Switzerland might make incest legal.

[4173]

I do not like where this is heading. You can say what two consensual adults do is their business, but developmentally challenged children drain government resources. Also, there open up risk of abuse. A little girl could be abused / manipulated by her father / brother in secret and when she turns 18 that abusive family member could take full advantage.

But child abuse and rape are already illegal, so what added protection does an incest law offer?

I am talking about an uncaught attacker abusing the damaged mental state of the victim.

Yeah, rape.

I suppose I could envision a situation where the mental abuse was undetectable/unprovable in a court of law under an investigation. But even in that situation, unless incest is currently punishable by lengthy jailtime, I'm not sure what good prosecution would do.

 

[4173]

oops

 

[jedizero]

Oh for fucks sake!

You are telling them that its alright for fathers and daughters to have sex..
You are telling them that brothers/sisters can pressure their sisters/brothers into a relationship.

I have a friend who was in such a situation, he got forced into it, and his parents just pretended it didn't happen. It ended his childhood, right then and there. His own brother, forced him into a relationship like that.

And you're sitting here, flat out saying well, its alright now because its LEGAL, he shouldn't feel ashamed at all, he shouldn't feel hurt at all, its JUST. FINE.

How dare you.

 

[bz316]

ummm... not touching this with a 40 foot pole...

I'm with you on this one buddy

 

[4173]

Oh for fucks sake!

You are telling them that its alright for fathers and daughters to have sex..
You are telling them that brothers/sisters can pressure their sisters/brothers into a relationship.

I have a friend who was in such a situation, he got forced into it, and his parents just pretended it didn't happen. It ended his childhood, right then and there. His own brother, forced him into a relationship like that.

And you're sitting here, flat out saying well, its alright now because its LEGAL, he shouldn't feel ashamed at all, he shouldn't feel hurt at all, its JUST. FINE.

How dare you.

Well, ideally he shouldn't feel ashamed, but that usually isn't how people work.

And legal incest would not make rape, child abuse, child neglect etc. legal.

 

[Jaranja]

Fuck family says I. Interpret that however you like. If two persons love eachother, let them be. If they're related, just make sure they don't get kids <.<

EDIT: GOD DAMN ME. I always think of brother-sister relationships when I hear incest. But it involves father-daughter stuff too Dx I don't support people humping their descendants.

Why not? You just said if two people love each other...

Why can't it be Mother-Son?

Because the mother or father in question already had a lover, the other parent. The result of that love(or broken condom but let's stick to love) was that child. And when the two didn't work out, one of them suddenly end up with their kid? It's not much of a matter of love to me but more of a simple way to get laid.

Also, I find it disgusting so it's a lot of personal opinion from my side.

What you said requires is not to be love. I'm saying what if it is love?

 

[RatRace123]

NO SWITZERLAND, NO!!! That right belongs to the American South! It's all they have left.

In seriousness: I get the feeling some swiss lawmaker really wants to slip it to his sister.
Or maybe they're doing it so they can corner the market on incest porn... you know that market exists.

I don't agree with it, I think it's, well, disgusting. If it's a big enough issue to warrant legal incest though, I guess they're free to do whatever (or whomever) they want.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

I wouldn't endorse government support of said relationships (No marriage, common-law rights, spousal benefits, child care etc. No Support or Legal Endorsement what-so-ever) however if it's between two consenting adults I see no reason why it should be considered a "Criminal Act". If direct relatives really want to get it on (so long as they aren't breeding because that's genetically bad) it's really none of the governments business.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

People are violent, and saying peopel have to be inclined to commit murder is ridicolus, you might like to think people would be all happy and friendly but if you know you could kill somebody and face no punishment for it you would.

I did not say people have to be inclined to commit murder. I said, people whom are psychologically inclined to see the act as "not that much of a deal" (ie. sociopathy) are far more likely to commit murder regardless of what you do. Normal individuals are not, unless under extreme stress or fight/flight circumstances.

And no, I would not kill someone if I just "could", thank you. I happen to value human life, and can't even bring myself to punch someone, let alone take a lethal weapon to them. My punishment would be my own guilt, and that kind of guilt is a very rough and deterring guilt to ever want to deal with.

so aslong as i do something behind closed doors thats okay? NO its not, and if you want to argue whos business it is, then thats the governments job, dont like it? then tough

The government has no say in what goes on behind closed doors in private involving two consenting individuals. That is not debatable. Sorry.

and at no point did i say that EVERYONE would start committing incest, i was clearly talking about those who want to.
and im not saying that every perso is going to go and have incestous children, im saying its a possibility and to ignore that idiotic, to compare it to the camel's nose argument is just wrong i was merely putting forward a possibility i was not saying it was a certainty

And by putting forth a slur of "possibilities" that could or could not happen if something is legalized instead of remaining illegal is the slippery slope fallacy. You have a valid point concerning incestuous birth, but an incestuous birth does not automatically infer the disfigured backwater redneck stereotype, either.

..But, I see no real point in continuing this. We are never going to come to a middle ground. I'm ending this before we get into flaming territory, as these subjects will tend to devolve into.

Edit: In conclusion: I do not like the idea of incest, but my opinions, likes and dislikes do not dictate the lives and choices of other individual human beings. As long as the act is performed by two consenting adults that understand all of the impacts of their decision, for better or for worse, I am not the one (and nor is the government) to tell them they can and cannot do something in their own home. Unless it something obviously illegal, such as non-sexual torture, rape, murder, acted-upon pedophilia, etc.

 

[Steam Colossus]

If your religious incest is a sin against god.
If your a Darwinian incest is a sin against evolution.

But the law has no business in your pants, the world should be able to realize incest isn't right and therefor not do it.

 

[SnipErlite]

Hmm. Interesting.

On the one hand I'm thinking "EWWW INCEST", but that's more because that's what society has always dictated.

But then, if no children result from such a relationship why is it so wrong?

Maybe it's just that the risk of the children and the subsequent problems are too great to allow this to be legal since it would encourage incest?

Either way, I guess I'm ambivalent. I suppose it's not up to me to dictate what people do in their spare time but I can see how this would lead to problems.

Ehh, long story short if this becomes legal and you really really want to fuck your sister take a short holiday to Switzerland.

*shrug*

 

[evilartist]

I'm surprised a country like Sweden even has a law against incest. I'm not saying that they condone the practice, but I thought their policies were usually more liberal, especially with human rights.

As long as a surge of inbreds (as unlikely as that is) doesn't negatively affect the already declining birthrate in Sweden, I don't see what the problem is with legalized incest.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Oh ho ho ho....no. No this is a bad idea. Look, I know we like to be all permissive on this website but the damage to children from even one incident of inbreeding is massive.

this is so wrong, the chances of any child being born with no problems is minute. and legalising it is paramount to encouraging it.
come on Switzerland, get your crap together

There's a difference between potential for birth defects and near certainty of birth defects.

The odds of some kind of genetic disorder is far too high in cases of incest for a nation to allow even a chance of it happening.

No. No it isnt. Did you even do basic biology?! I HATE these threads because this stupid misconception comes up time and time again, you just happened to be the first and to take it to a high level "massive". Eugh. Never mind, lemme show you. (Pet hate, no offence intended) Im finishing A level biology by the way.

Inbreeding takes the original % of genetic diseases (ie for most VERY SMALL) and DOUBLES it. So if its less than 1% it only doubles that. Its only if you have a family history of cystic fibrosis or some shiz like that. So for normal people, a single generation does NOTHING.

EDIT: Im going to die, people just blurt things really strongly they don't understand... and they are so wrong... not even close. WHERE DID THIS COME FROM! Did the social stigma encourage the rampant ignorance? Did it just occur? Why do people think this absurd thing...

 

[MajorKris]

I tend to be pretty liberal on such matters, but I will admit that the whole idea makes me a little uncomfortable. (And awkward....because it made me image such a relationship with my siblings).

I won't let my own uneasiness get in the way though, if two consensual adults, who are related to each other, want such a thing, then totally go for it.

This will however, need to proceed with caution.

 

[Gigano]

...
He's more worried about the risk that a child will be born from two siblings, that it's to great a risk to justify the legalisation.

I don't see how making sex legal and procreation illegal, or both sex and procreation legal will make any difference. They'll have every bit as much legal incentive not to get pregnant under such new law.

...

God bless the westermarck effect.
...

Indeed, it's certainly biologically and sociologically useful. Laws should only regulate actual harm though.

...
It didn't - but accidents happen. And if two people want to be together then they're likely going to want to have kids too.
...

Life is dangerous. If you're going to outlaw anything that could potentially cause harm, but doesn't necessarily do so, rather than only the harmful effects of it, then there'd be no end to what we should regulate. Availability of Beer leads to alcoholics, religion leads to fundamentalists and persecution, why should they not be banned? Because more people like them?

...
That's the problem; couples who love each other will want children. If they didn't why do gay people care about the right to adopt?

You can't turn round to a group of people and say 'due to your lifestyle choice we have decided you can't have children'. Our drive to reproduce is one of our strongest natural drives, you physically can't forbid people to have children, it's not a sustainable situation. Incest laws are there to stop children being born horribly deformed.

No, you can't deny them the right to children, but in a world of artificial insemination, adoption, and surrogate mothers, why would you need to? They can get the exact same civil rights as same-sex couples have.

And why would laws forbidding sex stop them more efficiently from having biological children than laws forbidding them to have biological children?

 

[asinann]

Oh ho ho ho....no. No this is a bad idea. Look, I know we like to be all permissive on this website but the damage to children from even one incident of inbreeding is massive.

When did sex equal procreation in modern times?

There's plenty of contraception methods available, sterilisation, birth control pills, and condoms to name a few, as well as copious sex acts which can't result in pregnancy. Furthermore there's the access to abortion.

Just outlaw the procreation. Or vaginal intercourse if strict. It's not like the law has any actual effect when there isn't a child to prove the sexual relation anyway.

There is NO form of birth control that is 100% effective. The odds of some kind of genetic disorder is far too high in cases of incest for a nation to allow even a chance of it happening.

 

[ramboondiea]

People are violent, and saying peopel have to be inclined to commit murder is ridicolus, you might like to think people would be all happy and friendly but if you know you could kill somebody and face no punishment for it you would.

I did not say people have to be inclined to commit murder. I said, people whom are psychologically inclined to see the act as "not that much of a deal" (ie. sociopathy) are far more likely to commit murder regardless of what you do. Normal individuals are not, unless under extreme stress or fight/flight circumstances.

And no, I would not kill someone if I just "could", thank you. I happen to value human life, and can't even bring myself to punch someone, let alone take a lethal weapon to them. My punishment would be my own guilt, and that kind of guilt is a very rough and deterring guilt to ever want to deal with.

so aslong as i do something behind closed doors thats okay? NO its not, and if you want to argue whos business it is, then thats the governments job, dont like it? then tough

The government has no say in what goes on behind closed doors in private involving two consenting individuals. That is not debatable. Sorry.

and at no point did i say that EVERYONE would start committing incest, i was clearly talking about those who want to.
and im not saying that every perso is going to go and have incestous children, im saying its a possibility and to ignore that idiotic, to compare it to the camel's nose argument is just wrong i was merely putting forward a possibility i was not saying it was a certainty

And by putting forth a slur of "possibilities" that could or could not happen if something is legalized instead of remaining illegal is the slippery slope fallacy. You have a valid point concerning incestuous birth, but an incestuous birth does not automatically infer the disfigured backwater redneck stereotype, either.

..But, I see no real point in continuing this. We are never going to come to a middle ground. I'm ending this before we get into flaming territory, as these subjects will tend to devolve into.

no it is not the slipper slope argument, if it was i would have said that if the legalised it we would be over run with mutant babies, that is not what im saying, i also never said anything bout every child being born with problems, but it is a higher possibility in those circumstances, and i think the law should remain if its capable of deterring a single individual from taking the chance.
and congratulations your a better person then most, but think of everyone else who would go out killing, i cannot honestly say what i would or wouldnt do if i could get away with killing, but to say peopel only kill in fight/flight situations is a fallacy.
and i think you will find that the government cab say what goes on behind closed door, has been for a very long time, and yeah it is debatable,(bestiality, paedophilia, s&m etc. the re are laws concerning them all)

and if you do no wish to continue this discussion you shouldn't have replied back this time,if all you do is make an argument then stop what was the point of starting to begin with?

 

[UltraDeth]

I'd legalise incest, but only for the following conditions.

1: Protection/contraceptives must be used every time
2: Both participants must be willing.