NationStates Jolt Archive

My fellow Comrades of the world I Presidium of the USSR would like to Propose that Incest be legal because in many nations Incest is happing between family members for example brothers and sisters, cousins, etc...and Incest children are being born because of this. Some Nations might think that Incest is wrong but do the leaders of those countries know its happing in there own nation? some might cover there eyes and say that it doesn't happen but the truth is it does happen weather or not they know about it. Now my proposal if passed would mean that if a female gets pregnant by a male family member they could in fact be married by law which in earlier times they could not and if the father of the unborn child leaves the child for the female to raise she could in fact ask for child support and the father of the born or unborn child could face penalty as of the result.

_________________________-

Now i know that some people might be sicken by this but I want everyone to really think about it and think what if I know someone that is into Incest? what would I bee saying ? and how do they really feel about each other?. Incest has been around for ages more and more people are into Incest and incest babies are been born and the unwedded mother has to care for her child alone now my proposal says that if the Father of the unborn or born child should leave the child for the female to raise than she could in fact ask for child support from the father and if he says no than he could face penalty and also if the father and mother of the child wish to get married they can now by law if this proposal is passed and than goes to UN for resolution and passed .

This is not a matter within the judicial oversight of the august United Nations. It is a matter for member states to decide within their own boundaries and should not be voted upon, much less implemented. May it be stricken from the record and placed to the side. The Holy Light will speak to people's consciences on its own and they will learn, but there is no reason to place to sword of the law at the throats of nationally sovereign states.

If you would like to make incest legal in your country, go ahead. But I will not my nation fall into grave sin by openly saying it's OK to fornicate with your own family.

Just to be a pain, wouldn't all humans, according to christianity, be "related" due to:

1.) Adam and Eve being the two humans that started the entire species and thus all humans could trace their roots back to them.

2.) The great flood to which Noah and his family were the only survivors, which in turn would mean all humans could trace their ancestory back to them.

Correct me if I am wrong but would not everyone be at the very least "extended family" according to the Bible?

well incest is still happening in the world if we legalize it or not as for me I am trying to Legalize it for the unwedded mother who has to raise her child alone or she could in fact marry the babies father and if the father rejects them both than she could in fact get child support from him and the father could face penalty.

We, of the Holy Empire of Kokablel, care not one with for this 'bible' you speak of, and this is one of the many reasons we do not support such invasive policies one way or another.

However, The question was addressed at Traditional Catholics. We suspect that they might have a different view on the Bible than yourself. :wink:

In the world we live in today, there is no reason to have sexual relations with close family members.

Adam and Eve's family and Noah's family did have sexual relations with each other, but they were allowed to. The only commandment was not to eat from that infamous tree. The ten commandments were given to Moses. Incest would fall under the sixth commandment. Dominus vobiscum.

Incest should most defintely not bemade legal. We can see that it's wrong due to the fact that the child nearly always ends up mutated or severely handicapped. incest should remain illegal.

A phone poll was conducted amongst my citizens to gauge their reaction. It basically boiled down to what follows:

"You're an idiot. No matter how you try and justify it, that you lust after your mother and sister is wrong. "

I love my citizens. Sometimes I feel they speak my mind.

To cut a long story short, inbred idiots like the thread started aside, religion aside, it's just plain daft to fornicated with relatives. Your chances of multiple recessive genes and associated deformities, disabilities and whatnot are vastly increased.

The moral here is, keep your genitals out of your sister and your proposals out of the UN.

I could support this if there were an age limit. You wouldn't want some dad raping his 8 year old daughter in the name of religion or whatever. After 18 though, it should be ok since they are adults.

Do you think it's OK then for a man to brainwash his child until they're 18 so that they will have sex with him?

:evil: incest is not right it is not safe, it is a danger and discrase 2 the human species any genitic fault would be effectivley doubled your country can propose this law but i will never abide bye it

How about parents who brainwash their children with racist sterotypes? Should that be illegal?

Anyway, I see it as no different than bfs brainwashing their gfs. It's called cohersion. It's bad, but not illegal.

If a father wanted to sleep with his daughter, for the sole purpose of having sex, some "law" is not going to stop him. Besides, they could just adopt some kid or volunteer at some place to have access to children. (Is Woody Allen in jail? No . . . )

And trust me, if someone could convince someone else to have voluntary, consentual sex, they could probably convince them to not tell anyone, what do you think?

I realise that by making incest illegal, it probably won't stop all incest, but it will stop some. On the other hand, if you make incest legal, you are saying to your people that incest is OK. You would probably see an increase in incest. Is that what you want? More mutated people who have to go through life knowing that they were conceived through incest?

I definitely have a problem with the legaliztion of incest...but I don't think that should be the big issue here.
The issue should be, WHY is the UN getting involved in MORALITY!?!?!?
I left this corrupt and tyrannical body because of the violation of my national sovreignty which it continualy espoused.
What even happened to nations being able to rule themselves?
Apparently, the United Nations has ceased to be an arbited in conflicts and is fast becoming a Global Government, which is far from it's original purpose.

Voof-land has spoken.

I definitely have a problem with the legaliztion of incest...but I don't think that should be the big issue here.
The issue should be, WHY is the UN getting involved in MORALITY!?!?!?
I left this corrupt and tyrannical body because of the violation of my national sovreignty which it continualy espoused.
What even happened to nations being able to rule themselves?
Apparently, the United Nations has ceased to be an arbited in conflicts and is fast becoming a Global Government, which is far from it's original purpose.

Voof-land has spoken.

Sounds like the real UN. Iraq is not part of the UN, so why does it have to abide by the UN Resolutions?

Bad ethics, bad genetics, bad public health, bad policy, bad proposition.

Even in The Yid Army, where people can do almost as they wish, this could never become law and would be a resigning matter if the UN forced this proposal onto my country.

Jammers
Yid Army Prime Minister.

Just to be a pain, wouldn't all humans, according to christianity, be "related" due to:

1.) Adam and Eve being the two humans that started the entire species and thus all humans could trace their roots back to them.

2.) The great flood to which Noah and his family were the only survivors, which in turn would mean all humans could trace their ancestory back to them.

Correct me if I am wrong but would not everyone be at the very least "extended family" according to the Bible?

Eh... actually in the Bible it says that Adam and Eve were the first created... not the only created. We can assume that God created a lot more humans than just those two. :wink:

I'm against incest. It's just plain wrong.

Bad ethics, bad genetics, bad public health, bad policy, bad proposition.

I agree with you.

We can see that it's wrong due to the fact that the child nearly always ends up mutated or severely handicapped.
Sorry, this simply isn't true. There is a correlation between increases in genetic defect due to consanguinity versus the larger population, but it is by no means "nearly always".

Make the moral argument if you wish, CE (and I'll agree with you), but don't confuse genetics with morals. Different rules apply.

The Theocracy of Purisgard suggests that this issue of incest should not be brought up to the UN. Whether or not regarding incest is acceptable or not should be at a government level of the nation, not as a UN resolution. Purisgard's stand : Purisgard's conservative society regards incest as morally wrong and is illegal in the nation.

God be with Us
Blessed Purry I

The majority of issues the UN votes on is the business of individual nations. The UN has invaded the private matters of the citizens of every nation, and it is time they right their wrong path.

No for religious reasons, :wink:

Firstly, the Kingdom of Corriene would like to point out that the point has been made that this is not a UN issue.

Secondly, the Kingdom would like to state that incest is wrong for the defects caused by inbreeding, although this may not appear in the immediate generation. It is, furthermore, morally wrong and we in the Kingdom cannot but shun this behavior.

Thirdly, to force this issue upon the UN is a very bad idea and will cause a greater rift between members than currently has been created by the proposal of legalization of prostitution, causing perhaps more irate members to leave the UN.

The Kingdom is most decidedly NOT in favor of this proposal.

Secondly, the Kingdom would like to state that incest is wrong for the defects caused by inbreeding, although this may not appear in the immediate generation. It is, furthermore, morally wrong and we in the Kingdom cannot but shun this behavior.




Well, then let's just not let them have children. Catholics, this is when abortion can come in handy. Why don't we just let them marry/love eachother, and not let them have children?

As for morals, those can defend on the person. When your morals prohibit two people from loving eachother, I think it's time to rethink them.

While the Confederacy of Frosthaven is deeply supportive of individual rights, there should perhaps be an age limit put on this proposal- we cannot condone the abuse of children.

Well, then let's just not let them have children. Catholics, this is when abortion can come in handy. Why don't we just let them marry/love eachother, and not let them have children?


So you would let them sleep together and expect them NOT to have children? Explain how you would regulate this. Wouldn't it just be easier to forbid it in the first place?

Incest should be bally well compulsory!

*mocks the "lets make prositiution legal arguement"*

If its between two consenting persons who are of age, it should be allowed according to YOUR logic, take that. :twisted:

The UN is gonna become a group of inbred nations, I will be laughing when this resolution passes. 8)

This question is a difficult one that brings to the fore of our consideration one of the great dilemmas of government: The difficulty in balancing personal freedoms with the necessary provision of security.

The people of Justitium believe that, in matters concerning personal relationships, a minimalist approach by the government is best, as it is not our leaders' right or duty to dictate how we express our love or for whom we should bear such feelings (or even lust, so long as mutual consent exists). However, a few such cases do quite certainly warrant government attention, such as acts of pedophilia, which are invariably harmful to the psyche of the child involved and will almost certainly, in every instance, result in irreversable mental if not physical harm. Therefore, because it puts at grave risk the health of at least one participant, and because children lack the judgement in any case to make life-altering decisions, sex with children is strictly illegal in Justitium and is usual punished (or, more properly, resolved, as justice should not be concerned with exacting vengeance but with ensuring, at the same time, in best possible balance, the freedom and security of the people) with a mandatory term in a maximum-security psychiatric care facility.

The guiding principle applied is that all sex acts are permissable so long as all participants are consenting and of an age to do so, and the potential for harm does not clearly outweigh any possible benefit (thus BDSM, though it involves causing pain in many cases, is permitted because there is generally no permanent harm except in cases of accident).

Applied to incest, this gives us the following rule: If there is no great risk for congenital defect if pregnancy results, and if children are not involved, it ought to be permitted. However, there IS in fact great risk of congenital defect such as physical malformity, mental retardation, or both in pregnancies resulting from sex between immediate relations, i.e. mother and son, father and daughter, or brother and sister, so this should in no case be legalized. Sex between even first cousins has been proven quite safe, however, so other forms of incest ought to be allowed.

Valentina Tito
Minister of Health

Well, then let's just not let them have children. Catholics, this is when abortion can come in handy. Why don't we just let them marry/love eachother, and not let them have children?


So you would let them sleep together and expect them NOT to have children? Explain how you would regulate this. Wouldn't it just be easier to forbid it in the first place?


On second thought, perhaps we should just let them have children. State mandated abortion, now that I've thought it over, really doesn't make much sense. All life intended by consenting adults should be welcomed. If the children with genetic disorders are truly in pain, we may use euthanesia with consent of the child, but my belief is that it won't come to that. A genetically disordered life is better than no life.

So, then the arguement comes back to whether you think it is "morally" correct to love someone in your family, which I've already been through.

I think it's up to each nation to decide its laws in matters like these.

Moontian will not make public its laws on this matter.

Hey, we're about to legalize prostitution? So, what the hell, why not incest?

As to the nations who believe this is an issue that each individual nation should decide, I might suggest that SO IS LEGALIZING PROSTITUTION. Yet, somehow, that slipped right in there. And we're about to pass it!

The insanity of it all is oppressing.

For the record, I voted against legalizing prostitution. And, God forbid, this resolution passes on to the general assembly, I will vote against it.

Ridiculous...

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint does not think it is appropriate for the United Nations to mandate the legalization of incest, simply because the ambassador from Richardski may possibly have the hots for his sister.

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself: The U.N. has no business legalizing or criminalizing actions committed by individuals. That level of liberty is best controlled at the National level, if not something smaller.

Familial relationships are difficult enough, without the additional complications of sex. Taking the accuracy of the biblical history of Noah's Ark on faith (pun dreadfully intended), all humans would be related to some extent, which gives rise to the idea of the 'Family of Man,' and which also gives rise to the restrictions in most nations of not allowing relatives closer than 1st cousins to marry.

And while we must say that the Richardski ambassador's sister is indeed quite a looker, we don't foresee him getting vary far with her in any case.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

simply because the ambassador from Richardski may possibly have the hots for his sister.



You know your arguements good when that's your opening arguement [/sarcasm]

The Confederacy of Caligatio, though disagreeing with theAmbassador of the Rogue Nation of Greenspoint's view on the Biblical account (which frankly, is not the issue here), found his comments quite witty and amusing.

At the same time, Caligatio would reccomend a prescription of Prozac to the Ambassador from Zachnia and a rather inexpensive trip to a comedy club and later, a bar, so as to lighten his mood.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

hey, don't get me wrong. I love comedy (die-hard Dane Cook fan) but this humor has no place in this arguement. What he was doing was trying to make his point stronger by mocking the opposition, something that is deceptive, and not exactly smart either. I'd much rather see his arguement consist of good points then meaningless insults.

In the world we live in today, there is no reason to have sexual relations with close family members.

Adam and Eve's family and Noah's family did have sexual relations with each other, but they were allowed to. The only commandment was not to eat from that infamous tree. The ten commandments were given to Moses. Incest would fall under the sixth commandment. Dominus vobiscum.

Define close family. Where did god tell them it was okay? Also did the ten commandments come before or after Noah's flood? Also, could you post the sixth commandment, I don't have the order down.

Eh... actually in the Bible it says that Adam and Eve were the first created... not the only created. We can assume that God created a lot more humans than just those two. :wink: Thanks for the correction. I am not exactly what you would call an expert on the bible. :)

I am not sure the medical problems associated with incest is a valid enough argument to ban them. I know that is the current rationale, but seriously, by that logic, any child born with some terminal disease or major medical problem should be killed before even born.

Or any adult currently living with an incurable, contageous disease should be killed if you think about it.

Everybody, if the UN actually legalizes incest it will become one big sinking ship, sliding down the path of moral decadence, jump off before its too late. :oops:

Everybody, if the UN actually legalizes incest it will become one big sinking ship, jump off before its too late. :oops: IMHO, it is already becoming what you describe. This will simply hasten the process.

Given that Richardski has garnered a total of *no* approvals on this, I think this is a tempest in a teapot. If there are as many as 147 RDs who think like this, we'll be totally amazed. If it hits quorum, we'll likely be abandoning not just the UN but NS altogether. Don't think that has a chance of happening, though.

Er? Uh?

(Reads posts)

Eeeew Eeeew Eeeew!

DO ANY OF YOU KNOW *ANYTHING* ABOUT GENETICS? I MEAN EEEK!

NO?

AND THEY LET YOU PEOPLE RUN GOVERNMNETS!

I mean, seriously, dude, put down your sister, and try to get a grasp of the science behind the act, your gonna have a lot! of FLK's (Funny Lookin Kid's) if let that idea go proposalised, Eeew.

(Shivers in fright)

Geez, this is an icky one,

A Rep of Komokom imagining the need to don a rubber suit at the next family re-union,

(shudder)

Yes, in fact I do. In fact, judging by a great many of the posts here, I would say a great deal of people do.

Gigglealian citizens would like to further express their opinions in this matter. Being the peoples delegate that I am, I'd like to share their views with the masses.

First of all, we have Professor Billingworth, a renowned biologist. He says:
"Idiot"

Next, we have the views of our non-denominational spiritual advisor:
"Hmm... yes... idiot"

Representing the people, we have Dolores Wu of the civil rights association:
"A quick poll revealed yes, the idea could only stem from... an idiot"

My people have spoken. I can but follow.

No matter how you spin it, men having sex with their teenage daughters is wrong. It's not a matter of civil liberties. It's not a matter of international stability- although I suspect strongly that more than one UN delegate is the product of such a relationship. It's a matter of common sense. You just don't stick your penis anywhere into your daughter, or your sister, or your mother. Probably a good idea to avoid aunties and grandparents as well.

Concerned about the UN's recent desire to enforce sexual deviancy, human slavery and overstep it's powers? I'll speak out and vote for you, join Moralia (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24202/page=display_region)

hey, don't get me wrong. I love comedy (die-hard Dane Cook fan) but this humor has no place in this arguement. What he was doing was trying to make his point stronger by mocking the opposition, something that is deceptive, and not exactly smart either. I'd much rather see his arguement consist of good points then meaningless insults.

Actually, I find the whole proposal so ludicrous I didn't even give any arguments, was just going for a bit of levity at Richardski's expense. Given the number of out and out flames I've seen in this forum, I felt it was neither over the top, nor unwarranted. I was actually going to enhance the sentence about his having the hots for his sister by adding the phrase " ... or brother" at the end, but felt I'd made my point sufficiently.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

I feel this law should remain in effect for those nations who have moral and spiritual rights! Incest has no business in the modern world! I will conduct a poll in my small nation to see if they agree with me soon.