Should incest be legal?

Yes,what you post is soooooooo valuable, lol.

His post went right over your pointed head.

So, I will explain his sarcasm to you.

There are numerous posters on this forum who use the Bible to back up their positions on marriage, homosexuality, etc.

He was pointing out to those persons that incest is condoned in the Bible,thereore,according to the Biblethumprs logic, it should be lawful.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you, but I doubt it.

It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6-18), and incest that occurred after God’s commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative. It is undeniable that God allowed incest in the early centuries of humanity. If Adam and Eve were indeed the only two human beings God created, their sons and daughters would have had no other choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation would have had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah would have had to intermarry amongst their cousins. The reason incest is so strongly discouraged in the world today is the understanding that reproduction between closely related individuals has a much higher risk of causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to the fact that the human genetic code was relatively free of defects.

It seems, then, that by the time of Moses, the human genetic code had become polluted enough that close intermarriage was no longer safe. So, God commanded against sexual relations with siblings, half-siblings, parents, and aunts/uncles. It was not until many centuries later that humanity discovered the genetic reason that incest is unsafe and unwise. While the idea of incest is disgusting and abhorrent to us today, as it should be, we have to remember why it is sinful, that is, the genetic problems. Since this was not an issue in the early centuries of humanity, what occurred between Adam and Eve’s children, Abraham and Sarah, and Amram and Jochebed, should not be viewed as incest. Again, the key point is that sexual relations between close relatives must be viewed differently pre-Law and post-Law. It did not become “incest” until God commanded against it.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html#ixzz2PQVADpGY
 
It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6-18), and incest that occurred after God’s commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative. It is undeniable that God allowed incest in the early centuries of humanity. If Adam and Eve were indeed the only two human beings God created, their sons and daughters would have had no other choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation would have had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah would have had to intermarry amongst their cousins. The reason incest is so strongly discouraged in the world today is the understanding that reproduction between closely related individuals has a much higher risk of causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to the fact that the human genetic code was relatively free of defects.

It seems, then, that by the time of Moses, the human genetic code had become polluted enough that close intermarriage was no longer safe. So, God commanded against sexual relations with siblings, half-siblings, parents, and aunts/uncles. It was not until many centuries later that humanity discovered the genetic reason that incest is unsafe and unwise. While the idea of incest is disgusting and abhorrent to us today, as it should be, we have to remember why it is sinful, that is, the genetic problems. Since this was not an issue in the early centuries of humanity, what occurred between Adam and Eve’s children, Abraham and Sarah, and Amram and Jochebed, should not be viewed as incest. Again, the key point is that sexual relations between close relatives must be viewed differently pre-Law and post-Law. It did not become “incest” until God commanded against it.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html#ixzz2PQVADpGY

You literalist crack me up!
 
With all of this support for redefining marriage from the left and the so called libertarians who claim "if it doesn't impact me why should I care?" should the state have a vested interest in preventing a parent and a child from getting married as long as they are consenting adults?

Bear in mind I am not talking about underage children here, but full fledged adults.

Should a 19 year old girl be allowed to marry her 45 year old father if they love each other and are two consenting adults? Should they be allowed to adopt children?

Should they be allowed to enter into polygamal relationships?

Discuss. Don't be afraid. Using all of the same arguments not one person who supports gay marriage should oppose this.

As you can see by the responses, most liberals and libertarians have no moral qualms with this. And here is why it is important that we don't allow government to determine what "marriage" is or isn't. Whenever we have codified into law, that marriage can be redefined to include a particular sexual fetish, the issue of "equal protection" and "equality" actually DOES come into play. There are quite a few popular fetishes out there, who would love to gain social legitimacy.

I understand the problems and hardships of a gay couple. But first and foremost, they should realize that by the very nature of this relationship, there are going to be hardships and problems. I understand, in their minds, what they are doing is living in marriage to one another, but it is not marriage. It can never be legitimate marriage because they share the same gender. Traditionalists are never going to change their minds on this, and gay couples will never be able to achieve legitimacy for "gay marriage," so there are always going to be hardships and problems.

It amazes me how many "Libertarians" just automatically support the activism behind gay marriage. We're apparently supposed to be free to do as we please, as long as it's what the government determines is appropriate from a liberal perspective. We can't choose to live as social conservatives, that is forbidden, even though, we are completely free to make up our own minds and live the way we please... as long as it's how the government says is the right way, the Liberal way. Very convoluted viewpoint. If government has the right to determine gays can marry, it also has the right to determine gays can not marry, you can't have it both ways. If the people are free to decide they want gay marriage, then they are also free to decide they don't want gay marriage, you can't have it both ways.
 
Back
Top