Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Should Incest be a crime?


Recommended Posts

On 10/12/2018 at 7:13 PM, Rue said:

The incest relationship is not just about  making genetically defective children but also creating  a plethora of complex negative psychological, emotional and physical health issues other than defective children..

Do you really think someone who has sex with his mother or sister could be healthy and have a positive life?

3

Indeed I do. Over the years I have put a lot of thought to these (and other) questions as I realized at a young age that the impositions we place on others are often a result of our own internal dilemma and nothing else. Who am I to decide what may or may not be right or wrong for another human, or group, of human beings?

I have read many accounts of incestual families that report that they were very happy to engage with each other in such a manner, and that when there was mental or emotional trauma it was almost solely related to the intervention of other parties that caused it (a disgusted aunt, a disgruntled neighbor, an angry lawmaker, etc). Of course, this is discluding the obvious (and frequently highlighted) examples where the actions were not welcomed or appreciated by one of the parties involved.

In other words, if two (or more) family members were happily engaging in intercourse together, and nobody was there to tell them it was wrong, or berate them, punish them, etc. then where would the harm come from? 

The idea that somebody in an incestual relationship *must* be damaged mentally or emotionally, seems absurd to me. We need to put aside our own personal bias and ask ourselves how much of this damage is caused by the actual act of giving or receiving physical pleasure, and how much is caused by the internal and/or external conflict that arises from a society that abhors the notion and its players that often have a knee-jerk reaction to it? 

I believe in libertarian ideals. So long as no one is harming another, what they do behind closed doors is their business. 

Of course, in this issue as with others, harm can come in many forms, and some not so readily apparent as others; though it could be argued that it is the people who intervene in these situations that are causing the most harm, or the people who cannot bring themselves to understand that two (or more) people who love each other (whether familial or not) wanting to also give pleasure to each other, may not be as 'sick' or 'disgusting' as they have been raised to believe (at least to the 'offending' parties involved). 

As far as the argument of children who are byproducts of incestual relations being at a higher risk of genetic deformity, people tend to forget the fact that recessive genetic 'mutations' can lean in both directions. In other words, while your chances of unfavorable mutations go up, so too do your chances of *favorable* mutations (perhaps the real reason the "Royal" bloodlines likely desired to "keep it in the family"?), and you have just as much chance of creating a supra-human as well as a sub-human. 
Not saying this is great news as the chances of deleterious genes arising are still great enough to warrant taking protective measures (or at the very least, having a full-panel DNA done to determine risks vs rewards), but the information is there and this aspect of such a coupling tends to be oft-overlooked. 


Quite honestly, if I believe that two family members are engaging in intercourse with each-other, so long as it seems like they are both happy I will keep my distance from the scenario, as I believe my own (and, of course, others) intervention is likely to be the precipitative factor in any damage that may occur. 

P.S.: Also, I believe Freud was a hack (and a certifiable whack-job). Jung was a far more credible psychologist IMO. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Both parties would have to consent...

For sure....this forum already discussed the topic back when Canada gave asylum to a Florida women who had sex with a male teen.   I guess Ms. Hot Pants is now living happily ever after in Canada but

1. You response provides an excellent example of why incest should remain illegal. 2.Trudeau's father was part of a legal process carried out by many people that decriminalize a person for being

2 consental adults. Many times not together. I see more often daughter finds dad that never knew he had a daughter. Now that child is not a child she is 20 yrs old. Say always dad at fault but what if the daughter willingly gives a peak then says lick it. Any man alive is not going to turn that down. I dont car who you are. If single at 43 and a 20 yr old comes onto you you will. Then bam in love and 5 yrs later still in love and so happy. Simular interests. Enjoy the same things and true love. No children dad got fixed 18 yrs ago. So now 100 % consentual the younger one started it so no forced by power. 0 chance of a child. So can you say they deserve 14 yrs in jail? Both happy. The family is ok with it. Share the same bed as visit over night. So if family ok and no kids and still in love after 5 yrs do they really deserve jail or fine? Their life not mine. Should be same as same sex relationships. Many times that causes mental illness ask my brother that at 19 dated a 60 yr old man. Legal for them but not for dad and daughter that daughter started but dad gave concent the second he gave that first lick. So adult is adult no matter the relation. The only law should be must use birth control or 1 of the 2 snipped, preferably the older of the 2. Most times if dad lost the kids 20 yrs ago hes already snipped long ago. So no child, no crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2021 at 10:50 AM, Michael Hardner said:

You know, that last post was disturbingly specific 🤔

Oh no, stepbrother! 😲

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Yes incest should be a crime.  I would call the act of incest to be sexual relations.  Holding hands and kissing well whatever.

What about sexual relations between two willing adults, with either one or both sterilized so there is no chance of offspring?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, bcsapper said:

What about sexual relations between two willing adults, with either one or both sterilized so there is no chance of offspring?

That's a great question.  I'm not sure.  It's still gross but it isn't causing much harm and not sure it's the state's business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

That's a great question.  I'm not sure.  It's still gross but it isn't causing much harm and not sure it's the state's business.

I find sexual relations between two men gross, but I support their right to do it if they want to.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  We are living in an age when it seems almost anything goes and is condoned by much of society including governments and political parties.  Yet when there are controversies about assault in the RCMP and military, politicians claim offence or disapproval, yet they support much of the perversion and immorality in society under the claim of being "inclusive".  In fact, women in the RCMP and military and non-consenting prisoners in prisons are being sexually assaulted continuously.  Lawlessness seems to reign.  Laws and the public education system is designed now to promote and facilitate these behaviors.  It is the law of the jungle.  This article goes into some of the issues:

"The Plague of Perversion

  •  

gay-couple.jpg

One of the most devastating movements to evolve from human degeneracy in recent decades is the so-called “Gay Pride Movement.”

The growing popularity of homosexual and transgender lifestyles is a growing phenomenon. They’ve been buoyed by considerable support from the entertainment industry and significant publicity from the news media.

No longer content to practice perversion behind closed doors, the LGBTQ axis has moved into the mainstream of society and flaunts their immorality in the most extravagant ways.

Marching in gay-pride parades, they thrust lewdness in the faces of men, women, and children. They’ve invaded school systems at every level. Their agenda has no limits.

They are demanding full “human rights,” which according to them includes the right to hold influential governmental positions, teach in schools, marry, and to not be discriminated against in any job based on a chosen sexual behavior.

Huge corporations have capitulated to the powerful LGBTQ lobby. Cities, states and even the Supreme Court have caved to this movement so that private businesses have been forced to acknowledge “civil unions.”

In 2015, the nation-wide “gay marriage” agenda was achieved thanks to the Supreme Court decision. Incidentally, it should be noted that one of the justices weighing in on this opinion was a homosexual woman appointed by President Obama.

The very fact that so many in our country have become sympathetic to this perverted movement ought to be a danger signal to every moral person.

The Cause of Homosexuality

Exactly what is responsible for a homosexual or gender alteration?

Some medical authorities assert that homosexuality is either the result of genetic problems (abnormal chromosome variations) or psychological aberrations. It is now known that in most instances of homosexuality this is not the case.

More than a half-century ago, Pritchard’s study of male homosexuals found a normal complement of XY chromosomes in every case (1962, 108). In 1974, the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses.

In the spring of 1979, after a decade-long study, sex researchers Masters and Johnson (who were not pillars of moral virtue) concluded that homosexuality for most persons is neither a physical or emotional illness, nor is it a genetic disorder. Rather, it is a learned behavior.

Study of this subject led Dr. Jerry Bergman to state:

“It is not understood exactly what learning produces a gay sexual orientation, but because this behavior is learned, quite possibly it could be learned from other homosexuals” (1981; cf. also 1995).

For more information, see the article on the so-called Gay Gene  by Dave Miller.

The Biblical View of Homosexuality

In the sacred Scriptures, homosexuality is not viewed as a medical issue. Rather, it is a moral problem.

The name of Sodom lives in the infamy of history. So well known is the biblical narrative concerning the perversions of Sodom and Gomorrah, that across the centuries the term “Sodomite” became synonymous with a homosexual.

Recent allegations by modernistic theologians who suggest that the sin of Sodom was mere inhospitality or an intended “gang rape” contains not a shred of evidence.

When Jehovah’s messengers came to Lot’s house in Sodom, certain base men surrounded the dwelling and urged Abraham’s nephew to send out the visitors “that we may know them” (Gen. 19:5). The word “know” (Hebrew yada; Greek ginosko) is sometimes employed in the Bible as a euphemism for “to have sexual relations with” (cf. Gen. 4:1; Mt. 1:25).

The men of Sodom clearly wanted to engage in sexual activity with Lot’s guests. These men were characterized as “wicked” and their sin is said to be “very grievous” (Gen. 18:20ff).

In the New Testament, the inspired Peter affirmed that God turned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes and “condemned them with an overthrow, having made them an example unto those that should live ungodly.” Yet righteous Lot, who was “sore distressed by the lascivious life of the wicked” and daily vexed with their “lawless deeds,” was delivered (2 Pet. 2:6-8).

Later, the law of Moses declared:

“And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall surely be upon them” (Lev. 20:13).

Some claim, however, that since many Old Testament regulations are obsolete today (e.g., the wearing of a garment of mingled fabric — Deut. 22:11), so also injunctions against sodomy may be similarly ignored.

This is a woeful blunder. Some Old Testament regulations were strictly ceremonial in nature and thus solely a part of that temporary system. Homosexuality is a moral evil that assaults the home, the very foundation of human society. It has never been tolerated by God.

The Teaching of Jesus Christ

Some religionists (homosexuals and their sympathizers), while admitting that certain New Testament passages appear to condemn homosexual conduct, nonetheless deny that Jesus personally censured such acts. This is totally inaccurate.

First, Christ clearly taught that the doctrine of his inspired spokesmen ultimately was from him. To the seventy disciples under his commission, he said, “He who hears you hears me; and he who rejects you rejects me” (Lk. 10:16). Paul, who was very outspoken about sodomy, affirmed that the things he wrote were “the commandment of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).

Second, when Jesus spoke of marriage as that which was ordained of God, he stated it was for male and female (Mt. 19:4-6). There is no authority or provision for “gay marriage.”

Third, the Lord’s concession, that fornication against an innocent spouse is grounds for divorce by the victim, condemns sodomy since this vile practice is a form of fornication.

This point needs some elaboration. Unless there are contextual indications (either immediate or remote) which suggest that biblical terms have been given special meanings, the words of the sacred text are to be understood as they were commonly employed by the writers of that era.

The word “fornication” (Greek porneia) was used in antiquity in a generic sense "of various kinds of “unsanctioned sexual intercourse” (Danker et al. 2000, 854). It includes such sins as prostitution, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, and such like (Reisser 1975, 497-501).

Jude explicitly declares that Sodom and her neighbors had “given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh” (Jude 7).

Finally, Christ indicated that ancient Sodom was in need of repentance and that they justly were destroyed (cf. Mt. 11:23, 24; Lk. 17:29).

Additional New Testament Evidence

Paul’s inspired rebuke of homosexuality in his letter to the Romans could be misunderstood only by the willfully ignorant.

In Romans 1:26-27, homosexual conduct is characterized as:

  • the result of vile passions;
  • a perversion from the natural to that which is against nature (note Jude’s reference to “strange flesh” [vs. 7]);
  • lust causing males to burn for males and females for females;
  • unseemliness;
  • error that was due recompense.

Further, in 1 Corinthians 6:9 the apostle declares that the “effeminate” (malakos “pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate, especially of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship” [Danker et al., 613]).

Also condemned are “abusers of themselves with men” who cannot (in that condition) inherit the kingdom of God. This latter phrase translates the Greek word arsenokoites (from arsen — a male and koite — bed). Literally, it is males in bed with males!

In 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Paul puts homosexuals in the same lawless class with murderers of parents. Some attempt to wrest the Scriptures by suggesting that Paul was not condemning homosexuality per se, rather, only the abuse of this practice. But there is, liberals maintain, a proper homosexual relationship that would be approved.

How absurd! The same type of logic would imply that there is a legitimate form of drunkenness, idolatry, murder, etc. — that only the perversions of such acts are condemned!

The Matter of Rights

The contention is frequently made these days that sexual preference is entirely a private affair. We are told that what homosexuals do is their business. Those who fancy themselves as broadminded intellectuals allege that the “rights” of all must be protected.

There are several things wrong with this reasoning:

First, the homosexuals and other sexually aberrant practitioners are pushing for public acceptance of their conduct. They want to teach in public schools, and they’ve gotten their way.

But do parents have any rights? As a parent, do I have the right to expect that my children will receive their education from reasonably moral people? Should those who champion incest and bestiality be denied their “rights” to teach children?

It seems there is no restraint on the “rights” of the wicked, only those who are trying to live godly lives.

Secondly, one spokesperson for the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights has stated that the ultimate goal of the gay liberation movement is “freedom of sexual expression for young people and children.” The writer says, “We gain nothing by limiting our defense of homosexual love to consensual sex between adults. It is absurd to charge gay men who share their sexuality with boys as ‘child molesters’” (Stockton Record, 1979).

Is this what the Constitution of the United States was designed to protect?

What Shall We Do?

It would be most desirable if we could simply teach sinful homosexuals to abandon their wickedness, obey Christ, and accept his forgiveness (Acts 2:38). This is precisely what some in the first century did (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

However, the so-called gay community is totally unconcerned with anything the Bible says. These people must be dealt with differently. This approach is thus suggested:

Virtually every person has a threshold of morality at some point. Those opposed to this depravity must demand that homosexuals defend their practice on some moral basis.

For example, is bestiality immoral? What about incest? If the homosexuals endorse this type of activity, let them come out and publicly say so. If they feel that such conduct is immoral, by what standard is their judgment made?

They must be pressured to logically and consistently defend their views. It will become apparent that when one rejects God as the ultimate standard of right and wrong (as his will is revealed ultimately in the New Testament), there is absolutely no stopping place for human immorality.

Who is willing to accept the inevitability of this type of thinking? Scarcely anyone except those who have no regard for logic and who revel in debauchery.

Let us, therefore, kindly, but forcefully, press these truths upon our contemporaries. We must take the initiative in this struggle for decent conduct. The future of generations yet unborn depends upon how intelligently, spiritually, and vigorously we engage this battle.

The Plague of Perversion : Christian Courier

Edited by blackbird
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, blackbird said:

The growing popularity of homosexual and transgender lifestyles is a growing phenomenon.

Since Ancient Rome you mean ?  

Your moral sphere is your own but the idea of trying to turn back the clock in this way is laughable.   The idea that morality and logic are the same thing is simplistic and incorrect.  And don't call it a "battle" ... you don't have the troops to win a religious battle anymore or do a new crusade...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2021 at 8:05 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Since Ancient Rome you mean ?  

Your moral sphere is your own but the idea of trying to turn back the clock in this way is laughable.   The idea that morality and logic are the same thing is simplistic and incorrect.  And don't call it a "battle" ... you don't have the troops to win a religious battle anymore or do a new crusade...

Perhaps the idea "morality and logic" are the same thing is incorrect or a poor concept. It is a mistake for me to try to use common terms or this world's ideas to convey biblical truth.   Biblical truth is completely at odds with the world system and completely contrary to secular humanism.  Most of the world follows Satan which mean secular humanism or the world's concept of morality or logic.  

However, religious battles in this world are not the end of it.  The majority in the world are wrong and the Bible teaches they have already lost.  You might think when you see the practices and culture in the world that defines morality or what is right or wrong, that you have found the truth.  Far from it.  God has the final say and while the world may think they have the upper hand, their time is limited and God is the judge.  There will be a day of judgment for everyone according to the Bible and all evil doers will receive their just punishment in damnation.  There is salvation for those who will listen to the Bible and be converted.  The rest are lost.  

Edited by blackbird
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blackbird said:

 1. The majority in the world are wrong and the Bible teaches they have already lost. 
 2. God has the final say and while the world may think they have the upper hand, their time is limited and God is the judge. 
 3. There will be a day of judgment for everyone...
 4. The rest are lost.  

1. Who would make a book of morality so shitty that people don't want to adopt it ?
2. If God has the final say, why should I bother reading your guesses as to what right and wrong is ?  Why would you even try to guess either ?
3. Nope.
4. I think you are lost

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Here is a news report which shows the deep depravity of our society and system. 

That website lies regularly.  So you are trying to prove depravity by quoting liars ?  Maybe clean your own room before trying to fix the world.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Who would make a book of morality so shitty that people don't want to adopt it ?
2. If God has the final say, why should I bother reading your guesses as to what right and wrong is ?  Why would you even try to guess either ?
3. Nope.
4. I think you are lost

The Bible is not actually a book of "morality".  The Bible is God's revelation to man and contains his plan from the beginning of time to the end of this earthly age.  So it is far more than a book on morality.  While it does contain many moral teachings, it is far more than that.  It describes man's fallen, lost condition and what man can do about it to be redeemed and what provision God has made to redeem lost man.  So it centres around Jesus Christ as Savior for lost mankind, but it makes it clear that being redeemed is an individual matter between each individual and God.  Nobody can meet the standards of perfection that God requires and the Bible makes it clear that is why every individual must be born again to be saved.

As far as who is lost, I will go by what God says in the Bible.  "36  He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."  John 3:36 KJB

Edited by blackbird
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That website lies regularly.  So you are trying to prove depravity by quoting liars ?  Maybe clean your own room before trying to fix the world.  

It is simply a news report about a man who was jailed for calling his (trans) daughter a girl, which she biologically is.  Where's the lie in that?  You are grasping for straws now.

I have not seen lies on the Post Millennial.  They report on a lot of corruption which would embarrass the liberals and left. 

Edited by blackbird
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, blackbird said:

It is simply a news report about a man who was jailed for calling his (trans) daughter a girl, which she biologically is.  Where's the lie in that?  You are grasping for straws now.

I have not seen lies on the Post Millennial.  They report on a lot of corruption which would embarrass the liberals and left. 

The court supported the boy; the man defied a court order not to talk about his son's situation with media and to respect his son's decision to transition from female to male.  The court also gave him more than one opportunity to comply, but he refused.

No doubt Post-Millenial put some other spin on it, designed to bolster the religious and non-religious right winger's hate and fear of anybody different.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dialamah said:

The court supported the boy; the man defied a court order not to talk about his son's situation with media and to respect his son's decision to transition from female to male.  The court also gave him more than one opportunity to comply, but he refused.

No doubt Post-Millenial put some other spin on it, designed to bolster the religious and non-religious right winger's hate and fear of anybody different.  

Depends on whether you support perversion and child abuse in trying to help a young girl receive harmful, life-altering medical treatments and hormones that could wreck her life.  At least the father can say he tried to help save her from the evil of the government and court in what they are doing.  The court and government are using the power of the state to crush a father's individual Charter right to freedom of speech by silencing him from speaking about the great evil being done to his daughter.  Then sending him to jail for speaking out.  That is tyranny and Marxist.

Edited by blackbird
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Depends on whether you support perversion and child abuse in trying to help a young girl receive harmful, life-altering medical treatments and hormones that could wreck her life. 

This is what I dislike about so many religious people: they ignore science and history in favor of imposing their narrow morality on everybody else.  They pride themselves on their "specialness", being God's chosen, having the truth of him, so they can practice oppression of everyone they disaprove of.  

You know nothing of this individual, their birth, their physical attributes, their inner struggles, their heart, how they came to this decision, how many years they've fought to be heard and understood.  Nope; in your narrow, judgemental world, they were born female and nothing else matters. The world without religion would be much more humane.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, dialamah said:

This is what I dislike about so many religious people: they ignore science and history in favor of imposing their narrow morality on everybody else.  They pride themselves on their "specialness", being God's chosen, having the truth of him, so they can practice oppression of everyone they disaprove of.  

You know nothing of this individual, their birth, their physical attributes, their inner struggles, their heart, how they came to this decision, how many years they've fought to be heard and understood.  Nope; in your narrow, judgemental world, they were born female and nothing else matters. The world without religion would be much more humane.  

 

2. Gender Identity

Someone with respect for Scripture may say at this point, “I agree that God makes us either male or female. But you are confusing biological sex with gender. I know transgender Christians who desire to embrace God’s design for men and women, but they also believe that who God created them to be does not correspond with the sex assigned to them at birth.” I don’t doubt that there are persons like this out there (and in our churches). While some people embracing a transgender identity may do so on a lark, many strongly feel that only by living as the opposite sex can they fully embrace their true self.

The question is not whether such persons and feelings exist. The question is whether the is of our emotional or mental state equals the ought of God’s design. Most Christians reject this thinking in a host of other areas, from eating disorders to unbiblical divorces. We understand that following Christ means dying to ourselves (Matt. 16:24), being renewed in our minds (Rom. 12:2), and no longer walking as we once did (Eph. 4:17-18). Being “true to ourselves” is always a false choice when it means going against God’s Word.

As much as contemporary academia says otherwise, the Bible believes in the organic unity of biological sex and gender identity. This is why male and female are (uniquely) the type of pair that can reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 2:20). It’s why homosexuality—a man lying with a man as with a woman (Lev. 18:22)—is wrong. It’s why the apostle Paul can speak of homosexual partnerships as deviating from the natural relations or natural function of male-female sexual intercourse (Rom. 1:26-27). In each instance, the argument only works if there is an assumed equivalence between the biology of sexual difference and the corresponding identities of male and female.

3. Gender Confusion

The third building block follows naturally from the other two. If the binary of male and female is God’s idea, and if we are meant to embrace, by divine design, our biological and creational difference as men and women, then it stands to reason that the confusion of these realities would be displeasing to God. And so we see clearly in the Bible that men should not act sexually as women (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10), that men should not dress like women (Deut. 22:5), and that when men and women embrace obviously other-gendered expressions of identity it is a disgrace (1 Cor. 11:14-15). We do not have an inalienable right to do whatever we want with our physical selves. We belong to God and should glorify him with our bodies (1 Cor. 6:19-20).  unquote

What Does the Bible Say About Transgenderism? (thegospelcoalition.org)

It doesn't matter if you dislike religious people.  It's what God thinks that matters.  The world is full of self-centered people who think their own will is all that matters. These are the ones that dislike Christians and is the reason there is so much persecution in the world today.  They want to be free to do whatever they please without others questioning or opposing what they do.

Edited by blackbird
Link to post
Share on other sites

quote 

The Medical Truth about Gender Dysphoria

At one time it would have been unnecessary, but it, now, has to be said: The American College of Pediatricians should be awarded a courage award for stating the obvious:

“Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of male and female, respectively – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident.”

To those who suffer from “gender dysphoria” (the new diagnostic language in DSM-5 replacing “Gender Identity Disorder” in DSM-IV-TR), feeling trapped in a person of the opposite sex, the prestigious association responds with merciful scientific clarity:

“No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.”

unquote

What the Bible Says about Being Transgender? (biblestudytools.com)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since some seem to think incest is acceptable, this explanation of what the Bible teaches about it may be considered:

So of course it should be a crime.

Quote:   Question: "Why did God allow incest in the Bible?"

Answer: 
There are numerous examples of incest in the Bible. The most commonly thought-of examples are the sons/daughters of Adam and Eve (Genesis 4), Abraham marrying his half-sister Sarah (Genesis 20:12), Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19), Moses’ father Amram who married his aunt Jochebed (Exodus 6:20), and David’s son Amnon with his half-sister Tamar (2 Samuel 13). It is important to note, however, that in two of the above instances (Tamar and Lot), one of the parties involved was an unwilling participant in the incest—better described as rape in those cases.

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. Since Adam and Eve were the only two human beings on earth, their sons and daughters had no choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah had to intermarry amongst their cousins. One reason that 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.

Another consideration is that incest today almost always involves a pre-pubescent or powerless victim, and the perpetrator is abusing his or her authority with the goal of unilateral sexual pleasure. By that standard, the “incest” of the Bible has nothing whatsoever in common with modern-day incest. There was no power difference between Cain and his wife, for example; the goal of Abraham and Sarah’s marriage was to create a family. Intermarriage among close family members was a necessity in the generations immediately following Adam and Noah and was not a sinful perversion of sex.

It seems 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 (Genesis 2:24 seems to indicate that marriage and sexual relations between parents and children were never allowed by God). It was not until many centuries later that humanity discovered the genetic reason that incest is unsafe and unwise. Genetics was not an issue in the early centuries of humanity, and the marriages that occurred between Adam and Eve’s children, Abraham and Sarah, and Amram and Jochebed were not selfish pursuits of sexual gratification or abuses of authority; accordingly, those relationships should not be viewed as incestuous. The key is that sexual relations between close relatives were viewed differently pre-Law and post-Law. It did not become “incest” until God commanded against it.  Unquote

Why did God allow incest in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...