Let the incest begin!

[Daystar Clarion]

Edit: failed post

 

[NoblePhilistineFox]

With what I have discerned about this case, there isn't anything wrong about it, other than "Eww, some old lady is gonna have a fucking child!"
If it's all artificial insemination and implantation, then there isn't a single spot of moral high ground to stand on.
Personally, I find nothing wrong with this, or incest.
I only find something off when dealing with making kids w/o insemination and such. Mostly because it could cause issues for the child genetically.
Bunch of fucking uptight prudes with societal hate ingrained in your minds.

_ _
0_0

I...
...
...
I think I love you
*hug*

 

[Daystar Clarion]

but a surrogate mother is being used, so it's not technically inbreeding.

http://local-static0.forum-files.fobby.net/forum_attachments/0003/9774/lex-luthor-wrong1.jpg

The way a surrogate mother works is that you take take the fertilized egg and implant it into the uterus of a third party. It's still the genetic decendant of those two sick fucks, so it is still inbreeding.

There are two kinds of people saying it's alright

1) Morons going for shock value, often classified as "Trolls" of the genus Trollus.

2) These are the people who are actually gonna try to reinforce their points. These pathetic individuals who have had no actual romantic contact, let alone sexual experiance, possibly due to being fat, having neckbeards, and a vapid absence of personality. The only experiance these people have ever and likely will ever get in through a screen, giving them a high level of perversion that intermingles with their bitterness from a lack of actual romantic contact.

Given their pathetic failure of a social life, what they're doing is making an attempt to justify their pathetic status in the manner of a 7 year-old losing a game: By claiming the rules are unfair.

(I haven't been able to classify these people: The closest point of relation I can think of is Otaku narutard. Anyone have any ideas?)

Although there are many type of surrogate. The father sperm and mother egg, the father sperm and a donor egg, a donor sperm and mother egg and both a donor sperm and donor egg. So you're techinally wrong.

 

[Nerf Ninja]

Snipped for space

Except though that they are also using a donor egg, not one from the grandmother. Essentially, the guy is having a kid with a random person and he and his grandmother are raising it together.

 

[Shpongled]

but a surrogate mother is being used, so it's not technically inbreeding.

http://local-static0.forum-files.fobby.net/forum_attachments/0003/9774/lex-luthor-wrong1.jpg

The way a surrogate mother works is that you take take the fertilized egg and implant it into the uterus of a third party. It's still the genetic decendant of those two sick fucks, so it is still inbreeding.

There are two kinds of people saying it's alright

1) Morons going for shock value, often classified as "Trolls" of the genus Trollus.

2) These are the people who are actually gonna try to reinforce their points. These pathetic individuals who have had no actual romantic contact, let alone sexual experiance, possibly due to being fat, having neckbeards, and a vapid absence of personality. The only experiance these people have ever and likely will ever get in through a screen, giving them a high level of perversion that intermingles with their bitterness from a lack of actual romantic contact.

Given their pathetic failure of a social life, what they're doing is making an attempt to justify their pathetic status in the manner of a 7 year-old losing a game: By claiming the rules are unfair.

(I haven't been able to classify these people: The closest point of relation I can think of is Otaku narutard. Anyone have any ideas?)

She's 72, she doesn't have any eggs left. Didnt read past that point because you're obviously an idiot.

For all intents and purposes incest is no different to homosexuality. Either way it goes against every evolutionary human instinct. The only reason we don't vomit everytime someone mentions gay sex is because homosexuality has become socially acceptable in recent years.

The evolutionary argument is flawed. Yes, it's likely where the taboo originated, but it has no place in todays society, or in this specific example. You can't assume just because 2 people are having sex, that they plan on having a child. Ten thousand years ago this WAS the case, not today. Ten thousand years ago it was also the case that homosexuality was a negative defect.

It's fine to find it unappealing, but making threads about vomiting at it is silly. If you made the same thread after reading about a gay relationship you'd be abused.

 

[NoblePhilistineFox]

but a surrogate mother is being used, so it's not technically inbreeding.

http://local-static0.forum-files.fobby.net/forum_attachments/0003/9774/lex-luthor-wrong1.jpg

The way a surrogate mother works is that you take take the fertilized egg and implant it into the uterus of a third party. It's still the genetic decendant of those two sick fucks, so it is still inbreeding.

There are two kinds of people saying it's alright

1) Morons going for shock value, often classified as "Trolls" of the genus Trollus.

2) These are the people who are actually gonna try to reinforce their points. These pathetic individuals who have had no actual romantic contact, let alone sexual experiance, possibly due to being fat, having neckbeards, and a vapid absence of personality. The only experiance these people have ever and likely will ever get in through a screen, giving them a high level of perversion that intermingles with their bitterness from a lack of actual romantic contact.

Given their pathetic failure of a social life, what they're doing is making an attempt to justify their pathetic status in the manner of a 7 year-old losing a game: By claiming the rules are unfair.

(I haven't been able to classify these people: The closest point of relation I can think of is Otaku narutard. Anyone have any ideas?)

Isnt it funny how you claim that this is wrong because nobody has given a valid reason for why it isnt wrong, even though that in itself is not a valid reason for why it is wrong?
because I think that is just hi-LARIOUS!!
or is that just ironic?
your worse than those hardcore Christians/Athiests who think that they are always right and better than everybody else.

Have fun being a puppit troll, Im gonna enjoy the rest of my day rather than explain why sociaty hates me like you do.
bye.

 

[Iskenator67]

That 2012 doomsday idea is sounding better and better.

 

[AdamRBi]

Well... these two are clearly broken. They are broken human beings. Ain't a social thing, they are just broken. Nature has evolved us with special sensors that pick up and divert us from having that desire in reletives. It was the only way back in the day that we could effectively tell one potential mate from a family member. That still holds true, there is nothing that would cause these two people to fall in that kind of love unless they were broken. It goes against nature, literally.

Incest isn't wrong, it's just literally unnatural. We avoid it for a reason. This is not disgust in and old woman having a child, I'm just dumbfounded by how these two could experience these emotions unless... unless...

Oh... guys we must have it wrong. They must have it wrong. This guy was put up for adoption and left to find his grandma when he was old enough. This isn't incest at all, that woman is clearly not his grandma.

We have two possibilities here:

1) They are related and thus have the same broken sex drives.

2) That old woman isn't his grandma and ether fell helplessly in love over the confusion or set the whole thing up.

Clearly she's a Cougar.

 

[Shpongled]

Well... these two are clearly broken. They are broken human beings. Ain't a social thing, they are just broken. Nature has evolved us with special sensors that pick up and divert us from having that desire in reletives. It was the only way back in the day that we could effectively tell one potential mate from a family member. That still holds true, there is nothing that would cause these two people to fall in that kind of love unless they were broken. It goes against nature, literally.

Incest isn't wrong, it's just literally unnatural. We avoid it for a reason. This is not disgust in and old woman having a child, I'm just dumbfounded by how these two could experience these emotions unless... unless...

Oh... guys we must have it wrong. They must have it wrong. This guy was put up for adoption and left to find his grandma when he was old enough. This isn't incest at all, that woman is clearly not his grandma.

We have two possibilities here:

1) They are related and thus have the same broken sex drives.

2) That old woman isn't his grandma and ether fell helplessly in love over the confusion or set the whole thing up.

Clearly she's a Cougar.

Then i assume you feel the same way regarding homosexuals.

 

[AdamRBi]

but a surrogate mother is being used, so it's not technically inbreeding.

http://local-static0.forum-files.fobby.net/forum_attachments/0003/9774/lex-luthor-wrong1.jpg

The way a surrogate mother works is that you take take the fertilized egg and implant it into the uterus of a third party. It's still the genetic decendant of those two sick fucks, so it is still inbreeding.

There are two kinds of people saying it's alright

1) Morons going for shock value, often classified as "Trolls" of the genus Trollus.

2) These are the people who are actually gonna try to reinforce their points. These pathetic individuals who have had no actual romantic contact, let alone sexual experiance, possibly due to being fat, having neckbeards, and a vapid absence of personality. The only experiance these people have ever and likely will ever get in through a screen, giving them a high level of perversion that intermingles with their bitterness from a lack of actual romantic contact.

Given their pathetic failure of a social life, what they're doing is making an attempt to justify their pathetic status in the manner of a 7 year-old losing a game: By claiming the rules are unfair.

(I haven't been able to classify these people: The closest point of relation I can think of is Otaku narutard. Anyone have any ideas?)

She's 72, she doesn't have any eggs left. Didnt read past that point because you're obviously an idiot.

For all intents and purposes incest is no different to homosexuality. Either way it goes against every evolutionary human instinct. The only reason we don't vomit everytime someone mentions gay sex is because homosexuality has become socially acceptable in recent years.

The evolutionary argument is flawed. Yes, it's likely where the taboo originated, but it has no place in todays society, or in this specific example. You can't assume just because 2 people are having sex, that they plan on having a child. Ten thousand years ago this WAS the case, not today. Ten thousand years ago it was also the case that homosexuality was a negative defect.

It's fine to find it unappealing, but making threads about vomiting at it is silly. If you made the same thread after reading about a gay relationship you'd be abused.

Homosexuals can't have babies with each other, those who perform Hetero-Incest can. The child becomes chemically imbalanced and doesn't add to the diversity of the human species. If they aren't dead because of some unfortunate disease then they usually end up having something wrong with them mentally. This is why we don't do it and why it's programmed in to us to avoid it. People are programmed to not want to have sex with family members. Sometimes, that programming get's botched up and this happens. It would be bad for the species to let this happen, which is why we reject it.

 

[Shpongled]

Homosexuals can't have babies with each other, those who perform Hetero-Incest can. The child becomes chemically imbalanced and doesn't add to the diversity of the human species. If they aren't dead because of some unfortunate disease then they usually end up having something wrong with them mentally. This is why we don't do it and why it's programmed in to us to avoid it. People are programmed to not want to have sex with family members. Sometimes, that programming get's botched up and this happens. It would be bad for the species to let this happen, which is why we reject it.

How have you managed to completely avoid the point again.

People are programmed to have sex with the opposite sex. Sometimes, that programming get's botched up and homosexuals happen. It would be bad for the species to let this happen, which is we (used to) reject it.

But since we're a more mature society we can accept that people are different, some people do find the same sex attractive. We accept it as the way it is and move on.

 

[whaleswiththumbs]

This 72 year-old lady can still have a kid? Hey if this lady is that amazing i'd want to keep those traits in the tree as long as possible!

Really, though, it's not my place to say whether they should or not, but i'm against inbreeding. It's not right to me at all. I don't like it but go for it, just dont let that kid get personal with any future kid of mine. Just saying.

 

[XT inc]

Defects aside what would you do as a child knowing daddy is upstairs banging your great grandmother. high school is hard on anybody imagine being the kid born out of this fail.

 

[AdamRBi]

Well... these two are clearly broken. They are broken human beings. Ain't a social thing, they are just broken. Nature has evolved us with special sensors that pick up and divert us from having that desire in reletives. It was the only way back in the day that we could effectively tell one potential mate from a family member. That still holds true, there is nothing that would cause these two people to fall in that kind of love unless they were broken. It goes against nature, literally.

Incest isn't wrong, it's just literally unnatural. We avoid it for a reason. This is not disgust in and old woman having a child, I'm just dumbfounded by how these two could experience these emotions unless... unless...

Oh... guys we must have it wrong. They must have it wrong. This guy was put up for adoption and left to find his grandma when he was old enough. This isn't incest at all, that woman is clearly not his grandma.

We have two possibilities here:

1) They are related and thus have the same broken sex drives.

2) That old woman isn't his grandma and ether fell helplessly in love over the confusion or set the whole thing up.

Clearly she's a Cougar.

Then i assume you feel the same way regarding homosexuals.

You wish, that'd make the argument too easy if I did. No, see; Homosexuals to technically go against nature. The difference is though, they can't breed with each other. The results of them falling in love and wanting a child through surrogates or adoption won't cause any problems to the newborn. They are still the result of two separate individuals who are not related to each other merging their genetic information. If two homosexuals wanted to have a baby and they got one guys sister to be the surrogate, then there'd be a problem.

After the birth, who the parents are is not an issue I fight. I'm still off put by a 72 year old and a 26 year old together, but it's not wrong if they love each other. Just a little unnatural and dangerous if they are related and could have kids together.

I'm perfectly fine with Homosexuals, they don't bother me in the slightest. (Ok maybe a little, not going to hate them for it though.)

 

[AdamRBi]

Homosexuals can't have babies with each other, those who perform Hetero-Incest can. The child becomes chemically imbalanced and doesn't add to the diversity of the human species. If they aren't dead because of some unfortunate disease then they usually end up having something wrong with them mentally. This is why we don't do it and why it's programmed in to us to avoid it. People are programmed to not want to have sex with family members. Sometimes, that programming get's botched up and this happens. It would be bad for the species to let this happen, which is why we reject it.

How have you managed to completely avoid the point again.

People are programmed to have sex with the opposite sex. Sometimes, that programming get's botched up and homosexuals happen. It would be bad for the species to let this happen, which is we (used to) reject it.

But since we're a more mature society we can accept that people are different, some people do find the same sex attractive. We accept it as the way it is and move on.

You forget, Homosexuals can't have babies with each other. If we assume half the Homosexual couples want a child that's half as likely the trait will be passed. Also if we assume that one half of the couples who want children just adopt one, that programming is not passed. meaning the only way for it to be passed is by that 25% who use surrogates. And even then it's a 50-50 chance it'll be passed. These numbers aren't fact, I just made them up to illustrate my point.

On the other hand; Incest can, if it's heterosexual, conceive children and those children are often messed up due to interbreeding. We (or at least I) don't mind homosexuals because they are of no risk to our species as a whole. Incest is, and that's why we see it as a problem.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Homosexuals can't have babies with each other, those who perform Hetero-Incest can. The child becomes chemically imbalanced and doesn't add to the diversity of the human species. If they aren't dead because of some unfortunate disease then they usually end up having something wrong with them mentally. This is why we don't do it and why it's programmed in to us to avoid it. People are programmed to not want to have sex with family members. Sometimes, that programming get's botched up and this happens. It would be bad for the species to let this happen, which is why we reject it.

How have you managed to completely avoid the point again.

People are programmed to have sex with the opposite sex. Sometimes, that programming get's botched up and homosexuals happen. It would be bad for the species to let this happen, which is we (used to) reject it.

But since we're a more mature society we can accept that people are different, some people do find the same sex attractive. We accept it as the way it is and move on.

You forget, Homosexuals can't have babies with each other. If we assume half the Homosexual couples want a child that's half as likely the trait will be passed. Also if we assume that one half of the couples who want children just adopt one, that programming is not passed. meaning the only way for it to be passed is by that 25% who use surrogates. And even then it's a 50-50 chance it'll be passed. These numbers aren't fact, I just made them up to illustrate my point.

On the other hand; Incest can, if it's heterosexual, conceive children and those children are often messed up due to interbreeding. We (or at least I) don't mind homosexuals because they are of no risk to our species as a whole. Incest is, and that's why we see it as a problem.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said. I tried to explain it but I failed, you said what I was thinking basically.

 

[Shpongled]

You forget, Homosexuals can't have babies with each other. If we assume half the Homosexual couples want a child that's half as likely the trait will be passed. Also if we assume that one half of the couples who want children just adopt one, that programming is not passed. meaning the only way for it to be passed is by that 25% who use surrogates. And even then it's a 50-50 chance it'll be passed. These numbers aren't fact, I just made them up to illustrate my point.

On the other hand; Incest can, if it's heterosexual, conceive children and those children are often messed up due to interbreeding. We (or at least I) don't mind homosexuals because they are of no risk to our species as a whole. Incest is, and that's why we see it as a problem.

A) You can't assume homosexuality is hereditary. We know very little about how or why it occurs. It's not even proven for certain whether it's genetic or not.

B) You can't assume the offspring of an incestuous relationship would have any genetic defects. In the majority of cases, there are no defects. Defects generally occur over a number of generations without external genes.

C) You can't assume either a gay couple or an incestuous couple even want to procreate. Chances are they don't. You can argue genetics all you want, but if its the only reason you have against incest then its null and void in most circumstances.

Really, the only reason we're so disgusted by it in today's society is because it hasn't gone through the process of acceptance homosexuality has. I say again, the sooner we get past these taboo's, accept people for who they are, the sooner we can sort important shit out.

 

[Lexodus]

Many people do not really understand. This isn't incest at all

You people assume quickly and that's something I do quite often as a human being as well. There is so far I can tell, no genetic relationship between the two, rather two adults utilizing their rights to love as a human being, if the person acted like your mother and you find it gross, remember that's something YOUR society ingrained in you. Not every society is the same, I for once, don't find it disturbing at all, maybe the age difference, but from a technical standpoint, they are allowed to do so.

That was a rant, I know.

How is it not incest?

She's his grandmother. He's her grandson. They're fucking (or at least in an erotic relationship). Ergo, incest, even if the baby is not a product of it.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

You forget, Homosexuals can't have babies with each other. If we assume half the Homosexual couples want a child that's half as likely the trait will be passed. Also if we assume that one half of the couples who want children just adopt one, that programming is not passed. meaning the only way for it to be passed is by that 25% who use surrogates. And even then it's a 50-50 chance it'll be passed. These numbers aren't fact, I just made them up to illustrate my point.

On the other hand; Incest can, if it's heterosexual, conceive children and those children are often messed up due to interbreeding. We (or at least I) don't mind homosexuals because they are of no risk to our species as a whole. Incest is, and that's why we see it as a problem.

A) You can't assume homosexuality is hereditary. We know very little about how or why it occurs. It's not even proven for certain whether it's genetic or not.

B) You can't assume the offspring of an incestuous relationship would have any genetic defects. In the majority of cases, there are no defects. Defects generally occur over a number of generations without external genes.

C) You can't assume either a gay couple or an incestuous couple even want to procreate. Chances are they don't. You can argue genetics all you want, but if its the only reason you have against incest then its null and void in most circumstances.

Really, the only reason we're so disgusted by it in today's society is because it hasn't gone
through the process of acceptance homosexuality has. I say again, the sooner we get past these taboo's, accept people for who they are, the sooner we can sort important shit out.

You need to learn how to quote people properly.

 

[Shpongled]

You need to learn how to quote people properly.

I know how to quote, i just don't want huge walls of previously quoted content filling my screen, and i cant be arsed finding the correct text to delete after clicking the quote button.