| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/14/2007 10:18:57 PM |
Abuse is not an act of love. And no court whether here or in Europe will say that it's ok for a father to have sex with his young daughter because it was "an act of love". If incest were to become legal there would be limitions to the law just like any other law.
Incest becoming legal would bring about a ton of new social problems...specifically the ones people are worried about...let me explain!
Of course, no court in Europe or anywhere else probably, would allow incest between a parent and child when the child is underage. But what about when they are 18? Well, they are consenting adults, right???
WRONG. Parents who committ incest would be prone to introducing their children to this at a very young age. They would be brainwashing them from childhood that it is normal and okay for daddy to touch, feel, lick, etc. When the child reached the age of majority (if sexual abuse didn't already occur under the confines of the home during the previous years) the child would have no legal standing against her father as it is LEGAL for two consenting adults to be having sex. She would feel helpless and hopeless. Plus, it would be so normalized to her that she might not see anything wrong with it in the first place.
Now, I know I used "fathers and daughters" as an example, but the same could be with mothers and sons. Do we allow these travesties to occur? No! We take a stand for the moral and right thing to do.
JMO | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/15/2007 3:05:58 AM | I am not aware that incest is legal in this country and I am against it and all the feeble lame excuses that some posters are spewing forth in support of it.
It shocks me to be blunt .
Incest and child abuse is linked .Child abuse cannot be called consent.Its fear and intimidation .Last week on GMTV...two girls related how they were abused by their own father from the age of 4. They blanked it out .They were fearful and unknowing and this went on for 7 years .It was when they met and married guys that it all came out and they brought their father to justice .
There is a thin line here of "consent "....its called FEAR .
A sane society needs to protect and cherish its young. These girls met decent guys who helped them through this .They could have gone on to abuse their young or have any number of self harm,self esteem issues .
Cleopatra maybe married her half brother for political purposes.I know the European Royals never married closer than their cousins and thats bad enough.This was in the days of Royals being few and far between.They didn't hand down edicts to the masses to do the same and it wasn't accepted either.
Not too clued up with the Bible but some lame excuses being put forth here about GOD condoning incest etc. So in this instance..........the incest promoters believe in GOD.......yet GOD was against homosexuality and we don't care and still pass that as good reason to legalise it .
A man or woman that needs to couple with a realative,sibling or child has major issues and no amount of consenting adults etc can excuse such behaviour. Its not the incest objectors who need to explain themselves.Its the incest promoters .Its like you seem to think it somehow makes you smarter or more enlightened or something ?
It doesn't.
If you are unable to find a man or woman thats not related to you............its you thats a sad case. Holland is the most permissive European country .THey started off with legal brothels to gay marriages and now they want more which I am unable to even write down here.
Incest and child abuse is linked .Its wrong and in these cases.........."consent" is usually FEAR and INTIMIDATION. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/15/2007 4:51:32 AM | 
You go girl! I haven't got time to write my bit now.. but i will soon, I am definitely coming back to this discussion... | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/15/2007 10:52:19 AM | Incest and child abuse is linked .Its wrong and in these cases.........."consent" is usually FEAR and INTIMIDATION.
No they are not necessarily linked. Consent to sex between 2 adults that are not involved in a fiduciary relationship is VERY different from child abuse. There is no such thing as consent from a child. If a brother and sister who are adults want to enter into a consensual relationship, it doesn't matter at all if someone else (including myself) thinks it's icky. It is none of their business. But I agree that they should take precautions when it comes to reproduction. Then it does become someone else's business. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/15/2007 11:33:28 AM | | There are a great many crude and knee-jerk reactions to this subject on this site. Yours was humorous and insightful. Thank you for taking it to a real place. People who refer to some religious superstition or "I just think it is wrong" attitude do not move the discussion along. This is a serious topic, but the heavy religious overlay can be lightened by someone like yourself interjecting a little realism. Thanks. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/15/2007 7:25:58 PM | Robert...
The 'objections are solely a matter of knee-jerk reactions from religious zealots' bit is getting very very old. I've seen it repeatedly in this thread alone. Hell, most conservative folk don't use such labels as freely or as repeatedly.
Arguements, very sound arguements, have been put forth against this decidedly foul thing, and the post you're praising doesn't even address them. Talk about not moving the discussion along.
Now, as for said post...
If a brother and sister who are adults want to enter into a consensual relationship, it doesn't matter at all if someone else (including myself) thinks it's icky. It is none of their business. But I agree that they should take precautions when it comes to reproduction.
Here's the deeply sticky part of that lovely statement... Generally, said siblings will have been in each other's company throughout their childhood, and if incest is legal, then they're that much for likely to be raised thinking it's a good thing. If even one of them, just for the sake of arguement, an older brother, decides to take advantage and bully his sister into this sort of thing... Then by the time they're adults she'll already be heavily conditioned to accept it as normal. That, or the fear-and-intimidation aspect you seem to have written off will render her afraid to object.
Second, as has been mentioned a good few times before, how do you propose to force contraception on them? Do you think that, with incest legalized, there won't be 'accidents'? What then?
And to finally give credit where credit was due... The highly apt quote I initially used, with the name of the person quoted as saying it.
"In a society where anything goes everything, eventually, will. A society that stands for nothing will fall for anything - and then, of course, will just simply fall." - John Underwood | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/15/2007 10:29:31 PM | I will not state an opinion on the matter beyond this question:
WHY is consensual sex between adult siblings wrong?
Is it morally wrong? if so why and why should you moral code on the matter be inflicted on others who do not share it?
Is it wrong genetically? give examples to support that.
In an over all sense, you must state a rational reason why something is wrong, not just declare it to be so. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/16/2007 6:07:42 PM | I will not state an opinion on the previous post beyond this question:
Have you read the previous posts, Professor Paul?
Most of your assignment has been completed in advance. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/17/2007 11:46:09 AM | Once you extend the parameters and legalise incest then the next demand will come up in the form of personal freedoms.It could be age restrictions lowered and what is consent anyway ?
Not muslim myself but cousin marriage was accepted in certain muslim societies due to poverty and a desire to hold on to property and keep it in the family.This has gone on to the tune of maybe 50% and its caused all manner of family,genetic and social problems .
They never ever wed children of the same father.
It was always a cousin of various types .
Other societies such as Sikhs and Hindus will never marry people with the same surname even if not related to avoid the pitfalls of what they could see here . Incest by choice is considered a low coarse thing to do .You are on par with a murderer and to be truthful-it would cause some major fallout out in the family and society .
I know I am giving you an example of a simplistic society but I have known people at university be attracted to each other but cooling it when they found out they had the same surname.
Incest is totally wrong. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/17/2007 7:31:37 PM | In China, one can marry his/her cousin who is from the mother's side but cannot marry a cousin from the father's side for they think the blood then would be too closely related.
I really don't think when if incest to be legalized one day, people are going to be all readily to jump in bed with their opposite sex siblings or children. In the real world how many of us would love our blood related relatives to the level that we must have sex with them? If people want to do incest they will do it law or no law. And then any sex without mutual consent of both partners could be equal to rape; legalizing incest won't make raping legal. Should one use the legalizing to force sex on their blood related relatives, it would still be a crime. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/17/2007 8:04:07 PM | | Try thinking about it it in this light. The only coherent reason to criminize incest is the genetics argument. But try thinking about the slippery slope in reverse. If we criminize incest due to an increased chance of defects, what is the difference between that and other forms of eugenics? (which I'm not necessarally against) . A lot of things a lot of people do are disgusting to a lot of other people. Me included. But unless there is a valid, precise and overwhelming reason to restrict a persons freedom, the safe bet is not to. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/17/2007 11:13:15 PM | All coherent arguements here have already been countered in previous posts.
jklumker
f we criminize incest due to an increased chance of defects, what is the difference between that and other forms of eugenics? (which I'm not necessarally against)
Again, I myself thwarted this one earlier, read on up.
I have to add that I am shocked you aren't opposed to eugenics. Forcibly sterilizing undesireables is not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination. Hitler, among others, demonstrated the evils inherent.
By the by, incest is already criminalized in better nations. This isn't the thread for the criminalization of incest. You might notice that, with incest criminalized, it hasn't exactly led to a sexless nation where it is thus. Your slippery-slope arguement is irrational. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/17/2007 11:56:38 PM | If you had actually understood my post ...
A. The "coherent argument(s)" I was (obviously) referring to, were those AGAINST incest.
B. Only your stretch of the imagination, it's called myopia.
C. Anyone who mentions Hitler in a debate automatically loses, at least in "better nations".
D. This thread is called "Legalizing incest...." and after skimming a few posts that discussed its legal status, I assumed it was about its legal status. Silly me.
E. (And this is even more confusing than (A.)) The "slippery slope" I mentioned was a theoretical one. I was questioning the difference between criminalizing incest on health grounds (i.e.; genetic defects) and eugenics, which encourages reproduction from "genetically superior" samples and discourages it from "inferior" ones. I never mentioned or implied that criminalizing incest leads to a sexless nation. Where did you get that?
Edit your thought before you go calling people "irrational" and associating them with Hitler. If I were to take out all the red herrings, emotional arguments, logical fallacies and vilifications from your post, it would be blank.
Good night. Time for sleep. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/18/2007 12:33:09 AM | A: Yes, yes, you think incest shouldn't be condemned because of the genetic f-ups it results in. What I said was, I myself pointed out reasons besides that and why objecting to the genetic issue did not generally incur claims of eugenics.
B: What about myopia?
C: I'm sorry, I missed that 'validly referencing Hitler automatically results in a 'loss' rule'. Whoops. I mean, it's not as if Hitler practiced eugenics or anything... Oh wait, he did.
I think that makes the reference a bit more valid than, say the endless comparisons between him and various US political leaders.
D: No joke you skimmed... Behold, my arguement that pointed out the difference between eugenics and discouraging incestous folks from pumping out kids.
Renfrew :I sense from many of the postings that there is a religious undertone to the opposition, and that the genetic arguement is just a front. If you are being honest with yourselves, and the possibility of geneticilly defective children is your real concern, then you must also ban all the other people from the mentioned groups, and so many others from breeding as well, as incest is not the only possible precursor for birth defects.
GreenGrayblack: You make a fine point, save to so casually blame religion for being the source of the objection.
These other people should not rightly be banned from reproduction as they did not choose to be as they are, and while they run the considerable risk of having children with similar disadvantages, it is that or let them die out. No one should tell them what their decision should be in that. To do otherwise is merely eugenics, a deeply foul thing.
The difference with the incestuous is that, if they were with a different mate, their odds of having healthy children would be relatively normal. Whereas when they choose to have children with their siblings/parents/etc. they are greatly increasing the risk of inflicting considerable genetic and emotional damage on these children that have no choice in the matter.
They do this for far less dire reasons than 'If I don't, my line dies with me.' Very selfish.
I'm being awfully generous quoting all this when you already 'skimmed' across it. If you'd like me to sum up what pertains to your arguement.
It's not just about preventing 'inferior' genetics, but the pain that the children of such unions will face, inflicted on them by the highly selfish desires of their incestuous parents. It's not just genetics, it's irresponsibility and assured emotional pain.
E: The theoretical one makes less sense than any other proposed slopes then. You see I thought you were suggesting that if incest was illegal then other things might become illegal that were considered disgusting by some, sex in general.
jklumker:
A lot of things a lot of people do are disgusting to a lot of other people. Me included.
Perhaps that was the problem... Eh. | |
|
sddude
|
Joined: 11/4/2004
Msg: 90 | |
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/18/2007 1:43:46 AM | jerry springer stuff
if it were perfectly normal and legal in biblically acceptrable I probably would have married my..... and my ....
yeeah you would like to know  | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/18/2007 2:36:11 AM | No, what you said was "All coherent arguements here have already been countered in previous posts. " To reiterate, MY claim was that the ONLY coherent argument is "the genetic issue". Singular, and expressed by me. And this was only said as a preface to my following point. Simple enough?
And I never said " incest shouldn't be condemned because of the genetic f-ups it results in" . You confusing theoretical tools with political stances.
Myopia. Recursively (and ironically), you didn't get this one either. I was having fun at your tacky trope and pedestrian moralizing. You were shocked, shocked! That I would imply that eugenics was okey-dokey. Which of course I wasn't.
And because of all of this you WEREN'T "'validly referencing Hitler" , you were doing what every bad rhetorician (and good lawyer) does. Vilifying your opponent instead of debating him.
"It's not just about preventing 'inferior' genetics, but the pain that the children of such unions will face"
Which is identical to the problem of allowing drug addicted mothers, or mentally ill parents reproduce. Positing that mental illness is at least in part genetic, I was simply asking what the difference was. Once again, I wasn't taking a stance, I was offering an excercise. More to the point, since this was an excercise and a non sequitor, I didn't feel obligated to read the entire thread.
"You see I thought you were suggesting that if incest was illegal then other things might become illegal that were considered disgusting by some, sex in general."
And you were wrong, again. At least here you admit it.
" Perhaps that was the problem... Eh. "
And this (unecessary ) limp wristed barb was your (thankfully) last misunderstanding.
I'm disgusted as others, not disgusting as some.
OK, I'm really going to bed, I'm seeing double. Kids like you can get away with all nighters. I'm too old for that now. I'll "generously" continue this tomorrow. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/19/2007 4:49:54 AM | Wonder if you folks have heard of the West case in England ?
Fred and Rose West ? Fred West was abused in his family and went on to abuse,commit incest,to encourage his kids and his wife and they went on to murder .
So over the span of some 40 years can we assume it was CONSENT ? It was fear.
The kids say it was fear .The fear was very real because the West's actually murdered one of their own daughters .Lesbianism,incest,chid abuse and murder all in one .
Last year you had a similar case in France .Whole family involved in incest.Therefore condoning it.Therefore loosing the plot and actually letting strangers come in and abuse their kids for a pack of fags. You extend all bounderies and everything becomes justified in your mind for personal freedoms if its behind closed doors.One persons freedom is another persons fear | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/19/2007 8:27:30 AM | First of all - the genetic reason alone is sufficient to explain why Incest should be wrong. All other reasons are merely icing on the cake.
Secondly, I do agree that eugenics would invariably come up in this discussion, but I don't necessarily think that its a bad thing. Obviously trying to breed a particular physiotype of person is wrong, but I don't think there is anything wrong with breeding out potential harmful traits (oh - like congenital heart defects). As mentioned in a previous post, this type of selective breeding happens automatically - has people with severe defects have harder time of finding mates, and therefore, are less likely to breed in the first place. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/19/2007 11:41:29 AM | Let me put this question up for a vote.
Given that both parties are closely related (family group consisting of parents, and their children) Adults, and supposing that the female, AND/OR the male partner in an incestuous relationship were to be rendered 100% infertile/sterile by way of surgery, then would you be in favour of them having a physical sexual relationship, and legally Marrying if they so chose to do that?
Yea, Or Nay with a one sentence succinct justification, so as to keep the  personal attacks to a minimum would be appreciated, but expound if you must. | |
|
| |
| |
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/19/2007 2:02:46 PM | There are a few special cases in which I think that incest should be allowed as long as the two people involved do not have children. For example where close relatives have been seperated for many years from a very early age and then meet up again as adults and fall in love. There have been cases of that happening and the parties involved only found out they were related after they had begun a relationship. For example I read of one case where a young girl gave up a baby for adoption because she was too young to look after it at 14. Many years later she met a 16 year old at work they fell in love and the two went out together for a while. Only then did she find that the young man she fell in love with was the child she gave up for adoption all those years ago.
Other cases of incest where the close relatives have grown up together should be remain outlawed of course. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/19/2007 2:10:58 PM | It's not just about preventing 'inferior' genetics, but the pain that the children of such unions will face, inflicted on them by the highly selfish desires of their incestuous parents. It's not just genetics, it's irresponsibility and assured emotional pain.
The pain that children with genetic defects face is obvious. If it is not about the pain of the defects then where would this pain of these children come from other than the attitude and treatment imposed on them by people who would mistreat them because they feel it is a "decidedly foul thing".
While I cannot imagine any circumstances where I would feel attracted to my sister (ew, ptoui, girl germs) I equally cannot imagine myself feeling any sense of disgust towards the children of incest due to their "decidedly foul" origins. As far as the parent-siblings are concerned, I cannot find any reason not associated with personal moral beliefs to condemn them beyond the genetic burden they may inflict on the children. I can't understand the attraction but neither can I find any reason (beyond genetics) to condemn them.
Again, other than from genetic defects, where would the pain come from other than the arbitrary treatment from others? | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/19/2007 2:26:12 PM |
While I cannot imagine any circumstances where I would feel attracted to my sister. I equally cannot imagine myself feeling any sense of disgust towards the children of incest due to their "decidedly foul" origins. In the cases I am on about though, the parties involved would not be allowed to have children if it was found out that they were close relatives, though they would be allowed to have sex if they were adults who had no prior knowledge that they were related before they started their relationship. I am talking about people who have been seperated from a very early age and then met up as adults and fell in love not knowing they were related. In those cases a special exception should be made on condition one of them gets sterilised so they cannot have children to avoid the obvious birth defects. Incest in all other cases I think should remain illegal. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/19/2007 3:14:52 PM |
though they would be allowed to have sex if they were adults who had no prior knowledge that they were related before they started their relationship.
In such a case it would be hard to find grounds to prosecute based on the lack of mens rea as there is no reasonable basis on which they could know that they were violating the law. The other issue is the propriety of the law dictating essentially non-harmful (assuming there were no children to suffer the consequences) consensual conduct between two adults (assuming there was no sexual activity prior to reaching the age of majority).
Under the circumstances I listed above I have a hard time distinguishing the value (or lack thereof) of current incest laws from the value (or lack thereof) of the anal intercourse laws which used to be on the books of most western nations (that's another activity I can't understand which provokes an 'ew' reaction but not one I can condemn others for). | |
|
Home
login 
