consenting adults; own body

>>2578372
Same thing with gays. They think if it's consensual sex between adults, it's somehow not fucked up, twisted, sick shit.

>>2578393
>wanting the government to be able to tell you what is and isnt moral
well then, im sure nothing bad can come of this

With the proliferation of sandniggers on the European continent, incest will be the only viable option left to them.
This guy is just ahead of the curve.

>>2578372

>why are there people who think incest is justifiable?

Simple, because they were probably born of incest themselves and thus lack the cognitive ability to see the damage it does.

The entire point of banning incest is to prevent inbred children

>inb4 hurp u can use a c0ndom

Yeh, but there is no foolproof birth control method.

>implication is that the state owns your body and can tell you what you can or cannot do with it

And you guys don't see a problem with accepting this principle?

>>2578408
Oookay, should we allow child rape?

Wincest should be allowed.
The father (ofc only the guy, as always) went to prison, leaving his kids behind - to "restore family order".

>>2578429
It's an increased likelihood of birth defects or genetic diseases like hemophilia, but so is having children past age 40, and that's not illegal.

Gay, polygamy, and incest, what consenting adults do with their own bodies is entirely up to them. The ONLY argument against incest is genetic defects, and that's not airtight.

>>2578429

>prevent inbred children

Bingo!

To this end, I could conceivably get behind an "incest license", provided of course that all licensed incest practitioners be permanently sterilized.

>>2578441
>incest produces retards
>retards cannot function in society and require help and special treatments
>help and special treatments cost money
>also degenerates the gene pool
>soon everyone will be a retard

>>2578449

>muh lack of informed consent

>>2578465
>but so is having children past age 40, and that's not illegal
No, but it's pretty stupid.

>>2578429
If we're going to start banning things because they can make retarded children, we should ban alcohol and obesity first. The chances of making a truly fucked up child with incest is pretty minimal, the main risk is just the increased chance of bringing out recessive genetic conditions.

>>2578449
>implying raping children is an issue of morality
are you even trying?

>>2578473
>>2578472
Should we require the same for women over 40?

>>2578449

Only if agents of CPS do it

>>2578465

>Fallacy of Equivocation

The degree to which they increase those risks aren't even remotely close to being comparable.

What's wrong with incest, you fucking faggot?

>>2578473
So, what you're saying is that the only reason you aren't currently fucking your immediate family is because it's illegal?

>>2578514
It's not.

>>2578501

See:
>>2578507

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

>>2578429
What if the woman gets her tubes tied and the man gets a vasectomy? Both at the same time? This would produce a statistically 0% chance of pregnancy.
Then would you have a problem with incest?

>>2578507
Well then how about alcohol or tobacco? Those make birth defects WAY more likely than incest or old age, but we don't make it's not illegal for pregnant women to partake.

I'm not arguing for incest here, I can see both sides of the issue, but your arguments do beg certain questions that you have to answer.

>>2578549
What is the probability they'd do that? Very, very, very small

Gerfag here.
He knocked up his mentally retarded sister 4 fucking times. I love how the media portrays it like they were two consenting adults brutally torn apart by the fascist police.
Nope guys. His sister was mentally retarded. That raises questions about the whole consent issue.

Also 2 or 3 of the children are retards as well now btw.

>>2578549
>implying anybody gives enough of a shit to sink money into a program to keep track of sterilized incestuous couples

>>2578558
>but we don't make it's not illegal for pregnant women to partake.
Whoops that got fucked up. Ignore the "we don't make"

>>2578558
No, but anyone who does that while pregnant deserves to be slapped.

>>2578571
Oh.

But do you guys have a problem with fucking your sister if she consents?

>>2578372
This is a hard thing for me to decide. I am totally against government involvement in people's personal lives in any way... but incest is biologically wrong. No doubt about it.

I say society should shun inbreeders, let them have their own communities of inbred retards. But I cannot on my good conscious make sodomy, gay sex, incest, or regular sex illegal.

>>2578565
................
No, not really. Lots of people get vasectomies all the time.

Anyway, this is a fucking thought experiment. Answer the thought experiment please.

>>2578558

>Well then how about alcohol or tobacco?

What about them?

Merely smoking a cigarette or drinking a shot, in and of themselves, have a 0% chance of creating an inbred child.

With incest, the odds are significantly higher than that.

>>2578571
>I love how the media portrays it like they were two consenting adults brutally torn apart by the fascist police
The media is so left-wing that they probably think child sex should be legal.

ONLY IN A LIBERAL WORLD IS HOMOSEXUALITY AND TRANSSEXUALS THE PINNACLE OF NORMALITY AND FUCKING YOUR SISTER MORALLY DISGUSTING

>>2578602
Only if it's incest.

>>2578571
Is it illegal to fuck retards in Germany, or just if you're related to them?

If it's not illegal in the general case, this seems like an ad hoc justification.

>>2578585
I sure as fuck wouldn't fuck mine.

>>2578596
If done during pregnancy, it creates a much higher likelihood of producing a child with birth defects than incest.

If you argue against incest on the grounds that it will produce children with birth defects, then you must also argue for illegalizing drinking and smoking during pregnancy.

>>2578473
>incest produces retards

Only if done through repeated generations. One brother fucking his sister and reproducing isn't significantly more likely to produce retards than any number of other things that are legal such as having a baby after 30. If their kids fuck each other then you may run into problems. The social taboo is strong enough you probably aren't going to see it repeated through subsequent generations often enough to worry about.

Infant mortality in children born within first-cousin marriages from around the world and found that the extra increased risk of death is 1.2%. In terms of birth defects, he says, the risks rise from about 2% in the general population to 4% when the parents are closely related.

So - general population 2%, 1st cousins 3.2%, familial 4%

That doesn't seem like that much difference %-wise.

>>2578548
Nero is more incest...

>>2578625
The reason that's not illegal is because it would be too hard to enforce

>>2578571

Well then, yeah this case is an informed consent issue and sounds like the guy should rightfully be jailed.

If it was consensual gay incest, so zero possibility of retarded children, should it still be illegal?

Actual levels of birth defects in incest vs non-incest pregnancies is less than a fraction of a percent difference.

It's when incest is compounded over many generations that disease can spring up.

Like with Tay Sach's syndrome which only affects Jews.

>>2578636

This.

>Cops sees some fat chick smoking a cigarette at a bar
>"Ma'am, are you pregnant?"
>"No..."
>"PROVE IT!"

>personality disorder
>not convicted
>personality disorder
>not convicted
claim BPD, be female, get out of jail free everywhere. There is actually no crime a woman can be convicted with.

>>2578494If we're going to start banning things because they can make retarded children, we should ban alcohol and obesity first.

Having a child while nigger also significantly increases the chances of it being retarded. We should ban that.

>>2578625
Isn't there already some law against drinking while pregnant? Or at least against serving pregnant women alcohol?

I know in Brazil it's popular to smoke a shitload during pregnancy so the birth weight will be lower and it'll hurt less.

>>2578629
Really, we were talking more about immediate siblings. Cousin marriage isn't too harmful (it didn't cause any problems in FDR and Eleanor's children), but then first cousins don't share all that much genetic material.

>>2578636
We don't make things illegal based on how easy or hard they are to enforce. I can literally get marijuana delivered to my front door off the internet, but it's still illegal.

So answer the question: should it be illegal to drink/smoke during pregnancy?

>>2578664

>Actual levels of birth defects in incest vs non-incest pregnancies is less than a fraction of a percent difference.

[Citation needed]

>>2578606
If you don't see the difference you are fucking retarded.

Raise an argument against why homosexuality should be considered wrong.
There is no valid argument.

Now raise an argument against incest.
There is the very valid argument that incest produces genetically deficient children and it's morally wrong to bring a child into the world which has a very high chance of being mentally retarded or have other genetic defects.

But as this guy (>>2578549) is about to point out, one can't raise many arguments against incest if the partners take steps to ensure that no pregnancy is possible. No, it's not a valid argument to say, "lol it's disgusting to me personally therefore it is morally wrong, my personal tastes define moral law."

>niggers produces niggers
>niggers cannot function in society and require help and special treatments
>help and special treatments cost money
>also degenerates the gene pool
>soon everyone will be a nigger

>>2578675
Fetal alcohol syndrome is definitely a real problem, so we can agree that drinking while pregnant is foolish.

>>2578686

>We don't make things illegal based on how easy or hard they are to enforce.

Actually, we do.

>>2578683

Did you read the whole thing?

Cousins - 3.2%

Brothers/Sisters - 4%

Not that much different...

>>2578509
The lesbian sisterfucker thinks nothing is wrong with incest? Who would have guessed.

>>2578722
The war on drugs says otherwise.

>>2578712
I never like to argue about homosexuality because to liberals, gay people are a race of ubermensch and there is no amount of debating that will convince them otherwise.

There was a poll I saw early this year that asked whites in America if they support or ever had an incestious encounter with a family member and 56% of them said yes.

Why are whites so fucking backwards?

>>2578712
So incest is wrong, but people with verified genetic conditions can fuck? Even when the former raises the possibility of defects, whilst the other ensures it? You're an idiot.

According to a study published a couple years ago in the Journal of Genetic Counseling, the risk of serious birth defects in the children of incest varies by how close the genetic relationship is, but for first cousins it averages at 2.6 percent higher than usual. The average risk of birth defects in the general population is slightly more than 2 percent. For the child of siblings, which is as close as you can get genetically, other than direct clones, the odds are between 7 and 9 percent higher than normal. That means that nearly 90 percent would be fine. Of the remainder, most birth defects are easily treated by modern science.

>>2578686
>We don't make things illegal based on how easy or hard they are to enforce

So naive.

The government would make it illegal to say or do anything against the state. Why don't they do that right now, this moment? They can't enforce it and know they could not hold stable power if they did. That's pretty much the only thing keeping them from passing laws like that.

>>2578731
You're just mad you don't have a hot sister.

>>2578744
Backwards? Maybe you're just not progressive.


Seriously though, I dispute that 56% number as realistic.

>>2578736

No.

It is significantly easier to enforce a universal prohibition of a substance than to enforce a prohibition conditioned on something which is practically impossible to prove in the first week.

>>2578744
Little kids experiment with family members all the time, they only realize what they did afterwords.

People can fuck whoever they want. Fucking fun-hating-sex-controlling-devils it's none of your business if brudda and sista want to get it on like they do on discovery channel. If faggotry is ok, so is this.

>>2578757
>homosexuality
>verified genetic condition

>>2578731
>>2578770

I'm going to need to see some pictures and stories...

>>2578712
>and it's morally wrong to bring a child into the world which has a very high chance of being mentally retarded or have other genetic defects.

So in 20 years or less, when it is easily affordable and accessible to look at our own genes, will the government begin to determine who has the right to reproduce based on who will statistically have the 'healthiest' children?

Either you ban all sexual relations that aren't man woman, or you allow all sexual relations. It is the only fair way. And those who fuck dogs and sheep will be shunned if it becomes known, and the government won't try to control the population in any way.

The issue should be government's power to control the lives/bodies of free, consenting adults... not icky factor, not genetics, not psychological harm.

And we wonder why we're losing our freedoms when we can't even maintain consistent principles.

>>2578384

We have a winner. It's gross, but not your fucking problem, OP.

>They don't realize homosexuality is a mental disorder which require treatment

>2012

>>2578803
Shit just got GATTACA.

>>2578810
Well, for centuries, Western laws have traditionally been based on the Biblical codes, and it worked quite all right regardless of what liberals say.

>>2578799
I haven't fucked her yet. But I will.

Wait, so, he got jailed because of the fact that his sister was retarded? So you're allowed to fuck your sister in Germany if she isn't retarded.

>>2578818
>He thinks he knows better than the consensus of psychologists, the experts on mental health and disorders

>2012

>>2578830

>Dark Ages and Feudalism
>Quite alright

Nigga you so crazy.

>>2578839
>you're allowed to fuck your sister in Germany if she isn't retarded

Ever wondered why there are still muslims in Germany?

>>2578844
Psychology is one of the most liberal professions there is, because it essentially amounts to the notion that "Whatever fucked up shit you did is society's fault rather than yours"

>>2578803Either you ban all sexual relations that aren't man woman, or you allow all sexual relations.

What do sexual relations that aren't man woman have to do with defective children? They don't generally produce children so they aren't relevant.

I think we'd be better off just doing genetic screenings on all fetuses and aborting the retarded ones than trying to tell people who they should/shouldn't fuck. Most Down Syndrome babies already get aborted because of screenings.

Also if you know your baby is going to be retarded but you don't want to abort it you should get no benefits from society because you made your own choice and don't get to drain the rest of us with your voluntary retard baby.

>>2578831
You'll get rejected, hard.

>>2578866
>implying there wasn't stuff like that in Asia and other cultures that didn't practice the Christian religion

>>2578831

Thread derailed.

Tell me more please.

>>2578839

Turk, for the last time: Germany is NOT going to let you in!

>>2578870
>Argue about mental health
>Disregard the doctors of mental health and all of their years of expertise and research

Riiiight...and your qualifications are...?

How can you be against incest and simultaneously against eugenics? Anti-incest laws ARE eugenics laws. Siblings fucking have a high propensity of birthing deformed and retarded children, so we've outlawed it. Meanwhile we do nothing about the impending idiocracy thanks to the high birthrates of nogs and white trailer trash, and the low birth rates of everyone else. If you are against incest, YOU ARE PRO EUGENICS. Deal with it.

So what if they're not allowed to have children?
Just let them get a vasectomy.
No problems.

>>2578878
And thus, the liberal admits to wanting to live in an Orwellian society where eugenics are practiced to make the perfect baby.

Behind every liberal is a fascist.

>>2578880
I don't think that's likely.

>>2578891
She's younger than me, a few inches shorter, and will be living with me when she graduates high school in like a month.

>>2578896
Are you a qualified psychologist?

>>2578893

I don't have a sister.

>>2578803
>So in 20 years or less, when it is easily affordable and accessible to look at our own genes
It's like I'm really posting in 1980!

>>2578571His sister was mentally retarded. That raises questions about the whole consent issue.

Wow... when I heard the story on the BBC this morning they actually completely left that part out. That does change things.

They also called Trayvon an "African American high-school student" and Zimmerman a "man with a history of violence" instead of a "6'3" black man with a history of theft and violence" and "a hardworking volunteer"

>>2578921

And you want to fuck her? What makes you think she wants to fuck?

>>2578757
What the fuck are you fucking talking about?

I think you are saying that homosexuality is a verified genetic deficiency. First of all, that's not fucking true. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it is. What possible ill could come of 2 men having sex with each other? You could say that "anal sex is dirty and the risk of diseases is higher." But that's a ridiculous argument because gays can take steps to ensure no disease is transmitted. Also, if you advocate this argument you must ban anal sex in straight couples also.

Even so, the 2 men who choose to have sex with each other understand the risks beforehand and weigh the benefits versus the risks, and then they come up with their decision. They are not harming anyone but themselves, both parties consent and agree to the risks of gay sex. It's like a gambler weighing the risks of playing 1 more game versus the possible benefits. Are you going to ban all gambling because you don't trust people at all to make rational decisions for themselves about what risks they feel they should take? What an intrusive prick you are.

Incest is wrong because it introduces the third party that does not and cannot consent: the child. It's wrong to inflict ills upon a child because the child never had a chance to weigh the risks and make a choice. He was born into mental/genetic deficiency. That's wrong. But nothing in homosexuality produces any result even remotely similar to that.

>>2578921
you damn well know we need pics

>>2578925
No, but I can cite them, and the general consensus is that you're wrong.

>>2578931

>1980 was 20 years ago.

>>2578883

>implying Asia and other cultures are 'Western Civilization'

>>2578839
>confusing personality disorder with retarded
The first needs someone just ot vouch for you, the other is objectively measurable.

>>2578955
I forget what we're even arguing about

>>2578966
Of course not. Just saying that horrible cruelties were not a product of Christianity because they went on in other cultures as well

>>2578720Fetal alcohol syndrome is definitely a real problem, so we can agree that drinking while pregnant is foolish.

I really wish we could just pass some kind of one-strike law. If you have a baby with fetal-alcohol syndrome or addicted to coke you lose your baby making privileges and must immediately report for surgical sterilization.

When one of the two one egged (don't know the scientific name) is homosexual is a homo.
There is only a 50% chance his/her bother/sister will also be a homo.

If homosexuality were to be 100% genetic this wouldn't have been the case.

I'm a moral nihilist anyway, why do I even care?

>>2578818
How does it hurt the individual to be homosexual?
Why should he have to change or receive treatment?
Why does it matter to you?

>>2578969
You said homosexuality was a mental disorder, and I pointed out that the consensus of psychologists, the experts on mental health and disorders, disagrees with you.

If you want to argue against them, you're going to need to back up that claim.

Ok, so what if we could screen fetuses and determine they'd become homosexuals? Then we may abort them, amirite liberals?

>>2578596
obviously does not know what inbred means.

>>2578989
That would be one of the best laws ever passed, but it would "violate human rights" and people would throw a shit fit over it. It would never be possible.

>>2578927
BECAUSE YOU STONED HER TO DEATH FOR SHOWING HER ANKLES

>>2578943
Because of the way she acts around me. She knows I'm lesbian and she already acts pretty sexual around me.

>>2579003
You can abort any fetus you want for any reason you want before 24 weeks, in my opinion.

>>2578968

What is personality disorder? Is it something like multi personality disorder?

>>2578983

Well then by your line of reasoning, 'horrible cruelties' should be considered getting along 'quite alright' regardless of culture.

>>2579000
Remember that the AMA removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973 because of pressure from gay activist groups, not from any psychological findings. There is _huge_ political pressure around this, so the psychiatric profession doesn't want to get involved in it.

>>2579015

The whole "human rights" thing is total bullshit now anyway.

>>2579026

You have an amazing capacity of thread derailing.

>>2579026

I need more details girl! Stories!

>>2579041
It was in there the first place without any scientific basis. You don't just call something a mental disorder until you can back it up with scientific research and evidence, and there really wasn't anything like that for homosexuality. Political pressure finally got them to remove it, but it had no right to be in there in the first place.

>faggots actually believe the AlmaWade tripfag is a girl

>>2579015That would be one of the best laws ever passed, but it would "violate human rights" and people would throw a shit fit over it. It would never be possible.

There's actually a not-for-profit in California that pays women who have had crack babies to take birth control. People already throw a shitfit over that because it's apparently eugenics against black people (who have the most crack babies).

>>2579026

You know, when two people really care about each other, they make hot lesbian videos together and upload it for their internet friends to see.

Just saying.

>>2578950
No, he's saying that someone with a huge genetic propensity for cancer fucking someone else with that same thing (Hell, let's even add in some other genetic histories of retardation and muscular dystrophy in their families) is not illegal, even though statistically, their child would probably be far worse off than if a perfectly healthy incestuous couple conceived.

>mfw Italy LOOOVES incest

>consenting sex between two adults
>banned

Looks like the religious and radical nutjobs are in charge in Germany again.

>incest
>consensual
>doesnt hurt anyone else
>therefore
>who gives a shit

learn2logic newfags

>>2579103

Read the whole thread - apparently it was technically not consensual.

Personal liberties should outweigh all

Why isn't the woman in jail?

>>2579079
It actually was a pretty well-known fact that gays had higher rates of mental instability, suicide, domestic violence, etc. At least in the 70s and 80s, anyway. Since then, the gay activist mobs have effectively suppressed any honest psychological studies of homosexual behavior.

>>2579103
Just so you know, it's been said in the thread that the sister is actually mentally retarded so she is not capable of giving consent.

Mainstream fags: Hurrdurr defect... Well actually the healthiest people on this planet are people in Iceland whom mary 2nd cousins. Cross-racial breeding results in defects because of slight genetic incompatibilities. Same in every animal. Learn science...

>>2579122
>incest
>consensual
>hurts babies that are produced because of elevated risks of birth defects
>therefore it's wrong

But if there is no chance of pregnancy (like one of the people is impotent or something) then I agree.

>>2579125

She is mentally retarded.

>>2579125
It's illegal for women to be put in jail if they used a guy's dick, didn't you get the memo?

>>2579148
See
>>2579092

>>2579126
Correlation != causation

You'd probably have some issue too if society keeps telling you you're morally wrong, mentally ill, and going to burn in hell, all for something you never chose or can change. It's the same reason transgender people have a ludicrously higher rate of suicide.

>>2578950

What about incest between Brothers then? or Sisters ect.. is that ok?

>>2579150
[citation needed]

>>2579065
Well whenever we're alone together and like on the couch or something, she'll sit in my lap or cuddle with me. She does her best to let me see her naked "on accident", and she wants to sleep with me.

>she wants to move in with me
>remind her I only have one bed and the other bedrooms are empty/full of boxes
>she just smiles
>SHE WANTS TO FUCK

>>2579148

So you're saying that the government should enforce a standard that if there is an X% chance of a defect then a couple should be forcibly prevented from having a child together?

Because that is where your line of reasoning inevitably leads...

because it's the progressive thing to do.

almost any argument that proposes homosexuals can marry also confirms the same for incestuous couples.

>>2579176
Hey, this was back in the 70s when homosexuality was pretty well accepted by a lot of people (until the AIDS epidemic).

Fun story: One of Jeffery Dahmer's victims was a 15 year old boy who escaped his clutches. The police saw him running down the street naked and bleeding, but ignored it because they assumed just another routine gay domestic spat. So Dahmer caught the kid again and butchered him.

The end.

>>2579208
>degenerating the gene pool is the good thing to do.

>>2579208
I'm not certain where to stand on the issue of incest; I suppose I lean in favor.

But more importantly, I think polygamy is the next big fight after gay marriage.

>>2579223
Incest > niggers

>>2579184

To be honest I was basing this off another poster's claim earlier... I am now ashamed I didn't confirm it on my own. He may have been referring to another case.

Disregard, sorry.

>>2579226
Polygamy won't go anywhere because unlike gays, it's tied into the beliefs of certain religions, and liberal wouldn't end up lobbying for something that benefits religious bodies (which as atheists they detest)

>>2579222
>70s
>homosexuality was pretty well accepted
HAHA OH WOW

>the police ignored a naked, bleeding man running from danger because they thought he was gay
Not helping your case there, buddy.

>sex between two consenting adults
>banned
>this particular case; apparently not consenting
>clearly a rape case then
>instead blame incest as the reason

Yurop.

>>2579223
since when did that ever matter to people.

to even bring up eugenics will have you shouted down as a racist.

>>2579223
>mfw libruls' only argument that homosexuality and incest are different is this
>mfw libruls still don't have anything to say to this counter argument
>>2579197
>>2579092

>>2579253
Hey, they knew what gays did with each other, so they just figured "Ah, who cares? Fags gonna fag!"

>>2579247
No it isn't. It's consensual adults entering a secular marriage contract with the state. Contracts can have more than two parties.

>>2578950
>What possible ill could come of 2 men having sex with each other?

Um, how bout aids?

Straight people can get aids, and non-related people can conceive retarded babies.

Gay guys have a much more significant chance of having/catching aids, and related parents have a more significant chance of having a retarded baby.

>inb4 but da faggots consented but the retarded baby didn't consent to being born!!

Either the carrier doesn't know he has it, or he doesn't tell the recipient. Would you knowingly fuck someone with aids? Didn't think so. So no, nobody consented to aids.

Whereas the related couple has 9 months to have their baby examined and aborted if necessary.

I'm not saying homosexuality is wrong, I'm just saying that sexual deviance is sexual deviance, and only an idiot argues that homosexuality's social normalization isn't simply due to political correctness. Cousin-fucking has been around just as long as buttfucking.

>>2578950
>But that's a ridiculous argument because gays can take steps to ensure no disease is transmitted
But that's wrong you retard.

>>2579289
Anal sex is not a good thing to do at all. The human anus was never designed for sex.

>>2579287
Sooo...if Muhammed wants to marry six wives, that's a secular marriage? Uh...

One man one woman or fuck off, I won't have your moral decadence polluting the culture of the nation.

>>2579303
Fun fact: I'm in a gay relationship and we don't even touch the butt. Oral and handjobs only.

>>2579315
Then I suppose you know about the link between oral sex and throat cancer?

>>2579303

>>2579311
In the eyes of the state, yes. The state doesn't give a fuck what you do in a church when it comes to giving out marriage licenses. You could go have a paintball match in a school and call it your ceremony for all they care. That's why atheist and inter-religious couples can get marriage licenses.

>>2579315
same argument can be applied for incest and bestiality.

try harder.

>>2579092
Fine.
If the risks of incest really are so low then I say it would be okay.
My argument is predicated upon the assumption that incest elevates risks of birth defects for the child. If that's not true, then my argument against incest does not hold anymore and there's really no valid argument one could raise against incest.

Homosexuality is completely justifiable and there isn't a single logical argument one could raise against it that can't be defeated easily. The other point was that incest would be distinguished from homosexuality because you can raise a valid argument against it, assuming incest raises chances of birth defects, and that's why it's wrong. However if that assumption isn't true then incest is okay as well.

>>2579357
I'm in favor of incest. Consenting adults, their bodies, their decision.

Animals cannot consent.

You try harder.

>>2579253
>70s
>homosexuality was pretty well accepted
>HAHA OH WOW

Well, let's just ask Marlon Brando...

"Brando was bisexual, and said in an interview with Gary Carey, for his 1976 biography The Only Contender, 'Homosexuality is so much in fashion it no longer makes news. Like a large number of men, I, too, have had homosexual experiences and I am not ashamed. I have never paid much attention to what people think about me. But if there is someone who is convinced that Jack Nicholson and I are lovers, may they continue to do so. I find it amusing.'[41]"

Incest is wincest, duh.

>>2579375

remind me again why animals cannot consent and just what 'consent' is.

>>2579303
>designed for cylindrical shits to pass through it
>not designed for cylindrical dicks to pass through it

>>2579330
>links between oral sex and oral

>>2579312

>WAAAAHHHH PEOPLE ARE DOING THINGS I DON'T WANT THEM TO DO! THEY'RE RUINING MY CULTURE EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T DIRECTLY AFFECT ME AT ALL!

>>2579361
>that cake

Much win.

>>2579338
Then you never heard about how those fringe Mormon sects who practiced polygamy were framed by the Justice Department and accused of mass child rape?

>>2579385
Hollywood's always been progressive as fuck. Society as a whole was still shunning or ignoring them.

>>2579375
>Be a girl
>dog wants to fuck
>lay back on the bed, don't say a word
>dog fucks me
What now

>>2579357
>same argument can be applied for incest and bestiality.

I fail to see anything resembling an argumentative point. Where is your point?

Apply it to incest, then. In that case the incest would be perfectly okay and there is nothing immoral about it at all.

Apply that argument to bestiality... Well, there are other problems that arise. firstly, the beast cannot consent to sex. That's enough to dismiss bestiality as immoral.

>>2579403
>>2579403

Hey mudslime, don't they stone fags to death in your home nation? Be glad I'm not advocating that

>>2579411
The animal still doesn't know what it's doing, and it could possibly get some type of disease from having sex with a human. That's wrong.

>This thread
>People not realizing the entire world is inbred some hundreds of thousands of times over.

Think for a second, roughly twelve trillion people have lived and died on this planet, there's about ten trillion alive now. It's generally common logic humanity started with a handful of beings.

>>2579395
>>2579411
Consent requires being informed. An animal does not have the mental capacity to obtain, store, and comprehend all of the relevant information. How would you even communicate it to them?

>>2579433

I'm not a Muslim. I'm an Atheist.

And no, they just beat them up.

>>2579447
>>2579447
If you're fucking a dog or raccoon and it doesn't want it, it's gonna rip your fucking dick off.

>>2579436
>ten trillion people alive now
>on planet Earth

The lining of the vagina is tough, like the skin on our hands, so it can withstand the trauma of intercourse and child bearing, but the lining of the anus is too delicate to withstand any trauma. Anal intercourse, penile or otherwise, traumatizes the soft tissues of the rectal lining. As a consequence, the lining of the rectum is almost always traumatized to some degree by any act of anal intercourse. Even in the absence of major trauma, minor or microscopic tears in the rectal lining allow for immediate contamination and the entry of germs into the bloodstream." Furthermore, comparable tears in the vagina are not only less frequent because of the relative toughness of the vaginal lining, but the environment of the vagina is vastly cleaner than that of the rectum. Indeed, we are designed with a nearly impenetrable barrier between the bloodstream and the extraordinarily toxic and infectious contents of the bowel.

Anal intercourse creates a breach in this barrier for the receptive partner, whether or not the insertive partner is wearing a condom.In addition to the trauma of intercourse, semen can eat away at the intestinal lining. This allows a person to "infect themselves" as the bacteria from their feces enter the blood stream. As a result of this, a man is 2,700 times more likely to get an HIV infection from anal intercourse than he is from vaginal intercourse. Anal intercourse is so dangerous, the United Kingdom Blood Transfusion Service will not accept blood from any man who has ever had sex with another man, even if they were practicing 'safe sex' with a condom.

Regarding safe sex, even condom manufacturers advise against anal intercourse. The condom company, Durex, said in October 2000 : "Anal intercourse is a high-risk activity because of the potential for infection from STDs including HIV transmission. Currently, there are no specific standards for the manufacture of condoms for anal sex. Current medical advice is therefore to avoid anal sex.

>>2579467
Wanting it and having informed consent are not the same thing.

>>2579361
There are dominant and recessive genes. If 2 siblings reproduce, the child is more likely to have diseases caused by getting 2 recessive genes. This means that you are reading this in my voice.

One study calculated that 32% of condoms broke and 21% slipped during anal intercourse. The researchers pointed out that "condoms manufactured in the United States generally are labeled "for vaginal use only."

>>2579484
>>2579498
And? Straight people do it too, and they're well aware of any relevant risks or precautions they should take. Their bodies, their decision.

The Center for Disease Control warns that men who have sex with men can result in rapid, extensive transmission of sexually transmitted diseases."
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4835a1.htm

The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association confirmed these statistics in an article published by the homosexual advocacy website 'gaywired' in July 2002.
http://www.gaywired.com/storydetail.cfm?Section=76&ID=10732

Medical studies and other evidence indicate that individuals who engage in homosexual behavior experience dramatically higher risks of domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse, life-threatening disease, multiple sex partners and premature death by up to 20 years.

College-aged men who engage in homosexual behavior are at risk of dying up to 20 years younger than other men, according to Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology, which reported: "Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men -- nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday."
http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657?maxtoshow=&HITS=10

"The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple," write the editors of the National Gay & Lesbian Domestic Violence Network newsletter.

>>2579500
>>2579500
If the creature capable of ripping you a new one is not doing so as you supposedly violate it, then it's easy to assume it wants the supposed violation to occur. If it wants the supposed "Violation" then it's not a stretch to assume that consent is implied.

The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders" - including bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, and anxiety disorders, major depression, and substance abuse.
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/58/1/85

The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports: "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices.

Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women." (Executive Summary, "Health Implications
Associated with Homosexuality," 1999,
http://www.medinstitute.org

The Institute reports that "significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals."

A Detroit homosexual newsmagazine columnist wrote regarding his partner: "This is his first relationship, so he has not yet been ruined by all the heartache, lies, deceit, and game-playing that are the hallmark of gay relationships...

Nine out of 10 gay men cheat on their lovers."

>>2579484
>>2579498
And gays who consent to anal sex weigh these risks and decide the benefits outweigh those risks.

Again, I'm sorry you don't trust people enough to let them make their own rational decisions about which risks they should and should not take. I'm sorry you'd just like to ban all risk-taking behavior (that doesn't even affect you). I'm sorry you're such an uppity, intrusive cunt who is searching desperately for a logical reason to justify his emotional hatred for gays.

>>2579550
INFORMED consent. Way to completely gloss over the argument AGAIN.

>>2579550
You don't fucking get it man.

Even if the animal "wants it" at the time, that animal did not have the mental capacity to understand what was going on.k
It did not have the mental capacity to consent, it could not possibly have done so.

>>2579555
>tfw admitting that this kind of behavior is bad for you

>>2579447
By that logic how can a baby consent to circumcision? How can it even communicate it does or doesn't want its dick skin cut off? But circumcision is totally cool though right!

>>2579564
Oh, and addendum, "implied" consent is a veeeerrrry dangerous line to tread, and very often leads to rape charges.

>>2579498
>gay blood ban lifted in UK
>I am now far more likely to die in hospital than I already am, just so gays can feel they're doing their bit (which is killing me in hospital)
I like equality but I'd expect the same ban for my tattoos, and I'd be totally fine with it as it's based on evidence and hurts nobody by being in place.

>>2579573
I have a kid. He's not circumcised.

That's an entirely different debate, one involving health issues. That line of thinking could lead to getting rid of vaccinations, since the baby didn't consent to them, and you have the right to refuse medical treatment.

>>2579554
In response to everything you just posted; so what?

Given this information, please make an argument. I don't see one.