Anyone who thinks incest is ok doesn't have siblings. Seriously guys whats with all the support for it.
Switzerland might make incest legal.
- Thread starter YukoValis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's pretty much what was said on gay relationships and "sodomy" for more than 3000 years, and what is still said on it in large parts of the world. We as a species are hardly at the pinnacle of ethics just yet...Vanguard_Ex said:
So arguing from the majority norms of the highly imperfect current societies doesn't seem too convincing when discussing minority rights.
On the fallacies part, think what you want. Doesn't matter to me anymore. On the misguided opinions part? Why not? You've done the same thing to me, what gives you the right on that part?jamiedf said:
From my point of view, they are misguided. That is all. I have every right to call them misguided, just as you do mine. Regardless, this is over now. I don't have anything more or new to say on the matter.
Nope, my religion does not have any prescription about incest, and you don't quite "Get" Darwinism.Steampunkelephant said:
I believe that the relationship between deformities and sister-brother relationships is fairly high.Imperator_DK said:
Maybe if they were only fucking their lives up I would be less inclined to agree that it probably should remain illegal, but they're not, they're going to be fucking up their child's life, and there's a good chance of that happening.
Its strange because I feel that it is deeply wrong, but I cannot think of a logical reason why. Perhaps its one of those things which you can't really look at from a cold rational perspective.
The only thing I would say is "is it really necessary to commit incest?", I mean, in your lifetime you are going to encounter hundreds of acceptable mates that AREN'T related to you, why go for the one that is?
Anyone that is thinking of incest should really go out and meet some girls.
The only thing I would say is "is it really necessary to commit incest?", I mean, in your lifetime you are going to encounter hundreds of acceptable mates that AREN'T related to you, why go for the one that is?
Anyone that is thinking of incest should really go out and meet some girls.
And how exactly are you going to enforce a ban on sex taking place in the privacy of a bedroom?fullbleed said:
Siblings living together under the same roof cannot be outlawed, siblings sleeping in the same bed cannot be outlawed, curtains can be closed, how are you ever going to prove they had sex unless there's a fetus or child whose DNA you can test?
In these exceedingly rare cases, either a full confession or a child is needed for any plausible conviction to happen. So a ban on procreation would for all practical purposes be all that could ever be enforced anyway.
Because other laws that seek to curtail antisocial behavior (you know, murder, rape, stealing, burning down orphanages, etc) are rooted in inherent morality. This takes its basis from the notion that social cohesion increases the chance of survival, ergo behavior that disrupts the cohesion is discouraged. This is of course similar to laws banning incest, as the danger to the child is, on average, higher than normal. See, I don't actually care what happens to child, or to the parents. If they want to have sex, fine, really none of my business (consenting adults, etc...). But I'm right with you, let's abolish all laws that limit drinking, or drug use!jamiedf said:the drinking age prevents SOME people from drinking, and to say that these limiting laws have no effect is ludicrous . if that was the case why not just be done with laws alltogether as that is what the majority of them do.thethingthatlurks said:Great, you've made my point for mejamiedf said:
You don't drink/smoke (good for you, btw), yet other people do despite some legal barriers. Is a drinking age going to stop anybody from drinking? Well, hell no. Same for smoking, of course. Laws set out to limit or prohibit behavior have no effect, so what would laws banning incestuous relationships accomplish? Your point about procreation is entirely valid, of course, but you shouldn't underestimate just how much social pressure curtails such things. Besides, the risk of damage to the child is about equal to that if the mother had it in her 40s, which is also frowned upon in society for that reason.
and i think yourgiving to much credit to social restraints, il admit that they are effective but you cant give them more weight then the law. its a social stigma for underage pregnancies, that didnt stop nearly 20% of my highschool year getting pregnant?. infact the danger to the child is slightly higher (at about 45-50) thats why doctors advise against pregnancies at this age and offer additional care, but alot of this care cant be use on incestuous children
Teenage pregnancy, eh? You take one thing that is quite fun and combine it with ignorance vis-a-vis not getting pregnant, and you end up with teenage moms. Ain't nothin' gonna curtail that, except some decent sex-ed. As far as the rather troubling trend with this goes, abortion sadly carries a greater stigma than ruining your life by having a child when you yourself are just one, but that's a different discussion altogether...
Yeah no. It's not just two consenting adults involved, theres also the potential for a baby to harmed by this misdoings. If not biologically messed up they'll be messed up by teasing and taunting of their peers.
If it wasn't for that I'd be all "Right on... Ew, but right on nonetheless!"
If it wasn't for that I'd be all "Right on... Ew, but right on nonetheless!"
This is such a fallacy. This is akin to saying that endorsing contraception encourages promiscuity. Anal Sex is legal, does that mean the state is encouraging it? Farting, I'm pretty sure, is also not a crime. Why would the government want us to do that?jamiedf said:
Making something legal does NOTHING MORE than say there is nothing directly harmful or unfair about it. Which is true.
^This. Personally I wouldn't be into it (even if I wasn't socially taught to be repulsed by the idea as long term relationship would be out of the question), but the law/moral objection was instituted because we didn't have much in the way of birth control. The fact we're socially repulsed by it is nothing more than the result of thousands of years of fear from inbreeding results that are not much of an issue nowadays.Zeithri said:
The reason it is banned in so many places is because it is so frowned upon. but then again there is a biological reason to have it banned because the genetic pool is "designed" so that you get variation, two genetically very similar people just throws a spanner in the works as it goes, it leads to recessive genetic disorders that are far more unlikely with two genetically separate people and it's not good for the child that gets born or the parents who procreate.
so yes from a social perspective then people are free to do what they want but at the same time the biological process that underpins it is in jeopardy so... it's a toss up frankly i don't think you can just say it's illegal but something like this needs to be monitored...
so yes from a social perspective then people are free to do what they want but at the same time the biological process that underpins it is in jeopardy so... it's a toss up frankly i don't think you can just say it's illegal but something like this needs to be monitored...
Then outlaw vaginal intercourse between same-sex couples. That'll legally cover any biological risk just as well as a blanket ban including all sex acts between straight and gay related couples does.Woodsey said:
No reason to go any further in limiting individual freedom than the specific goal you're aiming for requires you to.
Could someone explain to me how incest is so bad if some tribal cultures in Papua New Guinea practice it, but as Jared Diamond points out in Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies, these tribal members often have a higher average intelligence then people in Western countries? Of course, even they don't take it that far and often exchange women once and awhile between tribes for the sake of genetic diversity, but I think that case study kind of limits the negative effects of one or two generations of incest.
More of these sort of people?
Huzzah!
I'm joking of course... >__> I've never agreed with close relation incest, but that's just me. Obviously the children could be deformed which is something I wouldn't want.
Cousin x cousin is the only thing I can only think is okay, even at a stretch. I understand 'You can't pick who you fall in love with' but there's billions of people in the world, why have a relationship with someone in your family? O_O
Huzzah!
I'm joking of course... >__> I've never agreed with close relation incest, but that's just me. Obviously the children could be deformed which is something I wouldn't want.
Cousin x cousin is the only thing I can only think is okay, even at a stretch. I understand 'You can't pick who you fall in love with' but there's billions of people in the world, why have a relationship with someone in your family? O_O
Not really. It's love. I didn't say anything of mother/son, father/daughter. I am talking brother and sister mainly. If you generally fall in love with a person it doesn't matter their relation. There are stories of old where two people fall in love and get married without even knowing they were related. Why must it make such a difference in knowing? As I said before, getting kids with disorders is rare unless it's been done in the same family over and over again.chickencow said:
