Why is homosexuality legal and incest not?
 

Why is homosexuality legal and incest not?

Discuss.

Why is heterosexuality legal and murder not?

Not sure. Maybe cause births from the same bloodline are risky? That and it's sick?

There are lots of people that think homosexuality is a health risk AND sick.

Nice answer, so in other words you have no idea.

Wouldn't you be guilty if you fuck your own child?

Think about it for a few minutes and it should come to you. If not, then ... well, no one can really help you.

I'm convinced that someone hijacked his account because no one could get that stupid that fast.

Of course SPlum would say something like that, he's just some fucking American Redneck who fucks his sister

You sound disappointed.

lol, you may think these posts are making your sig valuable but you are just making yourself look stupid. anyways, homosexuality may be viewed as a health risk but it won't create flipper babies.

everybody fucks his sister

That fast? Where you been all this time? :)

You guys are idiots, its a valid question, homosexuality and incest are both unhealthy if safe sex isnt practiced, to many people homosexuality and incest are both "sick" ideas. Both homosexuality and incest involve two consenting adults, I am not talking about rape here. I am just curious as to how society came to view one "legal" and the other "illegal". Many years ago homosexuality was basically illegal in practice as well, until homosexuals became active with awareness, so it bears consideration dont you think someday people who practice incest will do the same?

Its actually quite scary to think about what an "open minded society" will eventually allow, right now its homosexuality, whats next?

what about homo-incest action?

There are lots of people who think unprotected heterosexual sex is a health risk -- what's your point?

On a side note, are sig views really so necessary in people's lives that they're willing to appear completely stupid online just for those views?

What a fucked up and sad world some people exist in.

Dude what does BREEDING have to do with it? Homosexuals dont have sex to breed, surely people who are in incest relationships dont have sex to breed.

I propose the question to prove a point, I already know the answer.

is your next thread going to be - Why is homosexuality legal and anal sex not? And why are the police not targetting gay couples for breaking this law?

why are some people banned and some not?

No because the sodomy laws have been repealed, but when those laws were on the book that would have been a very valid question.

It's obvious homosexuals don't have sex to breed, because it's physically impossible. However, heterosexual breeding poses the risk of offspring, thus the restrictions on incest. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. *shrug*

Imagine that.. :)

Grow up and get a life :2 cents:

The risk of birth defects due to inbreeding is less than the risk of STDs.

why not indulge in some bum secks with your dear daddy?

Sick or not is not the issue. All that matters is the first part of your statement.

You can not compare this to...

Homosexuality through the ages has not always been 'illegal' nor for that matter incest. Eygptian royalty practised incest as did other important families as they believed it kept the bloodline 'pure' for example.

Some Greek societies believed the male form was superior to the female form therefore homoseual sex was considered preferable to hetrosexual sex and so on.

Incest though has been much more of a taboo than homosexuality probably because of the inherent dangers of allowing incest to society as a whole whereas homosexuality poses no real threat - although lots of imagined ones if you are of a certain mindset

I have the perfect answer here LOL:1orglaugh

I will answer this with a very old but very true and fucking hilarious joke!

The people who make the laws are mostly rednecks down in Washington.
So...........................

How do you circumsize a redneck??































KICK HIS SISTER IN THE CHIN!:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

As much as I hate to admit it… Splum actually has somewhat of a point here. Let’s assume that the homosexual couple involved each come from homes where they are an only child. By choosing not to breed with the opposite sex, they cannot pass along their genes. As such, their genetic line comes to an end.

In cases of consensual incest (I say consensual because though rare, it is what would be required in this scope of the discussion), it would take several generations of constant incest conceptions to cause any real potential damage to the genetic lineage. So in this case, the incestuous relationship leads to future generations of children, thus their genetic line continues.

Personally I see nothing wrong with consensual incest as a whole… an incestuous conception is marginally (almost negligible) more dangerous than a normal conception. I don’t see anything wrong with homosexuality either.

:1orglaugh Are you from the deep south and do you have a brother?
J/K man it seemed to fit in :1orglaugh
well actually I dont know if it did you tell us:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

the fact that you even have to ASK that question is quite disturbing

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh hahaha. I had to do papers on incest in college (well, didn't have to, but chose to do it and look at the genetic risks involved). Before I did the research I was 100% against incest but after doing the research and found that the majority of things said about incest were false. Most people believe that if you have a child through incest it'll be automatically retarded and that's just not the case. First generation incest has virtually identical rates of retardation as non-incest conceptions do.

Because when people like you are born, they tend to make the cause of it illegal to keep it from happening again.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Here we go..........

Must be a weekend only the kids are responding in this thread, well minus two intelligent people.