And what if I were to say "Well yeah" to all of that? How would you argue that any of these things were wrong? (Also, it sounds as though you think snorting crystal meth is morally worse than bestiality and cannibalism of relatives. Really?)

No I am saying that once you open the gat that any vicitimless act is allowable then you really can't close it.

How would serve the better good of society to open those gates just so a few nutjobs can screw their sister or eat the hobbo who agreed to let them have his body when he died for bottle of COld Duck?



1. Yes, of course society has that right. But that doesn't mean there can be no discussion as to where those limits should be set.

Discussion should be unlimited but part of that discussion should be not only why we should not allow but what would gained by allowing and if we allow this what else must we allow.

If a woman wants to star in a real live snuff to pay for college degree do we let her?

2. Which "people" are you talking about? I don't know of any pro-incest or pro-necrophilia campaign groups. This was an academic question.

I never claimed they were pro-incest but it isn't but it would be harder to find replys arguing to make it illegal then ones arguing that neither should be allowed. I didn't read all the replys but did anyone else even argue that both should be illegal?

3. What is the reason you refer to? I'm interested in your view about what (if anything) can justify the prohibition.

Well there are the reasons I stated but I will try and expand it. A society is like any other complex system and we can never truly understand what pushing this lever will do or what the results of taking this part out will be. It some ways it is like an ecosystem. That doesn't mean a society should be stagnant but it does mean if you are going to adjust make fundamental changes you need to consider them carefully and weigh the benefits and the risk.

The benefit to allowing these things is pretty much nil and the risk is great since it removes pretty much any social taboo. Once you start removing social taboos you can't expect them to automatically stop where you think they should. You have established the precedent that no social taboo is to deep or fundamental to be removed so the next one to fall could be the prohibition against removing taboos with victims. If we remove the taboo against having sex with your adult children can we be sure the taboo against have sex with your minor children will hold? People may reason but societies do not react and the reasoning used to remove one taboo does not keep the other taboos from falling.

We need to grow and steer our society and many of the changes we have made are for the better even if not all of them. We do need to keep in mind that we are playing a dangerous we engineer society and things like the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge has shown us that things go tragically wrong social engineer can go so we need use care and not push buttons just to see what happens.

And the less wordy answer. People who want to have sex with the dead or their near relatives are suffering from mental problems and need to be treated not catered to.


Sorry I screwed up the formatting but my wife is waiting to take me to dinner and I don't have time to fix it.