Phantasy Star Cave Message Board

by **Danny** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:53 pm

Peegai wrote:The same goes for incest relationships as well. I'm not saying that I'm into incest (* no), but there are couples out there who are happy developing sexual relationships with their siblings, parents, etc, but are condemned for being "unholy" and whatnot.

That is bad not only from a moral perspective but also a genetical one. People who are related to each other should not have children together because their DNA mixing together will create babies with problems such as physical disabilities, mental retardness, down syndrome and a lot of other things as well. This is taught in even early grades of school, how could you not know that?

Peegai wrote:This here is your typical case of stigma from others who have been brainwashed by social conditioning. What society says must be true! What arrogance.

I agree that most things said by politicians and most of the general media is wrong. I was writing from a scientifical point of view and my own opinion. I have never called you or pologamy immoral, I was just stating my opinion with scientifical facts against it like I already said. Most of the world is indeed arrogant and ignorant, I just think that we're discussing something pretty basic in terms of biology that doesn't really have anything to do with the general population's view on pologamy (except in the first posts about this).

by **BenoitRen** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:11 pm

I've split this discussion from Danny's Introductions thread.

Since when has monogamy been the prime decider of what is and is not a legitimate relationship?

I have reason to believe that monogamy is the natural evolution after polygamy. Look at birds, who have been one of the longest kind of species alive. They became monogamous. It's better for both of the male and the female, and for their offspring.

by **Danny** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:24 pm

I've split this discussion from Danny's Introductions thread.

Actually it was Insung's introduction thread. Heh, it was a good idea as this started to go off topic there. Thanks BenoitRen-kun! I hope no one mind's if I use Japanese titiles from time to time. It's just my way of being polite.

Most animals such as the morning dove have become monogamaous. They stay forever with their mate. The only time they ever get another one is if their mate dies as they can't stand being alone. Hench the name, they actually morn for their lost mate before getting a new one. Getting a mate for a monogamaous animal is harder than for a polomaous one as it protects it's sole mate as opposed to the ones that have multiple mates and doesn't really care so much if one is lost. It is a natural evolution like BenoitRen said.

by **Mizerith** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:33 am

Here's what I think: polygamy is not for everyone, but it can -- and apparently does -- work just fine for some people. There are three people on another forum I frequent who say they're in a relationship together (one woman, two men), and they say that they have had no problems with jealousy, cheating, and whatnot; they're good to each other and are like a family. Also, my best friend recently told me about a couple he met who have an open marriage which they are comfortable in.

I don't think polygamy is either good or evil, because I don't believe in good or evil to begin with. They seem to be subjective terms with no precise definitions to me.

But yeah, some people would be comfortable only in monogamous relationships and some are comfortable in polygamous, and I don't see why it should matter what kind of relationships a person is in as long it's all consensual and they're all happy in it.

As for incest, I see nothing wrong with it as the reproductive issues can be prevented by the couple doing what any other couple would do to prevent unwanted pregnancies -- use protection, or the guy can get a vasectomy, and so on. Sure, surgery can be costly, but I would think that sort of thing shouldn't matter if the couple loves each other. Heck, they wouldn't even have to bother with birth control methods if either or both of them are infertile.

by **Lord Khyron** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:12 am

No Pea, you are not being ridiculed. You are being told a legitimate fact and what you will become.

Like it or not, If you lagree with Polyandry and want your woman to sleep with as many men as she can, You will become cuckolded. That is a fact.

In the end a cuckold takes care of children that aren't his and seldom gets to sleep with his wife. Instead he gets to watch..

Have that fate if you wish. It is your choice. But it isn't a GOOD fate. It is a terrible fate.

In the end, the outcome is your choice.

It has also been proven that POLYGAMY = POVERTY. Poverty begets poverty. Hundreds of polygamist communities can't raise their children without living on welfare or government money. It's even worse for the man with 46 kids who live in trailers and who can't support them.

I'd rather not have my kids live in poverty if I have any. SO if I do indeed marry, I might have just one wife. Maybe a GF on the side if the wife likes that but.. I will NEVER live in poverty again.

by **BenoitRen** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:09 pm

As for incest, I see nothing wrong with it as the reproductive issues can be prevented by the couple doing what any other couple would do to prevent unwanted pregnancies -- use protection, or the guy can get a vasectomy, and so on.

Incest is defined as a sexual relationship. So it's always 'wrong'.

by **LegoMuskCat** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:10 pm

BenoitRen wrote:Incest is defined as a sexual relationship. So it's always 'wrong'.

You know how the saying goes... Keep it in the family!

by **Mizerith** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:24 am

BenoitRen wrote:
As for incest, I see nothing wrong with it as the reproductive issues can be prevented by the couple doing what any other couple would do to prevent unwanted pregnancies -- use protection, or the guy can get a vasectomy, and so on.

Incest is defined as a sexual relationship. So it's always 'wrong'.

Say what? Are you being sarcastic or sincere in the second sentence?

Sorry, it's just that the quotes around "wrong" and the wink are confusing me.

Tsu wrote:You know how the saying goes... Keep it in the family!

Ahaha... "Incest is best, put your sister to the test!" And a possible photoshopped board game, "Incest!™ Fun for the whole family!" Those are the only ones I know. XD

by **BenoitRen** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:15 pm

I put the quotes and the winking smiley there because you don't believe in good and evil, or right and wrong.

by **Mizerith** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:55 pm

Then why tell me it at all?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it would be okay for me to go around doing whatever I want; I have a code of ethics that I follow mainly out of empathy and compassion. It just seems to me that anything I can think of that is deemed evil by society could be a "good" thing in some cases, and thus I don't see what exactly makes something good or evil. As Khyron said, they're defined differently by everybody. However, I wouldn't say they're defined differently by each individual, but it has occurred to me that there are differences of opinion out there, and I can't tell who's correct and who's incorrect; one begins to wonder if anyone is right or wrong at all.

by **BenoitRen** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:38 am

Incest would be bad/wrong/evil because it's proven to create children with disabilities and defects. And I was only countering what you said about incest being okay as long as there's no sex.

by **Mister Death** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:08 am

I don't know enough to form a good opinion on polygamy but I do not think that good and evil are relative. Yes, different people define good and evil differently, but it is possible for someone to get it wrong. Otherwise it becomes a meaningless concept except to describe a certain viewpoint of morality. It doesn't protect any innocents in the way it is meant to.

That's not to say there's a straightforward definition of good and evil, though, there are a lot of grey areas such as when someone performs a good action with an evil motive. There's the issue of whether neutrality exists as well.

by **Neo48** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:23 am

Good and Evil is no doubt decided by leadership. Do you think a lot of nazi's thought Hitler was evil? Did they think handling the jews the way they did was evil? Obviously not.

However, most of us (I hope) would see this as an evil action. Good and Evil could easily be said to be decided by the majority of followers to a higher power. If our government was going to do something "evil" such as cut free health care (Canada), then most fo the country would uproar against it. This definition could probably use some refining, but build off of it if you like.