:| Yeah it kinda did.....LegendaryGamer0 said:
....
...
..
...I'm sure It didn't mean to come out like that...
Switzerland might make incest legal.
- Thread starter YukoValis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
....
...
..
...I'm sure It didn't mean to come out like that...
I think it's less an issue of "making it legal" than it is an issue of "We don't want to have to enforce this anymore." Or, worse, it's legislative posturing--we want to appear progressive, so we're getting rid of a law (that, coincidentally, only a tiny fraction of the population will care about).YukoValis said:
It's a way of appearing to make great, sweeping changes without actually changing how anyone behaves. Most people don't shy away from incest because it's illegal, they do it because it's genetically irresponsible (and no method of birth control is foolproof).
Personally? Families have enough drama. Sex causes enough drama. Combining the two seems like it would be a head-sploding clusterf***. But hey, maybe one of them will finally produce mutants with superpowers...
Agreed. As long as it was worded so that it made those commiting the act look like they're currently having some sort of human right removed from them, people would say "ah thats ok".jboking said:
As for incest and the Swiss, I think they should just keep it outlawed. A couple recently left Ireland after it was discovered they were brother and sister. They had a child and a second one on the way. The first was born retarded. Thats not a sweeping example of "OMG ALL INCEST BABIES ARE RETARDED!!", but it's a prime example of doctors telling them "no, you shouldn't have this baby" and it being right. So they decided to try again I guess, so the idea of "ah it's ok, just use protection!" doesnt work.
The main problem with incest is the children and how it will impact their life. Even if they're not born with a retardation, think of the social impact on their life. Going back to that Irish couple, they're going to lie to both children about who they really are. Now think what would happen when/if that child found out that his mother and father are also his auntie and uncle?
And people are saying "it's ok as long as it's not between a parent child". Why is incest A ok, but incest B isn't then?
Just leave it how it is.
That would be disinterested, not objective.Vanguard_Ex said:
Yeah, I agree with that.Jezzascmezza said:
My opinion:
Unfortunately there's no such thing as morals and ethics apparently. You're not allowed to say things are 'right' and 'wrong', without attracting a torrent of logic as if logic is all that mattered. Fucking moral objectivism. Pisses me off. 'Any two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want'. No. No they shouldn't; because most people are fucking stupid.
Heh. Fucking stupid.
@All the people saying it causes assloads of problems:
1: Inbreeding doesn't increase the rate of genetic mutation (Pretty sure only radioactivity can do that), it just increases the rate of pre-existing conditions coming up (e.g.: Colorblindness, etc.) This is why dogs from breeders tend to have more issues with hip dysplasia and such.
2: It doesn't increase the rate by that much (Don't have the source, but I recall reading that the rate of occurance is about 4% for genetic disorders normally, and incest bumps that up to about 7%). And obviously succeeding generations of incest would hit a cap, though I don't know where.
Now, I personally think it's gross, but what two people do in their free time is their business, why should I care?
1: Inbreeding doesn't increase the rate of genetic mutation (Pretty sure only radioactivity can do that), it just increases the rate of pre-existing conditions coming up (e.g.: Colorblindness, etc.) This is why dogs from breeders tend to have more issues with hip dysplasia and such.
2: It doesn't increase the rate by that much (Don't have the source, but I recall reading that the rate of occurance is about 4% for genetic disorders normally, and incest bumps that up to about 7%). And obviously succeeding generations of incest would hit a cap, though I don't know where.
Now, I personally think it's gross, but what two people do in their free time is their business, why should I care?
Well now you know which word to use. You can thank me later with cupcakes and blancmange.Vanguard_Ex said:
To put it bluntly; Don't dilute the already watered down gene-pool. If they're willing to abide by that rule I don't give a shit.
The thing is, it doesn't affect any of those save societal laws. And that is only where societal laws apply to incest. "Natural laws" do not exist like we like to perceive them. If something is being done by natural creatures (human beings), and works in application (a brother and a sister can screw just like any other man or woman together), it is not "unnatural". It is also not against moral law, unless as said above, societal law is parallel to the collective subjective moral stances of the community in which the law for or against (against in this hypothetical case) is being presented.Vanguard_Ex said:
The only reason it is a social taboo, is due to the viewpoint that sex and intimacy outside of the family is generally the comfortable view of most societies on the matter. However, considering the subjective nature of cultural morality, societies that can accept that acts committed between two consenting individuals in general is the most preferred course of deliberating "accepted" social norm, and of course will tend to find no reason to ban individuals from partaking in such activity. People may it uncomfortably to think about, myself included in admittance. But just because we do find it so on some level or another, does not give us the inherent right to force other people whom may not share the same viewpoint to give into it themselves.
In the end, no less, you are free to your opinion just the same.
I think that is just not realistic. As an extreme example, kids 16 years old also have sex and don't want to get kids, but teen pregnancies are not uncommon.Zeithri said:
Now I am not saying that happens an equal amount to adults too, but when you have sex there is always the risk of unwanted pregnancy.
That, in such a close gene pool, is a bad thing in my opinion.
I doubt they will. I REALLY doubt they will. But i'm kind of indifferent to the subject myself, so eh... I don't think it will change things that much anyway. I mean, if two consenting adults do this they will hide it from other people anyway. Even if it's legal, the mere fact that plenty of people will judge them very harshly for it will make them hide it anyway.
Exactly, honestly I'm surprised people even needed it to be illegal. I figured people wouldn't do it just out of principle. I thought it kind of went without saying, never mind the birth defects and social standards, it should just sort of go without saying.Jezzascmezza said:
I think anyway.... I'm not going to begrudge the people who plan to make it legal but I'm not particularly impressed either.
Anyone whose argument is "omg it's wrong": you're trying to affect legal enforcement of your taste. I despise you.
Anyone whose argument is "think of the children": first, I hate you, and second, there does not have to be children. If there is an awareness of it, and it is not happening completely hidden, it is not inconceivable that the occurrence of children born from incestuous couplings might well go down, or stay the same. You think the law is making sure such children aren't being born NOW?
I personally don't think legislation should be there to protect the tastes of the citizenry. If that IS the purpose of legislation, I propose we ban children from public places, cameras from vacations, reality shows from TV and the Internet from, well, EVERYWHERE. I adhere to a different school of thought on these things, which goes roughly as follows: "don't do it in front of me, don't tell me about it, and try not to enjoy it too much." And yes, the latter clause is meant ironically.
Anyone whose argument is "think of the children": first, I hate you, and second, there does not have to be children. If there is an awareness of it, and it is not happening completely hidden, it is not inconceivable that the occurrence of children born from incestuous couplings might well go down, or stay the same. You think the law is making sure such children aren't being born NOW?
I personally don't think legislation should be there to protect the tastes of the citizenry. If that IS the purpose of legislation, I propose we ban children from public places, cameras from vacations, reality shows from TV and the Internet from, well, EVERYWHERE. I adhere to a different school of thought on these things, which goes roughly as follows: "don't do it in front of me, don't tell me about it, and try not to enjoy it too much." And yes, the latter clause is meant ironically.
