rebelling against the homosexual-centric view that ‘sexual preference is fixed at birth’?”

    Reply: that wouldn’t really be a shocking claim from bisexuals who have the ability to switch between sexes. They have the ability to form a preference between the two. So they likely wouldn’t feel sexual orientation is fixed for them. But that wouldn’t dismiss the fact that the bisexual attraction itself is fixed. Their sexual attractions to both sexes don’t stop. Bisexuals can choose between sexes at whatever point in their lives because they have a sexual attraction to both sexes. But, that’s not changing attractions, rather simply their sexual behavior. Sexual attractions are not the same as sexual behavior. Not everyone is sexually attracted to both sexes. That’s not denying the reality of bisexuality. It occurs in the animal kingdom just the same as homosexuality and heterosexuality.
    ——–

    Scott Thong Says: “And what about Facebook and Tumblr users, where they ‘recognize’ that gender and sexuality are not confined to dichotomies, but exist in an ever-changing, ever-fluid spectrum?”

    Reply: There’s a distinction between sex and gender. Gender is not inherently nor solely connected to one’s physical anatomy but more reliant on social roles or one’s personal identification. In science, sex differences are typically applied to sexually dimorphic traits.

  64. Michael113 Says:

    Probably been said in all those comments but the biggest thing that separates incest (in most cases) and bestiality (in all cases) from same sex marriage, sex outside of marriage, group sex, etc… is consent. While you could argue that twins don’t have this issue or relatives more distantly related and close in age, when you’re talking about an older sibling or parent with a younger sibling or adult child, consent can be murky at best. There’s a certain level of power and authority that can compromise the ability to give informed consent and be assured that such consent was not persuaded. That’s not to say consent cannot be given freely in any incest case, only that it’s difficult to assure such consent is informed and valid. (There is an even clearer issue of consent when dealing with animals which cannot legally give consent. Just as minors cannot legally consent, neither can animals.)

    As for the gut reaction, I suspect that’s more because of how we’re taught and socialized. We’re taught and socialized to view family differently that potential love interests. In most cases, this comes from the older family member taking a caretaker role to the younger. Even with older siblings this is often the case, with the older brother or sister being taught to be protective of their younger sibling and often given the responsibility of watching them at times and helping them with various tasks. Further, growing up together in the case of siblings or close cousins can complicate how a person feels about another. It’s more difficult for many to look at someone romantically who they’ve known since they were in diapers.

    That’s not to say these are good reasons but they are the most likely I can see.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: