Grandson in love with Grandmother

Felinaa/Dijie/Finnabhair wrote:
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.

This isn't a "what if" case. This child will suffer in many ways, even if it's born perfectly healthy. I've already explained why.

Felinaa/Dijie/Finnabhair wrote:
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.

A 70 year old woman is way beyond the barrier which dictates what can be seen as old-fashioned in these regards. She's too old. Period. Moreover, the families you speak of barely ever know that one of the two parents will die rather soon. There's a difference even towards those cases where the parents are aware but decide to have a child anyway, as it's not only the absence of the mother that will make this child socially dis-functional. I've already explained why here as well.

Felinaa/Dijie/Finnabhair wrote:
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.

I already said in a previous post:

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.

What causes the most detest here is the fact that they're having a baby, not that they love and hump each other. Thus, mentioning homosexuals as a comparison is pointless.

Felinaa/Dijie/Finnabhair wrote:
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.

The "defect" of "their union" is not based on chance, but it's something that will happen for sure. You interpreted that as the possibility of a physical disability that might occur, whiles I was referring to certain social disabilities that will occur.

And damn, I thought they'd read this and shoot themselves. There goes my magnificent plan

Edit: You won't change my mind on this, just like I won't change yours. So, before this becomes Quote Wars, I'll go do other things, since I've already double and triple said everything I had to say about it

Mandui wrote:A 70 year old woman is way beyond the barrier which dictates what can be seen as old-fashioned in these regards. She's too old. Period. Moreover, the families you speak of barely ever know that one of the two parents will die rather soon. There's a difference even towards those cases where the parents are aware but decide to have a child anyway, as it's not only the absence of the mother that will make this child socially dis-functional. I've already explained why here as well.

Again, I could point out that a couple where one has a terminal illness would still have a child, despite one of them dying in the near future.

Mandui wrote:The "defect" of "their union" is not based on chance, but it's something that will happen for sure. You interpreted that as the possibility of a physical disability that might occur, whiles I was referring to certain social disabilities that will occur.

So we all know what to expect if some "poor kid" in your neighborhood reveals to you her parents are closely related, eh? Have fun with that!

Felinaa/Dijie/Finnabhair wrote:
Again, I could point out that a couple where one has a terminal illness would still have a child, despite one of them dying in the near future.

You still don't get it and I won't repeat myself, sowwy

Felinaa/Dijie/Finnabhair wrote:
So we all know what to expect if some "poor kid" in your neighborhood reveals to you her parents are closely related, eh? Have fun with that!

Might be a common thing where you come from but not where I come from. Anyways! Showah-dinnah taim, have fun further discussing this! o/

Mandui wrote:Might be a common thing where you come from but not where I come from. Anyways! Showah-dinnah taim, have fun further discussing this! o/

Not that I know of. But there's Greek mythology about it, in spades!

I think Felinna pretty much summed up my opinion on the matter. I know I sound like a broken record but "right" and "wrong" are two very subjective and relative things. Most of the "bad" or "evil" things people do stems from some sort of psycho-neurological "problem" so essentially, evil doesn't really exist because there are people who are more prone to killing somebody than other people, for example. I know I'm going off on a tangent so I'll just shut up. It was entertaining reading this discussion to say that least ;).

I think I will refrain from making an elaborate comment on what's been said the last ten posts, as my views will surely upset some of you.

In summary, you are wrong.

Gnash wrote:I think I will refrain from making an elaborate comment on what's been said the last ten posts, as my views will surely upset some of you.

In summary, you are wrong.

Incest doesn't offend me, so I doubt your opinion will.

My old man used to tell me that the world had to house all kinds of people.

I aggre, I just think that 95% of them should be put down.

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

They have laws against pedophilia, but not against incest.

If only stupidity was against the law.

It's just cruelty to have a child through incest AND with a 70 year old for a mother.

It's sickening on both mental and physical health on the child.

The child will die early in its life.

The mother will die early in its life.

The child will be sticken with illness throughout its life.

It'll most likely be mentally stricken too.

Besides, the article was removed from the website, meaning it was just a stupid little hoax.

Wubeh wrote:My old man used to tell me that the world had to house all kinds of people...
If only stupidity was against the law.

Couldn't agree more.

I won't post about the incest in itself, nor these specific people. But the "evil"/"good" and "right"/"wrong" thing makes me think of something. Some of the posts here say how its an abomination and monstrous. These are in my eyes, I guess, dangerous beliefs. To say someone, a person is a monster detracts automatically from what they actually are. A person.

Regardless of how twisted (morally, ethically, socially) a person's actions, they are the actions of a person. When we describe them as evil or a monster, then we take away something. We move them from the realm of man to that of something else. The problem is these ARE people. They're human. They're not monsters. They're like us.

And, yes, I use that term for a specific purpose. Because as foul or abhorrent or whatever else you or I wish to call someone, or their actions, they are someone like you or me. They're a human. And personally that's a whole lot scarier, sometimes sickening, and at others sad, than the actions of a "monster".

See the "evil" as a person. And it makes it so much worse really.

Language is a powerful tool because of how it makes us see the world.

Not that relevant. But something I always try to see myself.

There's a reason mythology is mythology and not reality. Not that even mythology is demonstrated properly to that side of the globe (*still shudders about... Djinn aiding Perseus >.>*), but still... justifying something based on... mythology?

Lolwut, bestiality isn't a victimless crime?

What's wrong with making love to food?

It's wrong because it's just nasty. With that logic, we could also go: OMG GUSY, IN AMRICAN PEI TEH DUDE FUCKD A PIE! MEBBE WE SHULD BAN DAT MOVIE!!!

Fubar...

Nayan wrote:There's a reason mythology is mythology and not reality. Not that even mythology is demonstrated properly to that side of the globe (*still shudders about... Djinn aiding Perseus >.>*), but still... justifying something based on... mythology?

It was a tit for tat comment. It was implied that incest might be a common thing where I come from, so I pointed out that it's also often referenced in ancient Greek culture.

Give and take, that's all it was. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

From what I see not only one pair of panties are in a bunch.

Chill.