NationStates Jolt Archive

Not to me, in that whole conversation you didn't mention anything to do with the law, rather instincts preventing people from engaging in certain taboos. It's also a common argument that children cannot physically consent (they lack required hormones needed to actually want sex) and it's not unreasonable to think that Ifrean was talking about that sort of thing. But assuming he did mean that 15 year olds can't legally consent, how would that be the least bit relevant?

If you read their whole conversation, you would know how the legallity of something is relevent.

Then the whole term of morality becomes a worthless definition, as slavery, female disenfranchisement and the holocaust could all be considered to be morally right things at the time.

Is it your contention that in 1942 Germany, the holocaust was morally right?

To those perbutrating the act certianly, to the avarage German citisen of the time, maybe. When I say morality, I don't mean some kind of objectivly true morality, I mean what we think is right or wrong.

To those perbutrating the act certianly, to the avarage German citisen of the time, maybe. When I say morality, I don't mean some kind of objectivly true morality, I mean what we think is right or wrong.

And what we think is right or wrong varies from person to person. Societies morality is not everyones morality.

Taboos often have odd roots. Why is homosexuality a taboo in traditional societies? Why is sex change a taboo in the Western world, but not for example in India? (Ok, the traditional sex change there is more like a castration than anything else, yet those people are regarded as a third gender) Why is eating certain types of animal or pieces of animal taboo in some societies? Have you ever had a fried goat feotus? It's a delicacy in some places.

I think I mentioned it before in this thread, a good contended for "main cause of incest taboo" is the extreme extension of childhood in the human species. Most animals have no problem whatsoever humping their offspring once they're old enough, but I can't think of any right now that would hump immature individuals. With humans, this perception of "child" is prolonged much more than in any other animal, for the parent it usually doesn't ever change during their whole lifetime, with the authority of the parent still holding on even after the child has left home or started its own family. This might well be the cause why such relationships aren't that common.

Hm... I've never considered it that way. Yes, the relationship between child and parent is something that transcends age. I live by myself and my mother still tries to tell me how to do things and what not to do.;)
And yes, incestuous relationships aren't that common but not unheard of. I just can't put my head around a father and a daughter or a mother and a son being in a romantic relation. It still spooks me and I find it, because of the way I've been brought up and the way society is (and I'm not saying that anyone needs to be society's puppet), unacceptable.

To those perbutrating the act certianly, to the avarage German citisen of the time, maybe. When I say morality, I don't mean some kind of objectivly true morality, I mean what we think is right or wrong.

and what we think is right and wrong is wholey different to what is right and wrong. Any system of morality, any method of determining the morally correct action that would deem the holocaust as a morally good thing so twists and bends the term "morality" to the point that it is rendered meaningless

And how the hell do you know what he meant? Where does anyone use the word legal once? Please show me.

The word "consent" was used. AFAIK it has no other meaning than legal when used in this context, since the whole ideas of an age of consent and statutory rape are legal constructs.

And again, who decides what constitutes a "significant chance"? Who defines what constitutes "pain"? Who defines what constitutes "debilitating"? Who, precisely, do you believe should be invested with the authority to declare who is and is not worthy to reproduce?

Your last line is irrelevent. Read what I wrote.

In a previous post, I had spoken of qualified medical professionals. They would make a judgement based on the medical information prior to the child's birth. When amnioscentesis (sp?) and similar things are done, and the paren'ts are advised of the risk, if the medical professional thinks the risk is unreasonably high, and the parents choose to keep going on and give birth to the child, they are informed of the legal risk of being classed as a torturer.

I'm not banning anyone from breeding. I'm just saying that if you selfishly choose to bring a thinking being in to this world, knowing there's a large chance their only thoughts will be pain and suffering, then you are considered to have knowingly and willfully tortured a human being and deserve punishment as such.

Disclaimer: I am not suggesting every incest child will be a mutant. I actually have some clue about genetics and probability. I have slightly segued off topic. The above could apply to anyone who gets a terrible result from a blood test, ultrasound, etc.

Not to me, in that whole conversation you didn't mention anything to do with the law, rather instincts preventing people from engaging in certain taboos. It's also a common argument that children cannot physically consent (they lack required hormones needed to actually want sex) and it's not unreasonable to think that Ifrean was talking about that sort of thing. But assuming he did mean that 15 year olds can't legally consent, how would that be the least bit relevant?

Then simply put you are wrong. It is relevant because my question to him was 'what if it was a 15 year old conseting' I delibratly choose a year under the legal age of consent to see how he answeered. He answered, that a 15 year old cannot give consent, and he is quite right as the legal age is 16. Basicly he didn't answer my question, he dodged it instead.

If you read on further you'll see I tried to pin him down by asking, 'Okay then 16, or what if the legal age of consent was put down to 15'.

It is clear that we were both talking about the legal age of consent.

Bull. You just said the holocaust, gulags, sexual slavery of young girls, genocide of Native Americans, and thinking blacks and women were inferior was "moral".

Yes for those who held to those opinions of that time, it was. I don't agree with them, to me it was imoral.

A great many socieites viewed black people as subhuman. Were they right, merely because they believed it to be true?



And what makes your version of right and wrong the objectively true one?



An aberration...of what? once again, circular reasoning bullshit. It's an aberration of normal relationships, and we don't allow it because it's wrong and we know it's wrong, because we don't allow it.

You seem incapable of creating a real argument here. When challenged to define why you believe it to be immoral, you say because societies don't allow it. When asked why they don't allow it, you say because it's immoral. You haven't demonstrated anything, you haven't shown anything, you've pulled the "I'm part of a society that thinks it's wrong therefore it's wrong" card and if you had any understanding of history, you'd understand why that particular card should never, ever, be played.

The question to you is simple, why is it wrong? Why is it immoral? Why is it something that societies should prevent?

It's wrong because father-daughter relations should never be mixed with sex and intimacy of any kind. It's immoral for the same reason. Societies should prevent it because of all the emotional and genetical pull incest carries. What about all this are you not understanding?

And what we think is right or wrong varies from person to person. Societies morality is not everyones morality.

That is correct, but if the majority of a society view something as imorral, then it is deemed to be so, by that society.

It's wrong because father-daughter relations should never be mixed with sex and intimacy of any kind.

Why not?

It's immoral for the same reason.

The reason you have not substantiated in any way? You're not very good at this are you?

Societies should prevent it because of all the emotional and genetical pull incest carries. What about all this are you not understanding?

I suppose I'm not understanding the part why an incestuous relationship must result in offspring. Perhaps you can explain that one to me.

If you read their whole conversation, you would know how the legallity of something is relevent.

I have, multiple times, and it doesn't make sense.

P: There is no rational reason why eating dead relatives is a taboo....
I: Yes there is, it's unhealthy etc...
P: But so is everything
I: Our instincts probably evolved to protect us, eating rotting babies is not clean, they don't have to be sophisticated
P: So what then governs our instincts to not fuck our daughter?
I: I'm not so sure, but instinct is not a reason to not do it!
P: Yet you found a reason with corpse eating, what if your daughter was 15 and consented?
I: 15 year olds can't legally consent (your interpretation).

I'm still not getting it, what does the law have to do with your instincts?

So don't do it because people say so? Bullshit. People say I shouldn't eat meat of drink beer. I'm still going to. I am not society's bitch.
What you call "being society's bitch", a lot of people might call "showing respect for social mores and convention" - even if they don't necessarily agree with them. In most cases not requiring immediate armed rebellion, people can observe rules, and even respect the rule of law, whilst working to change what the rules actually say. I know that in the minds of some, and increasingly in British society (to name but one), the mere idea of doing what society expects you to do is repellent: after all, aren't we free and independent individuals? Don't we have Human Rights™?. The truth is that independence and freedom are great in principle, but they can easily turn into selfishness and irresponsibility.

But what makes me "society's bitch"? Sure, people have many unreasonable expectations. And you're right: I, too, will not give up meat and beer (or spirits, in my case) simply because people want to impose their own ethical or religious standards on me. I can see no obvious reason why my giving up meat and rum would improve the society I'm living in.

But there again, there are rules that people expect me to observe which I'm quite happy to comply with. People say I shouldn't commit murder, for example. It's social convention as well as law. I am happy to comply with that expectation - not only because society tells me to but because I can see why allowing murder would damage society. In my view, the prohibition of murder has improved society. Does that make me "society's bitch"?

The law tells me I must not drive my car faster than the set speed limit. In some cases, I think that limit is lower than it reasonably needs to be from a safety point of view. Nevertheless, I choose to comply with the speed limits, by and large, because I recognise that traffic needs to be regulated. (I do, I admit, occasionally drift over the limit - but if caught you wouldn't find me protesting that 'it's my right' or that 'the law is wrong'.) Again, I can see that such regulation, though imperfect, improves society by making the roads safer. Does that make me "society's bitch"?

Now, as it stands, I'm opposed to this casual attitude many people here seem to have towards incest - this, "oh, well, it's okay really for father to screw daughter, as long as they don't have kids". I've explained in other posts why I think the prohibition is justified.

So in this case, if you want to argue that I'm wrong, and that incest should be allowed, then you can either do it by claiming to reject existing rules on the basis that you're not "society's bitch"; or you can show good reason why allowing incestuous relationships would improve our society.

It's wrong because father-daughter relations should never be mixed with sex and intimacy of any kind. It's immoral for the same reason. Societies should prevent it because of all the emotional and genetical pull incest carries. What about all this are you not understanding?

Immorality is no reason to forbid something. Everyone has the right to live a moral life or an immoral live however they chose it.

I refute the Genetic problem as irrelevant. We do not require any relationship to be genetically fitting, so why the exception for incestuous relationships?
Aside that is the Genetic impact of a first generation incest not as significant as most people think. Being of high age or smoking during pregnancy has a higher effect... and neither is forbidden.

I can only guess what you mean by emotional pull, though.

So in this case, if you want to argue that I'm wrong, and that incest should be allowed, then you can either do it by claiming to reject existing rules on the basis that you're not "society's bitch"; or you can show good reason why allowing incestuous relationships would improve our society.

fundamental human rights should never hold a requirement of demonstrable value. The value is self evident.

Then simply put you are wrong. It is relevant because my question to him was 'what if it was a 15 year old conseting' I delibratly choose a year under the legal age of consent to see how he answeered. He answered, that a 15 year old cannot give consent, and he is quite right as the legal age is 16. Basicly he didn't answer my question, he dodged it instead.

Thats what I was trying to say! I assumed at first that he wouldn't try to make such a meaningless dodge, but then KoL told me he meant legally, to which I replied:

"So you're talking about some completely meaningless and arbitrary rule that has no bearing on the realities of the situation? Great, bit of a double standard though."

By you're I meant Ifrean and not KoL, which may have caused some confusion. But the bold is the same as your bold basically.

Your last line is irrelevent. Read what I wrote.

In a previous post, I had spoken of qualified medical professionals. They would make a judgement based on the medical information prior to the child's birth. When amnioscentesis (sp?) and similar things are done, and the paren'ts are advised of the risk, if the medical professional thinks the risk is unreasonably high, and the parents choose to keep going on and give birth to the child, they are informed of the legal risk of being classed as a torturer.

I'm not banning anyone from breeding. I'm just saying that if you selfishly choose to bring a thinking being in to this world, knowing there's a large chance their only thoughts will be pain and suffering, then you are considered to have knowingly and willfully tortured a human being and deserve punishment as such.

Disclaimer: I am not suggesting every incest child will be a mutant. I actually have some clue about genetics and probability. I have slightly segued off topic. The above could apply to anyone who gets a terrible result from a blood test, ultrasound, etc.

Okay, I'm going to make this personal, because I don't think you're quite understanding what you're proposing. I have a genetic disorder. There is, at the moment, no way to diagnose said disorder in utero. If I were to reproduce, there is a distinct possibility that any child I have would have this disorder. Are you honestly suggesting that if my child were to be born and to be diagnosed with this disorder, I should be jailed for having conceived them - and, likewise, that if the luck of the genetic draw favored my child and they were entirely healthy, I should have no punishment, despite engaging in the exact same set of actions? Does that plan really make a great deal of sense to you (and do you honestly believe that disabled children are better off with their parents in jail)?

Further, you still haven't addressed my question as to where one draws the line. Who decides which medical disorders qualify as "torture"? I'm going to guess I'm allowed to have near-sighted kids without being sent to jail, but how about kids with Downs syndrome? Deaf kids? Kids with missing limbs? Kids with spina bifida? Kids with harlequin ichthyosis? Which ones are torture, and which ones aren't?

I have, multiple times, and it doesn't make sense.

P: There is no rational reason why eating dead relatives is a taboo....
I: Yes there is, it's unhealthy etc...
P: But so is everything
I: Our instincts probably evolved to protect us, eating rotting babies is not clean, they don't have to be sophisticated
P: So what then governs our instincts to not fuck our daughter?
I: I'm not so sure, but instinct is not a reason to not do it!
P: Yet you found a reason with corpse eating, what if your daughter was 15 and consented?
I: 15 year olds can't legally consent (your interpretation).

I'm still not getting it, what does the law have to do with your instincts?

That was him bringing the law into to dodge the question.

He says that incest is okay bewteen consenting couples, but when asked what if it was his 15 year old daugther, he tried to dodge answering, and then......well he went away!

Why does society thinking it mean it is wrong? Tyranny of the majority and all that jazz...
Well, mainly because there is no moral measure other than what society decides. Unless you want to introduce some idea of an objective, universal right and wrong that remains absolute regardless of human opinion? In which case, where do you suppose such a moral compass came from?

fundamental human rights should never hold a requirement of demonstrable value. The value is self evident.

Bwahaha and self evidant means only that I realise this 'truth'. What if somebody realise the opposite 'truth'?

Bwahaha and self evidant means only that I realise this 'truth'. What if somebody realise the opposite 'truth'?

then they're wrong.

Thats what I was trying to say! I assumed at first that he wouldn't try to make such a meaningless dodge, but then KoL told me he meant legally, to which I replied:

"So you're talking about some completely meaningless and arbitrary rule that has no bearing on the realities of the situation? Great, bit of a double standard though."

By you're I meant Ifrean and not KoL, which may have caused some confusion. But the bold is the same as your bold basically.

Ahh yes, I'm getting ya.

then they're wrong.

Hehe subjective morlaity in action, ladies and gen-teelmen!

Taboos often have odd roots. Why is homosexuality a taboo in traditional societies?
For the life of me I can't remember the name for this logical fallacy, but I know it is one: the idea that, because one previously-prohibited activity is now permitted, so another currently-prohibited activity should be permitted.

Does homosexuality equate to incest? If not, then the argument that allowing A necessitates allowing B doesn't follow. Rather, you would need to show, independently of any attempted comparison, that the legalisation or social acceptance of incest would make society better than it is with incest prohibited.

It is immoral and it's illegal, all societies and their legal systems agree on that, be it in a lesser or major extent. I'm part of that society and I've grown considering incest wrong.

Are you equally unquestioning about everything else you've grown up with?

If so, can we really consider you a rational adult capable of making your own decisions?

I also think that incest is wrong, partially because of the ick factor and partially because of the psychological issues that I think would be involved in an actual familial relationship turning sexual. However, I don't think that my issues with it should affect consenting adults, no matter how disgusted I might be by their actions. Why should your opinion count more than theirs?

Children being involved changes everything though.
Yes: it enables either or both sides to ignore the actual argument and concentrate on trying to out-indignant each other "for the sake of the children". And if children aren't involved at the start, then sooner or later they will be: like the Nazis, they're too useful a tool for water-muddying to be left out for long.

"Vote yes on Prop 10, or you hate children. You don't hate children - do you?"

Why not?



The reason you have not substantiated in any way? You're not very good at this are you?



I suppose I'm not understanding the part why an incestuous relationship must result in offspring. Perhaps you can explain that one to me.

Here person, if you've read through the entire thread you would've found out that the couple we're discussing in question, are expecting or had a child. I'm not contesting that if they're adults, for whatever twisted reason they want to be together, they are, let themm (even if I find it despicable). What I'm against is them having the child. That's what I find morally f*cked up. For what reasons? I've stated them before. If you don't like them, deal with them. I do not have to agree with you and you do not have to agree with me. I believe you're the one who's not very good at this.

Yet you had a reasonable stab at the rational behind the taboo of corpse eating? What if your daughter was 15 and consented?

The thought of me having consensual sex with my mum is quite disturbing to me. However I accept that with those feelings replaced with ones of the opposite nature, I would be happy too. This is the case of the people who do it.

In the case of pedophilia, it has been proven that there is a massive chance of negative psychological effects (by negative I mean pain, pure and simple). Thus the age of consent is given to prevent this occuring. Any relationship that involves a minor will have to wait for the sexual part, if they want one. Again this may not be why the law was first put there, but it's one of the damn good reasons to keep it there.

In the case of murder, rape, torture etc. The difference is that it affects another person negatively, my feelings could be reversed again but the other person's would not. If both people's feelings were reversed then it becomes consensual, thus negating all three since they are defined by being non-consensual. This may not be why these laws were first put there, but it's one of the damn good reasons to keep them there.

Neither of these apply to incest. The only thing you can compare incest to is homosexuality and the like. Since neither of these apply to them either.

Is it your contention that in 1942 Germany, the holocaust was morally right?
That's silly. Understanding that morality comes from the societies we live in doesn't mean that we can't be moral according to those standards. If someone says, "right and wrong are subjective" it doesn't automatically imply that they disagree with the moral standards under discussion.

It is necessary to understand that morality is subjective, because that forces us to explain why we think a thing should be considered right or wrong. Assuming an overall, objective moral direction in the universe gets us off the hook: it lets us say, "it's wrong because it just is" (or possibly "because God says so", which amounts to the same thing in the end).

And I think trying to imply comparison with the Nazis is generally considered a bit weak in online debate, isn't it?

Are you equally unquestioning about everything else you've grown up with?

If so, can we really consider you a rational adult capable of making your own decisions?

I also think that incest is wrong, partially because of the ick factor and partially because of the psychological issues that I think would be involved in an actual familial relationship turning sexual. However, I don't think that my issues with it should affect consenting adults, no matter how disgusted I might be by their actions. Why should your opinion count more than theirs?

Yes, Dempublicents, there are things in society, and plenty of them, that I question. However, the illegality of incest is not one of them.

As for incest, even whe I find it bad, if the adults are consenting, they can screw until the end of time for all I care. What I'm against, and you would've seen that if you read my lasta few posts, is them procreating. I don't give a rat's ass about the adults, I'm more conderned about the well being of child spawned from such an union.

fundamental human rights should never hold a requirement of demonstrable value. The value is self evident.
But they do have that requirement, because there's no such thing as a 'fundamental human right'. Precisely because, as mentioned elsewhere, there is no objective set of ethics in the universe against which humanity can be judged.

Some people might hold certain truths to be self-evident - but I'm not sure I'd agree. I think there are things that most people would be likely to agree on - the right to free speech and freedom from slavery, for example - but wasn't somebody earlier complaining about moral judgements based on what the majority thought was right?

As for incest, even whe I find it bad, if the adults are consenting, they can screw until the end of time for all I care. What I'm against, and you would've seen that if you read my lasta few posts, is them procreating. I don't give a rat's ass about the adults, I'm more conderned about the well being of child spawned from such an union.

But, as asked before, are you consistent with that concern ?
So are you against the breeding of unrelated people with an inheritable genetic defect ? Or against marriages that could lead to the kid being teased and tormented by its peers (black and white, gay, professor and housemaid and so on) ?

It's wrong because father-daughter relations should never be mixed with sex and intimacy of any kind.

They never really had a father-daughter relationship. He had no part in raising her.

What if they had met, fell in love, and then later found out they were biologically related? Would it be different then?

And you still aren't really providing a reason. Why should father-daughter relations never be mixed with sex and intimacy of any kind?

It's immoral for the same reason.

And that reason is? All you've given here is "It's wrong because it is."

Bwahaha and self evidant means only that I realise this 'truth'. What if somebody realise the opposite 'truth'?

Then they are a danger to other human beings.

But, as asked before, are you consistent with that concern ?
So are you against the breeding of unrelated people with an inheritable genetic defect ? Or against marriages that could lead to the kid being teased and tormented by its peers (black and white, gay, professor and housemaid and so on) ?

I'm only against having children from incestuous relationships. I'm also concerned about the psychological and genetic effects having parents that happen to be related like a father and a daughter are. If the adults dedice to be together, well, so be it. But do not condem a being like a child to a nasty fate because I believe, the child never asked for it.
I don't have a problem with interracial marriages and them having kids. As for those with potential genetical deffects, I guess that getting tested before having a child is good. I do not think they should go ahead and have a child that, they know, will carry the same genetic deffects as them. With gay marriage, even when I don't have a problem there, I don't think the couple should have kids. Of course, as I already stated in another post, the potential damage of a child from gay parents and a child from incestuous parents doesn't even compare.

For the life of me I can't remember the name for this logical fallacy, but I know it is one: the idea that, because one previously-prohibited activity is now permitted, so another currently-prohibited activity should be permitted.

You're thinking about it all backwards.

All activities are, by default, allowed. In some cases, we can provide a sufficiently compelling interest to prohibit or regulate a given activity. But it is up to those who want to do the prohibiting or regulation to provide sufficient reason to do so. It is not up to those who do not want such prohibition to defend the default.


Here person, if you've read through the entire thread you would've found out that the couple we're discussing in question, are expecting or had a child. I'm not contesting that if they're adults, for whatever twisted reason they want to be together, they are, let themm (even if I find it despicable). What I'm against is them having the child. That's what I find morally f*cked up. For what reasons? I've stated them before. If you don't like them, deal with them. I do not have to agree with you and you do not have to agree with me. I believe you're the one who's not very good at this.

In other words, you are trying to regulate their behavior.

Thus far, the only consistent reason you've given is essentially: "Society might be mean to their children."

Yet you have refused to justify banning reproduction on that basis in this case but not in other cases in which a child would face such problems. As usual, you've fallen back on your "It just is!" argument.

Yes, Dempublicents, there are things in society, and plenty of them, that I question. However, the illegality of incest is not one of them.

Then you have no basis from which to discuss it like a rational adult.

If you have not personally questioned the law, you clearly have no rational basis for your position.

The thought of me having consensual sex with my mum is quite disturbing to me. However I accept that with those feelings replaced with ones of the opposite nature, I would be happy too. This is the case of the people who do it.

In the case of pedophilia, it has been proven that there is a massive chance of negative psychological effects (by negative I mean pain, pure and simple). Thus the age of consent is given to prevent this occuring. Any relationship that involves a minor will have to wait for the sexual part, if they want one. Again this may not be why the law was first put there, but it's one of the damn good reasons to keep it there.

In the case of murder, rape, torture etc. The difference is that it affects another person negatively, my feelings could be reversed again but the other person's would not. If both people's feelings were reversed then it becomes consensual, thus negating all three since they are defined by being non-consensual. This may not be why these laws were first put there, but it's one of the damn good reasons to keep them there.

Neither of these apply to incest. The only thing you can compare incest to is homosexuality and the like. Since neither of these apply to them either.

Are you saying here that there is zero chance of pyscological damage from an incestuas relationship?

Taboos often have odd roots. Why is homosexuality a taboo in traditional societies?

Homosexual taboos can often be traced to a Slave Morality outlook where a previous order that has accepted and even encouraged homosexuality has been overthrown. Take a look at the stark differences in the attitude on homosexuality during the Greco-Roman era and then the Dark and Middle Ages where Christianity rises to prominence.

Then they are a danger to other human beings.

So if I say it is self evidant that everybody should own at least one slave, and you declare the opposite, I should consider you a danger to other human beings?

They never really had a father-daughter relationship. He had no part in raising her.

What if they had met, fell in love, and then later found out they were biologically related? Would it be different then?

And you still aren't really providing a reason. Why should father-daughter relations never be mixed with sex and intimacy of any kind?



And that reason is? All you've given here is "It's wrong because it is."

He's still her biological father, even if he had no part in raising her. He engendered her, did he not? He's her father. That's the reason why they shouldn't have a child. It is universally or almost universally unacceptable, by most societies, to have a romantic relation between father-daughter/mother-son. And this is supported by the genetical problems this union can cause (genetical problems that science has discussed). This is supported by the moral concequences it has (society in question, no matter how one looks at it, will always ostracize a child from such an union). This is supported by the psychological damage it can cause on the child too.

Only people with serious problems (and I'm not pointing any fingers not accusing anyone here of that, so don't jump) would, conscientuously, submit themselves and the children they bring into this world to an incestuous relation. What are you and the others not getting about this? And as I already said before, if the CONSENTING ADULTS want to be together, let them. JUST DO NOT HAVE KIDS.

I'm only against having children from incestuous relationships. I'm also concerned about the psychological and genetic effects having parents that happen to be related like a father and a daughter are. If the adults dedice to be together, well, so be it. But do not condem a being like a child to a nasty fate because I believe, the child never asked for it.

But why are you not equally concerned about other similar psychological and genetic effects?

I don't have a problem with interracial marriages and them having kids.

Why not? Do you know how mixed children have been treated and, in some cases, continue to be treated by society? Do you know what kind of psychological effects it has had?

As for those with potential genetical deffects, I guess that getting tested before having a child is good. I do not think they should go ahead and have a child that, they know, will carry the same genetic deffects as them.

It is unlikely that they would know. They would know that they had an increased possibility, but that is it. Does that mean they should be prohibited from reproducing?

With gay marriage, even when I don't have a problem there, I don't think the couple should have kids.

Why not?

Of course, as I already stated in another post, the potential damage of a child from gay parents and a child from incestuous parents doesn't even compare.

And you know this.....how, exactly?

You've made this statement multiple times. You've yet to back it up.


Are you saying here that there is zero chance of pyscological damage from an incestuas relationship?

Are you saying that there is zero chance of psychological damage from a homosexual relationship?

Remember here that the damage we're talking about is external. It comes from how others in society view and treat the children.

As for incest, even whe I find it bad, if the adults are consenting, they can screw until the end of time for all I care. What I'm against, and you would've seen that if you read my lasta few posts, is them procreating. I don't give a rat's ass about the adults, I'm more conderned about the well being of child spawned from such an union.

You've presented no support that shows the well-being of the child would suffer. It might do, it might not. The same with any child born of any union. The chances increase a bit genetically, as they do with unions of people with genetic disorders. Psychologically I see no reason whatsoever.

Research in this area is lacking, but saying the child would suffer or is far more likely too, is entirely arbitrary. If you could give a reason for the extra suffering, that would be good. If you could then explain why that extra suffering is any different from having poor parents, surrounded by people with rich parents, or any other form of legal "suffering" a child can be put through, that would also be good.

If you are pro-eugenics, and willing to deny many people in a situation similar to an incestuous one their breeding rights, I understand your view. If you are also willing to decide who has bad genes, and who has good ones, then that's a clear view. Not being the prior and still complaining about the child of an incestuous union, is contradictory.

You're thinking about it all backwards.

All activities are, by default, allowed. In some cases, we can provide a sufficiently compelling interest to prohibit or regulate a given activity. But it is up to those who want to do the prohibiting or regulation to provide sufficient reason to do so. It is not up to those who do not want such prohibition to defend the default.



In other words, you are trying to regulate their behavior.

Thus far, the only consistent reason you've given is essentially: "Society might be mean to their children."

Yet you have refused to justify banning reproduction on that basis in this case but not in other cases in which a child would face such problems. As usual, you've fallen back on your "It just is!" argument.



Then you have no basis from which to discuss it like a rational adult.

If you have not personally questioned the law, you clearly have no rational basis for your position.

So, you're basically saying that just because incest isn't something I question, that I can't argue about it? I believe is the other way around dear. Because I happen to think it's morally wrong and because you seem to be ok with it is the more to contest your ideas. But since you do not give any 'reason' either on why incest, in this case, is ok, you're dismissed.

Why is it wrong? Because both society and morality deemed it so. End of discussion on my part.

He's still her biological father, even if he had no part in raising her. He engendered her, did he not? He's her father. That's the reason why they shouldn't have a child. It is universally or almost universally unacceptable, by most societies, to have a romantic relation between father-daughter/mother-son. And this is supported by the genetical problems this union can cause (genetical problems that science has discussed). This is supported by the moral concequences it has (society in question, no matter how one looks at it, will always ostracize a child from such an union). This is supported by the psychological damage it can cause on the child too.

Combining this post with the answer you gave to my question leads me to conclude that your objection is that being the result of an incestual relationship has the potential to be damaging to the child in many different ways, which together are too high a risk. That is a sum of factors, where people with "bad genes" for instance have only one factor against them.

Is that a correct summary of your position ?

Are you saying here that there is zero chance of pyscological damage from an incestuas relationship?

Nope. I'm saying we have no clue whether there would be or not. Saying so either way is an assumption. I see no reason why my mum also being my half sister would "damage" me, especially if I had grown up knowing so or never found out. It's especially no different from parents being divorced, having two mums etc. If someone could present decent evidence for consistent psychological damage, I'd be very interested in seeing it. For now though, genes mean nothing to me in any of my relationships. The father having power over the daughter, if true (the power roles are normally reversed at a later age), means nothing to me either. If they are both responsible people, power roles will come after child concerns, so it wouldn't matter. I don't see why power roles or possible abuse would matter anyway, since all relationships can have them, don't treat incestuous ones any differently.

For all we know, it's healthier to be brought up by an incestuous family.

So if I say it is self evidant that everybody should own at least one slave, and you declare the opposite, I should consider you a danger to other human beings?

No, you would be the danger to other human beings, since you would be trying to enslave some of them.


He's still her biological father, even if he had no part in raising her. He engendered her, did he not? He's her father. That's the reason why they shouldn't have a child.

Why not?

It is universally or almost universally unacceptable, by most societies, to have a romantic relation between father-daughter/mother-son.

Yes. Why?

And this is supported by the genetical problems this union can cause (genetical problems that science has discussed).

Unless they are already carriers of a genetic abnormality, there is negligible risk of a genetic problem.

It is consistent incest that leads to the propagation of genetic problems. A single instance of incest is highly unlikely to do so.

This is supported by the moral concequences it has (society in question, no matter how one looks at it, will always ostracize a child from such an union).

So society is immoral and treats children like crap, therefore it is immoral to have such children?

It seems to me that the immorality here is society's.

This is supported by the psychological damage it can cause on the child too.

Aside from the "society will treat the kid like crap," what psychological damage are we talking about?

Only people with serious problems (and I'm not pointing any fingers not accusing anyone here of that, so don't jump) would, conscientuously, submit themselves and the children they bring into this world to an incestuous relation.

One could say the same thing about all sorts of things.

What are you and the others not getting about this?

The fact that you have yet to provide a rational reason. You always come back to "because it is."

And as I already said before, if the CONSENTING ADULTS want to be together, let them. JUST DO NOT HAVE KIDS.

And who are you to make that decision?

So, you're basically saying that just because incest isn't something I question, that I can't argue about it?

You can argue all you like, but your arguments carry no weight because you haven't given sufficient thought to them.

I believe is the other way around dear. Because I happen to think it's morally wrong and because you seem to be ok with it is the more to contest your ideas.

Who said I was ok with it?

My problem is not that you think it is morally wrong. It is that the only reason you can give for that is "society says so." It means that you have not, personally, come to the conclusion that it is morally wrong.

But since you do not give any 'reason' either on why incest, in this case, is ok, you're dismissed.

What makes you think I think it is ok?

And why should people give you a reason for living their lives as they see fit? You're the one trying to impose rules on others. As such, you are the one who must provide adequate reasoning for those rules.

Why is it wrong? Because both society and morality deemed it so. End of discussion on my part.

In other words, you have no reason. "Someone said so" isn't a rational reason for anything.

You've presented no support that shows the well-being of the child would suffer. It might do, it might not. The same with any child born of any union. The chances increase a bit genetically, as they do with unions of people with genetic disorders. Psychologically I see no reason whatsoever.

Research in this area is lacking, but saying the child would suffer or is far more likely too, is entirely arbitrary. If you could give a reason for the extra suffering, that would be good. If you could then explain why that extra suffering is any different from having poor parents, surrounded by people with rich parents, or any other form of legal "suffering" a child can be put through, that would also be good.

If you are pro-eugenics, and willing to deny many people in a situation similar to an incestuous one their breeding rights, I understand your view. If you are also willing to decide who has bad genes, and who has good ones, then that's a clear view. Not being the prior and still complaining about the child of an incestuous union, is contradictory.

I'm assuming you're ok with a father and daughter being together and having a child, am I right? As for a reason why of the suffering, let me give you a good example. One of my closests friends is product of an incestuous relationship. He grew up marked, if you may want to see it that way. He was poi9nted at, laughted at school and adults were particularly stringent with him because his mother was involved with a man that was her brother. Although he grew up physically ok, the psychological damage he suffered has been irreparable. I've seen this first-hand. Thats why I'm against it. Need I say more?

Are you saying that there is zero chance of psychological damage from a homosexual relationship?

Remember here that the damage we're talking about is external. It comes from how others in society view and treat the children.

Tell ya what even though you didn't answer my question,. I'll answer yours.

There are many chancers for kids to be psycholigaly damaged by the kind of upbrining they have, and you are right it has lots to do with how sociaty sees them.

What is the differance in sociaty right now between gay adoption, and father/daughter incest?

Now how much of a rougth time would sociaty give the offspring of these two scenerios, do you imagine?

And I don't just mean childrens cruelty to one another, do you not think it would carry on into adulthood?

Ther was a letter in a free paper last week, a father complaining that two adult Chelsea fans, where shouting abuse at his 9 year son on the tubes, because he was wearing a Totenham shirt.

Shocking yes? But wait there is more, a woman wrote in the very next day saying that the child should not wear a shirt decalreing his allegeince to his team, if he can't put up with the crap that it will bring. That is sociaty right now, about a little thing like football.

Do you really belive that a child from a father/daughter incestuas relationship will have an easy life free from trauma?

No, you would be the danger to other human beings, since you would be trying to enslave some of them.

No not at all, all I am guilty of is uttering a self evidant truth that you do not agree with.

I'm assuming you're ok with a father and daughter being together and having a child, am I right? As for a reason why of the suffering, let me give you a good example. One of my closests friends is product of an incestuous relationship. He grew up marked, if you may want to see it that way. He was poi9nted at, laughted at school and adults were particularly stringent with him because his mother was involved with a man that was her brother. Although he grew up physically ok, the psychological damage he suffered has been irreparable. I've seen this first-hand. Thats why I'm against it. Need I say more?

I've seen that with children that were products of interracial marriage.

Why are you not opposed to that?


Tell ya what even though you didn't answer my question,. I'll answer yours.

There are many chancers for kids to be psycholigaly damaged by the kind of upbrining they have, and you are right it has lots to do with how sociaty sees them.

What is the differance in sociaty right now between gay adoption, and father/daughter incest?

One is legal and the other isn't?

Edit: Actually, that isn't true. One is legal in some places and the other is illegal in most places.

Now how much of a rougth time would sociaty give the offspring of these two scenerios, do you imagine?

Probably about the same, really. People who treat kids like crap because of their parents' actions aren't exactly the most rational of people.

And I don't just mean childrens cruelty to one another, do you not think it would carry on into adulthood?

Probably.

Ther was a letter in a free paper last week, a father complaining that two adult Chelsea fans, where shouting abuse at his 9 year son on the tubes, because he was wearing a Totenham shirt.

Shocking yes? But wait there is more, a woman wrote in the very next day saying that the child should not wear a shirt decalreing his allegeince to his team, if he can't put up with the crap that it will bring. That is sociaty right now, about a little thing like football.

Indeed. And that is how society has pretty much always been. If anything, it's been getting better, believe it or not.

Do you really belive that a child from a father/daughter incestuas relationship will have an easy life free from trauma?

I don't think any child is going to have an easy life free from trauma.

I also see no reason to believe that a child who is the product of incest is necessarily going to have any more trouble with society than one who is raised by homosexual parents or who is the product of an interracial marriage or whose parents are famous, or any number of other things.

No not at all, all I am guilty of is uttering a self evidant truth that you do not agree with.

Really? So your "truth" doesn't have anything to do with those people that you think should be enslaved?

You're trying to make a point here. I see what it is. It doesn't make sense. Someone who doesn't recognize human rights is not a danger to others because they don't agree. They are a danger to others because their lack of agreement means that they want to or feel that they have the right to harm others.

Why is someone who wants to torture and murder others considered a danger to other human beings? Is it because they disagree that murder is wrong? Nope. It's because they want to harm others.

I'm assuming you're ok with a father and daughter being together and having a child, am I right? As for a reason why of the suffering, let me give you a good example. One of my closests friends is product of an incestuous relationship. He grew up marked, if you may want to see it that way. He was poi9nted at, laughted at school and adults were particularly stringent with him because his mother was involved with a man that was her brother. Although he grew up physically ok, the psychological damage he suffered has been irreparable. I've seen this first-hand. Thats why I'm against it. Need I say more?

I was laughed at, mocked, and attacked all the time as a child. Why? Because of my name. Am I damaged? Maybe, from your view. From mine, no. I could of grown up with a different name, or in a different place where kids wouldn't have done so. But the fault was on the kids who bullied me, not on me or my parents. Banning my name is definatly not the way to go. Needless to say towards the end of school life everyone is much more accepting, and even the kid with severe acne, or the one with two rows of teeth were accepted.

My name was my parents choice, much like having an incestuous child would be the parents choice. Any damage caused by victimless choices like that are the fault of the people who turn them into victims. The same applies to hair, glasses, race, gender, sexuality, voice, size, accent, how much you smile, and whatever else kids might get bullied for.

...and of course any child from that union would probably have genetic abnormalities, ...why?

why?

They wouldn't make abnormalities out of thin air. It's an old wives tale.

I was laughed at, mocked, and attacked all the time as a child. Why? Because of my name. Am I damaged? Maybe, from your view. From mine, no. I could of grown up with a different name, or in a different place where kids wouldn't have done so. But the fault was on the kids who bullied me, not on me. Banning my name is definatly not the way to go. Needless to say towards the end of school life everyone is much more accepting, and even the kid with severe acne, or the one with two rows of teeth were accepted.

My name was my parents choice, much like having an incestuous child would be the parents choice. Any damage caused by victimless choices like that are the fault of the people who turn them into victims. The same applies to hair, glasses, race, gender, sexuality, voice, size, accent, how much you smile, and whatever else kids might get bullied for.

Excuse me, a parent that's practicing incest and has a child from that union cannot be considered a "victimless" choice. Again, these are conseting adults you're referring to. The child is and forever will be a victim.

Being made fun of at school for having acne or having a funny name is not the same as being made fun of because your father is your grandfather too or because your aunt is also your mother. Don't compare. Although it's sad that the child seems to be the one paying for the parents' choice, that's how horrible our society is.

As for the example I gave you about psychological damage, we're talking about a person that was product of an incestuous relationship. This person wasn't laughed at or teased because he had a funny name or buck-teeth. He was ostracised because his father and mother were siblings. And wehereas those who have acne and two rows of teeth tend to be accepted later in life as you posted, he has never been accepted by our society (and I'm talking about Spanish society, the one that pertains to me and my friend). It's sad, I'm aware of that. As I'm aware that my stand against incest may not be understood by most, but I've seen what it has done to the life of someone that's very dear to me. And because I've seen it I'm against incestuous relationships from procreating. Am I appealing to your emotions? Not at all, but this is my reason.

Excuse me, a parent that's practicing incest and has a child from that union cannot be considered a "victimless" choice. Again, these are conseting adults you're referring to. The child is and forever will be a victim.

Why?


Being made fun of at school for having acne or having a funny name is not the same as being made fun of because your father is your grandfather too or because your aunt is also your mother. Don't compare. Although it's sad that the child seems to be the one paying for the parents' choice, that's how horrible our society is.

A very good friend of mine has a black grandfather and a white grandmother. Their children were the product of an interracial relationship which began before it was legal for blacks and whites to marry one another. If you want, I can list for you some of the horrific things their peers did to them while they were growing up.

The fact that one's peers may be assholes is a great argument for teaching people to knock it the fuck off and quit being assholes. It is NOT a convincing argument for victim-blaming.

As for the example I gave you about psychological damage, we're talking about a person that was product of an incestuous relationship. This person wasn't laughed at or teased because he had a funny name or buck-teeth. He was ostracised because his father and mother were siblings.

What about being put in the hospital because your father and mother are of different races and some kids think this means you deserve to be beaten within an inch of your life? Or having your peers force you to wear a dog collar and leash and then drag you around the playyard--while teachers watch and do nothing--because your mixed-race blood made you an animal in their eyes?


And wehereas those who have acne and two rows of teeth tend to be accepted later in life as you posted, he has never been accepted by our society (and I'm talking about Spanish society, the one that pertains to me and my friend). It's sad, I'm aware of that. As I'm aware that my stand against incest may not be understood by most, but I've seen what it has done to the life of someone that's very dear to me. And because I've seen it I'm against incestuous relationships from procreating. Am I appealing to your emotions? Not at all, but this is my reason.
Frankly, I find your "reason" as revolting as when people blame a rape victim for her own attack.

If some people are stupid and cruel enough to torment CHILDREN because of who their parents are, then the problem is with the stupid cruel assholes. The solution is not to blame the existence of the children.

It is 100% fucking possible to NOT PICK ON A KID. If some assholes decide to make a kid's life miserable, the that's 100% the fault of THE ASSHOLES. It is not the parents' fault for having the kid. It's not the kid's fault for existing.

It's the fault of the assholes, and anybody who stands by and supports what the assholes are doing.

Like you.

Why?


A very good friend of mine has a black grandfather and a white grandmother. Their children were the product of an interracial relationship which began before it was legal for blacks and whites to marry one another. If you want, I can list for you some of the horrific things their peers did to them while they were growing up.

The fact that one's peers may be assholes is a great argument for teaching people to knock it the fuck off and quit being assholes. It is NOT a convincing argument for victim-blaming.

What about being put in the hospital because your father and mother are of different races and some kids think this means you deserve to be beaten within an inch of your life? Or having your peers force you to wear a dog collar and leash and then drag you around the playyard--while teachers watch and do nothing--because your mixed-race blood made you an animal in their eyes?


Frankly, I find your "reason" as revolting as when people blame a rape victim for her own attack.

If some people are stupid and cruel enough to torment CHILDREN because of who their parents are, then the problem is with the stupid cruel assholes. The solution is not to blame the existence of the children.

It is 100% fucking possible to NOT PICK ON A KID. If some assholes decide to make a kid's life miserable, the that's 100% the fault of THE ASSHOLES. It is not the parents' fault for having the kid. It's not the kid's fault for existing.

It's the fault of the assholes, and anybody who stands by and supports what the assholes are doing.

Like you.

I think this little tirade applies only to you, Bottle. Is it necessary for you to call me an asshole? I think not. The only asshole here is you. And, like another one of the posters, you're dismissed.

Excuse me, a parent that's practicing incest and has a child from that union cannot be considered a "victimless" choice. Again, these are conseting adults you're referring to. The child is and forever will be a victim.

Being made fun of at school for having acne or having a funny name is not the same as being made fun of because your father is your grandfather too or because your aunt is also your mother. Don't compare. Although it's sad that the child seems to be the one paying for the parents' choice, that's how horrible our society is.

As for the example I gave you about psychological damage, we're talking about a person that was product of an incestuous relationship. This person wasn't laughed at or teased because he had a funny name or buck-teeth. He was ostracised because his father and mother were siblings. And wehereas those who have acne and two rows of teeth tend to be accepted later in life as you posted, he has never been accepted by our society (and I'm talking about Spanish society, the one that pertains to me and my friend). It's sad, I'm aware of that. As I'm aware that my stand against incest may not be understood by most, but I've seen what it has done to the life of someone that's very dear to me. And because I've seen it I'm against incestuous relationships from procreating. Am I appealing to your emotions? Not at all, but this is my reason.

Hmmm. The comparison seems fair to me, bullied for one reason, bullied for another reason. In either case it's bullying. I could say, we're not talking about someone who has two rows of teeth, we're talking about some who has serious acne! The comparison still applies. Victimless in the sense no-one is directly harmed, unless events beyong their control (society) step in and makes it victimised. Like any other form of unusual parenting.

Surely you agree the child is at no fault, and again that since such children exist (like in the OP), efforts should be made to help them be accepted. One such way of doing this is to move society towards accepting incest as fine. This leads to the childrens betterment, and to opening up choices for the people attracted to their relatives.
Overall I just see your example as the communities' fault, not the parents. No-one should be treated badly for reasons they can't change.

I think we are both appealing to emotions and I can see how keeping incest illegal and enforcing it harder would stop such sad cases, but as the law stands now, these children will continue to be born. Since I see nothing wrong with how they are made, banning it seems unnecessary and a waste of resources.

Maybe a hybrid option of stopping it now but increasing awareness of incest, with an eventually legalisation of it. When and if everyone comes to realize the harm is caused by them rejecting it due to the harm they think it causes. They probably will come to accept incestuous births since we're becoming more and more liberal sexually, all it would take is a few movies and series that normalize incest, or putting it in sex ed classes. Doesn't have to be a major part of the plot for movies, or get much of a mention in sex ed. In the end, all it takes to dismiss the eugenics side of things is advising the people commiting incest, that there are increased risks if they decided to have a baby. Much like many places already do with those who have genetic disorders.

Why is it that in every thread there is always some regular who conveniently knows or is related to someone who has been subjected to such and such and acts as a perfect example to discredit some argument. It happens in every thread, we must have some very interesting people on NSG.

Why is it that in every thread there is always some regular who conveniently knows or is related to someone who has been subjected to such and such and acts as a perfect example to discredit some argument. It happens in every thread, we must have some very interesting people on NSG.
Maybe it has something to do with how racism/sexism/asshattery are not remotely rare in our world?

Maybe it has something to do with how racism/sexism/asshattery are not remotely rare in our world?

But people being born through incest is, and I believe Nanatsu said she knew someone who had been born from an incestuous couple, but I may be wrong.

Why is it that in every thread there is always some regular who conveniently knows or is related to someone who has been subjected to such and such and acts as a perfect example to discredit some argument. It happens in every thread, we must have some very interesting people on NSG.
You're just figuring this out?
Maybe it has something to do with how racism/sexism/asshattery are not remotely rare in our world?
Also this /\

Why is it that in every thread there is always some regular who conveniently knows or is related to someone who has been subjected to such and such and acts as a perfect example to discredit some argument. It happens in every thread, we must have some very interesting people on NSG.

We do !
Of course, the argument is moot. To draw a comparison: some black guy once robbed my grandmother from her purse. That does not mean that all black people are pursesnatchers. You need far more convincing statistics for such a claim.

Why is it that in every thread there is always some regular who conveniently knows or is related to someone who has been subjected to such and such and acts as a perfect example to discredit some argument. It happens in every thread, we must have some very interesting people on NSG.

Hi, I'm a regular who conveniently believes interracial sexual relationships are repugnant.

We do !
Of course, the argument is moot. To draw a comparison: some black guy once robbed my grandmother from her purse. That does not mean that all black people are pursesnatchers. You need far more convincing statistics for such a claim.

It's no way near as bad, but it does remind me of the sort of "I'm not racist, my best friend is black" argument. You can make it as elaborate and complex as you want, but you can't stop it from being anecdotal in the end.

For some reason I tend to view white women who are in interracial relationships as being lower class, because typically black males they choose are indeed low class. However I have known plenty of black men who are higher class, affluent, and quite articulate and then I view the relationship as being less....repulsive.

It's no way near as bad, but it does remind me of the sort of "I'm not racist, my best friend is black" argument. You can make it as elaborate and complex as you want, but you can't stop it from being anecdotal in the end.
Anecdotes are perfectly fine for the points being made.

No, you can't use an anecdote to (legitimately) generalize. But yes, you can certainly use personal experience to point out that this isn't just some abstract concept being debated. It's about actual living human beings.

It also provides a framework to test out people's ideas.

For instance, we've got some people in this thread basically arguing that incest is gross and therefore if a child is made fun of because his parents are related then it is the parents' fault that the child is suffering.

Meanwhile, we have other people arguing that it's the fault of the people who are doing the teasing.

Well, let's put both theories into a practical situation:

Jimmy is the product of incest. Jimmy is being made fun of at school. How should we deal with the situation?

Side A: It's Jimmy's parents' fault he's being teased. Okay, great, now what? Want to lock his parents up? Take him away from them? Just tell him that it's Mommy and Daddy's fault?

Side B: It's the fault of the assholes who are teasing Jimmy. Let's tell them to grow the fuck up and leave him alone.

Gee, I wonder which of these is a better choice?

Now replace "incest" with "inter-racial relationship." Hmm. How would you feel about somebody who suggested that a mixed-race child should be told it's Mommy and Daddy's fault he's being teased, and that it would be better if he'd never existed in the first place?

For some reason I tend to view white women who are in interracial relationships as being lower class, because typically black males they choose are indeed low class. However I have known plenty of black men who are higher class, affluent, and quite articulate and then I view the relationship as being less....repulsive.

Intruiging. I once saw an American talkshow with some hillbilly parents that were extremely upset that their daughter had said she wanted to marry her "filthy, lazy *beep for a word referring to the colour of his skin*" boyfriend. The guy in question had gone to uni, was well employed, quite obviously took care of his physique and personal hygiene and was in fact the opposite of the white slobs.

Was the man in this case being lower class ?

Side A: It's Jimmy's parents' fault he's being teased. Okay, great, now what? Want to lock his parents up? Take him away from them? Just tell him that it's Mommy and Daddy's fault?


Of course this isn't really practically what the opposing side is arguing at all, this is more of a strawman. I doubt anyone here thinks the kids are not at fault for bullying the Child.

Hmmm. The comparison seems fair to me, bullied for one reason, bullied for another reason. In either case it's bullying. I could say, we're not talking about someone who has two rows of teeth, we're talking about some who has acne! The comparison still applies. Victimless in the sense no-one is directly harmed, unless events beyong their control (society) step in and makes it victimised. Like any other form of unusual parenting.

Surely you agree the child is at no fault, and again that since such children exist (like in the OP), efforts should be made to help them be accepted. One such way of doing this is to move society towards accepting incest as fine. This leads to the childrens betterment, and to opening up choices for the people attracted to their relatives.
Overall I just see your example as the communities' fault, not the parents. No-one should be treated badly for reasons they can't change.

I think we are both appealing to emotions and I can see how keeping incest illegal and enforcing it harder would stop such sad cases, but as the law stands now, these children will continue to be born. Since I see nothing wrong with how they are made, banning it seems unnecessary and a waste of resources.

Maybe a hybrid option of stopping it now but increasing awareness of incest, with an eventually legalisation of it. When and if everyone comes to realize the harm is caused by them rejecting it due to the harm they think it causes. They probably will come to accept incestuous births since we're becoming more and more liberal sexually, all it would take is a few movies and series that normalize incest. Doesn't have to be a major part of the plot or anything.

Thanks for being civil in your understanding of my point. I do agree that, in my friend's case, it is society the one at fault. I don't point fingers at people, as someone else in this thread stated. I never made fun of my friend, and we've been friends since middle school. I always stood and had stand by him. Is not his fault that his parents were siblings and, therefore, he shouldn't have been abused of in school by peers.

As I said before, and keep saying because I don't think anyone else understands is that I don't condemn consenting adults from engaging in a relation, even if it's incestuous. My sole concern is that, no matter how you look at it, even if you want to be fair to the parties involved as I assume you want to be, society always steps in and victimizes. It's sad, I've seen it, with racially-mixed parents too, I've seen it with married couples of different nationalities.

It's sad, it should be unacceptable to ostracize people for any particular reason, it should be banned that just because someone is white and the other person is black to point a finger. Skin-color, religion, nationality, political views are not excuses to abuse of others. But we all live in a cruel system that gangs up on those who 'seem' different.

I was bullied for being too pale when growing up. I was called Casper and Milk and other names. I'm not a stranger to being bullied, just like I'm sure everyone else here has been bullied at one time or another in their lives. I just think that, when it comes to offspring of incestuous relations, the chances of being damaged psychologically are greater than being bullied because your head is oddly shaped.

I'm not saying it should be illegal to have kids from incest parents. After all, who am I to wield such power, right Cabra? But it should be avoided, if it can be. If the couple do decides to bring a child to this world, I can only hope it is in an understanding environment.

Does that make me an asshole, I wonder?

Intruiging. I once saw an American talkshow with some hillbilly parents that were extremely upset that their daughter had said she wanted to marry her "filthy, lazy *beep for a word referring to the colour of his skin*" boyfriend. The guy in question had gone to uni, was well employed, quite obviously took care of his physique and personal hygiene and was in fact the opposite of the white slobs.

Was the man in this case being lower class ?

Firstly, as a "hillbilly" I resent that statement. Secondly, I agree with you totally. hahaha

Does that make me an asshole, I wonder?

Of course. :p

Intruiging. I once saw an American talkshow with some white trash parents that were extremely upset that their daughter had said she wanted to marry her "filthy, lazy *beep for a word referring to the colour of his skin*" boyfriend. The guy in question had gone to uni, was well employed, quite obviously took care of his physique and personal hygiene and was in fact the opposite of the white slobs.

Was the man in this case being lower class ?
Fixed
Firstly, as a "hillbilly" I resent that statement. Secondly, I agree with you totally. hahaha
better?

Of course. :p

Who gave thee permission to get out of the Pokéball? Back into it!
http://www.cspacezone.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/pokeball.gif

;)

Who gave thee permission to get out of the Pokéball? Back into it!
http://www.cspacezone.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/pokeball.gif

;)

*breaks out of Pokéball*
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Dyakovochu.jpg
Dyakovochu!!
*gets back in Pokéball*

Does that make me an asshole, I wonder?

Nope.

So making sure the parents know the genetic risks and social risks of having such a child, and that these risks are likely to outweigh the suffering the parents may have for having to adopt or a different option, when they see what their child is likely to go through. Having made them aware of all that and whatever else you can think of, then allowing them to make an informed decision on whether to have the child or not.

Whether that is what you meant or not, I have to say it makes alot of sense to me. I would have issue with forcing any kind of "advice" on them, sex ed would be a good area to insert alot of the info instead, and making sure they know the advice is there, and that it's recommended they talk to someone. It would be nice if all planned parents did that really, of any kind.

My problem with this is just because emotionally it felt like the right thing to do, does not mean that it is so. The problem won't arise, even if they have a healthy child, until that child is growing up. That child is going to have that stigma that they were born of a relationship that was not of a social norm.

The child will probably be incessantly picked on, will grow up with severe self-esteem issues, and will have their social development stunted. Even with the best intentions of the parents, there is no way that they can possibly raise a well adjusted child. None.

It's not my place to say whether it's right or wrong, or whether it should be legal or illegal. I just think that they didn't think things through before entering into the relationship.

Nope.

So you think that making sure the parents know the genetic risks and social risks of having such a child, and that these risks are likely to outweigh the suffering the parents may have for having to adopt or a different option, when they see what their child is likely to go through. Having made them aware of all that and whatever else you can think of, then allowing them to make an informed decision on whether to have the child or not.

Whether that is what you meant or not, I have to say it makes alot of sense to me. I would have issue with forcing any kind of "advice" on them, sex ed would be a good area to insert alot of the info instead, and making sure they know the advice is there, and that it's recommended they talk to someone. It would be nice if all planned parents did that really, of any kind.

QFT

Nope.

So you think that making sure the parents know the genetic risks and social risks of having such a child, and that these risks are likely to outweigh the suffering the parents may have for having to adopt or a different option, when they see what their child is likely to go through. Having made them aware of all that and whatever else you can think of, then allowing them to make an informed decision on whether to have the child or not.

Whether that is what you meant or not, I have to say it makes alot of sense to me. I would have issue with forcing any kind of "advice" on them, sex ed would be a good area to insert alot of the info instead, and making sure they know the advice is there, and that it's recommended they talk to someone. It would be nice if all planned parents did that really, of any kind.

Exactly. It's just that, that they should know that bringing a child from their union into this world has bigger consequences and that solely by love these can't be changed or prevented. They need to take into consideration other things. And mainly what you're posting covers it.

Very simple:
They're consenting adults. They can do whatever they want, as long as they do not reproduce. Incest in populations that, like ours, require biological diversity, causes degeneration. People born of incest are highly likely to have mental retardations, physical deformations and disorders, such as twisted bones, circulatory and heart ruptures, and (some think) various conditions restricting the body's absorption of nutrients. (Rickets, anyone?)

So, in short? Let them have their relationship. It's not the business of "The People" (Christians) to dictate how everyone leads their lives--of course, it's simply wrong to put a child through a life of suffering with illness because their parents can't figure out how to not squirt out a blood moppet every time they try to do "their thing". What they ought to do is simply adopt. There are lots of orphan children who, if told up-front, would probably not give half a shit if their adopting family is incestuous.
Let's just hope, of course, that said daughter doesn't ditch her father for one of her own kids. It'd probably be born as a seven-headed, fifteen-limbed hermaphroditic pus-oozing monster.

Oh, and, by the by? I think incest is pretty creepy. It's just within their rights, and it's not hurting anyone except their biohazardous spawn.
...Maybe we could just do as the Spartans did. Check the baby out--if it's damaged, leave it on a hillside to die, and try again.

I think this little tirade applies only to you, Bottle. Is it necessary for you to call me an asshole? I think not. The only asshole here is you. And, like another one of the posters, you're dismissed.

It's cute when people get "dismissed" because you are incapable of or unwilling to address their arguments.


But people being born through incest is, and I believe Nanatsu said she knew someone who had been born from an incestuous couple, but I may be wrong.

Actually that really isn't very rare. My mother-in-law sees it with unfortunate frequency. A young girl comes in about to have a child and has had little to no prenatal care. At some point, she reveals the fact that the father of her child is, in fact, her own father.

To my knowledge, consensual incestuous couples are rare, but children being born of incest isn't.

Of course this isn't really practically what the opposing side is arguing at all, this is more of a strawman. I doubt anyone here thinks the kids are not at fault for bullying the Child.

Then why is their response, "We need to get the parents to refrain from having children," instead of "We need to make treating a child this way a social taboo"?


I'm not saying it should be illegal to have kids from incest parents. After all, who am I to wield such power, right Cabra? But it should be avoided, if it can be. If the couple do decides to bring a child to this world, I can only hope it is in an understanding environment.

Why didn't you just say this from the beginning?

You can think it's icky all you like. You can think it's a bad idea. Many of us would likely agree with you. It was the insinuation that they should somehow be prevented from doing so that we had a problem with.

It's cute when people get "dismissed" because you are incapable of or unwilling to address their arguments.

Yes, just as it's so cute when someone jumps into an argument that doesn't involve him/her and goes on and on, blah blah about something that he/she believes. I do not and refuse to argue with someone that decides it's ok to insult a poster just because he/she isn't of the same mind as the poster. I never insulted Bottle so I don't think I deserved to be insulted. Whatever Bottle meant can only be clarified by Bottle, not by you, Dempublicents.

Why didn't you just say this from the beginning?

You can think it's icky all you like. You can think it's a bad idea. Many of us would likely agree with you. It was the insinuation that they should somehow be prevented from doing so that we had a problem with.

I did. In many ocassions. Did you care to read through my posts or you just picked what suited you in your attack of my views? The parents shouldn't have a kid from an incestuous relation, but if they do, as I told Epic Fusion, all I hope is this child is brought into a loving and understanding society. Highly unlikely, but we can dream.

Yes, just as it's so cute when someone jumps into an argument that doesn't involve him/her and goes on and on, blah blah about something that he/she believes.

This is a public forum, my dear. If you want a private conversation, go elsewhere.

Besides, I was also "dismissed", remember?

I do not and refuse to argue with someone that decides it's ok to insult a poster just because he/she isn't of the same mind as the poster.

Good.

What does that have to do with you "dismissing" people because you refuse to address their arguments?

Or "dismissing" someone because she thinks that blaming the victim instead of the offender is assholish?

I never insulted Bottle so I don't think I deserved to be insulted. Whatever Bottle meant can only be clarified by Bottle, not by you, Dempublicents.

It was written in plain English. I don't really think it needs to be clarified.

I did. In many ocassions.

No, you didn't. You repeatedly stated that you don't think their relationship should be illegal. Then, you would follow that up by saying that your problem was with them having kids.

The clear implication there was that you supported making it illegal for them to have children.

Did you care to read through my posts or you just picked what suited you in your attack of my views?

I read every post. I also responded to several of them. In detail.

I haven't attacked your views. As I've already pointed out, I find incest just as repulsive as you do. I did point out the lack of logic in just saying, "It's wrong because society says so" instead of thinking it through for yourself.

The parents shouldn't have a kid from an incestuous relation, but if they do, as I told Epic Fusion, all I hope the said child is brought into a loving and understanding society.

I hope that as well.

You're thinking about it all backwards.

All activities are, by default, allowed.
Which would be fine, except we're not talking about some undetermined 'default' position - we have an established (long established, and common to many otherwise unrelated cultures) that some blood relationships are too close to permit sexual engagement.

So, if you're wanting to legalise incest and have it become socially acceptable, then the onus is on you to say why the existing status quo should be changed.

Thus far, the only consistent reason you've given is essentially: "Society might be mean to their children."
Not me, no. I've said that's a possibility - but I can and do accept that the same problem might arise for children in many situations. No, my objection, aside the social conditioning that incest is wrong, is based solely on whether or not the activity is beneficial to, or at least does not affect, society as a whole.

As I said, it's the natural trend of evolution to increase diversity. Commonplace incest - and the inevitable offspring that would result - would run counter to that pattern. Homosexuality - which several people are wishfully trying to compare to incest as another example of "two consenting adults" - does not truly compare in this regard because while it does not serve to increase diversity, at the same time it does not reduce it.

Yet you have refused to justify banning reproduction on that basis in this case but not in other cases in which a child would face such problems.
Have I? I wasn't aware of that. I'm not sure entirely what the association is: it seems like a different question to me. Would you like me to address that point as well? As far as 'banning reproduction' goes, again, we would fall foul of the first point here: there is currently no such ban - so anyone proposing one would have to show why such a ban would better society. In the same way, those who wish to see incest legalised and accepted are bound to show how doing so would better society.

Then you have no basis from which to discuss it like a rational adult.
Your judgement of my ability to discuss the question is irrelevant. You may choose to discuss it with me, or you may choose not to.

If you have not personally questioned the law, you clearly have no rational basis for your position.
Which, if you think about it, is another way of saying, "if you don't agree with me, you're irrational".

You'll pardon me if I don't pay much heed to your assessment.

EDIT: My apologies. I was reading from the new message typing window, which doesn't show second-level quoted text. I mistakenly read your later comments as being directed to me.

Then why is their response, "We need to get the parents to refrain from having children," instead of "We need to make treating a child this way a social taboo"?


Just because society is at fault does not mean it is a good idea to bring a child like that into this society.

Which would be fine, except we're not talking about some undetermined 'default' position - we have an established (long established, and common to many otherwise unrelated cultures) that some blood relationships are too close to permit sexual engagement.

Irrelevant.

The government should not interfere in anyone's life without a clear necessity for doing so. The fact that it has always done so is not something we should be supporting.

So, if you're wanting to legalise incest and have it become socially acceptable, then the onus is on you to say why the existing status quo should be changed.

Who said anything about socially acceptable?

And the existing status quo should be changed because the people who want to interfere in other people's lives clearly can't provide justification to do so.

The onus for justification should always be on the person who wishes to restrict personal liberty. If they cannot provide such a justification, personal liberty is all the reason that is needed to support changing the law.

Not me, no. I've said that's a possibility - but I can and do accept that the same problem might arise for children in many situations. No, my objection, aside the social conditioning that incest is wrong, is based solely on whether or not the activity is beneficial to, or at least does not affect, society as a whole.

One act of incest isn't going to affect society as a whole.

As I said, it's the natural trend of evolution to increase diversity. Commonplace incest - and the inevitable offspring that would result - would run counter to that pattern. Homosexuality - which several people are wishfully trying to compare to incest as another example of "two consenting adults" - does not truly compare in this regard because while it does not serve to increase diversity, at the same time it does not reduce it.

We aren't talking about a campaign to make incest common, now are we?

Have I? I wasn't aware of that.

I believe you responded to a post in which several posters were quoted - not just yourself. You can tell by looking at (a) what was actually quoted and (b) the name of the poster in the quote bar.

Which, if you think about it, is another way of saying, "if you don't agree with me, you're irrational".

(a) That wasn't directed at you. If you didn't make the comments quoted, you probably shouldn't take them as personally directed at you.

(b) No, it isn't. It's a way of saying, "If you don't think for yourself, you have no rational reason to believe this." This person made it clear that he had not questioned certain social norms - that he simply accepted them as true. This means that he has not thought it through for himself and thus has no rational basis for discussion.

It is certainly possible to question the law and come to the conclusion that it is a good one that we need to have around.

This is a public forum, my dear. If you want a private conversation, go elsewhere.

Besides, I was also "dismissed", remember?



Good.

What does that have to do with you "dismissing" people because you refuse to address their arguments?

Or "dismissing" someone because she thinks that blaming the victim instead of the offender is assholish?



It was written in plain English. I don't really think it needs to be clarified.



No, you didn't. You repeatedly stated that you don't think their relationship should be illegal. Then, you would follow that up by saying that your problem was with them having kids.

The clear implication there was that you supported making it illegal for them to have children.



I read every post. I also responded to several of them. In detail.

I haven't attacked your views. As I've already pointed out, I find incest just as repulsive as you do. I did point out the lack of logic in just saying, "It's wrong because society says so" instead of thinking it through for yourself.



I hope that as well.

I stand corrected. I seem to have only posted those last views in my last few posts;)

As a last thought though, I don't think children from incestuous relations fare well in society. I don't think adults practicing incest should have children, the reasons why not and why should they be allowed have been more than stated already. If they do, what can one do? Nothing. Hope for the best.

As for the laws changing about permitting incestuous relations, I don't see that happening anytime soon. I'm not ok with it, with incest I mean. I don't think I'll ever be ok with it because letting a father damage the bond between him and a daughter with a sexual relation seems wrong to me in so many ways. Specially because father and mother are thought of, at least in my case, and in most cases, as asexual.

Mom and dad are our protectors when we're growing up, they're our playmates. How can someone see her father or his mother in a sexual way and enact upon it, is beyond me. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned in my ideas. Perhpas I'm guilty of that.

As for the laws changing about permitting incestuous relations, I don't see that happening anytime soon. I'm not ok with it, with incest I mean. I don't think I'll ever be ok with it because letting a father damage the bond between him and a daughter with a sexual relation seems wrong to me in so many ways. Specially because father and mother are thought of, at least in my case, and in most cases, as asexual.

Mom and dad are our protectors when we're growing up, they're our playmates. How can someone see her father or his mother in a sexual way and enact upon it, is beyond me. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned in my ideas. Perhpas I'm guilty of that.

I agree.

Of course, that doesn't really apply in this situation. This woman did not know her father growing up. They did not form a father-daughter bond. It still strikes me as inappropriate, but we can't really use "He violated the father-daughter relationship" as the reason for that determination. They never had any such relationship.

I agree.

Of course, that doesn't really apply in this situation. This woman did not know her father growing up. They did not form a father-daughter bond. It still strikes me as inappropriate, but we can't really use "He violated the father-daughter relationship" as the reason for that determination. They never had any such relationship.

I know that. They hadn't seen each other in 20 years, if I'm not wrong. But even she knew it was wrong to become romatically involved with her biological father. She stated it in the article. They still did it. I understand that, to her, he didn't violate the bond between father-daughter because he wasn't part of her formative years. To use your words, it's still inappropriate anyway. That's why it's kinda shocking, to me, that they decided to go forth and have a child.

All I can wish for that child is that he/she grows up ok and in a comprehensive society.

Irrelevant.

The government should not interfere in anyone's life without a clear necessity for doing so. The fact that it has always done so is not something we should be supporting.
Nothing about this argument involves a decision by government to interfere in anyone's life. Everyone here has grown up in a society in which incest is considered morally wrong. Most people comply with this 'law' out of instinct and conditioning. Therefore, the change being considered here is not whether the Government should interfere in our lives, but whether a social convention almost universally observed and dating from time immemorial should be overturned.

In essence, it is you and other supporters of the 'right to incest' that have this the wrong way round. As I said, it is you who wish to change the status quo - therefore the onus is on you to show why such a change would be to society's benefit.

Who said anything about socially acceptable?
The social acceptability of incest has been a central theme of this debate thus far.

And the existing status quo should be changed because the people who want to interfere in other people's lives clearly can't provide justification to do so.
I have seen several good reasons put forward in this thread as to why close-relative incest is not a great idea. These range from social to medical to evolutionary. All have been dismissed out of hand by the pro-incest side, who have instead appealed to an expectation of freedom to do as they please 'provided no-one else gets hurt'. Which is a noble, if fairly vague, sentiment - but which doesn't really address the question. If freedom itself is the sole measure of whether something is moral or not, then why should we have laws at all? Under such terms, no law can be desirable, because all restrict freedom.

One act of incest isn't going to affect society as a whole.
I think I must have misread this. Because it looks to me as though you're arguing in favour of permitting incest and justifying that position by saying that one such act isn't going to affect society.

So I can't have read that right, because that would have been totally illogical, wouldn't it?

We aren't talking about a campaign to make incest common, now are we?
Common? Perhaps not. More common? Certainly. The presumption that such a move would not cause a rise in incest presupposes that there are currently only two sorts of people in the world: those who break the law and commit incest, and those who would never consider it anyway. But there is no reason not to assume the existence of a third category - namely, those who have the impulse but who, for whatever reason, choose not to act on it. The prohibitions might well be the only thing stopping someone from engaging in this activity - removing those prohibitions would encourage them to do so.

I certainly don't claim that legalising incest would cause people to want to engage in incest - any more than legalising homosexuality caused people to become gay - but it would allow them to engage in it, and yes, that means that more people would do it.

I believe you responded to a post in which several posters were quoted - not just yourself. You can tell by looking at (a) what was actually quoted and (b) the name of the poster in the quote bar.
And you may benefit from similar advice to read in full before replying: you might then notice edits acknowledging such errors.

Which, if you think about it, is another way of saying, "if you don't agree with me, you're irrational".

(b) No, it isn't. It's a way of saying, "If you don't think for yourself, you have no rational reason to believe this."
What cause might I have had to question the law? I would have to have some reason to suppose it is not satisfactory. If I considered it satisfactory I would not question it. Therefore, since you state that my being rational is dependent on my having questioned the law, your statement in effect says that unless I see reason why the existing law is unsatisfactory (i.e., I agree with your position), I cannot discuss the matter rationally.

It is certainly possible to question the law and come to the conclusion that it is a good one that we need to have around.
I would consider that to be the assessment that comes before questioning, and which determines the need to question, rather than the questioning itself. However, if your initial statement was that one must have assessed the law in order to have a rational discussion about it, then I would agree.

I think it's disgusting; but, hell, look at those two? Pretty much any kind of sex involving them, incestuous or otherwise, would disgust me but nothing gives me the right to bar it.

Like I've said before, I really see the whole "it's disgusting" argument as, well, childish. Lots of things are disgusting, and every person's opinion of "disgusting" varies. I don't think it should be illegal because it's "gross"...



Genetic? Or congenital? The two are not the same.

If genetic, was it defined? As in, do they know what the genetic problem was?

*Googles*

A FATHER and daughter who have revealed they are couple and have a child together had another baby who died a few days after birth from a congenital heart disease, court documents show.



Hmm... I can't seem to find any info on the other child.

Okay, I'm going to make this personal, because I don't think you're quite understanding what you're proposing. I have a genetic disorder. There is, at the moment, no way to diagnose said disorder in utero. If I were to reproduce, there is a distinct possibility that any child I have would have this disorder. Are you honestly suggesting that if my child were to be born and to be diagnosed with this disorder, I should be jailed for having conceived them
Considering your capacity to post in this forum, I would be surprised if your disease is really bad. Also, as you seem to believe you have a capacity to reproduce also, I would be surprised if you would be better if you had not lived. With these kind of things you should err on the side of caution. I think I have made it clear, I am talking about really bad conditions. I accept a line has to be drawn somewhere, but by repeatedly deliberating misrepresenting my posts, by suggesting that this woud apply to mild illnesses does not really help you.
As a sufferer of a Genetic Disease myself (a mild one called Dariers Disease), I'd be curious of what your condition is.

- and, likewise, that if the luck of the genetic draw favored my child and they were entirely healthy, I should have no punishment, despite engaging in the exact same set of actions? Does that plan really make a great deal of sense to you (and do you honestly believe that disabled children are better off with their parents in jail)?
When you put it like that.... Completely. I don't think I can ban someone from having children, but I can make them responsible for their actions.
It's a bit like manslaughter through negligence. Say, for example you have someone who is adjusting their radio, and accidentally crashes and kills a pedestrian. With manslaugter, the perpetrator obviously didn't intend for the person to die, but because of the perps action, someone is dead. If the pedestrian hadn't been on the road, even though the perps actions were the same, no punishment.
Same with this. The perpetrator is hoping their child is O.K., but if that's not the case, then they get busted, as, through their actions, which they could have chosen to do differently, they have tortured a thinking being.


Further, you still haven't addressed my question as to where one draws the line. Who decides which medical disorders qualify as "torture"? I'm going to guess I'm allowed to have near-sighted kids without being sent to jail, but how about kids with Downs syndrome? Deaf kids? Kids with missing limbs? Kids with spina bifida? Kids with harlequin ichthyosis? Which ones are torture, and which ones aren't?
I say again, medical professionals. I do not have enough medical background to justify what illness would be considered ongoing, near insufferable torture, and what one would be considered just really sad and painful.

Just about the other discussion going through this thread. I'm just talking about medical things. If the kid is medically O.K. but psychologically tortured by their peers, I think that can't justify any punitive action. Otherwise, any parent picking up their teenage child in a dressing gown and slippers would be in jail.

GW says "that's for the people of Britain to decide for themselves."

lol

Yeah, this is kinda weird. Obviously everybody in that situation will at some point need some serious psych work when it's all over. Whether it will happen, I don't know, but this just screams that she hasn't been getting the fatherly attention she wants and now is trying to get as much as she can. Whatever, it doesn't affect me, so I really don't care. Kinda makes you wonder why exactly this law is on the books.

They are appealing to be just left alone. Should they be?

Yes.

Hm... I've never considered it that way. Yes, the relationship between child and parent is something that transcends age. I live by myself and my mother still tries to tell me how to do things and what not to do.;)
And yes, incestuous relationships aren't that common but not unheard of. I just can't put my head around a father and a daughter or a mother and a son being in a romantic relation. It still spooks me and I find it, because of the way I've been brought up and the way society is (and I'm not saying that anyone needs to be society's puppet), unacceptable.

As I said, I believe they will become a bit more common with modern day mobility and increased family instability. Just look at the case that started this thread : The father left before the daughter even got to know him (or him her, for that matter). They met again when both were adults, without a history of one raising the other, without authority of any kind of one over the other, and most certainly without that intense feeling of familiarity that we would normally associate with a father-daughter relationship. As far as they were concerend, they might as well have been two strangers meeting for the first time. Psychologically, there was no mechanism in place to stop them from falling in love with each other.

In a situation like this, I find it highly dubious to let biology reign over morality.

For the life of me I can't remember the name for this logical fallacy, but I know it is one: the idea that, because one previously-prohibited activity is now permitted, so another currently-prohibited activity should be permitted.

Does homosexuality equate to incest? If not, then the argument that allowing A necessitates allowing B doesn't follow. Rather, you would need to show, independently of any attempted comparison, that the legalisation or social acceptance of incest would make society better than it is with incest prohibited.

No. What I need to show (if anything, normally it's the prohibiting law that needs the justification, not the other way around) is that society would neither be better nor worse off, and that it would not have any negative effect on society to legalise it.
So far, no negative effects were brought up.

Whatever Bottle meant can only be clarified by Bottle, not by you, Dempublicents.

As Dem pointed out, what I said was written quite plainly and clearly. It doesn't require clarification. Though I can't imagine why you'd think I would waste my time "clarifying" anything for you after you'd already declared that I was "dismissed." Get your story straight.

Your behavior, centering on blaming parents for having a child if that child is mistreated by assholes in society, is exactly the same crap I've heard a million times over from people who insist that my lesbian godmothers were wrong to have children because of the teasing. It's the same bullshit that has been spouted at inter-racial couples. It's the same victim-blaming crap on a stick that every non-Cleaverish family has faced for generations. It's tired, it's pathetic, it's cowardly, and it makes you part of the problem.

You may not be an asshole. I certainly hope you aren't. And I absolutely hope you stop acting like one and quit enabling the abuses that you claim to disapprove of.

Considering your capacity to post in this forum, I would be surprised if your disease is really bad.
How do you come to that conclusion? A person might have any number of conditions which severely impact their ability to live a 'normal' life, yet still be able to read a screen and type.

As Dem pointed out, what I said was written quite plainly and clearly. It doesn't require clarification. Though I can't imagine why you'd think I would waste my time "clarifying" anything for you after you'd already declared that I was "dismissed." Get your story straight.

Your behavior, centering on blaming parents for having a child if that child is mistreated by assholes in society, is exactly the same crap I've heard a million times over from people who insist that my lesbian godmothers were wrong to have children because of the teasing. It's the same bullshit that has been spouted at inter-racial couples. It's the same victim-blaming crap on a stick that every non-Cleaverish family has faced for generations. It's tired, it's pathetic, it's cowardly, and it makes you part of the problem.

You may not be an asshole. I certainly hope you aren't. And I absolutely hope you stop acting like one and quit enabling the abuses that you claim to disapprove of.

I'm just wondering how is it that me, expressing my views, makes me an asshole or support assholes, according to you. As I was pointing out, I'm expressing them from what I saw others do to my friend growing up. That not everyone will do the same, that's another thing. But you know, as well as I do, that we do not live in an understanding society, and unfortunately, the children do pay, even when they're completely innocent, of some choices the parents make.

I would never treat a person differently because he/she's racially mixed, his/her parents are of the same sex or a product of an incestuous relation. It's not in me to be cruel in such a way. I agree, it is pathetic and cowardly. But not everyone sees it like me, or you for that matter.

When I said I thought that this couple in particular should've abstained from reproducing, I wasn't thinking about them, they're adults, they're fully aware of the choices they make and the consequences of their actions (plus, if they're in love, who are we to judge?), I was just thinking, based on the suffering of my own friend, about their child. You said it yourself, you've seen this with your godmothers and how cruel people can be just because their sexual orientation doesn't happen to follow conventions. Could they raise a child to be a productive and happy human being? Of course they can. I do understand that this also could be the case with a child of incest, this child could be raised to have a wonderful life. But the percentage of psychological damage is greater than the one a child from gay parents may suffer. Again, I'm stating this only based on my experience. Children can have psychological damage from "normal" marriages too.

It has been established already that the bond of a father-daughter relation didn't exist in this case. This man had no part in the raising of the daughter. It has also been pointed that when they met it was like falling in love with total strangers. But these two happen to share a family bond, the man's her biological father. Again, how is that by posting these things makes me part of a problem I don't find in the least appealing nor I condone it?

I can assure you, if it matters, that I'm not an asshole. When I said I was 'dimssing you' I was angry for being called an asshole by someone that, understandably, doesn't know me and can only judge by what I post. But let it be known that I deplore ostracizing, I abhor that, in the 21st. century, we still live in a "witch-hunting" society where people are judge by what they say, do, have, don't do, wear, believe, by their particular tastes in food, their weight and sexuality or their political views.

In my last statement, although I don't approve of incest, I can only hope that the child from this particular couple finds understanding in its society. I hope he/she grows up happy. Are odds against him/her? Yes. Can he/she overcome them? Hopefully and god-willing.

Now, does believing this makes me an asshole?

Nothing about this argument involves a decision by government to interfere in anyone's life.

Of course it does. We're talking about whether or not incest should be illegal. Making something illegal means that the government is interfering.

Everyone here has grown up in a society in which incest is considered morally wrong. Most people comply with this 'law' out of instinct and conditioning.

Irrelevant. Most people don't have exotic piercings and are a bit disturbed by them, but a law outlawing them would still be government interference.

Therefore, the change being considered here is not whether the Government should interfere in our lives, but whether a social convention almost universally observed and dating from time immemorial should be overturned.

Social convention and law are not the same thing. We're not discussing making incest commonplace. We're discussing overturning the law against it. There is no reason to believe that doing so will suddenly make it accepted in most of society. It simply won't be punishable by government.

In essence, it is you and other supporters of the 'right to incest' that have this the wrong way round. As I said, it is you who wish to change the status quo - therefore the onus is on you to show why such a change would be to society's benefit.

Wrong. You are advocating government interference in a person's life.

If you believe, as I do, that government power should be limited only to that which is necessary "status quo" has nothing to do with it. Unjustified exercise of government power is always a problem. It is those who wish to grant the government such power that must justify it.

And, like I already said, in the absence of such justification, personal liberty is the only argument needed to overturn the law.

The social acceptability of incest has been a central theme of this debate thus far.

I don't care about social acceptability, nor have I been debating or discussing it.

I am debating legality.

I have seen several good reasons put forward in this thread as to why close-relative incest is not a great idea. These range from social to medical to evolutionary. All have been dismissed out of hand by the pro-incest side, who have instead appealed to an expectation of freedom to do as they please 'provided no-one else gets hurt'. Which is a noble, if fairly vague, sentiment - but which doesn't really address the question. If freedom itself is the sole measure of whether something is moral or not, then why should we have laws at all? Under such terms, no law can be desirable, because all restrict freedom.

Yes, all laws restrict freedom. Some of them fall under the proper role of government - protection. We cannot allow murder, for instance, because it is a case in which one person clearly infringes upon the rights of another - by ending his life.

As I have been saying, government interference must be justified by a sufficiently compelling government interest. "We just don't like it" is not a compelling interest. Neither is "this really isn't a good idea." We allow people to do all sorts of things that aren't a good idea. What makes this case different?

I think I must have misread this. Because it looks to me as though you're arguing in favour of permitting incest and justifying that position by saying that one such act isn't going to affect society.

So I can't have read that right, because that would have been totally illogical, wouldn't it?

Why would it be?

If everyone engaged in extreme body modifications, we'd probably have all sorts of problems. But they are legal, in most cases. Thing is, most people don't want to do them.

Leaving something legal does not mean that people are all going to rush out and do it. I see no reason to believe that the social conditioning against incest and the general disgust most people have towards it will suddenly change simply because we allow those who actually want to do it to do so.

And you may benefit from similar advice to read in full before replying: you might then notice edits acknowledging such errors.

Not if the edits weren't made before I replied.

What cause might I have had to question the law? I would have to have some reason to suppose it is not satisfactory. If I considered it satisfactory I would not question it. Therefore, since you state that my being rational is dependent on my having questioned the law, your statement in effect says that unless I see reason why the existing law is unsatisfactory (i.e., I agree with your position), I cannot discuss the matter rationally.

Incorrect. You have skipped a step. In order to determine whether or not the law is satisfactory, you have to first question it. Otherwise, you wouldn't know if it is or is not satisfactory.

I would consider that to be the assessment that comes before questioning, and which determines the need to question, rather than the questioning itself. However, if your initial statement was that one must have assessed the law in order to have a rational discussion about it, then I would agree.

Indeed. One cannot assess without questioning. That assessment cannot come without first asking whether or not the law is justified. Questioning is not something that happens only when one has decided something is wrong. It is a necessary first step to determining whether or not it is wrong in the first place.

So, what is your justification for the law, then?


Hmm... I can't seem to find any info on the other child.

The quote says it was a congenital heart defect. To my knowledge, we have no evidence that such defects are generally genetic. Thus, it is unlikely to have anything to do with the biological relationship between the parents.


As I said, I believe they will become a bit more common with modern day mobility and increased family instability.

With adoption and sperm donation more common, there's probably incest that nobody even knows about. Exactly how much would depend on a lot of factors, but I'm sure it has happened that half or even full siblings who didn't even know about the relation have ended up together - and not all of them ever find out, most likely.

I don't really see any reason to expect a huge jump in incest cases where the the participants were raised together or one was raised by the other or anything along those lines, but I do suspect we'll see more of the "What? My wife is my sister? Who knew?" types of cases.


I'm just wondering how is it that me, expressing my views, makes me an asshole or support assholes, according to you. As I was pointing out, I'm expressing them from what I saw others do to my friend growing up. That not everyone will do the same, that's another thing. But you know, as well as I do, that we do not live in an understanding society, and unfortunately, the children do pay, even when they're completely innocent, of some choices the parents make.

The problem here, I believe, is that you're blaming the parents much more than you blame the people who actually did the teasing.

For the people who actually caused the problem, you just say, "Oh well, that's society". But the parents? Oh, they're irresponsible and should be judged for daring to have a child that society would mistreat.

How does it make sense to blame the parents for the mistreatment more than the people who actually did the mistreating?

I don't think you're an asshole, but I do think you're applying an odd standard that essentially enables the mistreatment of children from all sorts of backgrounds. Instead of trying to make a change in society so that children aren't mistreated in this way, your response is simply to say, "These groups of people simply shouldn't have children."

It's a bit like this:

Suppose parents live in an area where there are lots of drunk drivers. As their child is playing in the yard, a drunk driver jumps the curb and hits the child, severely injuring her.

Most of us would say that drunk driving needs to stop and that the parents were victims in this crime just as much as the child was. But your logic would lead someone to say, "Well, the parents just never should have had children. They knew there were lots of drunk drivers around and that it could be dangerous for their kids."

The problem here, I believe, is that you're blaming the parents much more than you blame the people who actually did the teasing.

For the people who actually caused the problem, you just say, "Oh well, that's society". But the parents? Oh, they're irresponsible and should be judged for daring to have a child that society would mistreat.

How does it make sense to blame the parents for the mistreatment more than the people who actually did the mistreating?

I don't think you're an asshole, but I do think you're applying an odd standard that essentially enables the mistreatment of children from all sorts of backgrounds. Instead of trying to make a change in society so that children aren't mistreated in this way, your response is simply to say, "These groups of people simply shouldn't have children."

It's a bit like this:

Suppose parents live in an area where there are lots of drunk drivers. As their child is playing in the yard, a drunk driver jumps the curb and hits the child, severely injuring her.

Most of us would say that drunk driving needs to stop and that the parents were victims in this crime just as much as the child was. But your logic would lead someone to say, "Well, the parents just never should have had children. They knew there were lots of drunk drivers around and that it could be dangerous for their kids."

And I understand your argument, Dempublicents. I perhaps was very biased in my own position. I do know when I make mistakes that way and for that, if I offended anyone, I apologize. But again, and I'm not justifying my statement, I was going by what I saw my friend go through while growing up. He was the product of incest and I saw him and heard him many times spout that his parents didn't know what they were doing in bringing him to this world.

I also understand that it's inexcusable when a child is pointed at for any reason. Everyone is to be blame, in a larger or greater extent, when cornering a certain individual for X or Y reason. Society is, for allowing abuse, the parents are, for choosing (even if the child's the product of love), certain individuals are, for perpetuing said abuse, we all are. That's all I wanted to point out, not in its entirety, granted, but mainly. I have to say my opinion evolved slightly after reading certain things. If I got out of context in anger, I'm deeply sorry. If my allegations were taken out of context, I can't control that. Everyone will take things as they see fit.

How do you come to that conclusion? A person might have any number of conditions which severely impact their ability to live a 'normal' life, yet still be able to read a screen and type.

Do you have a condition that gives you short term memory loss? You have taken a quote out of context, ignoring the previous posts, and the other parts of that post, and posted something irrelevant because of it.

It is not unreasonable to say that a person who has the capacity to post quite frequently, and who believes they have the capacity to reproduce, is probably not highly debilitated.
I also posted this, as to some degree, considering the nature of the discussion, the genetic disease is remarkably convenient. On the internet, anyone can have anything or be anyone behind the keyboard, so the poster bringing in the "fact" that they have a genetic condition is another irrelevancy. The fact that I have a very minor genetic disease is irrelevant.

How many times do I have to say, highly debilitating condition, and a decision by medical doctors. The kind of child who wont even live to the age of 3.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/australia


Jenny Deaves, 39, says that her relationship with her boyfriend is just like any other sexual relationship with any man.

Except that he's her father.

She was reunited with him in 2000 after her parents had split up when she was young. Both her and her father left their partners and moved in together and have just had a baby.

They are appealing to be just left alone. Should they be?

A lot of people think this is really gross.

A lot of people think clam juice mixed with tomato juice is really gross.

Why are there no calls to outlaw Clamato?

A lot of people think this is really gross.

A lot of people think clam juice mixed with tomato juice is really gross.

Why are there no calls to outlaw Clamato?

Mirkai wins the thread.

Of course it does. We're talking about whether or not incest should be illegal. Making something illegal means that the government is interfering.
If so inclined, I could interpret that as a dishonest misrepresentation of the facts. Since I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you just got confused.

Incest is already illegal. Where it's not specifically illegal, it's generally socially unacceptable. In either case, it's been that way for a very, very long time. As we've said, most cultures have some sort of historical taboo against close-relative relations. So we're not actually arguing about making something illegal. We are, instead, arguing as to whether it should be made legal. And since you're the one in favour of that change, then - again - the onus is on you to show why it would be beneficial.

Social convention and law are not the same thing. We're not discussing making incest commonplace. We're discussing overturning the law against it.
Both law and social convention have been discussed in this thread. As I said, legalising something does not necessarily make it common - but it will encourage it, and certainly make it more common.

Wrong. You are advocating government interference in a person's life.
As I must surely have made clear, I believe that it is the role of government to interfere in a person's life if the government has a legitimate reason to do so. There are those who automatically reject every law, and call society 'oppression' - but a community needs to have rules, or it cannot function. So long as the rules are formulated in a way that adequately represents the community's values, then I do not dismiss the possibility of law being a good thing. Freedom is valuable, yes: but it must be balanced against justice and the protection of society, and unfashionable though it may be in today's rights-obsessed society, sometimes one has to relinquish certain freedoms for the good of the community.

If you believe, as I do, that government power should be limited only to that which is necessary "status quo" has nothing to do with it.
Then can you address the concerns raised by those are opposed to the legalisation of incest? Thus far the arguments in favour of permitting it seem based almost exclusively on the principle that it is a freedom denied, therefore it is unjust.

I don't care about social acceptability, nor have I been debating or discussing it.

I am debating legality.
Then you are having only part of an argument, and are obviously not considering all the factors involved. It is inevitable, then, that your conclusions will be simplistic.

As I have been saying, government interference must be justified by a sufficiently compelling government interest. "We just don't like it" is not a compelling interest. Neither is "this really isn't a good idea." We allow people to do all sorts of things that aren't a good idea. What makes this case different?
Many reasons have been given so far. As I said, these range from potential social problems, to an increased risk of harm to the offspring, all the way up to the reversal of the natural evolutionary order. Yet the rebuttal from the pro-incest side has consisted of, "it's okay as long as it's consenting adults and they're not hurting anyone else". Which, as I said, is a nice thought, but a little nebulous.

If everyone engaged in extreme body modifications, we'd probably have all sorts of problems.
What sort of problems?

Leaving something legal does not mean that people are all going to rush out and do it. I see no reason to believe that the social conditioning against incest and the general disgust most people have towards it will suddenly change simply because we allow those who actually want to do it to do so.
But IF most people already hold a general disgust towards it, then why does the existing law need to be changed at all? Since it is, essentially, an established legal constraint which - according to your argument - most people don't have a problem with anyway.

Not if the edits weren't made before I replied.
You replied very quickly.

Incorrect. You have skipped a step. In order to determine whether or not the law is satisfactory, you have to first question it. Otherwise, you wouldn't know if it is or is not satisfactory.
We are playing semantic games here. If you are so keen to score the point, then you may have it: as I said, if you meant 'examine the law to see whether you agree with it', then I agree with you. If you meant, 'challenge the law', as a first step, then I disagree with you. Mark this one up whichever way you need to.

So, what is your justification for the law, then?
I have no intention of repeating the arguments made against it thus far. They are on record for you to see.

The quote says it was a congenital heart defect. To my knowledge, we have no evidence that such defects are generally genetic. Thus, it is unlikely to have anything to do with the biological relationship between the parents.
I will have to defer to your superior knowledge on this. I am neither doctor nor geneticist. My understanding is that reproduction between close blood relatives raises the potential for a number of problems.

With adoption and sperm donation more common, there's probably incest that nobody even knows about.
Possibly so - but I'm not sure that a speculative premise like that can support a very firm conclusion. On the same basis, we could as easily suppose that it does not happen.

I don't really see any reason to expect a huge jump in incest cases[...]
Speaking personally, I am not discussing any potential 'huge jump'. That was your concern, not mine. My concern is what good reason there is for legalising the act, and therefore beginning the process of influencing society to accept it as normal.

The problem here, I believe, is that you're blaming the parents much more than you blame the people who actually did the teasing.
Would you be any happier if we were to criminalise schoolyard teasing? Absolute freedom means absolute freedom - the kids are doing what they want to do, which is how things should be. Why should government intervene where it is not necessary?

Suppose parents live in an area where there are lots of drunk drivers. As their child is playing in the yard, a drunk driver jumps the curb and hits the child, severely injuring her. [...]But your logic would lead someone to say, "Well, the parents just never should have had children. They knew there were lots of drunk drivers around and that it could be dangerous for their kids."
That is quite a childish comparison. Unless you consider that the hypothetical collision was somehow caused by some physical characteristic of the child?

After much debate back and forth, I want to understand something that seems strange and that has been bothering me after being called names and attacked for my views (something that´s common, I know. Everyone wants to prove one point or another.). Am I correct in my assumption that there´s a percentage of people on NSG that accept incest, of any kind, as something completely normal and therefore, to be respected? And for the love of anything that´s sacred, I´m not attacking anyone. I genuinely want to know.:confused:

No. What I need to show (if anything, normally it's the prohibiting law that needs the justification, not the other way around) is that society would neither be better nor worse off, and that it would not have any negative effect on society to legalise it.
In which case, why fix what's not broke?

And Mother is sister!

Only half-way!

Am I correct in my assumption that there´s a percentage of people on NSG that accept incest, of any kind, as something completely normal and therefore, to be respected? And for the love of anything that´s sacred, I´m not attacking anyone. I genuinely want to know.:confused:
Quite obviously you are correct, yes. Who else would be arguing the pro-incest case but those who feel that way?

Unfortunately, it still seems as though their arguments for making it legal (and/or encouraging society to accept it as normal) are based solely on the presumption that individual rights can and should be the only measure of a thing's morality.

It's remarkable how quickly the pro- side have adopted a position of absolute, unwavering and universal support, considering so many of them started from "yes they should be allowed to do it, as long as they don't have kids".

Quite obviously you are correct, yes. Who else would be arguing the pro-incest case but those who feel that way?

Unfortunately, it still seems as though their arguments for making it legal (and/or encouraging society to accept it as normal) are based solely on the presumption that individual rights can and should be the only measure of a thing's morality.

It's remarkable how quickly the pro- side have adopted a position of absolute, unwavering and universal support, considering so many of them started from "yes they should be allowed to do it, as long as they don't have kids".

Tell me about it...

Do you have a condition that gives you short term memory loss?
No, but I understand that some people need to rely on cheap rhetoric like this.

It is not unreasonable to say that a person who has the capacity to post quite frequently, and who believes they have the capacity to reproduce, is probably not highly debilitated.
Really? So there are no debilitating conditions that would allow someone to do these things? We should expect any known serious genetic condition to prevent someone from engaging in either activity?

No, come on: you made an assumption that common sense can't support.

I also posted this, as to some degree, considering the nature of the discussion, the genetic disease is remarkably convenient. On the internet, anyone can have anything or be anyone behind the keyboard, so the poster bringing in the "fact" that they have a genetic condition is another irrelevancy. The fact that I have a very minor genetic disease is irrelevant.
If it's irrelevant, then there's no reason to address the point. But it wasn't irrelevant, and you knew it wasn't, which I suspect is why you did answer it.

The fact that the poster cannot be proven to have or not have any given condition is irrelevant to the point being made. At best, the statement was true. At worst, it was itself rhetorical.

How many times do I have to say, highly debilitating condition, and a decision by medical doctors. The kind of child who wont even live to the age of 3.
Once will do. If you'd specified that before, then I missed it. And in that case, the specification itself was pretty convenient.

Unfortunately, it still seems as though their arguments for making it legal (and/or encouraging society to accept it as normal) are based solely on the presumption that individual rights can and should be the only measure of a thing's morality.

It's remarkable how quickly the pro- side have adopted a position of absolute, unwavering and universal support, considering so many of them started from "yes they should be allowed to do it, as long as they don't have kids".

A large amount of "pro-incest" people in this thread have spoken against the eugenics point. Most of the pro-eugenics people here haven't supported their view at all. In fact I don't remember any of them doing so. They are closer to the people against incest, since most of them use the eugenics point as their main argument. The rest seem to think there is abuse in such relationships. Let's just ignore the "icky" people, few in number as they are.

Anyway, could you explain where else morality comes from, other than individual rights?

I'm also yet to see anyone against incest or incestuous births defend their views from any of the arguments put forth against them. The ones I'm referring to are made a few pages back.

"And that, Your Honor, is why I killed the man."

"And that, Your Honor, is why I killed the man."

Tan-tan!

Tan-tan!

According to wikipedia, that's either a drum or a city in Morocco.

According to wikipedia, that's either a drum or a city in Morocco.

Sorry, what I posted is usually sung over here signifying something ended on a funny note. Kind of like ¨Pampararan!¨ Am I explaining myself clearly? Meh, I guess there´s no English equivalent.:(

Sorry, what I posted is usually sung over here signifying something ended on a funny note. Kind of like ¨Pampararan!¨ Am I explaining myself clearly? Meh, I guess there´s no English equivalent.:(

That's what I figured. It just isn't translating all too well.
What I am used to is a two drumbeats and a cymbal clash. Or something to that effect.

After much debate back and forth, I want to understand something that seems strange and that has been bothering me after being called names and attacked for my views (something that´s common, I know. Everyone wants to prove one point or another.). Am I correct in my assumption that there´s a percentage of people on NSG that accept incest, of any kind, as something completely normal and therefore, to be respected? And for the love of anything that´s sacred, I´m not attacking anyone. I genuinely want to know.:confused:

Well, I'm sure there is "a percentage" of people on NSG who think that. I suspect, however, that it is an exceedingly small percentage. From my reading of the thread, the overwhelming majority of us who have been arguing that there is no rational justification for considering incest a crime find incest personally repulsive. Oddly enough, it is possible to support another's right to do something without approving of their choice to do it. I also find the idea of having one's partner defecate in one's mouth as part of sexplay utterly nauseating - but I would vehemently defend someone's right to freely consent to eat poo if they so desired. Or, to take this away from sexual choices for the moment, I find the message of the neo-Nazi movement abhorrent and pathetic - but I firmly believe that they have every right to express that message, and would strongly oppose any effort to make saying hateful things a crime. As Dem and others have said, when a government wishes to create - or maintain - legislation infringing upon personal freedoms, the onus is on them to justify their interference, and "we find this personally repulsive" just isn't much of a justification.

Sorry, what I posted is usually sung over here signifying something ended on a funny note. Kind of like ¨Pampararan!¨ Am I explaining myself clearly? Meh, I guess there´s no English equivalent.:(

*rimshot*

http://youtube.com/watch?v=s9iaSp77xB8

After much debate back and forth, I want to understand something that seems strange and that has been bothering me after being called names and attacked for my views (something that´s common, I know. Everyone wants to prove one point or another.). Am I correct in my assumption that there´s a percentage of people on NSG that accept incest, of any kind, as something completely normal and therefore, to be respected? And for the love of anything that´s sacred, I´m not attacking anyone. I genuinely want to know.:confused:

Well, not of 'any' kind. It should be between consenting adults.
But aside from that, yes, you can count me to that percentage.

I also have no problem with polyamory whatsoever, finding the claim that tradition families and dedicated partnerships were the only possible way to go quite close minded.

In which case, why fix what's not broke?

Cause there is no justification to make people like the couple in the OP suffer needlessly. A system that imposes arbitrary and unnecessary laws like this on its citizens is broke, if you ask me.

I reckon it's pretty sickening, they've already had a baby that died due to genetic defects.

What surprises me though is they're from South Australia, I thought it was Tasmanians who were into that sort of thing. :confused::confused:

I reckon it's pretty sickening, they've already had a baby that died due to genetic defects.

What surprises me though is they're from South Australia, I thought it was Tasmanians who were into that sort of thing. :confused::confused:

Pretty sure people are fucking, in different ways and fashions and with different people, all the world over.

Cause there is no justification to make people like the couple in the OP suffer needlessly. A system that imposes arbitrary and unnecessary laws like this on its citizens is broke, if you ask me.
So the question must still be asked: why, in this thread, was the position that it should be permitted for consenting adults to have sex with their close blood relatives so frequently accompanied by the rider "as long as they don't have kids"?

Am I correct in my assumption that there´s a percentage of people on NSG that accept incest, of any kind, as something completely normal and therefore, to be respected?

Nope.

I've yet to see any person around here claim that any and all incest is okay. In fact, if you'd bother to read what people posted, you'd already know that. I don't support ANY non-consensual sex acts, no matter what the relationship of the parties involved, so I obviously don't support the majority of incest because most incest takes the form of child molestation.

I also know, as does everybody else here, that incest isn't "normal" in our world. Incest isn't the norm. Duh.

However, lots of things aren't the norm, and that doesn't mean I think we should ban them.

There are lots of things I think are icky, which I also don't think should be banned.

I think incest is yucky. I think it is not the norm. Neither of these lead me to the conclusion that incestuous relationships between consenting adults should be legally banned, or that children who are the product of such relationships should be considered open to victimization.


And for the love of anything that´s sacred, I´m not attacking anyone. I genuinely want to know.:confused:
For for the love of anything that's sacred, I don't know how you can honestly claim confusion on this. Many people have posted extremely clear, thoughtful posts answering precisely these questions. I don't believe for one instant that you are incapable of understanding them. Read back through the thread and I think you'll find more than enough answers to satisfy you.

So the question must still be asked: why, in this thread, was the position that it should be permitted for consenting adults to have sex with their close blood relatives so frequently accompanied by the rider "as long as they don't have kids"?
Because a lot of people don't know much about genetics and the actual biological risks of incest. Everybody knows all the old jokes about how incest babies are retarded and defective, but very few people take the time to find out about the reality.

I reckon it's pretty sickening, they've already had a baby that died due to genetic defects.

What surprises me though is they're from South Australia, I thought it was Tasmanians who were into that sort of thing. :confused::confused:


Main Entry: con·gen·i·tal
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin congenitus, from com- + genitus, past participle of gignere to bring forth — more at kin
Date: 1796
1 a: existing at or dating from birth <congenital deafness> b: constituting an essential characteristic : inherent <congenital fear of snakes> c: acquired during development in the uterus and not through heredity <congenital syphilis>
2: being such by nature <a congenital liar>


Main Entry: ge·net·ic
Variant(s): also ge·net·i·cal
Function: adjective
Etymology: genesis
Date: 1831
1: relating to or determined by the origin, development, or causal antecedents of something
2 a: of, relating to, or involving genetics b: of, relating to, caused by, or controlled by genes <a genetic disease> <genetic variation>

Do try and inform yourself on the meaning of words before making yourself look stupid, please. There is no mention in the article of the heart defect being in any way genetical.

So the question must still be asked: why, in this thread, was the position that it should be permitted for consenting adults to have sex with their close blood relatives so frequently accompanied by the rider "as long as they don't have kids"?

I would assumed it was due to the somewhat exaggerated notion that those children will be necessarily born with defects of some form or other. The probability for that is indeed higher than it would be with non-related parents, but we don't screen people and allow them or not allow them to have kids based on the results, so why try and do it in this case?

If so inclined, I could interpret that as a dishonest misrepresentation of the facts. Since I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you just got confused.

Not at all. Incest is illegal. This means that the government is interfering in people's lives on that.

Incest is already illegal. Where it's not specifically illegal, it's generally socially unacceptable. In either case, it's been that way for a very, very long time. As we've said, most cultures have some sort of historical taboo against close-relative relations. So we're not actually arguing about making something illegal. We are, instead, arguing as to whether it should be made legal. And since you're the one in favour of that change, then - again - the onus is on you to show why it would be beneficial.

Incest is already illegal because of action taken by the government. It was legal, and the government took action to make it illegal. The question is, "Was that action justified?" If not, it never should have been taken and thus should be overturned.

Both law and social convention have been discussed in this thread. As I said, legalising something does not necessarily make it common - but it will encourage it, and certainly make it more common.

I disagree. Subincision is legal, but you certainly don't see many people encouraging anyone to do it.

Because legality is the default, it is ridiculous to suggest that allowing something to be legal encourages it. All it means is that you won't be punished by the government for doing it. The government won't punish me if I have sex with my best friend, but it also isn't encouraging me to do so.

As I must surely have made clear, I believe that it is the role of government to interfere in a person's life if the government has a legitimate reason to do so.

I agree!

So what is that legitimate reason here? How does it fit in with the overall role of government? What sets this particular action aside from equally or more harmful actions that are legal?

There are those who automatically reject every law, and call society 'oppression' - but a community needs to have rules, or it cannot function.

Certainly. But extraneous rules are oppression.

So long as the rules are formulated in a way that adequately represents the community's values, then I do not dismiss the possibility of law being a good thing.

Ouch. Now you've shifted the goalposts. Instead of talking about a "legitimate reason", you've moved to "it fits with people's values."

Most people in this country are Christian? Would it be ok, then, to legislate Christianity? Of course not! Majority values is not enough legitimization for interfering in individual's lives. You need more than that.

Freedom is valuable, yes: but it must be balanced against justice and the protection of society, and unfashionable though it may be in today's rights-obsessed society, sometimes one has to relinquish certain freedoms for the good of the community.

Yes, those freedoms in which you harm others.

Then can you address the concerns raised by those are opposed to the legalisation of incest? Thus far the arguments in favour of permitting it seem based almost exclusively on the principle that it is a freedom denied, therefore it is unjust.

It is a freedom denied and the only concerns raised by those who wish for it to be illegal are "It's icky" and "It has an increased chance of genetic defects."

The first is irrelevant and the second represents a misunderstanding of biology, as has been discussed here.

Then you are having only part of an argument, and are obviously not considering all the factors involved. It is inevitable, then, that your conclusions will be simplistic.

I'm having the important part of the argument. Something can be legal and still be socially stigmatized, and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not going to argue that society shouldn't be disgusted by incest. I'm disgusted by incest.

What society should absolutely not do, however, is make laws based on gut feelings. There needs to be more justification than that. It is my gut feeling, for instance, that scat-play is absolutely disgusting. I do not, however, have any adequate reason to make it illegal, so I will not support making it illegal. I am opposed to abortion in all but the most extreme cases, but I will not support making it illegal because I see no basis on which to enforce that viewpoint on others.

It is perfectly possible to be morally opposed to a given action or to be absolutely disgusted by it without believing that it should be illegal.

But IF most people already hold a general disgust towards it, then why does the existing law need to be changed at all? Since it is, essentially, an established legal constraint which - according to your argument - most people don't have a problem with anyway.

Again with the, "Most people are ok with it, therefore it is ok."

That isn't adequate justification for those people who are disgusted by it to enforce their viewpoints on those who are not. There is more justification than that needed.

We are playing semantic games here. If you are so keen to score the point, then you may have it: as I said, if you meant 'examine the law to see whether you agree with it', then I agree with you. If you meant, 'challenge the law', as a first step, then I disagree with you. Mark this one up whichever way you need to.

You cannot examine the law without challenging it. You have to entertain the notion that the law might be wrong if you are ever going to make a rational decision on it.

I will have to defer to your superior knowledge on this. I am neither doctor nor geneticist. My understanding is that reproduction between close blood relatives raises the potential for a number of problems.

Only if those relatives already carry genetic problems or they only ever reproduce with close relatives.

Speaking personally, I am not discussing any potential 'huge jump'. That was your concern, not mine. My concern is what good reason there is for legalising the act, and therefore beginning the process of influencing society to accept it as normal.

(a) You don't need a good reason for legalizing something if no good reason is given for it to be illegal. The reason, in that case, is that the government is unjustifiably interfering in the lives of individuals.

(b) Oncer again, having something legal does not influence society to accept it as normal. All sorts of really strange things are legal. In fact, anything for which there is no law against it is legal. Any wacky thing you can imagine and can't find a law against is, in fact, legal. But most of them are not normal.

Would you be any happier if we were to criminalise schoolyard teasing? Absolute freedom means absolute freedom - the kids are doing what they want to do, which is how things should be. Why should government intervene where it is not necessary?

Why does everything have to be influenced by the law with you?

We should put a social stigma on schoolyard teaching and on parents who do not raise their children to realize that it is inappropriate.

We should put a social stigma on any adult who mistreats a child because of the circumstances of his birth or who is raising him.

These aren't things that we can reasonably or practically criminalize. But we can make it clear that they are unacceptable in our society.

That is quite a childish comparison. Unless you consider that the hypothetical collision was somehow caused by some physical characteristic of the child?

Why should it be? The idea being argued is that parents should not have children if those children might be made fun of by others. We aren't talking about any particular physical characteristic of the child. We are talking about the actions of assholes who would mistreat a child because of circumstances beyond her control. We are not talking about the parents actually mistreating the child, but the argument being made is that they should not even have children if they know that others will likely do so.

As such, the comparison is rather apt. A child is harmed by circumstances beyond her control, but that the parents knew might happen. The parents did not actually cause the harm - it was an outside person. Should the parents have refrained from reproducing because they knew it might happen?

I think incest is yucky. I think it is not the norm. Neither of these lead me to the conclusion that incestuous relationships between consenting adults should be legally banned, or that children who are the product of such relationships should be considered open to victimization.
I must admit, I'm with Bottle here. I think incest is yucky, but if it's two consenting adults, then, well, if they aren't hurting anyone else (sensibilities don't count), no problem. I also can't see how Nanatsu no Tsuki doesn't get that point. I don't want to go back through the whole thread, but I don't think anyone has said it's normal. All the "pro-incest" have said, is it's about 2 consenting adults doing what they want to do, and harming no-one else.

I must admit, I'm with Bottle here. I think incest is yucky, but if it's two consenting adults, then, well, if they aren't hurting anyone else (sensibilities don't count), no problem. I also can't see how Nanatsu no Tsuki doesn't get that point. I don't want to go back through the whole thread, but I don't think anyone has said it's normal. All the "pro-incest" have said, is it's about 2 consenting adults doing what they want to do, and harming no-one else.

I think she gets it, I don't thing she agrees with it. Or that she gets it, but the ickyness factor is too huge for her to ignore.

Thats the side I'm on, it's icky, its sooo icky that the ickyness overrides my rationality and I say eeeewwww, send them to prison or summit.

No, but I understand that some people need to rely on cheap rhetoric like this.
Only when there is continual misrepresentation, and deliberating arguing side points not the actual point raised, as happened again.
Look at the exchange below
is probably not highly debilitated.Really? So there are no debilitating conditions that would allow someone to do these things? We should expect any known serious genetic condition to prevent someone from engaging in either activity?
The fact that I have said probably, means that your emphasis on no and any is not relevant to the argument, and another attempt to argue something I haven't said.
No, come on: you made an assumption that common sense can't support.
Only if you choose to read what you think I said, not what I actually wrote. You seem to have painted this picture of me as a psycho eugenicist killing mutant people who's only disfigurement is something like having 6 fingers, when I have never written anything of the kind.

If it's irrelevant, then there's no reason to address the point. But it wasn't irrelevant, and you knew it wasn't, which I suspect is why you did answer it.
It was irrelevent. But if I do not respond, even by saying it is irrelevent, considering the kind of people who have been responding, and the deliberate obfuscation they have tried to do, by ignoring it, they would say I have no answer to it, or something similar.
The fact that the poster cannot be proven to have or not have any given condition is irrelevant to the point being made. At best, the statement was true. At worst, it was itself rhetorical.
As no-one on these forums can prove their qualifications or the truth of their statements, an emotive, "I've got a genetic illness", or similar things is pointless. You can write up an anecdote, but it's pointless in a debate.

How many times do I have to say, highly debilitating condition, and a decision by medical doctors. The kind of child who wont even live to the age of 3.
Once will do. If you'd specified that before, then I missed it. And in that case, the specification itself was pretty convenient.
Once again with the misrepresentation.
post 101 If they know the child they will bring in to this world has a significant chance of being in pain for all of it's short life, if they still choose to have that child, they take responsibility for what happens.
If the child is born with the debilitating illness, they get punished the same as someone who had tortured someone would get punished.
post 107 If they know when they take that 50/50 chance of giving birth to a child that will know pain and then die, and nothing else, that they will go to jail if luck goes against them, hopefully they will abort or not conceive.
post 257I'm just saying that if you selfishly choose to bring a thinking being in to this world, knowing there's a large chance their only thoughts will be pain and suffering, then you are considered to have knowingly and willfully tortured a human being and deserve punishment as such.
post 344 Also, as you seem to believe you have a capacity to reproduce also, I would be surprised if you would be better if you had not lived. With these kind of things you should err on the side of caution. I think I have made it clear, I am talking about really bad conditions.
I've been consistent with every post. The bolding pretty much shows every post I've made clear I am talking about extremes. If this is convenient, I'd hate to see what I would need to do to match your qualifier for consistent. It seems you are holding me up to a higher standard than yourself, and yet I think I have met that standard.

Nope.

I've yet to see any person around here claim that any and all incest is okay. In fact, if you'd bother to read what people posted, you'd already know that. I don't support ANY non-consensual sex acts, no matter what the relationship of the parties involved, so I obviously don't support the majority of incest because most incest takes the form of child molestation.

I also know, as does everybody else here, that incest isn't "normal" in our world. Incest isn't the norm. Duh.

However, lots of things aren't the norm, and that doesn't mean I think we should ban them.

There are lots of things I think are icky, which I also don't think should be banned.

I think incest is yucky. I think it is not the norm. Neither of these lead me to the conclusion that incestuous relationships between consenting adults should be legally banned, or that children who are the product of such relationships should be considered open to victimization.


For for the love of anything that's sacred, I don't know how you can honestly claim confusion on this. Many people have posted extremely clear, thoughtful posts answering precisely these questions. I don't believe for one instant that you are incapable of understanding them. Read back through the thread and I think you'll find more than enough answers to satisfy you.

It is obvious that you have me classified as a specific sort of person and I don't feel like doing anything to change that. After all, you're entitled to your own opinion. It's also obvious that my question doesn't stem from your views either, Bottle. I've seen you establish those already and I'm not debating them. It's not that I can't understand what other 'thoughtful' posters have posted. It's just that, once again, it's baffling that some people due condone incest, for any reason, even if it's about two consenting adults and all that jazz, yucky factor aside. I'm not going to debate the issue anymore. I already stated my own position regarding it, and I understand the opposing views too. But I'll never be ok with incest, of any kind. My confussion stems from the acceptance of it. That's all.

Quite obviously you are correct, yes. Who else would be arguing the pro-incest case but those who feel that way?

Arguing that something should be legal is not the same thing as arguing in favor of it.

There are all sorts of things that I think people shouldn't do which should, nonetheless, still be legal.

Unfortunately, it still seems as though their arguments for making it legal (and/or encouraging society to accept it as normal) are based solely on the presumption that individual rights can and should be the only measure of a thing's morality.

Not at all. The issue here is that morality should not be the only measure of a thing's legality. What I consider immoral may or may not be what you consider immoral. Unless I have something more than that subjective viewpoint, I have no legitimate basis from which to enforce my viewpoint on others.

I reckon it's pretty sickening, they've already had a baby that died due to genetic defects.

Incorrect. They had a baby that died from congenital defects. The two are not the same, and there is, to my knowledge, no evidence that the congenital defect in question had a genetic cause.


It is obvious that you have me classified as a specific sort of person and I don't feel like doing anything to change that. After all, you're entitled to your own opinion. It's also obvious that my question doesn't stem from your views either, Bottle. I've seen you establish those already and I'm not debating them. It's not that I can't understand what other 'thoughtful' posters have posted. It's just that, once again, it's baffling that some people due condone incest, for any reason, even if it's about two consenting adults and all that jazz, yucky factor aside. I'm not going to debate the issue anymore. I already stated my own position regarding it, and I understand the opposing views too. But I'll never be ok with incest, of any kind. My confussion stems from the acceptance of it. That's all.

You're still confusing tolerance and allowance with support or acceptance.

Most of the people you have been arguing with are just as disgusted by incest as you, just as most of us would be disgusted by scat-play or subincision. What we are arguing is that it isn't up to us what other adults do unless they are causing harm to others.

You're still confusing tolerance and allowance with support or acceptance.

Most of the people you have been arguing with are just as disgusted by incest as you, just as most of us would be disgusted by scat-play or subincision. What we are arguing is that it isn't up to us what other adults do unless they are causing harm to others.

Dem, I understand that. I understand that some people here are against incest, same as I am, but are against mistreating people for their particular circumstances or for the choices they make regarding their lives if they're not causing any harm.

What baffles me is supporting a practice when there's some evidence (even if it's the icky factor or presumed birth defects and possible social abuse) that may be harmful (mind you, I'm not assuming or stating that it does).

I also understand that even if it's considered wrong, by whichever standards are used, the wrongness of it doesn't equate to allowing abuse and perpetuing it. I do understand all views, even if I don't agree with some. I was just wondering.

It's just that, once again, it's baffling that some people due condone incest, for any reason, even if it's about two consenting adults and all that jazz, yucky factor aside.
You might have answered this, and you may not want to debate anymore - but:

Even if you don't condone it, why should it be punishable?

Others can also jump in here...

What baffles me is supporting a practice when there's some evidence (even if it's the icky factor or presumed birth defects and possible social abuse) that may be harmful (mind you, I'm not assuming or stating that it does).

Alcohol is harmful. S&M is harmful. Body building is harmful. Over-eating is harmful. Lerthargy is harmful. Watchin TV or using computers most of the day is harmful. Depression is harmful. Most chocolate is harmful. Divorce is harmful. Unprotected sex is harmful. The list goes on.

I do not practice, and advise other people not to practice, any of the above. However anyone around me is free to do so.

All these things are allowed, all these things are supported as a right by most people, and all of these things are consensual. No one supports it when they aren't consensual (a few crazy people aside). Non-consensual includes someone in a position of responsibility, because non-consensual harm is caused to whoever predictably hurts as a result of their actions.

Against children, unborn or not, the majority of them are still harmful. Especially alcohol, depression, divorce and lethargy. Yet surprise surprise, they're still legal and everyone accepts them.

In the pro-incest case, add incest to the list. No emphasis on it, no practicing it, just accepting it as harmless to anyone. Any harm people think it does, if it's ever proven to do so, is inflicted on the consenting party, who are well aware of that harm. The eugenics harm on the child has been rendered null by multiple posts in this thread. The bullying the child might go through is non-consensual, and on society. Bullying is not on the list as something allowed.

The largest harm in the incest situation comes from denying those couples (groups, whatever) the rights all other couples around them have, simply because their genes are similar, or that they grew up together. Both of which occur in non-relatives (which, of course, has already been said in this thread).

Should people with inheritable genetic diseases be prohibited from reproducing?

If its common enough, then no they should not. Thats also genetically irresponsible.

Consenting Adults can do whatever they please, as long as they don't involve or endanger a child.

You might have answered this, and you may not want to debate anymore - but:

Even if you don't condone it, why should it be punishable?

Others can also jump in here...

To be honest, I don´t know anymore. It just doesn´t seem right. But what the heck do I know?

To be honest, I don´t know anymore. It just doesn´t seem right. But what the heck do I know?

You know that you don't know any more :)

You know that you don't know any more :)

*nods*

I think the Taboo is rightly founded, It is wrong.

Thing is there excuse is 'Emotions take over' Shouldnt the father accept he is the more responsible adult? No because people over 50 years old are just wild and crazy as the day they were born. He is just a dirty lonely man who saw a younger and emotionally vulnerable women who was already willing to lay out her emotions for him to tamper with and went "man i aint going to let this one go"

He knew what he was doing, he admitted it and do i think for a second that they stoped having a sexual relationship because the courts said so? NO they are probably still going like rabbits.

Quote from her from the interview "We have a normal SEXUAL relationship" funny how it can be sexual when it is illegal.

I also thought this, Maybe being with her reminds him or her mother before they seperated.

I think the daugther was in a emotionally weak state and the father abused the hell out of the situation, He knew it was wrong but by the sounds of it he was alone for a LONG time.

Their case makes me feel very, very icky. But I'm not sure I want them prosecuted because of the ick factor. More worrying to me is the stigma the child may face, without ever doing anything to warrant it.

BTW, my father and my mother's father were cousins. There's a loop in my family tree (in more ways than one).

If they're both Consenting Adults, then who gives a shit.

Religious People can go and believe they'll burn in Hell, Moralcrats can whine about how it may effect Children some how, and the rest of us will just go on with our business.

Seriously, you're not being forced to watch them, so don't whine about them.

( Not directed at anyone in particular, just read the first few posts and went meh. )

Yes, and selfish people who think they know everything in the world because they have read a book in there lives will make comments like 'Burning in hell and how the kids wont be affected by it'.

When to be honest, My morales will be pretty screwed if i knew if it was alright to have sex with relatives.

HEY I GOT IT! lets all screw out relatives and say it is not our fault when the lack of original genetic material makes everyone have 7 toes!

But hey, just because the kids are being told it's alright to screw there parents does not mean they wil think it is alright. Because I know I have never been influenced by my family.

The little girl they had will have a very screwed up Morale compass and I bet her perv of a dad wont mind trying to get with her when she is old enough..Dont believe it? well he has done it one time before.

Screwing your Daugther when she is young is wrong, But why does the fact she is over 18 seem to make it alright?

Yes, and selfish people who think they know everything in the world because they have read a book in there lives will make comments like 'Burning in hell and how the kids wont be affected by it'.

When to be honest, My morales will be pretty screwed if i knew if it was alright to have sex with relatives.

HEY I GOT IT! lets all screw out relatives and say it is not our fault when the lack of original genetic material makes everyone have 7 toes!

But hey, just because the kids are being told it's alright to screw there parents does not mean they wil think it is alright. Because I know I have never been influenced by my family.

The little girl they had will have a very screwed up Morale compass and I bet her perv of a dad wont mind trying to get with her when she is old enough..Dont believe it? well he has done it one time before.

Screwing your Daugther when she is young is wrong, But why does the fact she is over 18 seem to make it alright?

Screwing any girl under age of consent is wrong. Does that mean that having sex ought to remain illegal forever?

Oh, and I hope the girl will listen to her parents enough to at least learn how to spell.

Yes, and selfish people who think they know everything in the world because they have read a book in there lives will make comments like 'Burning in hell and how the kids wont be affected by it'.

When to be honest, My morales will be pretty screwed if i knew if it was alright to have sex with relatives.

HEY I GOT IT! lets all screw out relatives and say it is not our fault when the lack of original genetic material makes everyone have 7 toes!

But hey, just because the kids are being told it's alright to screw there parents does not mean they wil think it is alright. Because I know I have never been influenced by my family.

The little girl they had will have a very screwed up Morale compass and I bet her perv of a dad wont mind trying to get with her when she is old enough..Dont believe it? well he has done it one time before.

Screwing your Daugther when she is young is wrong, But why does the fact she is over 18 seem to make it alright?

Your points on morality being passed down through the family and genetic diversity and, by extrapolation, on increased chance for genetic disease have all been pretty thoroughly squashed in the thread. None of them really hold up all that well under even the least amount of logical scrutiny.

Screwing your Daugther when she is young is wrong, But why does the fact she is over 18 seem to make it alright?

Because once she reaches adulthood and is no longer in a state of dependency, she is free to choose to have sex with whoever the hell she wants.
Why not her dad who enjoys the very same right of sexual permissiveness?

Because once she reaches adulthood and is no longer in a state of dependency, she is free to choose to have sex with whoever the hell she wants.
Why not her dad who enjoys the very same right of sexual permissiveness?

Because it's icky, and not natural.

Because it's icky, and not natural.

So's taking a dump on your partner while having sex. And yet some people do it.... and it's completely legal.

So's taking a dump on your partner while having sex. And yet some people do it.... and it's completely legal.

Meh thats a totaly differant type of thing.

It's easy to understand really. Would you have sex with your own child, c'mon, hands up all those that would?

it isn't that nothing legitimately supercedes laws. its just that emotions are not what does. only the avoidance of causing suffering does. and even then one must prepaire oneself to accept the consiquences and do so.

laws can be, and many times are, themselves imoral.
it does not however ligitimatize emotionally ignoring them because they are.

when it takes an act of heroism to be honest, you are living under a tyranny;
reguardless of its form of government, or what idiology it pays lip service to, or anything else about it.

nor is justice a thing that can exist without a culture of everyone avoiding being unfair to one another.

and all hierarchies are to some degree tyrannical.
some justify to some degree being so. or minimalize their doing so.
or potentially and ideally both.

laws sometimes need to be chainged. that's what 'democratic' proccesseees are for. that is their redeaming justification and the real purpose they serve, when they actually do, when they have not in turn be overriden rough shod by economic intrests and proccessess which by their very nature are blind to all and subservient to not even thier own survival, let alone any one or any thing else's. which is of course THEIR major shortcomming.

that nothing has ever not had something wrong with it, doesn't make capitalism, or at least corporate capitolism, anything other then a con game, nor worth a dam either one.

there are many good reasons to risk the wrath of inappropriate and imoral laws, my point is not to deny that there can sometimes be and are, but rather that the 'heat of the moment' argument is NOT ligitimately one of them.

if it were, there would be no useful purpose served by having laws at all.

=^^=
.../\...

Because it's icky
No it isn't.
, and not natural.
Yes it is.

No it isn't.

Yes it is!

Yes it is.
No it is not!

Yes it is!


No it is not!

See, we can do this the whole day, 'icky' and 'not natural' are as subjective as your favorite color. And as thus is can't be used to justify legislation.

Also to your other question:
Yes, if my daughter were Adult and we were both willing, I don't see what should stop us.

See, we can do this the whole day, 'icky' and 'not natural' are as subjective as your favorite color. And as thus is can't be used to justify legislation.

I'm not really botherd about justifaction or reasoning, it is illegal, as it should be.



Also to your other question:
Yes, if my daughter were Adult and we were both willing, I don't see what should stop us.

The question though is would you be willing?

I'm not really botherd about justifaction or reasoning, it is illegal, as it should be.

So homosexuality being illegal in most countries in the Middle East is ok as well? Cause you don't need reasoning nor justification for randomly outlawing people's bedroom behaviour?


The question though is would you be willing?

Well, would you be willing to shag a well-endowed Lebanese hunk?
Does that mean it ought to be illegal?

So homosexuality being illegal in most countries in the Middle East is ok as well? Cause you don't need reasoning nor justification for randomly outlawing people's bedroom behaviour?

Again thats a totaly differant, and as of yet nobody has answered my question.



Well, would you be willing to shag a well-endowed Lebanese hunk?
Does that mean it ought to be illegal?

Irrelavent.

Again thats a totaly differant, and as of yet nobody has answered my question.

And what question was that, then?


Irrelavent.

Hardly.

And what question was that, then?

The question was would you have sex with your own child?

The question was would you have sex with your own child?

Possibly. I don't know, I don't have one.

The question was would you have sex with your own child?

It's my child, I gave birth to it. I wouldn't dare think sexually about it. And I wouldn't let anyone related to it (specially brothers or father) have sex or think sexually about it. It's unnatural, and that's my reason. That's how I see it. We don't bring our children into this world to then screw them. That's not the relationship we're here to establish with them. And before I get any bullshit, from anyone, I'm not referring to the OP.

It's my child, I gave birth to it. I wouldn't dare think sexually about it. And I wouldn't let anyone related to it (specially brothers or father) have sex or think sexually about it. It's unnatural, and that's my reason. That's how I see it. We don't bring our children into this world to then screw them. That's not the relationship we're here to establish with them. And before I get any bullshit, from anyone, I'm not referring to the OP.

Ahhh thats what I was after. It's fine to say that it is not icky, and to equate it with homosexuality when decideing wether or not it should remain against the law.

In reality, ask any parent would they have sex with their child. Not would it be possible, and not perhaps if they fancied them, but would you do it, and not a one has would tell you yes.

Why I wonder is this? Do they also just feel the sheer, ickyness factor, do they feel the unaturalness of it?

Ahhh thats what I was after. It's fine to say that it is not icky, and to equate it with homosexuality when decideing wether or not it should remain against the law.

In reality, ask any parent would they have sex with their child. Not would it be possible, and not perhaps if they fancied them, but would you do it, and not a one has would tell you yes.

Why I wonder is this? Do they also just feel the sheer, ickyness factor, do they feel the unaturalness of it?

In that case, I can't help wonder how the case in question happened? I mean, if no parent ever would even consider thinking of having sex with their children, how come it still does happen?

In that case, I can't help wonder how the case in question happened? I mean, if no parent ever would even consider thinking of having sex with their children, how come it still does happen?

Because for everything that is the norm there will be those who do not fit into it, because of the way their brains work we call these people ill.

Because for everything that is the norm there will be those who do not fit into it, because of the way their brains work we call these people ill.

Rrrrrright... see, my brain does in fact work differently. I'm not the norm, as I'm left-handed. So you would consider me ill because of that, then?

Most people don't fit the norm in one aspect or another, yet we don't call them ill. An illness is something that will harm them or others. Not being the norm doesn't necessarily harm anyone.

Ahhh thats what I was after. It's fine to say that it is not icky, and to equate it with homosexuality when decideing wether or not it should remain against the law.

In reality, ask any parent would they have sex with their child. Not would it be possible, and not perhaps if they fancied them, but would you do it, and not a one has would tell you yes.

Why I wonder is this? Do they also just feel the sheer, ickyness factor, do they feel the unaturalness of it?

I don't know about others. I myself do not have children. But I know that if I have them, I would never think in any other way about them but in a maternal way.

It's not just that it might be considered icky, it's not even about that anymore. I just honestly think it shouldn't be done. You love your kids, in the begining you even feel an attraction to them, you gave birth to them, it's only natural. But that attraction shouldn't translate into sexual desire. It just isn't right, that's the way I see it.

As for wether it should be outlawed or not, I don't know. After readin through this entire thread and exchanging (sometimes arguing) about the views that some people have on incest, I'm not sure anymore. I know I would never engage on it. What needs to be done? Who knows...

Rrrrrright... see, my brain does in fact work differently. I'm not the norm, as I'm left-handed. So you would consider me ill because of that, then?

Most people don't fit the norm in one aspect or another, yet we don't call them ill. An illness is something that will harm them or others. Not being the norm doesn't necessarily harm anyone.

Now don't be silly Cabra. Consider the amount of left handers there are in the world, I would say that it is normal to be left or right handed, I would even say that being ambidextrous although rare is not beyond the bounds of normality.

I'm talking about the kind of mental illness similar to those we would call socialpaths. If it is considered normal for us humans to feel empathy towards our fellow man, then those that do not(socialpaths) we rightly call mentaly ill, not normal.

Let me make this clear, it is not normal for a human parent to feel sexual lust towards their offspring. So those that do we can consider mentaly ill.

I'm not really botherd about justifaction or reasoning, it is illegal, as it should be.

Without justification, you have no reason to say that it should be illegal.

Now don't be silly Cabra. Consider the amount of left handers there are in the world, I would say that it is normal to be left or right handed, I would even say that being ambidextrous although rare is not beyond the bounds of normality.

I'm talking about the kind of mental illness similar to those we would call socialpaths. If it is considered normal for us humans to feel empathy towards our fellow man, then those that do not(socialpaths) we rightly call mentaly ill, not normal.

Let me make this clear, it is not normal for a human parent to feel sexual lust towards their offspring. So those that do we can consider mentaly ill.

The estimated percentage of left-handed people is between 7-10%. That is by no means a big enough proportion to be considered normal. Hell, even homosexuality is more common.

Sociopathy is classed as an illness because it is potentially harmful, both to the sociopath and his/her environment. Non-harmful brain abnormalities, such as left-handedness, are not considered illnesses any more (they used to, though), as they're not causing any harm.
Having sexual feelings towards your kids doesn't harm anyone, and a relationship as quoted in the OP most certainly doesn't, either.

Without justification, you have no reason to say that it should be illegal.

My justifacation is the same one as killing people should not be legal. It is sooooooo obviously worng.

My justifacation is the same one as killing people should not be legal. It is sooooooo obviously worng.

Killing people harms them. Dramatically.
Consensual sex doesn't.

Try again with "obvious".

If they want a relationship of that sort, fine. I have no problem with two consenting adults doing whatever they like.

They should not, however, be permitted to breed. That would be genetic irresponsibility of the highest level.

You might as well just sterilize all people with bad genes, no?

Having sexual feelings towards your kids doesn't harm anyone, and a relationship as quoted in the OP most certainly doesn't, either.


Ohhh really? Fred West's kids are mentaly fine?

Killing people harms them. Dramatically.
Consensual sex doesn't.

Try again with "obvious".

Are you really trying to tell me here that there are no mental hangups with sex at all ever?

Ohhh really? Fred West's kids are mentaly fine?

Peep - you can do better than that. Like e.g. state something relevant to the post you quoted.

Peep - you can do better than that. Like e.g. state something relevant to the post you quoted.

Umm now let me see. Fred West had sex with his kids, relevant, his kids are now quite normal and not fucked up?

Cabra has stated that sex with your kids causes no harm, I dispute that, do you really agree with her?

Umm now let me see. Fred West had sex with his kids, relevant, his kids are now quite normal and not fucked up?

The statement you responded to was stating:
A. That having sexual *thoughts* about children does not not harm anyone . It said nothing about acting.
B. That the situation as described in the OP does not harm anyone. A situation involving two people well over 30.

You are comparing this to a man raping lots of minors. Doing more than thinking and not involving consenting adults.

As I said, you can do better.

The statement you responded to was stating:
A. That having sexual *thoughts* about children does not not harm anyone . It said nothing about acting.
B. That the situation as described in the OP does not harm anyone. A situation involving two people well over 30.

You are comparing this to a man raping lots of minors. Doing more than thinking and not involving consenting adults.

As I said, you can do better.

Ahhh quite right, I misread.

Okay then I'll ask instead for evidance that sexual feelings towards your siblings/parents/children does not cause any sort of anguish, feelings of guilt or similar, in fact no 'harm' at all.

Ahhh quite right, I misread.

Okay then I'll ask instead for evidance that sexual feelings towards your siblings/parents/children does not cause any sort of anguish, feelings of guilt or similar, in fact no 'harm' at all.

In a 'normal' family structure, yes, having sexual thoughts/feelings about a family member does causes guilt and anguish. Or I believe it does. It's abnormal to have feelings like that. I guess than when you're talking about harm, you're referring to psychological harm. If so, yes, it causes harm in that sense.

I'm not really botherd about justifaction or reasoning, it is illegal, as it should be.
That's sick.
How can you fit into a free society if you have the opinion that anything can be outlawed at any time merely because it doesn't fit the norm?
Freedom IS being allowed to not fit into the norm.
It took thousands of years to free us from such arbitrary laws and judging, but you apparently got stuck in the middle ages.



The question though is would you be willing?
I dunno how more clearly I can state it. Yes. If I were attracted to her, we both were willing and adult, I don't see a reason why there shouldn't be a sexual relationship.

In a 'normal' family structure, yes, having sexual thoughts/feelings about a family member does causes guilt and anguish. Or I believe it does. It's abnormal to have feelings like that. I guess than when you're talking about harm, you're referring to psychological harm. If so, yes, it causes harm in that sense.

lots of things are abnormal......I don't get this obsession with "normality"

That's sick.
How can you fit into a free society if you have the opinion that anything can be outlawed at any time merely because it doesn't fit the norm?
Freedom IS being allowed to not fit into the norm.
It took thousands of years to free us from such arbitrary laws and judging, but you apparently got stuck in the middle ages.

Well first off, we don't live in a free sociaty, we are not allowed to do just as we please. Secondly, the very idea of incest sickens me, and I belive this to be the normal reaction, so no middle ages for me, I'm right up there with mostly everybody else.



I dunno how more clearly I can state it. Yes. If I were attracted to her, we both were willing and adult, I don't see a reason why there shouldn't be a sexual relationship.

And yet I still do, coz it aint normal to have sexual feelings for your child, or parent or sibling, shit and you call me sick?

lots of things are abnormal......I don't get this obsession with "normality"

Dear Smunkee, I don't know what you consider 'normal', but for me, it's not normal to have sex or have sexual feelings towards a family member. Havin 6 fingers is abnormal, I understand that a lot of things could be considered abnormal. Having webbed toes could be considered an abnormality. I aware of that. However, I don't think, and I'm talking about myself, that engaging in sexual relations with a daughter/son or brother/sister is normal or acceptable. Once again, that's just me.

If you consider it normal, and I'm not stating that you did say such a thing, that's on you. If the people on the OP want to engage on it, that's on them too. I know I would never do such a thing. It's not an obssession with all things 'normal', it's just that that's how it is, sex with a family member is outrageous.

Well first off, we don't live in a free sociaty, we are not allowed to do just as we please. Secondly, the very idea of incest sickens me, and I belive this to be the normal reaction, so no middle ages for me, I'm right up there with mostly everybody else.
We very well live in a free society, where only the freedom and safety of another person limits your own Freedom. That's the theory. And then there come people who are 'sickened' by something. Something which isn't their business at all. Something which doesn't harm anybody. Something between two consenting Adults.
You maybe sickened, and many others too. But not being sickened is it which makes you appear medieval. It's the opinion that because it sickens you, it should be outlawed.




And yet I still do, coz it aint normal to have sexual feelings for your child, or parent or sibling, shit and you call me sick?
Actually I called your opinion sick, not yourself. But such subtleties are easily lost I guess.
And as said. It doesn't freaking matter if it is normal!

We very well live in a free society, where only the freedom and safety of another person limits your own Freedom. That's the theory. And then there come people who are 'sickened' by something. Something which isn't their business at all. Something which doesn't harm anybody. Something between two consenting Adults.
You maybe sickened, and many others too. But not being sickened is it which makes you appear medieval. It's the opinion that because it sickens you, it should be outlawed.!

No you have me wrong you know. I don't care for the rationality behind why it is illeagal, I just agree that it is right that it be so. It was not my choice to make it so, it has been taboo for humanity for a seriously long time, and it is right that it remains so.



Actually I called your opinion sick, not yourself. But such subtleties are easily lost I guess.
And as said. It doesn't freaking matter if it is normal!

Ahh then fair point.

Dear Smunkee, I don't know what you consider 'normal', but for me, it's not normal to have sex or have sexual feelings towards a family member. Havin 6 fingers is abnormal, I understand that a lot of things could be considered abnormal. Having webbed toes could be considered an abnormality. I aware of that. However, I don't think, and I'm talking about myself, that engaging in sexual relations with a daughter/son or brother/sister is normal or acceptable. Once again, that's just me.

If you consider it normal, and I'm not stating that you did say such a thing, that's on you. If the people on the OP want to engage on it, that's on them too. I know I would never do such a thing. It's not an obssession with all things 'normal', it's just that that's how it is, sex with a family member is outrageous.

I don't think it's normal to have sexual feelings for a family member, I think it's icky. I don't go around trying to make things illegal just because I think they are icky (not pinning this opinion on you) there are a lot of things that I think are icky, wrong, immoral, stupid, or otherwise bad, that I don't feel the need to make illegal. I just don't think "normal" is a good starting point for legislating people's personal lives.

I don't think it's normal to have sexual feelings for a family member, I think it's icky. I don't go around trying to make things illegal just because I think they are icky (not pinning this opinion on you) there are a lot of things that I think are icky, wrong, immoral, stupid, or otherwise bad, that I don't feel the need to make illegal. I just don't think "normal" is a good starting point for legislating people's personal lives.

Fair point.
I was under the impression, though, that incest was illegal in many countries. Here in Spain it is. Those caught engaging in incestuous relations are prosecuted. I don't think jail time is adjudicated but they're called on to stand in front of a judge.

There are 17 new court houses across the country that handle incest and domestic violence cases exclusively.

My justifacation is the same one as killing people should not be legal. It is sooooooo obviously worng.

If that's the best justification you have for murder being illegal, you haven't really thought much about it, have you?

Are you really telling me that "It's just wrong" is the only reason you can think of for murder to be illegal?

Well first off, we don't live in a free sociaty, we are not allowed to do just as we please.

But, as long as we aren't harming others, why shouldn't we be?

Secondly, the very idea of incest sickens me, and I belive this to be the normal reaction, so no middle ages for me, I'm right up there with mostly everybody else.

The very idea of using excrement during sex play sickens me. I believe this to be the normal reaction.

But I don't think it should be illegal for two consenting adults to do it.

No you have me wrong you know. I don't care for the rationality behind why it is illeagal, I just agree that it is right that it be so.

These two statements are contradictory. Either you have a rationale for why it should be illegal, or you don't think it should be illegal.

I found an article that basically discusses several views and things some countires have done regarding incest. It also dicusses incest in both music, literature, the media and mythology. It's very interesting.

http://rapesurvivor.pbwiki.com/Incest

Yes, if my daughter were Adult and we were both willing, I don't see what should stop us.
The question though is would you be willing?


I think your question has already been answered.

I'm not really botherd about justifaction or reasoning, it is illegal, as it should be.
So homosexuality being illegal in most countries in the Middle East is ok as well? Cause you don't need reasoning nor justification for randomly outlawing people's bedroom behaviour?
Again thats a totaly differant...
Do explain how so?

Ohhh really? Fred West's kids are mentaly fine?

Who is Fred West?

Are you really trying to tell me here that there are no mental hangups with sex at all ever?

There are mental hangups about just about anything. I was ashamed of being left-handed for a long, long time. Not to mention the fat kid, and the weirdo bookish kid. Wanna legislate that, too, now?

Umm now let me see. Fred West had sex with his kids, relevant, his kids are now quite normal and not fucked up?

Cabra has stated that sex with your kids causes no harm, I dispute that, do you really agree with her?

That's not what I stated. I stated that sex between consenting adults is no area that should be legislated, no matter if they're related or not.
I never said that sex with kids (minors) was ok.

Ahhh quite right, I misread.

Okay then I'll ask instead for evidance that sexual feelings towards your siblings/parents/children does not cause any sort of anguish, feelings of guilt or similar, in fact no 'harm' at all.

You're asking for evidence of absence? Seriously?

last thing i hear about them they be forces to move

last thing i hear about them they be froces to move

you've been missed! is your computer any better?

I think it IS normal to have sexual feelings about family members. I've had them and people I know admit to them. I mean, Freud started an industry on the idea.

I don't act on them. That's what being a human with ethical beliefs entails.

you've been missed! is your computer any better?

i'am not to know this but my sister got her room mate to rebuild me a better one with my hard drives in it,me on the other hand not so

oh i do know i can't recall my password to GM

I think it IS normal to have sexual feelings about family members. I've had them and people I know admit to them. I mean, Freud started an industry on the idea.

I don't act on them. That's what being a human with ethical beliefs entails.

The Westermarck effect suggests otherwise. Also, Freud had a wet nurse which can help explain why he didn't experience that effect.

I think it IS normal to have sexual feelings about family members. I've had them and people I know admit to them. I mean, Freud started an industry on the idea.

I don't act on them. That's what being a human with ethical beliefs entails.

Nope, it isn´t normal. It´s not normal to have sexual feelings towards family members. That´s not the norm. But I don´t think that´s what´s at the heart of the matter on the OP.

Freud started Psychology as we know it today, although a lot of his ideas are considered crazy nowadays. His theories had more meat on them other than incest.

Ditto on the last part of your statement.

If it's abnormal, then the Deaves are ill, not evil.

i'am not to know this but my sister got her room mate to rebuild me a better one with my hard drives in it,me on the other hand not so

oh i do know i can't recall my password to GM

hmm.... I'll change it and email you the change....do you still have the same email? if not TG me.

You're asking for evidence of absence? Seriously?

Cabra come on now, you know what I'm talking about. If you can't find any evidance, then I will accede you your point.

Cabra come on now, you know what I'm talking about. If you can't find any evidance, then I will accede you your point.

Well, let's look at the example given in the OP... do you see any evidence of harm, other than what's inflicted from the outside by unacceptance? I don't.

Well, let's look at the example given in the OP... do you see any evidence of harm, other than what's inflicted from the outside by unacceptance? I don't.

Well to be fair you do, you just said 'except....', which is a remarkable backtrack to your 'no harm' statment.

Well to be fair you do, you just said 'except....', which is a remarkable backtrack to your 'no harm' statment.

That's the same argument that has been brought up before. Just because society treats people who are different like shit is no excuse to curtail the rights of those people.
Think about it : Would you want a law telling black people to only keep to black areas, to protect them from society's rascim?
Would you want a law telling women what to wear in the street, to protect them from harm by being raped?
Would you want a law telling homosexuals they can't be seen holding hands in public, cause it might cause social outrage that could result in harm to said homosexuals?
Do you want a law forcing obese people to loose weight to minimise the negative treatment they get from idiots?

Being different in any way, shape or form will inevitably cause society to hurt you. In some places it's enough being left-handed to be turned into the punching ball of the class-bullies. Would you outlaw reproduction for people with genes for left-handedness, so their offspring won't have to suffer?

Or should we rather place the blame where it belongs : with those brain-amputated idiots who feel they've got a right to hurt people just cause they're "not normal"?

That's the same argument that has been brought up before. Just because society treats people who are different like shit is no excuse to curtail the rights of those people.
Think about it : Would you want a law telling black people to only keep to black areas, to protect them from society's rascim?
Would you want a law telling women what to wear in the street, to protect them from harm by being raped?
Would you want a law telling homosexuals they can't be seen holding hands in public, cause it might cause social outrage that could result in harm to said homosexuals?
Do you want a law forcing obese people to loose weight to minimise the negative treatment they get from idiots?

Being different in any way, shape or form will inevitably cause society to hurt you. In some places it's enough being left-handed to be turned into the punching ball of the class-bullies. Would you outlaw reproduction for people with genes for left-handedness, so their offspring won't have to suffer?

Or should we rather place the blame where it belongs : with those brain-amputated idiots who feel they've got a right to hurt people just cause they're "not normal"?


Hey Cabra,

I get where you're coming from and normaly I would be agreeing with you. But I think perhaps what you and others here have not considered is the sheer size of revoltion in the minds of the majority that incest invokes.

Perhaps in the fullness of time the law may change on it, as it has with being gay, and as it has so that blacks and whites can share the same bus. This though will inevitably bring it's own struggles and conflict.

Anyhoo the 'damage' I'm thinking about is more along the lines of self imposed, the guilt, the revulstion, I'm willing to bet that at least half of the people engaged in incest have these types feelings, wouldn't you say so?

The point that I'm trying to clarify is that rightly or wrongly negative feelings about incest are strong, (and righly so in my opinion) and any consideration to changing the law is a bad move. You are right, I would normaly say that consentual sex between two adults, is none of my business, but incest, I'm sorry I'm totaly at the mercy of my emotional response on this one.

Hey Cabra,

I get where you're coming from and normaly I would be agreeing with you. But I think perhaps what you and others here have not considered is the sheer size of revoltion in the minds of the majority that incest invokes.

Perhaps in the fullness of time the law may change on it, as it has with being gay, and as it has so that blacks and whites can share the same bus. This though will inevitably bring it's own struggles and conflict.

Anyhoo the 'damage' I'm thinking about is more along the lines of self imposed, the guilt, the revulstion, I'm willing to bet that at least half of the people engaged in incest have these types feelings, wouldn't you say so?

The point that I'm trying to clarify is that rightly or wrongly negative feelings about incest are strong, (and righly so in my opinion) and any consideration to changing the law is a bad move. You are right, I would normaly say that consentual sex between two adults, is none of my business, but incest, I'm sorry I'm totaly at the mercy of my emotional response on this one.

You know, if NSG had been around, say, 40 years ago, and someone had started a thread on homosexuality and how it ought to be legalised... I'm willing to bet my collection of chocolate cake recipes they would have faced the exact same replies.

I have several gay friends, some of them old enough to have experienced the social climate back then. Trust me, they were guilt-ridden, revolted by themselves and their desires, sometimes depressed to the point of suicide. The shame they felt must have been beyond words. And yet, today, they can live as who they are, without fear of the law or society, and even for the most part without fear of being beaten up or burned alive (no kidding, it did happen). There's no shame any more, no more feeling of being sick, perverted or somehow unnatural. But they did have to fight for it, and still do.
Same as the couple in the article, and others all over the world. I know it will take time, but I've got enough trust in people's common sense to see it change eventually.

That's why an "emotional response" just isn't good enough for me in this discussion, sorry. There were negative emotional responses enough against gays in the past, and they were just as inappropriate as they are now in cases of consesual incest.

You know, if NSG had been around, say, 40 years ago, and someone had started a thread on homosexuality and how it ought to be legalised... I'm willing to bet my collection of chocolate cake recipes they would have faced the exact same replies.

I have several gay friends, some of them old enough to have experienced the social climate back then. Trust me, they were guilt-ridden, revolted by themselves and their desires, sometimes depressed to the point of suicide. The shame they felt must have been beyond words. And yet, today, they can live as who they are, without fear of the law or society, and even for the most part without fear of being beaten up or burned alive (no kidding, it did happen). There's no shame any more, no more feeling of being sick, perverted or somehow unnatural. But they did have to fight for it, and still do.
Same as the couple in the article, and others all over the world. I know it will take time, but I've got enough trust in people's common sense to see it change eventually.

That's why an "emotional response" just isn't good enough for me in this discussion, sorry. There were negative emotional responses enough against gays in the past, and they were just as inappropriate as they are now in cases of consesual incest.

Ahhh well then I guess we disagree.

Ahhh well then I guess we disagree.

Sort of. Though I can't imagine you'd usually be satisfied with someone's "gut feeling" given as reason for curtailing someone else's freedom...

Sort of. Though I can't imagine you'd usually be satisfied with someone's "gut feeling" given as reason for curtailing someone else's freedom...

Its a funny thing life, and the amount of actual control you and I have over it, is tiny. So I can't do much about the sense of revolusion that incest sparks in mankind, indeed I think it is a good thing.

Yes I'd not normaly feel this way, but then don't you think some freedoms should be curtailed?

Its a funny thing life, and the amount of actual control you and I have over it, is tiny. So I can't do much about the sense of revolusion that incest sparks in mankind, indeed I think it is a good thing.

Yes I'd not normaly feel this way, but then don't you think some freedoms should be curtailed?

"My freedom ends where your freedom begins" is what I tend to go by, mostly.
And I don't tend to agree with taboos that make people suffer for no reason, other than it being a taboo. Too much has been justified in the past with the same argument, it just no longer holds water with me.

It might not be my thing to have sex with relatives, but that doesn't mean I get to outlaw it for everyone. I like swinging, and just because the majority of mankind finds it immoral, I would put up one hell of a fight if anybody ever tried to outlaw it (again).

"My freedom ends where your freedom begins" is what I tend to go by, mostly.
And I don't tend to agree with taboos that make people suffer for no reason, other than it being a taboo. Too much has been justified in the past with the same argument, it just no longer holds water with me.

It might not be my thing to have sex with relatives, but that doesn't mean I get to outlaw it for everyone. I like swinging, and just because the majority of mankind finds it immoral, I would put up one hell of a fight if anybody ever tried to outlaw it (again).

The interesting thing about your words here Cabra is this bit:

'And I don't tend to agree with taboos that make people suffer for no reason'

Two things strike me, the second of which is slightly off topic so I'll just mention it in passing, you don't mind people suffering as long as it's a reason?

The first thing though is suffering. What sort of suffering occours when you are not allowed to have a sexual relationship with a memeber of your imidiate family?

The interesting thing about your words here Cabra is this bit:

'And I don't tend to agree with taboos that make people suffer for no reason'

Two things strike me, the second of which is slightly off topic so I'll just mention it in passing, you don't mind people suffering as long as it's a reason?

The first thing though is suffering. What sort of suffering occours when you are not allowed to have a sexual relationship with a memeber of your imidiate family?

Regarding the first point, a sociopath who is not allowed to torment another person for personal pleasure might consider this suffering and an infringement on personal liberties. But there's a good reason for not allowing it, namely the other person's unwillingness to suffer.

As for the second, just ask the couple in the OP if they would consider it suffering to be seperated by law. Would you consider it suffering if there was a law no longer allowing you any form of sexual contact with your wife?

As for the second, just ask the couple in the OP if they would consider it suffering to be seperated by law. Would you consider it suffering if there was a law no longer allowing you any form of sexual contact with your wife?


Would I consider no sex suffering? It's only sex innit. I mean as enjoyable as it is, I can live without it. It's no more suffering than being denied cream cakes.

So you would consider the feelings and emotions of incestuus couples that are denied their love, but what about the negative feelings and emotions that I have already talked about with those not denyied it?

If you consider not haveing sex with your loving partner as distressfull and so you are prepered to call it harm, then what of feelings of self disgust, or guilt, which is the more harmfull I wonder?

Its a funny thing life, and the amount of actual control you and I have over it, is tiny. So I can't do much about the sense of revolusion that incest sparks in mankind, indeed I think it is a good thing.

Yes I'd not normaly feel this way, but then don't you think some freedoms should be curtailed?

Oh definately, some freedoms should be curtailed for the good of humanity, and for those who do live within society's parameters. People shouldn't be allowed to do just whatever they want.

Example I: Just because you want to kill your neighbor and you have the right to carry a gun doesn't me you're allowed to do it. (of course, I'm being dramatic about it;))

Example II: Just because I have the right (freedom), as a prent, to discipline my children, doesn't mean that I can abuse them just because I may think I know better or because they're my children. I can't lose perspective that my children have the right to that.

On the case of the OP, I don't agree with incest. But I'm not going to give my opinion on this anymore.

Would I consider no sex suffering? It's only sex innit. I mean as enjoyable as it is, I can live without it. It's no more suffering than being denied cream cakes.

So you would consider the feelings and emotions of incestuus couples that are denied their love, but what about the negative feelings and emotions that I have already talked about with those not denyied it?

If you consider not haveing sex with your loving partner as distressfull and so you are prepered to call it harm, then what of feelings of self disgust, or guilt, which is the more harmfull I wonder?

I would consider it natural to suffer if you're not allowed to touch the person you're romantically in love with. It's only natural.
Feeling guilty about who you're attracted to isn't, it's promoted and enforced by social norms which have no real reason for existing in the first place.
Do you consider it ok to make interracial couples suffer for who they love? Or gay couples? So why would it be ok to make related couples suffer for it?

I would consider it natural to suffer if you're not allowed to touch the person you're romantically in love with. It's only natural.
Feeling guilty about who you're attracted to isn't, it's promoted and enforced by social norms which have no real reason for existing in the first place.
Do you consider it ok to make interracial couples suffer for who they love? Or gay couples? So why would it be ok to make related couples suffer for it?

What, who am I making suffer, and how?

Plenty of people feel guilt over their relationships. Is he too young for me, too old, am I with her just because I'm getting older, she is fat I wonder what my friends will say.

As I'm sure you know, no relationship is free from any 'damagineing' thought. That for some people these feelings may come from the the perceptions of sociaty is of no account.

What, who am I making suffer, and how?

Plenty of people feel guilt over their relationships. Is he too young for me, too old, am I with her just because I'm getting older, she is fat I wonder what my friends will say.

As I'm sure you know, no relationship is free from any 'damagineing' thought. That for some people these feelings may come from the the perceptions of sociaty is of no account.

Really? Who gets to determine what's "too old" or "too young"? Whose criticism do you fear when worrying what "they" will say about your friend?
None of those are worries that stem from your own emotional life, all of them are fears of becoming a social outcast by not adhereing to the norm.

Without social pressure, why worry about the age of your partner? Or the size? Or the skin colour?

Really? Who gets to determine what's "too old" or "too young"? Whose criticism do you fear when worrying what "they" will say about your friend?
None of those are worries that stem from your own emotional life, all of them are fears of becoming a social outcast by not adhereing to the norm.

Without social pressure, why worry about the age of your partner? Or the size? Or the skin colour?

Heh exactly, so what makes incest any differant.

Heh exactly, so what makes incest any differant.

The fact that - contrary to a 30-year age gap, or a 2-ton bride, it's illegal.

My gosh! no WONDER hoagies said kids AND teens!!!:headbang:
:headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang:

The fact that - contrary to a 30-year age gap, or a 2-ton bride, it's illegal.

Gaaahhh I mean of course with regard to negative feelings.

You say that those who engage in incest should not have to feel negative feelings or emotions brought about by socities feelings on incest, and then procede to tell me that sociaties feelings on lots of things enable all of us to have negative feelings or emotions on the nature of our relationships.

It is in this context that I ask why is incest any differant?

If it is fine for the thin boy to worry what his friends will think about him dateing a fat women, then it must be fine for a man to feel guilty about shagging his daughter?

My gosh! no WONDER hoagies said kids AND teens!!!:headbang:
:headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang::headbang:
:headbang:

http://www.evilsmiley.com/images/dude_wtf.gif

Gaaahhh I mean of course with regard to negative feelings.

You say that those who engage in incest should not have to feel negative feelings or emotions brought about by socities feelings on incest, and then procede to tell me that sociaties feelings on lots of things enable all of us to have negative feelings or emotions on the nature of our relationships.

It is in this context that I ask why is incest any differant?

If it is fine for the thin boy to worry what his friends will think about him dateing a fat women, then it must be fine for a man to feel guilty about shagging his daughter?

I don't think that's what's being said. I think the point is that the people mocking the scrawny kid for dating a fatty are at fault for any emotional damage, not the scrawny/fatty couple. However, even with that in mind, this is no justification for legislating against it.

Gaaahhh I mean of course with regard to negative feelings.

You say that those who engage in incest should not have to feel negative feelings or emotions brought about by socities feelings on incest, and then procede to tell me that sociaties feelings on lots of things enable all of us to have negative feelings or emotions on the nature of our relationships.

It is in this context that I ask why is incest any differant?

If it is fine for the thin boy to worry what his friends will think about him dateing a fat women, then it must be fine for a man to feel guilty about shagging his daughter?

None of those is fine! Where did I say they were fine? Nobody should be made to feel awkward about his/her personal preferences, be it fat or old or skinny or black or shemale or whatever else they might be into.

None of those is fine! Where did I say they were fine? Nobody should be made to feel awkward about his/her personal preferences, be it fat or old or skinny or black or shemale or whatever else they might be into.

Ahhh but they do, and they will contiune to, We are so diversive the human race, we will never be the same and as long as that remains we will find things to get each other down about.

So whether you think that should not be the case, or otherwise, it is the case. It's human nature, and no matter how much you say it shouldn't be like this, it is, it wont change.

Oh definately, some freedoms should be curtailed for the good of humanity, and for those who do live within society's parameters. People shouldn't be allowed to do just whatever they want.

Example I: Just because you want to kill your neighbor and you have the right to carry a gun doesn't me you're allowed to do it. (of course, I'm being dramatic about it;))

Example II: Just because I have the right (freedom), as a prent, to discipline my children, doesn't mean that I can abuse them just because I may think I know better or because they're my children. I can't lose perspective that my children have the right to that.

On the case of the OP, I don't agree with incest. But I'm not going to give my opinion on this anymore.

*gives out Nanatsu's opinion to everyone, whether they want it or not*

Oh definately, some freedoms should be curtailed for the good of humanity, and for those who do live within society's parameters. People shouldn't be allowed to do just whatever they want.

Example I: Just because you want to kill your neighbor and you have the right to carry a gun doesn't me you're allowed to do it. (of course, I'm being dramatic about it;))

Example II: Just because I have the right (freedom), as a prent, to discipline my children, doesn't mean that I can abuse them just because I may think I know better or because they're my children. I can't lose perspective that my children have the right to that.

On the case of the OP, I don't agree with incest. But I'm not going to give my opinion on this anymore.
both of your examples are harming another person and neither involve consenting adults.

this situation is not harmful to anyone and is involving consenting adults.

I can come up with a lot of things that harm people and are done without consent that should be illegal, but that's not applicable to this situation.

Hey Cabra,

I get where you're coming from and normaly I would be agreeing with you. But I think perhaps what you and others here have not considered is the sheer size of revoltion in the minds of the majority that incest invokes.

I'd guess that most people feel more revulsion from the idea of a lot of scat play than the idea of two adults who happen to be related having normal sex.

Should we outlaw scat play?

The point that I'm trying to clarify is that rightly or wrongly negative feelings about incest are strong, (and righly so in my opinion) and any consideration to changing the law is a bad move. You are right, I would normaly say that consentual sex between two adults, is none of my business, but incest, I'm sorry I'm totaly at the mercy of my emotional response on this one.

Then you have no valid argument. "It's icky" is not, no matter how strongly you may feel it, an argument for restricting the consensual behavior of others.

I'd guess that most people feel more revulsion from the idea of a lot of scat play than the idea of two adults who happen to be related having normal sex.

Should we outlaw scat play?

Umm I don't know what that means?

Then you have no valid argument. "It's icky" is not, no matter how strongly you may feel it, an argument for restricting the consensual behavior of others.

People seem to be under the mistaken idea that I am arguing my point, or trying to justify my opinion, I am not.

Oh definately, some freedoms should be curtailed for the good of humanity, and for those who do live within society's parameters. People shouldn't be allowed to do just whatever they want.

Example I: Just because you want to kill your neighbor and you have the right to carry a gun doesn't me you're allowed to do it. (of course, I'm being dramatic about it;))

Example II: Just because I have the right (freedom), as a prent, to discipline my children, doesn't mean that I can abuse them just because I may think I know better or because they're my children. I can't lose perspective that my children have the right to that.

On the case of the OP, I don't agree with incest. But I'm not going to give my opinion on this anymore.

Notice how both of the actions you talk about restricting cause clear harm to others?


Plenty of people feel guilt over their relationships. Is he too young for me, too old, am I with her just because I'm getting older, she is fat I wonder what my friends will say.

As I'm sure you know, no relationship is free from any 'damagineing' thought. That for some people these feelings may come from the the perceptions of sociaty is of no account.

You're kind of arguing against yourself here.

Yes, plenty of people feel guilt over their relationships. So, even if people who engage in consensual incestuous relationships tend to feel guilt, why is that justification to ban such relationships? Should we also institute an age difference limit? Or a weight difference limit?

Umm I don't know what that means?

Scat play is playing with excrement. For instance, some people enjoy pooping on their partner's chest/being pooped on as part of a sexual experience.

I'm not entirely certain if peeing on your partner's face counts under the label, but that's another type of excrement-play that some people enjoy sexually.

People seem to be under the mistaken idea that I am arguing my point, or trying to justify my opinion, I am not.

If you, and others who think it should be illegal, cannot justify your opinion, then it shouldn't be illegal.

Would I consider no sex suffering? It's only sex innit. I mean as enjoyable as it is, I can live without it. It's no more suffering than being denied cream cakes.
That's up to you. Others differ.


If you consider not haveing sex with your loving partner as distressfull and so you are prepered to call it harm,
I would go so far as to call it "breach of human rights".

then what of feelings of self disgust, or guilt, which is the more harmfull I wonder?
What about them?

If it is fine for the thin boy to worry what his friends will think about him dateing a fat women, then it must be fine for a man to feel guilty about shagging his daughter?
But the thin boy won't be put in prison...

Notice how both of the actions you talk about restricting cause clear harm to others?

I was just using them as examples of why some liberties should be restricted. In the case of incest, and the OP, I already stated my opinion. I'm not ok with it, but to each his/her own.;)

Umm I don't know what that means?

google it (http://www.google.com/ig?hl=en)

Scat play is playing with excrement. For instance, some people enjoy pooping on their partner's chest/being pooped on as part of a sexual experience.

I'm not entirely certain if peeing on your partner's face counts under the label, but that's another type of excrement-play that some people enjoy sexually.

That would be watersports.


If you, and others who think it should be illegal, cannot justify your opinion, then it shouldn't be illegal.

Exactly

That would be watersports.

http://blog.urbangrafix.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/WindowsLiveWriter/WeirdwaysofMarketingAdvertising_EB69/234901cHJG_w%5B5%5D.jpg

http://blog.urbangrafix.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/WindowsLiveWriter/WeirdwaysofMarketingAdvertising_EB69/234901cHJG_w%5B5%5D.jpg

lmao

Ahhh but they do, and they will contiune to, We are so diversive the human race, we will never be the same and as long as that remains we will find things to get each other down about.

So whether you think that should not be the case, or otherwise, it is the case. It's human nature, and no matter how much you say it shouldn't be like this, it is, it wont change.

It will drift, it always does. It wasn't so long ago that it was entirely normal for an old git to be congratulated when finding himself a teenage bride. These days, he will get more than a fair share of funny looks. Same for homosexuality, and other aspects of "abnormal" sexual behaviour.

In any case, social rejection of sexual behaviour is not enough reason for making it, or even keeping it, illegal.

In any case, social rejection of sexual behaviour is not enough reason for making it, or even keeping it, illegal.

Hah I was gonna stay out of this one, now I have said my piece but ya keep pulling me backin huh huh.

There are two ways of looking at your statment here.

Do you mean social rejection of sexual behavoiur shouldn't be reason enough for legislation of it?

Or do you mean that it is not reason enough to legislate against?

Because it seems to me, looking at our history social rejection of sexual behaviour has certianly been enough, is currently the case with incest, and probably will be enough for some future sexual practices.

I suspect that you are really saying 'well it shouldn't be this way', to which I would reply, 'but it is'.

Hah I was gonna stay out of this one, now I have said my piece but ya keep pulling me backin huh huh.

There are two ways of looking at your statment here.

Do you mean social rejection of sexual behavoiur shouldn't be reason enough for legislation of it?

Or do you mean that it is not reason enough to legislate against?

Because it seems to me, looking at our history social rejection of sexual behaviour has certianly been enough, is currently the case with incest, and probably will be enough for some future sexual practices.

I suspect that you are really saying 'well it shouldn't be this way', to which I would reply, 'but it is'.

To which I would reply "Then it needs to be changed".
Many laws regarding sexual behaviour have been thrown out the window in the past few decades, and the one about incest is the next on the list, if you ask me. And good riddance to it, too.

Incest =/= genetic disorders. Any disorders that are present have a higher chance of propagating, but that is only if they exist already. Two 'pure' people (brother and sister) who have kids aren't going to magically have 18 toes and 3 fingers; that is to say homozygotes don't appear out of thin air.

Well there is also the matter of inbreeding depression...

EDIT: 34 pages! I need to catch up...