My predictions of the future

[Jacob Harrison]

Back in the good old days when society was more Christian, homosexuality was a major taboo. Homosexual sex was seen the same way as incest, a morally reprehensible perversion.

However with a decline of Christianity, homosexual sex became accepted, and now there are same sex marriages.

Since people don’t see homosexual sex as a perversion, what’s going to stop them from not seeing incest as such? Since people stopped becoming repulsed by homosexuality, I predict in the future that people will stop being repulsed by incest and it will become accepted in society. There will be brother-sister marriages, brother-brother marriages, sister-sister marriages, mother-son marriages, mother-daughter marriages, father-daughter marriages, and father-son marriages.

This is why society needs a return to Christianity to prevent my predictions from coming true.

[dpareja]

Because incest, when it results in pregnancy, leads to problems with recessive traits being reinforced.

Societies that accepted incest generally died off. Those that did not accept incest generally survived. (The same goes for cannibalism.) We are the descendants of people who did not accept incest.

As for banning homosexuality, that was imposed much later, with the Theodosian Code during the Christianisation of the Roman Empire. Other non-Jewish, non-Christian, non-Islamic cultures (say, India or America) were more accepting of it (and of transgender people) until the taboos against it were brought in by European colonizers.

Societies that accepted homosexuality survived. Societies that did not accept homosexuality survived.

So, yes, there is a marked difference between homosexuality and incest, and your slippery slope argument is, as with so many slippery slope arguments, laughably false and ignorant.

[Jacob Harrison]

Because incest, when it results in pregnancy, leads to problems with recessive traits being reinforced.

Societies that accepted incest generally died off. Those that did not accept incest generally survived. (The same goes for cannibalism.) We are the descendants of people who did not accept incest.

As for banning homosexuality, that was imposed much later, with the Theodosian Code during the Christianisation of the Roman Empire. Other non-Jewish, non-Christian, non-Islamic cultures (say, India or America) were more accepting of it (and of transgender people) until the taboos against it were brought in by European colonizers.

Societies that accepted homosexuality survived. Societies that did not accept homosexuality survived.

So, yes, there is a marked difference between homosexuality and incest, and your slippery slope argument is, as with so many slippery slope arguments, laughably false and ignorant.

But there are condoms today, so they wouldn’t have to worry about pregnancies. Yet there is still a moral repulsion to the idea of incest like there used to be to homosexuality in Christian society.

[dpareja]

Yes, there is a moral repulsion to incest because our minds haven't caught up to technology. And remember that male condoms are only around 98% effective (when used properly), so the taboo still makes sense even in light of our advancements in medical science.

As for homosexuality, that taboo was imposed--when you kill everyone who displays their homosexuality, everyone else gets the message pretty quickly. Prior to that, homosexuality was generally accepted.

[Jacob Harrison]

Yes, there is a moral repulsion to incest because our minds haven't caught up to technology. And remember that male condoms are only around 98% effective (when used properly), so the taboo still makes sense even in light of our advancements in medical science.

As for homosexuality, that taboo was imposed--when you kill everyone who displays their homosexuality, everyone else gets the message pretty quickly. Prior to that, homosexuality was generally accepted.

But the immoral society of today also accepts birth control and abortions so even in the 2% of cases where condoms fail, it won’t cause babies with genetic disorders to be born. Eventually people’s minds will catch up to technology.

So Niam, every time you have sex with a condom, you have a 2% chance of becoming a father. So you might have fathered a poor neglected child who never met his or her dad due to your immoral behavoir.

[dpareja]

Condoms are a form of birth control but none of those are perfect. Even abortions don't always work. As for abortion being immoral, it's even more immoral to deny someone bodily autonomy and force (and that's what you're doing: using the force of the government to deny someone the rights to self-determination and to withdraw consent) them to give birth and RISK BECOMING A FUCKING PARAPLEGIC. (Or just straight-up dying, or going broke.)

As for people's minds catching up to technology, do you have any clue how long our evolution has taken, especially compared to how long we've had our modern technology?

[niam2023]

Back in the good old days when society was more Christian, homosexuality was a major taboo. Homosexual sex was seen the same way as incest, a morally reprehensible perversion.

However with a decline of Christianity, homosexual sex became accepted, and now there are same sex marriages.

Since people don’t see homosexual sex as a perversion, what’s going to stop them from not seeing incest as such? Since people stopped becoming repulsed by homosexuality, I predict in the future that people will stop being repulsed by incest and it will become accepted in society. There will be brother-sister marriages, brother-brother marriages, sister-sister marriages, mother-son marriages, mother-daughter marriages, father-daughter marriages, and father-son marriages.

This is why society needs a return to Christianity to prevent my predictions from coming true.

We already went through a period when incest was deemed okay and commendable - the Habsburg Dynasty of The Holy Roman Empire / Austria-Hungary.

And if you go into the deep south, you still do find really freaking tangled family trees.

[niam2023]

Yes, there is a moral repulsion to incest because our minds haven't caught up to technology. And remember that male condoms are only around 98% effective (when used properly), so the taboo still makes sense even in light of our advancements in medical science.

As for homosexuality, that taboo was imposed--when you kill everyone who displays their homosexuality, everyone else gets the message pretty quickly. Prior to that, homosexuality was generally accepted.

But the immoral society of today also accepts birth control and abortions so even in the 2% of cases where condoms fail, it won’t cause babies with genetic disorders to be born. Eventually people’s minds will catch up to technology.

So Niam, every time you have sex with a condom, you have a 2% chance of becoming a father. So you might have fathered a poor neglected child who never met his or her dad due to your immoral behavoir.

Yeah, and? I'm not even the slightest bit worried.

[Jacob Harrison]

Condoms are a form of birth control but none of those are perfect. Even abortions don't always work. As for abortion being immoral, it's even more immoral to deny someone bodily autonomy and force (and that's what you're doing: using the force of the government to deny someone the rights to self-determination and to withdraw consent) them to give birth and RISK BECOMING A FUCKING PARAPLEGIC. (Or just straight-up dying, or going broke.)

As for people's minds catching up to technology, do you have any clue how long our evolution has taken, especially compared to how long we've had our modern technology?

But the 2% failure rate of condom use combined with the small failure rates of other forms of birth control and abortions makes the chance of having a baby of incestual sex so small that those babies won’t have a major impact on the human population. And we’ve been over abortion before, nobody should have the right to murder babies. Of course an exception is when the mother’s life is threatened.

And it is society, not evolution that determines how people morally think about something like incest.

[Jacob Harrison]

Back in the good old days when society was more Christian, homosexuality was a major taboo. Homosexual sex was seen the same way as incest, a morally reprehensible perversion.

However with a decline of Christianity, homosexual sex became accepted, and now there are same sex marriages.

Since people don’t see homosexual sex as a perversion, what’s going to stop them from not seeing incest as such? Since people stopped becoming repulsed by homosexuality, I predict in the future that people will stop being repulsed by incest and it will become accepted in society. There will be brother-sister marriages, brother-brother marriages, sister-sister marriages, mother-son marriages, mother-daughter marriages, father-daughter marriages, and father-son marriages.

This is why society needs a return to Christianity to prevent my predictions from coming true.

We already went through a period when incest was deemed okay and commendable - the Habsburg Dynasty of The Holy Roman Empire / Austria-Hungary.

And if you go into the deep south, you still do find really freaking tangled family trees.

There used to be cousin incest yes but not incest closer than that.

[Jacob Harrison]

Yes, there is a moral repulsion to incest because our minds haven't caught up to technology. And remember that male condoms are only around 98% effective (when used properly), so the taboo still makes sense even in light of our advancements in medical science.

As for homosexuality, that taboo was imposed--when you kill everyone who displays their homosexuality, everyone else gets the message pretty quickly. Prior to that, homosexuality was generally accepted.

But the immoral society of today also accepts birth control and abortions so even in the 2% of cases where condoms fail, it won’t cause babies with genetic disorders to be born. Eventually people’s minds will catch up to technology.

So Niam, every time you have sex with a condom, you have a 2% chance of becoming a father. So you might have fathered a poor neglected child who never met his or her dad due to your immoral behavoir.

Yeah, and? I'm not even the slightest bit worried.

Your not worried if you have a child? That makes you a horrible neglectful dad.

[dpareja]

Condoms are a form of birth control but none of those are perfect. Even abortions don't always work. As for abortion being immoral, it's even more immoral to deny someone bodily autonomy and force (and that's what you're doing: using the force of the government to deny someone the rights to self-determination and to withdraw consent) them to give birth and RISK BECOMING A FUCKING PARAPLEGIC. (Or just straight-up dying, or going broke.)

As for people's minds catching up to technology, do you have any clue how long our evolution has taken, especially compared to how long we've had our modern technology?

But the 2% failure rate of condom use combined with the small failure rates of other forms of birth control and abortions makes the chance of having a baby of incestual sex so small that those babies won’t have a major impact on the human population. And we’ve been over abortion before, nobody should have the right to murder babies. Of course an exception is when the mother’s life is threatened.

And it is society, not evolution that determines how people morally think about something like incest.

There's always a threat to the life of the mother. Childbirth itself is a threat to the life of the mother. If you're fine with forcing someone to undergo a procedure that carries a not-insignificant risk of death (never mind all the other potential consequences), you're the immoral one here.

And it is evolution that determines how people think about something like incest, because those societies which survived were, by and large, those that had an incest taboo.

[Sigmaleph]

So Niam, every time you have sex with a condom, you have a 2% chance of becoming a father. So you might have fathered a poor neglected child who never met his or her dad due to your immoral behavoir.

That's not what the 2% failure rate means. Birth control efficacy rates are calculated annually, not per sexual encounter.

[Jacob Harrison]

Condoms are a form of birth control but none of those are perfect. Even abortions don't always work. As for abortion being immoral, it's even more immoral to deny someone bodily autonomy and force (and that's what you're doing: using the force of the government to deny someone the rights to self-determination and to withdraw consent) them to give birth and RISK BECOMING A FUCKING PARAPLEGIC. (Or just straight-up dying, or going broke.)

As for people's minds catching up to technology, do you have any clue how long our evolution has taken, especially compared to how long we've had our modern technology?

But the 2% failure rate of condom use combined with the small failure rates of other forms of birth control and abortions makes the chance of having a baby of incestual sex so small that those babies won’t have a major impact on the human population. And we’ve been over abortion before, nobody should have the right to murder babies. Of course an exception is when the mother’s life is threatened.

And it is society, not evolution that determines how people morally think about something like incest.

There's always a threat to the life of the mother. Childbirth itself is a threat to the life of the mother. If you're fine with forcing someone to undergo a procedure that carries a not-insignificant risk of death (never mind all the other potential consequences), you're the immoral one here.

And it is evolution that determines how people think about something like incest, because those societies which survived were, by and large, those that had an incest taboo.

Most mothers do not die in childbirth, so in most situations, abortion has a much higher chance of causing a human to die, than childbirth. Then there are the exceptions.

And humans could evolve due to the birth control technology to not have evolutionary disgust for incest, which is why Christian morality is also needed, and why same sex marriage is a slippery slope.

[dpareja]

No, it's why secular morality is needed, so that we have a rational, logical means of determining what is acceptable and unacceptable and why that is not just the hopelessly arbitrary standard of "My imaginary dictator said so and you have to do it too even though you don't share my delusions."

As for abortion, I already knew you denied the rights to bodily autonomy, self-determination, and withdrawal of consent and that you are willing to use force to make a woman undergo a dangerous procedure against her will.