General Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Which of these relationships are not your cup of tea, are they OK or not?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (22093 points ) March 14th, 2014

disclaimer To answer this question do not rely on scientific or religious/faith based information. If you disagree with any pairing you can state why so long as it isn’t derived of anything based in biology, genetics, etc. or any religious/faith text. To quash any wild imaginations, all parties of this question are to be looked at as 18yr or older. Legality of the unions where you live for this question is notwithstanding, aka you can’t use the law to choose either

Which of the following couplings are OK with you and which is not your cup of tea?

• Man 45 who couples with the 19yr daughter of his ex-wife’s sister; (his ex-niece-in-law)
• Man 25 who couples with his half-sister’s 22yr female cousin.
• Woman 25 who couples with her half-brother 20yr whom she never lived with growing up.
• Man 30yr coupling with his adopted 24yr non-blood related sister.
• Man 45yr coupling with his 22yr step daughter of his late wife whom he never officially adopted.

Bypassing any law, religion/faith, biological, genetics, or science, which ones are you OK with seeing they are all done by consenting adults, and which ones would you not want to see become legal if where you are now, they are not?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

68 Answers

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Coloma's avatar

They’re all equally fucked up.
You forget to include the 67 yr. old man that rapes his ex wifes Dachshund that he adopts after she commits suicide by leaping from a Merry Go Round.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
talljasperman's avatar

~(NSFW) None of my business unless one of them is me in that case I all dibs on the hot cousin… it’s so hard to find tall girls nowadays. Shelbyville here I cum~

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Coloma They’re all equally fucked up.
May I ask how you came to that minus any scientific/biological, religious/faith, or legal influences?

You forget to include the 67 yr. old man that rapes his ex wife[‘]s Dachshund that he adopts after she commits suicide by leaping from a Merry Go Round.
Ummmm…..no I did not, how can I forget an option that was never on the table?

anniereborn's avatar

I think the only one that doesn’t bug me is this one…..

• Man 25 who couples with his half-sister’s 22yr female cousin.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ Again, based off what?

anniereborn's avatar

Because…incest. And it creeps me out. Enough said.

downtide's avatar

The two involving the older men with the younger women bother me IF they were part of the extended family while the women were growing up. That just smacks of a pedophile waiting for her to be legal. If he never knew her until he reached that age it’s not so bad, but still creepy.

The woman with her half-brother also bothers me because that’s just too close a physical relationship. If they were both the same sex (lesbians or gays) it would bother me less because no offspring would be possible, but half-siblings are likely to cause health issues in any children they may have. Incidentally this is the only one that would be illegal in the UK.

The other two don’t bother me in theory – they’re close enough in age and far enough away in biological connection (if any) that problems with offspring would be unlikely. But it would depend entirely on the individual case and the nature of the relationship. Consent doesn’t always mean “no pressure”.

Also – when I was about 17 I had a crush on my 22 year old half-cousin, who I met only once at a family wedding. Good lord, he’ll be 52 now. That’s a scary thought.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@downtide That just smacks of a pedophile waiting for her to be legal That just smacks of a pedophile waiting for her to be legal
How do I phrase this…..pedophilia is tainted with illegal. Removing any stain of illegal, the greatness of the age regardless both are consenting adults bothers you? Other than to societal influence of great age equals sex with minors or the desire to, thus illegal; taking that away why does the greatness in age bother you?

The woman with her half-brother also bothers me because that’s just too close a physical relationship.
Outside of the fog of religion, biology, genetics or science why would their closeness in blood relationship matter?

If they were both the same sex (lesbians or gays) it would bother me less because no offspring would be possible, but half-siblings are likely to cause health issues in any children they may have.
If they were gay it would bother you because……? Health issues would be opinion from scientist/biologist that do not have enough data on such a coupling that happens once or twice every other generation etc. of which that deterrent is not considered. Having no knowledge of inbreeding over close relations in subsequent generations why would it matter, what then would make it bad or something not to be done?

The other two don’t bother me in theory – they’re close enough in age and far enough away in biological connection (if any) that problems with offspring would be unlikely.
Again, the outside influence of biology taints the decision, if you erased that from the equation what would you have to decide off of?

whitenoise's avatar

If you take biology, religion, law and science away as decision criteria, then what is left. Gut feeling?

In that case…
Option 2 and 4 stay on as family, the rest is family or just feels wrong.

ragingloli's avatar

They are all fine in my book.

cazzie's avatar

The age gap is what bothers me the most of all the examples,with the older men and the much younger women.

and what the heck do you mean by this? ”How do I phrase this…..pedophilia is tainted with illegal.” I beg to differ. Pedophilia is tainted with pedophilia. None of these relationships represent pedophilia as they are written, but I understand what @downtide was getting at. Because these older men may have seen these girls as they were growing up (although it was never really stipulated) it isn’t a very large leap to think these men were having lascivious thoughts while the girls were under-age, but it may absolutely not have been the case either…. so, yeah, well.

Also, incest is incest, but I don’t think any of your examples really represent incest. I also don’t think half-siblings are as large a risk, but knowing they are related, genetic testing for offspring would be highly advised. Cousins are absolutely marriage material. No problems with that. (not for me personally, but it is perfectly legal in most countries to marry your first cousin.)

livelaughlove21's avatar

If there were no religious/moral, biological/scientific, or legal reasons that these are “wrong,” then the only reason there is to give is, “it creeps me out.”

None of these relationships are my cup of tea. Why? Because they’re creepy. I don’t know why some people can’t find partners outside of their families or former relationships. The one that bothers me the most is the half-siblings – they share a parent, gross! Second worse is all the old man/young girl combos. Manther alert!

ragingloli's avatar

@livelaughlove21
And why does it “creep you out”?
Social conditioning based on antique religious/“moral” rules.

livelaughlove21's avatar

@ragingloli There’s no answer to this question if the OP bans any reason we could give. If the law, science, social conventions, and morality didn’t exist, there’d be nothing wrong with these relationships. However, those things do exist.

He asked which are not our cup of tea. I answered. His second question has no answer because he took them away.

Without mentioning the law, morality, or science, why is it not okay for adults to have sex with children? There is no other reason, which is why these things exist. That doesn’t mean pedophilia should be considered okay.

Cruiser's avatar

Those are all out of bound scenarios to me and please don’t invite me to the wedding. Even though in some of the scenarios there is no direct blood line connection there are still familial connections that IMHO should be honored and respected. The minute you cross the line of respect for your own familial boundaries you have now put yourself at a time and place where you no longer deserve the honor and respect that being a part of that family unit you once were entitled to.

Sure being in love is great…but when it involves relatives and children of ex’s or siblings I am not on board with that. There are 6 billion people in the world you can fall in love with…IMO leave the familial pool out of your romantic conquests.

Stinley's avatar

The question is asking us to comment on these couplings without factoring in anything to do with science. I try to use scientific evidence to back up beliefs or theories I might have. Not sure why you are not allowing this.

Anyway. I will try to give an answer. If two people met and coupled and nobody was around to comment that it was wrong they would not even consider that their relationship could be wrong. However we have rules in our societies to help them run smoothly. Looking after lots of children with genetic problems is not good for the business of a successful society. We have rules to try and prevent this from happening. (On the other hand we also look after weaker members because we need to ensure the ongoing population survives to adulthood.)

Coloma's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central My sharing had to do with injecting another, equally preposterous, scenario. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or psychologist to ascertain that all of those scenarios fall on the wrong side of the bell shaped curve. lol

zenvelo's avatar

The whole thing will make it awkward at Thanksgiving dinner.

1TubeGuru's avatar

The 25yr old female with the 20 yr old half brother means that they shared one parent. i don’t feel comfortable with incest.

SwanSwanHummingbird's avatar

No one knows the story behind these. Not my business and they can carry on as they please.

I’m not some moral authority and I won’t judge anything based on such little knowledge.

antimatter's avatar

Don’t have a problem with anything, who are we to judge someone when they find love in one another?
Anyway that’s life we all got to love some one…

Coloma's avatar

Well hell, then if we all have to love someone why not make it legal to sleep with a sheep. lol
Incest is not okay, pedophilia is not okay, screwing farm animals is not okay.

ragingloli's avatar

incest is awesome.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@livelaughlove21 The one that bothers me the most is the half-siblings – they share a parent, gross!
How is that any different than a bitch that has litter [A], then another litter, [B]. If an un-neutered male from litter [A] mounts a bitch in heat from litter [B] who is un-spayed? Do you think the bitch in heat is going to reject the male because they share a parent a litter apart?

There’s no answer to this question if the OP bans any reason we could give. If the law, science, social conventions, and morality didn’t exist, there’d be nothing wrong with these relationships. However, those things do exist.
I am not banning anything you would choose; just choose something that is not mandated by other’s opinions. Morality doesn’t exist in this question as there is no way to narrow it down to an all-inclusive morality that covers everyone.

His second question has no answer because he took them away.
How did I take them away?

Without mentioning the law, morality, or science, why is it not okay for adults to have sex with children?
First determining biological or legal children is of no consequence. Why not? Maybe in nearly all cases it won’t physically work without injury to the smaller partner; that is something aside from faith/religion, science, or law.

@Cruiser Even though in some of the scenarios there is no direct blood line connection there are still familial connections that IMHO should be honored and respected.
I thank you for qualifying it as our opinion.

@Stinley I try to use scientific evidence to back up beliefs or theories I might have. Not sure why you are not allowing this.
If it can be shown that science has done an all-inclusive study to show that inbreeding will result in some health risk or birth defect 80% of the time or better, than I will acquiesce. However, if you look at all the study done, when matched up to the entire population that ever lived, the sample is so weak as to not be an authority. When negative traits manifest itself it is easy to see those clans or families where it occurred, it stands out glaringly. But the occurrence of it every other generation or every 3rd generation over a dozen decades has never been recorded, so the effects are unknown. For all we know it might have made some families better. Just as negative traits can get compounded, who is to say positive traits could not be compounded by inbreeding? Simply going off less than one percent of the total population of mankind throughout his existence is not compelling enough to be an absolute to me.

If two people met and coupled and nobody was around to comment that it was wrong they would not even consider that their relationship could be wrong.
Now we are getting somewhere, outside of science, law, religion, it is just humans getting together. The only time it becomes wrong is someone saying it is wrong because it is not what they would do, or that they agree with; hence However we have rules in our societies to help them run smoothly.

Looking after lots of children with genetic problems is not good for the business of a successful society. We have rules to try and prevent this from happening.
That takes up back to an assumption that cannot really be deciphered. Because of the known cases in which many had negative effects it is assume that all or every instance will be negative. The fact is no one may never know. A girl meets a boy in college, they were both fathered by the same sperm donor, they do not know it, and they couple up boink and she has a kid, they are de facto sister and brother having their own son/nephew, or daughter/niece. How many times has that happened or brother and sister adopted out to separate families, end up mating and having kids? There is not enough data, certainly not enough to track any negative health issues, if any. Society has no real clue if they are preventing these unions to any certain percent.

@Coloma It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or psychologist to ascertain that all of those scenarios fall on the wrong side of the bell shaped curve. Lol
And who made the bell curve? ;-)

Well hell, then if we all have to love someone why not make it legal to sleep with a sheep.
Even if it were illegal, which would shut down a whole genre of porn, there is no real moxie to enforce it, so a woman boinking her dog, or a farmer buggering his sheep is de facto legal; not much would really be done about it.

@1TubeGuru i don’t feel comfortable with incest.
It is just inbreeding, as said before with puppies and litters, it is an available willing female and an available willing male, why should a shared parent have anything to do with it outside of law, science, or religion?

ccrow's avatar

So… why aren’t there any proposed unions of older women/younger men, however they may or may not be related? I mean, a significant age difference, not like your 2nd and 3rd examples, who are essentially all in the same age group.

Edit: Ah, never mind- I just read your answers on this Q. I guess you just don’t want to imagine all those older female bodies.

OpryLeigh's avatar

The only one that I feel uncomfortable with is the half siblings getting it on. As far as I can tell (although it’s gone midnight here and I’m struggling to concentrate), all the others are not blood related in any way? The reason for my answer is that it just grosses me out to think of two siblings going at it but you could say that is because society has taught me to feel that way. I can’t give you an answer better than that I’m afraid.

As for your analogy about male dogs (or whatever animal you were referring to) mating with bitches from the same mother, no the bitch is not likely to reject the male based on it being “icky” but dogs clearly don’t think in the same way as humans or view family in the same way so comparing the two doesn’t really work. As far as we know, other animals haven’t had hundreds and hundreds of years of social opinion, science (although I am sure biology gets involved in some cases so as to preserve that species) and morality shoved down their throats which explains why they can mate with family members without feeling that it is “wrong”. We, however, have had all that shoved down our throats so it is very difficult to ask us to form an opinion without basing it on any of those things.

Sorry if none of this makes sense, I’m fluthering when I should be sleeping!

zenvelo's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central‘s use of “no problem from dog’s inbreeding” is false. There are rampant problems from dog in-breeding, whole litters born with physical defects such as hip dysplasia and congenital heart problems.

And if “80% okay” is the standard, then a population with 20% birth defects is acceptable to @Hypocrisy_Central. But in reality, a defect that occurs once in every 691 births (that’s 0.14%of births) (Down Syndrome) is considered widespread.

And, once again, @Hypocrisy_Central, you show your fascination and approval of pedophilia by stating “Other than to societal influence of great age equals sex with minors or the desire to, thus illegal; taking that away why does the greatness in age bother you?”; to you pedophilia is only taboo because it is against the law.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

I’m fine with all of these if they are consenting adults.

whitenoise's avatar

Thinking a bit more, my answer should be: as long as they are consenting adults, it shouldn’t matter.

Now you (OP!) wrote the following, in response to @livelaughlove21:

Without mentioning the law, morality, or science, why is it not okay for adults to have sex with children?
[...] Why not? Maybe in nearly all cases it won’t physically work without injury to the smaller partner; [...]

Now, it took a while to sink in with me… This seems to imply, though, that from your point of view, sex with people of roughly 12 year or older doesn’t qualify as sex with children…

That is a scary statement to say the least.

May I add another reason, besides physical trauma? How about psychologicl trauma? Trauma that touches on our sexual wellbeing and the trust between children and grown ups. Something that is close to one of the worst traumas one can inflict on another.

You disigned your question in such a way, though, that even inflicting such trauma should be okay, since no claims to morals or ethics, biology, or science are allowed.

downtide's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central You cannot separate these situations from basic biology. If you pretend that children from closely-related parents are not at greater risk of defects, the question itself becomes totally pointless. It’s like asking a question about weight-lifting but then saying “you must totally disregard the existence of gravity in your response”.

PixieCutLover's avatar

The only one that is OK is the thirty year old with the non related “sister” she isn’t his sister at all , just a girl. The problem is marriage, we need to get rid of that institution and get the government out of other peoples relationships. She’s 24 he’s 30 and who the hell is society to call her his sister?

anniereborn's avatar

@PixieCutLover
• Man 25 who couples with his half-sister’s 22yr female cousin

These also may not be related if the cousin is on the half sister’s “other” side.

Stinley's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central :
@Stinley I try to use scientific evidence to back up beliefs or theories I might have. Not sure why you are not allowing this.
If it can be shown that science has done an all-inclusive study to show that inbreeding will result in some health risk or birth defect 80% of the time or better, than I will acquiesce

But but but I’m not allowed to use science to answer….

ashfaque's avatar

none of this is OK

Coloma's avatar

This is the trouble with 90% of the human breeding population today. Breed a mean dog to a stupid dog get mean and stupid dogs. lol

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@zenvelo you show your fascination and approval of pedophilia by stating “Other than to societal influence of great age equals sex with minors or the desire to, thus illegal; taking that away why does the greatness in age bother you?”; to you pedophilia is only taboo because it is against the law.
Let’s deal with the first part before dealing with the other. I was not the one who brought it up, I merely responded. Have you even read other threads, not just mine, where sex is brought up? More times than not, people feel the need to qualify the comment or question as ”OK if it is between consenting adults”. Does that mean they have a fascination with assuming everyone other than them has pedophilic leanings as to not be able to discern the gist of the question? My details specifically stated to whom the question was pertaining to. Why not ask others why they injected minors into the questioning when it was never a part of it? I even narrowed it down to those over 18 even when I know globally 18 is not the standard, or even here in the US, but psychologically people are stuck on this number; so I went with it. There is no way to answer your last part without being true to my own question to deal with it solely apart from faith. To try to get you to see it from a faith perspective would be like trying to get someone who is unfamiliar with home remodeling to understand why the drywall is getting ripped out along with the cabinets. What may look like an act of destructive vandalism to one is needed removal of bad material to another.

But you can run with those misconceptions if it gains you more supporters.

@whitenoise Now, it took a while to sink in with me… This seems to imply, though, that from your point of view, sex with people of roughly 12 year or older doesn’t qualify as sex with children…
Pose that in a question thread, I will respond to it, this thread however, is not about that question; and show how your implications are incorrect. That question would encompass more than just my culture.

@downtide You cannot separate these situations from basic biology. If you pretend that children from closely-related parents are not at greater risk of defects, the question itself becomes totally pointless.
How so? If the numbers are not conclusive, that would make the argument pointless. I can take three trips by commercial jet a year, there is a risk. If I take 35 – 47 commercial jet flights a year, my risk goes up. That doesn’t mean I will necessarily die in a jet crash but I am offering it more time to happen. I may have the misfortune to board a jet at will crash and it was the only jet I boarded for that year. It is the same with inbreeding even if there are genetic diseases of which there are carriers in the family tree. One instance of inbreeding over 3 -5 generations does not automatically spell birth defect or some anomaly, unless you have data covering 90% of all births between close relative over the past three centuries that shows different. We have sperm banks so those who want to be a mother but don’t want the relationship can do so. Are there so many donors that the possibility that Mary’s boy fathered by Phil’s sperm won’t get together and have sex and a child with Betty’s girl also fathered by Phil’s sperm, especially when neither knows Phil is the father of their children? Do they pass the sperm around from clinic to clinic to assure that one donor has no more than 1% or less of children born in any region that might have come from his sperm? Unless that question can be answered completely it is unreliable and not valid for this question. I am not going to use select facts from select families biologist decided to focus on, they can’t represent everyone in which the condition or situation would apply.

@Stinley But but but I’m not allowed to use science to answer….
You can if it is all-inclusive are close enough, say 97% or greater of all time the situation happened as to say it was not just a small pocket of incidences in one small corner of the world; if the science gets beyond that to include, use science, I would love to see it.

whitenoise's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central
Re “and show how your implications are incorrect”
Those were not my implications. They were yours.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@whitenoise Those were not my implications. They were yours.
Nope, I read through all I said and I can’t see what you are trying to groom, invent, or concoct from them, though you would not be alone. If you can’t find anything wrong with said unions just because you feel it is off nothing but your personal opinion, it is alright to say that, @Cruiser was able to. Just off straight logic I know it is hard for you to see it as just ”is”, but where you live is not the way it maybe seen 8,000 miles away. This is not just a US question, an Industrialize Nation question but a question for the global neighborhood and however they treat it. If I ask a question if honor killings were OK, there are regions on this planet that would say it was, even if most said it wasn’t. If I said is it OK in any particular place, then the question changes.

talljasperman's avatar

If a pregnancy comes from a relationship than you get titles like sister-wife, and father-uncle, and You can be your own grandpa . It messes up the genealogy of family’s for century’s of incest.

whitenoise's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central
Do you actually read what I write, before you respond?

In my second post, I said that as long as they are consenting adults, I don’t object.

My observation about your not recognizing sex with twelve year olds as sex with children was based on your response to @livelaughlove21, which I qouted as well… It wasn’t based on your initial, opening question.

Furthermore, you cannot limit me to the opening question, if you yourself stray from it with your remarks on children being physically hurt.

Coloma's avatar

Uh,,,anyone overlooking the obvious….hypocrisy central. lol

zenvelo's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central I quoted you, don’t think I made that up. And don’t even bring up your belief system and call it “faith” like it was some overarching knowledge. I am well versed in my spiritual beliefs.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@whitenoise In my second post, I said that as long as they are consenting adults, I don’t object.
Maybe the confusion came from you not reading the details of the question correctly. The disclaimer clearly says ”To quash any wild imaginations, all parties of this question are to be looked at as 18yr or older. Legality of the unions where you live for this question is notwithstanding, aka you can’t use the law to choose either”. You DID READ that part, didn’t you? Injecting any part about consenting adults was not needed at all. To inject it even if the disclaimer was not posted would be to assume sex with a person deemed an adult and sex with one deemed to be a child would or will occur. Which would mean it was on the mind who brought it up.

My observation about your not recognizing sex with twelve year olds as sex with children was based on your response to @livelaughlove21, which I qouted as well… It wasn’t based on your initial, opening question.
It was a response mostly to show what was said should never have been in the question from jump street. It was totally irrelevant.

Furthermore, you cannot limit me to the opening question, if you yourself stray from it with your remarks on children being physically hurt.
I have not said anything about anyone physically harming anyone, children or adult, it was injected by others who Also maybe did not read the disclaimer.

If you do not like any of the groupings it is quite alright, if you offer any reason why, it should be apart from any legality, biology, or faith. Come with something logical that avoids any of those. I did not think it would be that hard, but I guess it is.

@zenvelo I am well versed in my spiritual beliefs.
Aside from your spiritual belief, aside from your political belief, aside from your legal belief, aside from all of that, are there any of those unions you believe are OK, and I will say again, between partners that are over 18yr regardless of what the law actually says in the region where you live? If you don’t, do you have a logical reason not to apart from any law, faith, biological science claim, etc. or is it just your opinion no matter where, or how you formed it aside from the aforementioned list?

whitenoise's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central

At this point of time, I have to conclude that you are either unwilling or unable to sincerely discuss these topics. It seems you are continuously dodging the true intent of what I and others write.

It may also be that I am at fault and that I should write clearer.

Either way, the result is the same. You write something abject, I point that out to you and you don’t address it anymore.

Discussing further with you on this is pointless.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ Discussing further with you on this is pointless.
If it is a discussion of your choice or answer that falls within the construct of the question, I see no problem.

whitenoise's avatar

One last note then, @hypocrite.

You are hiding behind the construct of your question, even though I respond to your own statements.

You inserted the statements that you claim are outside the construct of the question.

In all honesty, I wonder how sincere this question was. It seems designed in such a way that you can have no opinion on it, since you banned out any logical bases for answers.

You then continue to make statements that when left unchallenged would be very scary.

I will flag this answer (mine, now) to invite a mod to take a look at this. Either this question should be struck, you should communicate openly, or the question moved to social.

To put a question in general that has no answers is wasting all our time.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@whitenoise You inserted the statements that you claim are outside the construct of the question. You inserted the statements that you claim are outside the construct of the question.
I responded to comments or questions posted here. I tried to do so in a way as to squash any erroneous interjection of junk that never needed to be part of the question. However, there is no need to keep going back to the simple past. If you want to make a comment on the question and not comment on comments, or even answer the question, why not do so, using the parameters of the question then at least there is a place to start.

How is it I am hampering you from answering or commenting within the question?

Coloma's avatar

bangs head against wall.

Cruiser's avatar

Bangs head against @Coloma‘s head

Coloma's avatar

^^^ LOL…double concussion.

whitenoise's avatar

hit me too, please

zenvelo's avatar

Aside from your spiritual belief, aside from your political belief, aside from your legal belief, aside from all of that, are there any of those unions you believe are OK, and I will say again, between partners that are over 18 yr regardless of what the law actually says in the region where you live?

And my answer is no, none of them are okay. My beliefs are consistent across spiritual, political, legal bases. And, It’s not okay to couple up with a relative or extended family, even if the relation is only by marriage, As I was alluding humorously in my original posting, don’t make it uncomfortable for anyone to be at the Thanksgiving dinner table.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@zenvelo As I was alluding humorously in my original posting, don’t make it uncomfortable for anyone to be at the Thanksgiving dinner table.
Now that was easy. I now know it is for one meal once a year you disapprove of any of those unions, I guess because you would get squeamish for sure, we can’t fully attest how many others would be so repulsed they could not enjoy the holiday mean. . I guess I dare not ask if you would oppose them should there be a movement to legalize them.

zenvelo's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central So, your turn. Do you find any or all of them okay? Why or why not?

You don’t get to just sit in the cheap seats and throw shit at all the answers you don’t like.

Coloma's avatar

No shit throwing in triage. We have head wounds here!

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@zenvelo So, your turn. Do you find any or all of them okay? Why or why not?
You don’t get to just sit in the cheap seats and throw shit at all the answers you don’t like.
I don’t need to hide in the cheap seats, I can formulate an answer in season and out of season. I could use an out because I can’t answer your question and be genuine to the question; @whitenoise would accuse me of flipping the script giving myself an option not afforded the rest of you. I will answer your question within the construct of the question, my outside-the-construct answer would be different, but you can pose a question that would allow for it..

In the construct of this question there is nothing wrong with any of those unions, and here is why:

• If male on male, female on female unions are normal, or considered alternative, then so would any of these unions.
• Of all possible occurrences of siblings or close relatives producing offspring over a single generation be it by unknown sperm donor, single male impregnating many women he was not married to that did not know of the other offspring whose offspring somehow mated, there is no data on how the children of said unions turned out.
• Any of those unions would not be in violation of anything other than opinion by men, which covers women too.

Those would be the three basic reasons why in the construct of this question there is nothing wrong with them. You want an answer of how I would see it normally you have to pose a question for that. I am sure you don’t like the answer and have much to say of it, but you asked it, and I answered. If you were not able to follow the logic, don’t worry, I never expected you to. You maybe never expected an answer to the question because it was not ask earnestly but as a snare to try to prove something or have the basis for tossing out erroneous facts.

zenvelo's avatar

Thank you @Hypocrisy_Central. We disagree.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ And it is OK, to disagree.

Coloma's avatar

and the last word goes to….oh, I guess it’s me. haha

Brian1946's avatar

You’re not getting the last word here, but I probably won’t either, because we’re in General. ;-o

whitenoise's avatar

It’s okay to disagree, he said, walking away convinced the grass was blue.

After all: blue/green; it’s all semantics. We can each have our own truth.

cazzie's avatar

Asked and answered by the OP….. again. These aren’t questions. They are manifesto.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ Asked and answered by the OP….. again. These aren’t questions. They are manifesto.
Ha ha ha, that was the best joke I heard today, I would not know how to write one to save my life. Fluther is a global community, at least I thought, so not every opinion lines up to that of the US; not everyone here lines up. Just because the question doesn’t fit nicely into someone’s draconian ideology doesn’t make it a manifesto

cazzie's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central You don’t ask questions to get answers. You ask questions to poll the collective and then argue and make comment on all the answers that reflect your own opinions and conclusions. You argue your own points of the questions. You take polls. You don’t ask questions in any open way. You form a question knowing full well, within your own opinion and mind, what the answer is and then argue that with every poster. That isn’t a question. That is a quest. Happy tilting at windmills.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@cazzie You take polls.
Some questions cannot be addressed less you ask opinion of many. Are you saying a question that ask where a great vacation spot for families with young children has no polling affect? Or maybe asking how many people use a condom while having sex when there is no reason given as to why the condom would be used just wanting to know how many people use them for whatever reason has no polling affect? We won’t get into questions as to what people think about a particular law or government body especially on laws or rulings for or against LGTB issues; surely none of them have any polling affect and the poster making them had no thought for or against when they posted it. It is a byproduct of Q&A and everyone is guilty, so it isn’t just me, there are too many mirrors around to lob stones.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther