Grandson in love with Grandmother

Merandil wrote:

Trave/Vargosh/Thandros wrote:This is wrong.

Care to enlighten me as to why? Last I heard, no-one's been hurt because of these people, and no-one bar the world's self-proclaimed moral guardians seem to suffer.

I have a very clear view of what is and is not right by my moral standards. As far as I am concerned, judging others based on prejudice, superstition and personal preferences is definately wrong.

We're living in the year 2010 and the reason incest is considered disgusting is because of instinct, in place to ensure genetic diversity in our species. Inbreeding is a genuine cause for concern, and certainly not a good thing. However, homosexual couples do not produce viable offspring either, yet homosexuals are recieving more respect for their way of life than they once were, as in this modern age the urgent need for each individual to engage in reproduction has dropped significantly for humanity.

What I want to know, is why the double-standards? Why is one wrong but not the other, when both are caused by the same thing, and result in the same thing?

You are referring to only one of the three disturbing facts in this whole story, which is the incest part. Not only will their kid have the chance to mindfuck his/her school buddies when the time comes ("Hey guys! Check this out: my mom is also my great grandmother :DDD") but it will have a mother for what, a decade? Twenty years maybe? Tops. Awesome. And how is all this beneficial towards that child? It's wrong, no matter the perspective you choose to look at it from. Yeah, they might truly love each other and heck, they might as well go hump like bunny wabbits until the end of her days, but there's no need for a child, really not.

Edit: As for the argument about homosexuals, having no offspring is just like having an incest offspring, and that's why both should be tolerated equally? Wat? I don't get how that argument supports anything.

Heh Toulouse Lautrec was an incest child...and look what happened to him!

Heh, poor kid.

Hottest thread on these forums and the link is removed How lame

Mandui wrote:You are referring to only one of the three disturbing facts in this whole story, which is the incest part.

Indeed, since I already made it clear in my first post that I dislike the idea of them having a child. The whole thing isn't like that, though.

Merandil wrote:
Indeed, since I already made it clear in my first post that I dislike the idea of them having a child. The whole thing isn't like that, though.

All of the aspects added, make it wrong. You can't separately take this or that and claim it to be "not wrong". It's wrong. Period.

Right and wrong are very relative and subjective things, Mandui :p. I know how "outrageous" the things Merandil said were, but I have to agree with him. In the end, I don't think we should be discussing stuff like this here - haha!

Seen sicker shit on teh webz.

Shaelyssa wrote:Right and wrong are very relative and subjective things, Mandui :p. I know how "outrageous" the things Merandil said were, but I have to agree with him. In the end, I don't think we should be discussing stuff like this here - haha!

It's still wrong in the context of today's social rules n'stuff. And why not discussing it here - haha?

Why do mods keep editing my carefully picked, sometimes quite controversial social commentaries? I still stand by my point. This censorship is getting out of hands.

Because I don't think it's very appropiate and besides, it's kind of depressing anyways - haha! (:p)

In any case, like Merandil said, they're both consenting adults so it shouldn't really be a problem (although I have to sympathise with the baby, I don't think they should be having one :(. Poor baby). Right and wrong are still very relative and subjective. You have to remember that only a decade or so ago, homosexuals were seen as abominations of nature and if you go even further back, adultery was seen as something very sinful (very bad examples, but you get my drift I hope). Nowadays, the stigma around those two things lessened a whole lot and I think the same thing is going to happen with ... the OP. Personally, I don't think the grandma and that guy are "evil" or anything, I'm sure there's some sort of neurological or psychological reason why they're both attracted to each other so they really shouldn't be condemned for it.

Oh I forgot to add one more thing ;) : haha!

Agreed! This is not Russia!

To respond to this:

Shaelyssa wrote:
In any case, like Merandil said, they're both consenting adults so it shouldn't really be a problem (although I have to sympathise with the baby, I don't think they should be having one . Poor baby). Right and wrong are still very relative and subjective. You have to remember that only a decade or so ago, homosexuals were seen as abominations of nature and if you go even further back, adultery was seen as something very sinful (very bad examples, but you get my drift I hope). Nowadays, the stigma around those two things lessened a whole lot and I think the same thing is going to happen with ... the OP. Personally, I don't think the grandma and that guy are "evil" or anything, I'm sure there's some sort of neurological or psychological reason why they're both attracted to each other so they really shouldn't be condemned for it.

It is wrong if two people of the same family decide to make babies, however -- not that would be a problem with this here grandmother as she must be barren, anyway. Besides the social stress it can put on you when you find out your baby has all sorts of disabilities and the poor kid saying mum to his/her great grand mother, it actually costs a whole lot of money (atleast here, where government subsidizes healthcare) too.

I will repeat myself by saying that the homosexual argument is barely relevant to any of this. I don't see incest becoming accepted any time soon, for more than just the social reasons. You can bang your head on the wall all you want, trying to justify the entire situation by claiming that wrong and right is relative. The fact alone that they're having a baby makes the entire thing wrong, regardless of the genuineness of their feelings towards each other, be it from the moral, the social or just the physical point of view.

I'd have to agree with Mandui. There's many, many reasons incest is frowned upon and forbidden in most cases.

I'm not banging my head on the wall about anything! I'm not trying to justify what they're doing and neither am I condemning it! I'm very "neutral" about this. I think that the only thing in this relationship that is wrong in the true sense of the word is that they're having a baby! I never thought I implied that them having a baby together is perfectly ok, in fact I believe I emphasised the very opposite. Besides the baby "issue", it's all relative and subjective in my opinion.

In any case, we're only discussing the subject here and sharing our opinions so what we all say doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things.

I can't believe that some people actually go out and defend this!
This is so wrong on every possible level.
I can understand the man, partially due to the "odepus"(spelling) complex, he just lost his mother, and here is a motherfigure that is taking him in with open arms and showing him love again. Like his mother used to.
However, for his grandmother to give in to these feelings... that's just... sick! And she is one messed up old lady.

I could perhaps just laugh it all off as insane behaviour, but when they start to bring a child into this, I really get sick to my stomach... No child should have to experience what this child will live through. imagine the mockery, the questions, imagine a teenage boy/girl asking questions... It's just sad really, how they can be so egotistical and put their own perverted dreams infront of the needs of a child.

And I am truly amazed that the government can allow this to happen... They should be locked up behind bars and have some serious therapy, all three of them. Yes, I unclude the surrogat mother, who allowed her hunger for petty cash to come infront of everything that is morale in this world.

Like I said, how any of you can actually support this is beyond me. Just proves that morale is clearly falling to pieces... Incest has been frowned upon since forever. Not only because of the healthrisk it brings to the child (not an issue here, due to the surrogate) But because it is moral madness! She should be a caring and loving grandmother! And with all the years she has behind her, she really should see what a big mistake this is.

Like I said... this is just sick beyond belief...

//Feli

soo if its a daughter they get it will be both daughter for the man in question and ant . and if its a boy, son and uncle in one ... incest: fun for the whole family.

its so wrong.. on more then one lvl.

(btw seen this happen before on jerry springer a few years back.)

Ataris wrote:I'd have to agree with Mandui. There's many, many reasons incest is frowned upon and forbidden in most cases.

She's plain and simply right, can't get more right. Mandui stated everything there can be stated of how wrong it is, and it is wroooooong! " - Haha! "

*shivers*

Merandil wrote:As far as I am concerned, judging others based on prejudice, superstition and personal preferences is definately wrong.

Basically, I want to congratulate you on your open mind. Personally, I have no interest in entering an incestuous relationship, but I'm intrigued by the reasons of those who would do so. I do my best not to judge anyone until I have known them personally or witnessed their personality and behavior.

So good for you for not being afraid to speak your opinion. These people are not breaking the law nor are they directly harming anyone with their actions.

My opinion - Wrong. Disguisting. Just wrong. Shouldnt happen.

I am completly against every aspect of Incest, its just wrong. And actually having a sexual relationship with a family member is one thing, but also having a child is another. That is just sick, you have to be a cruel, greedy person if your willing to do that. That kid will probably have horrible things wrong with them, and it will make there life extremly difficult and most likely horrible and depressing non-stop. They should be locked up, there sick, cruel, greedy abominations.

Harsh words, but in my opinion, completly suitable.

If you defend this, you can start to defend pedophiles as well.

Archal/Hazrah/Vaneyk wrote:If you defend this, you can start to defend pedophiles as well.

They have laws against pedophilia, but not against incest.

At least where I come from. So I don't need to defend pedophilia, the judicial system already handles it.

Archal/Hazrah/Vaneyk wrote:If you defend this, you can start to defend pedophiles as well.

Horseshit. Paedophilia and bestiality are not victimless crimes, which makes all the difference.

I fail to see how and why you don't consider the child-to-come as a victim. Not only will its parents be relatives, which will surely burden it socially later on (and might even have physical consequences), but it will also be hosted in a third person's body, something that will add even more weight to the already existing fuckup. Not to mention the almost complete absence of a decent mother, considering that she won't be able to do basic things that young mothers do (playground activities, walks, family trips, playing that involves more than tossing a beach ball while sitting down, etc.) and also the fact that she will die very soon. That child is very much a victim.

As for crimes, there are actions which the justice system takes care of through laws and punishment, and there are also the ones which go against no written laws, but are in fact frowned upon socially, such as mental abuse, deceit and lies in order to achieve personal goals or acting like a single while being married, to name a few examples. For many people the actions which go against social rules are just as nasty or despicable as the ones which go against actual laws. Thus, you can barely label what those two are doing as anything remotely close to "okay", just because there are no actual laws prohibiting it.

Mandui wrote:I fail to see how and why you don't consider the child-to-come as a victim. Not only will its parents be relatives, which will surely burden it socially later on (and might even have physical consequences), but it will also be hosted in a third person's body, something that will add even more weight to the already existing fuckup.

If one followed all the "what ifs" associated with this line of thinking, then I'm afraid we'd have to prevent many forms of couples to have children. Mental handicapped people, those with histories of cancer, etc.

Mandui wrote:Not to mention the almost complete absence of a decent mother, considering that she won't be able to do basic things that young mothers do (playground activities, walks, family trips, playing that involves more than tossing a beach ball while sitting down, etc.) and also the fact that she will die very soon.

Basing a mother's choice to have children based on age is a very old-fashioned outlook to take. Sure, the mother might die very soon, but there are plenty of other families that have a single-parent status and that doesn't prevent anyone from socially functioning properly. Fine, Mom might die, but that's not going to stop anyone from having children, even cancer patients.

Mandui wrote:As for crimes, there are actions which the justice system takes care of through laws and punishment, and there are also the ones which go against no written laws, but are in fact frowned upon socially, such as mental abuse, deceit and lies in order to achieve personal goals or acting like a single while being married. For many people the actions which go against social rules are just as nasty or despicable as the ones which go against actual laws. Thus, you can barely label what those two are doing as "okay", just because there are no actual laws prohibiting it.

You, who have fervently tossed aside the objection about homosexuals, should know that society's view on this should not be taken into account. Some of society still frowns upon homosexual couples, but has that stopped them? Homosexual intimacy is often considered to be "unnatural." If you look it up in the Bible, the "crime" of homosexuality is on a list that includes wearing cotton. So wearing cotton is against the law, for those who swear by the Bible that homosexuality is a crime as well.

Say it's disgusting and wrong all you want, but in the end it's not going to stop that couple whatsoever. Their child might suffer from their union, but no more so than any other couple's child, if only that the risks of a "defect" are higher.