Is having sex with a family member really wrong??????

Agree2Disagree Forum

If you look in your Bibles at genesis. God made only Adam&Eve... They had only Cane and Abel.. What does that mean? They had to have sex with each other in order to reproduce.. Everything that happened in the Bible was right back then and there was nothing wrong with it?? How do you know it's wrong??? You really don't! back in those days having sex with family members was the only way to reproduce. Well whose to say it's wrong? Show me that in the bible! back in the bible days some men had many many wives.. Does this mean that having mutliple wives is wrong? or does it mean we just feel like it's nasty? I don't understand if it's wrong, right, or just insane! Can someone help me on this?? arial

That was a cultural thing. Back then people believed that was right. Though nowhere does God say that it was right. But he does say that it is wrong.

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. Hebrews 13:4

"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body." 1 Corinthians 6:13

It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable. 1 Thessalonions 4:3-4

In order to be pure that means you must only have one partner. And do you really think that sleeping with a family member is considered holy?
And if still want to read further about this matter check out 1 Corinthians 7

I don't have the quotes to prove anything, but I believe somewhere in Genesis Abraham impregnated his daughter (s) in order to increase the male population. It was after reading that that I decided the Bible was morally corrupt and not something I wanted to put too much faith in.

If you have faith in what the Bible says, I hope you're not implying that incest isn't wrong.

Whether from a religious standpoint or moral standpoint, incest is sick and twisted no matter how you slice it.

Biological and genetic standpoint too.

M.

This thread actually scares me...

Why is someone asking this question??

Please tell me they arent looking for approval to...to...

UGH...never mind!

Hmmm, how about making the gene pool deeper .

YES it is absolutely WRONG.

if it was acceptable to have sex with your family members, and you did it, you could come down with the biggest case of heebie jeebies that would eventually lead to death.

see, we're trying to protect you from yourself.

ugh, just typing this made me shiver three times

it's okay to have sex with your family member if they are your spouse and only related by marriage.

This thread IS creepy...however...

It is legal to marry your cousin, even a first cousin, in some states. A cousin is a family member. And, if the family member in question was adopted, or a step-sibling, there would be no blood relation so, I guess that would be ok. It's still creepy from my standpoint but, I it wouldn't be incest.

What's so funny becker?

TWII...being sarcastic. Did you read her previous posts?

Course I did. Oh well, just ignore me........

It's interesting to look at the incest problem from a secular point of view. Incest isn't worse than gay sex. There are two adults involved in sexual relationship by their own free will. This harms no-one.
Genetical things matter. But what if an incest case is about sex only, without conceiving a baby?
Next, if there's even a baby, does a incestical conception leads to an ill fetus with greater probability than a more usual late pregnancy?

and it is just creepy.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/debates/sights.sounds/1016/dole.jpg

Bob Dole can't take reading this thread. Bob Dole shivers everytime there is a new post.

Bob Dole doesn't know why he's in this post or what he has to do with anything. Bob Dole just felt like making an appearance.

Bob Dole will need Viagra after reading this thread.

http://www.slick.com/wildpics/gotwood2.jpg

well, do ya sherry?

Since I am a girl, the only wood I have is chopped up in the back yard.

yes, wtf indeed

wait, you didn't think i meant.....

*gasp!* i'm apalled-or some other emotion i can spell- that you would think like that

**Spaliznad shakes finger at Fuscia**

So are you implying that sexual relations between homosexuals are at par with incest?

M.

I don't think all the statistics in the world matter where cases of incest are concerned. If somebody is sexually attracted to a sibling or other relative, I think some pretty serious therapy needs to be considered.

It's quite normal to think a relative is attractive, but to lust after them and want to bed them down is more than just a little abnormal.

Marrying cousins is a normal thing among Muslims. I'm pretty sure that Egyptian and Hawaiian royalty could only marry brother or sister. European royalty was always inbreeding. That's why they had so much hemophilia and the "Hapsburg lip". I think FDR married his first cousin.

Although it is true that present day Egyptian Muslims can and do marry cousins, the ancient Egyptians did not marry siblings. One of the most affectionate titles ancient Egyptians referred to their spouses as was "brother" or "sister." This had nothing to do with sibling relations, but led many archaeologists and scholars to wrongly assume that most ancient Egyptians married their siblings. This usually occurred only among royalty, and was not a common occurrence.

also... i have heard from many people that the Bible isnt meant to be taken absolute literally in some parts. do you really think that all of the earth was created in 6 days too? it says God made Adam and Eve, and they had Cane and Abel. but maybe God made more people after that.

But yes, this is a very weird thread.

Interesting thread indeed. I like the fact that INReview didnt back down from this one. It's a rough subject socially. As it turns out, though I am not 'in favor' of incest, its not actually that rare, or even that detrimental. One case of incest, genetically, isnt that dangerous. It usually shows genetic defects only after several generations of inbreeding. Further, as long as no one in the relationship is being abused (and there are several definitions which surround this 'abuse'), its my general opinion that if one wishes to have consentual relations with a family member...so be it. To each his/her own. Though I cannot concieve of what it means to be attracted to a family member, who am I to condemn those who are? Anyway, 'grats to all those brave enough to approach this extremely taboo subject.

It's not something that I would ever do.... there isn't even one person in my family that I would consider myself to be ever partially attracted to!!! *shivers at the thought of relations with my brother, mum, aunt, or cousins* To each their own... but, like I said, there isn't anyone in my family that I want... so, can't say anything else.

<POST EDITED BY ADMIN, DUE TO THE CONTENT OF CONTAINING NOTHING PERTAINING TO THE DISCUSSION OF THIS THREAD>

I think the initial post's intent was more to discredit the bible than to suggest that incest is ok. The problem is that the initial poster doesn't understand the basic principles of Christianity. Current day Christians have a new covenant with God with different "obligations". The Old testemant is there for our education of how things used to be. We no longer are required to offer animal sacrifices and having multiple wives was also a practice in the old testament but God changed all this when he sacrificed his son for our "short comings". Anyway there is speculation that after Adam and Eve disobeyed God that there might have been other "societies" outside the Garden but this is all theory.

It's all much less than theory.

Wow. That anyone would have the boldness to pose this question in a thread....

Family member, eh? Well that depends... are they related to you or anyone you're related to? Biologically, legally?

Yes, it's wrong.

Sayzak has spoken.

It is not just MORALLY wrong...it is TOTALLY messed up to even CONSIDER tapping a family member! Why one would be confused about this topic means that it has possibly already happened, or is in the process of being considered maybe? WORNG, JUST WRONG!! Blood family, even step-family is off-limits in my opinion! YOU cannot POSSSIBLY have so few options that the only person you could be with has to be a relation. I am not a religious man, and I have NO brothers or sisters. NONE! At least to my knowledge, that is to say, how do I know that maybe a parent had an illegitimate child that is wandering around? NOW I am going to have to run a geneology chart on every woman I date!!!!

Yes I got the hots for my brother John.


I would never have sex with my younger brother. Jesus, I would have to be drunk (totally)








Having sex with any of my family members

All I have to say is that people that have sex with there own familys, what in the hell are they thinking are you sick or what? It's common sense people. that peoples needs to go see a doc. or something

you guys are thinking morally.

Look, if everyone starts having sex with their sister and they have kids then you'd be looking at a world filled with retards; cross-eyed and drooling. WHAT?!? You want to make us monkeys?! no, I don't think so.

There's no such thing as vainity anymore. And personally, I like vanity. It makes people want to look nice. drooling doesn't look nice.

Adam and Eve had other children other than Cain and Abel...and there was ample opportunity for them to marry someone other than their sisters.

So Yahweh said to him, “Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.” And Yahweh appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him. Genesis 4:15

There must have been many others alive at this time, or God would not have needed to warn people about the hands off policy on Cain.

Remember too that before the fall when they ate of the tree of knowledge, they had ample opportunity before the fall to reproduce...remember He commanded them right away to be fruitful and multiply. Loosely translated, right away God commanded them to get down and have many many children.
And since that would have been before the fall, before sin entered into the scene, such reproduction was not a sin...it was how, at first, they had to fill the earth with people.
And remember too, that we have no idea how many thousands of years or hundreds of years Adam and Eve existed before the fall. The details before the fall are not given. History and time begins after the fall.

The reason Cain and Abel are introduced is because it documents the very first murder that humans perpetrated after the fall.

So, after the fall, having sex with a close relative was a sin....as were many other things...

There are many complications that can occour in the body of the progeny. The least is depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Genetics) One of the most prominent examples of why incest is not a wise/ biologically incorrect choice to make is that Fugate Family and Methemoglobinemia. Read about it here; <link's dead> Also check these authors out; <link's dead> After all this it's hard to accept incest in my honest opinion as a safe and sane practice.

I've read before that incest was somewhat common among the pioneers who settled America. Women died at an early age due to lack of medical care during pregnancy (MANY pregnancies) and left their insensitive and bullying husbands to use the daughters that were left behind. Life out on the prairie during the 18th and early 19th centuries was really lonely when the nearest neighbor was 50 miles away. Who knows what price was paid in damaged human beings?

You know, I saw the topic and my first thought was, "Are you kidding me?" I was curious and so I opened it... It appears not....

Apart from just being GROSS, why would anyone WANT to bed a family memeber? I am not going to argue whether or not it is right in the Biblical sense, but it would appear that it is wrong in the "Criminal" sense. I have to ask, why anyone would pose such a question in the first place?..... Hmmmmmm....

I can't fathom having sex with ANYONE in my family!!!

It's nasty...

Nasty I can deal with (and try to on a regular basis )

This is downright ...... BLEH!

Well, you're right about that, Grant...

It's ummmmmmmmm, unspeakable.


WHY would someone want to have sex with any of their family?

*runs off to bleach my mind*

wait............................................... is my wife related to me? she is my wife, after all?

You know, Grant, now that I think about it, maybe only us gay couples are doing it right... since we're not related (because we're not allowed to be). So, all you hetero's... you're having incestual sex!

I heard Dr. Phil say that the danger of birth defects from procreation with a close relative is greatly exaggerated. He was doing a show on first cousins having relationships when he said that. I would guess that sex between siblings would have a greater degree of danger. I would also think that Dr. Phil would have it right. It's still pretty deviant.

well... siblings, cousins, or DISTANT cousins... My family is full of good-looking, alike-thinking, affluent peope and I am still trying to understand how ANYONE could be attracted to someone in their very own gene-pool! The whole thought of it makes me want to HURL.

Thanks for allowing me to voice my views... I'm done.

hmmm, ask angelina joe lee, people say she slept with her brother

There is one school of thought that says that even though Adam and Eve were the first, other people were created in other parts of the world. I think this might be believed by people who don't want to believe that there was any sexual union between the offsprings of Adam and Eve. This is what they say to answer that question. Don't know if any evidence exists to support that claim, but it seems pretty logical to me. Even God might have a hard time populating the world from just two people.

What's scary is now a days you can be seepling with a relative and not even know it.

I had this thought recently. All to ofetn you have cases where someone dont know who the father of their child is. You see it on Maury all the time. This reminds me of one particular section of the town I live in. In my younger days I had a few friends that lived there. Let me tell you everyone slept with everyone (I'm not included in that). And it just made me think I wonder how long these people have lived here or will live here. They are all sleeping around. Who knows whos having whos baby. So if they all stay, the kids grow up and they sleep around, they could sleeping with a half brother or sister.

And then there's adoption. I know the chances are slim, but records are sealed, and sometimes, people don't even know they are adopted, but I know if I ever found out I was, that would be one thing that would make me a little parinoid.

true!

And this might be totally BOGUS, you never know. But some sects of Jewish tradition say that there were "pre man" things still in existence after the creation.

Now, this gets complicated, and predates the theory of evolution, but the story goes that ancient Jewish Scholars interpreted from the original Hebrew text that Adam was the first "human" with a "soul", but not the first human like creature. They surmised that Adam had pre-man compatriots that looked like him, that were him, but that were without a soul. The Jewish sects thought that Adam's offspring procreated with these "preman" and after the "union" the offspring became beings with a soul.

It is interesting that these pre evolution sects thought that the existence of only two people to populate the Earth was suspect, and had an alternate view as to how it all happened.

However, with a God that has created the Universe, all things all possible, and if Adam and Eve were the only two in existence, then it's not that big of a leap to say that they were so superior in how they were created that for them and their immediate offspring to procreate without Genetic problems with relatives was scientifically possible.