yeah. there are already reports about it. i wonder if what will the baby say to his mother. hahaha.

gross

dunno...
but i sure heard some news about that

lmfao haha that made my day

adoption would be much easier considering theyd start selling babies at the pet store

*pity* on their offspring

Mmm. We don't have any laws about genetic matches or possibilities of deformities in offspring anyways. I am sorry, but the way I see it, people are just using biology to mask their moral disgust with incest, unless you are also against offspring coming from people with insanity in the family, women over 50, genetic defects running in the family, etc. Unless you are against all these, it is just a question of moral disgust. So don't maks it with "science". Scientifically speaking, if the possibility of defects is the problem, you must include a lot of groups, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

their children will be born abnormally..>_>

wow that all i got to say

It's hard to tell with incest if it isn't really rape?

If both people want to do it then it isn't rape.

I don't see what the big issue is. If two people wanna do it, let them do it. First cousins used to get married all the time -and it was even arranged by their families. I bet everyone has a little incest in their family tree at some point. And if you're against it, don't go to family reunions to find a significant other. That's all you should be concerned with.

That is sick!!!!!!!

I don't know if this has been addressed or not, but this is not an instance of slippery slope.

The slippery slope fallacy is when the author draws a continuum to prove that there is insignificant difference between two points.

The pattern looks like this:

A is insignificantly different from B
B is insignificantly different from C
-----------------------------------------------------
Therefore, A is insignificantly different from C

The reason why this doesn't hold true is that the author fails to acknowledge that the insignificant differences may add up to make a significant difference.

However you are right in noticing that there is a fallacy present in this statement.
The fallacy that this argument commits is known as the "Straw Man Fallacy."

This is when the author distorts the original argument and weakens it. Then he successfully attacks the weakened argument.

The original statement that the Supreme court may make is "You have the right to consensual sex within your home." The author distorts the claim and says that, "you have the right to do anything." The attack is implicitly obvious here, but it is directed towards the weakened claim.

This example is a bit hard to see, since the author's attack is implicit.

Here is the pattern of this fallacy:

Person 1 presents the claim A
Person 2 distorts the claim A and weakens it to make it claim B
Person 2 successfully attacks and disproves claim B.

The main error is the distortion/weakening of claim A. (basically substituting the real claim for a weaker "straw" claim).

I hope this helps. Sorry for the long post. =D

Wow. It is there lives...let them...bump ugly with who they want to as long as it isn't raping o.o;

I didn't even know it was still illegal. That's like the old bans on homosexuality or the anti-miscegenation laws from before the 1960s. I don't see why the government should even consider interfering with people's lives in a free country.

I always thought it was something de-facto illegal, that is only the community itself enforced anti-incest through mob rule and ostracizing the couples.