Poll: I know I'm probably going to hell for this, but...
- Thread starter NuOmicronMu
- Start date
I was just sorta citing the Bible not picking up on anything in particular.savandicus said:
My point is that everything is somewhat incestuous so therefore we shouldn't get bogged down in what is and isn't incest, if a couple love each other then I feel they should be free to express that love, be they brother or sister, your average hetrosexual couple, homosexual, bisexual, into people of different races, whatever, all love is sorta equal and therefore if they wanna do it I don't see why I should paint it as wrong as long as it's consensual
No I do not consider gays immoral (I have very good friends who are gay, and my girlfriend is bisexual). Gays are the way they are, not out of choice. Whereas people engaging in incest do so due to repressed feelings or psychosocial compensation, this is a product of nurture, whereas homosexuality is a product of nature. (You're not an arsehole, it's fair considering what a douche I must seem for my opinions.ciortas1 said:
If it takes place solely between consenting adults, then the law have no business regulating it.
Of course, procreation ultimately doesn't take place solely between consenting adults, so there's an argument for criminalizing incestuous breeding. But since sex and pregnancy aren't linked anymore, sexual relationships - especially those from which no offspring can result anyway, like same sex relationships - shouldn't be banned.
One could perhaps make sterilization a requirement for the legality of the heterosexual ones though. But that's such an intensive invasion of an individual's personal life, so probably better to simply outlaw incestuous procreation, and punish those then do so anyway (which is usually the only way these kinds of relationships are discovered by the authorities anyway, so it'd make for a far more enforceable law as well).
Generally, it takes some pretty fucked up internal psychological conditions and/or external environmental conditions to want to bed your brother/sister/father etc., but human sexuality have tons of bizarre outlets, and as long as they take place only between consenting adults, then banning them should be out of the question.
If you want to counter this stuff (or rather the social instability which is frequently, but not always, behind it), more extensive social services to support unstable families, and access to free mental health care, would be the way to go. Unlike some unenforceable ban, those measures might also actually work to reduce it.
Of course, procreation ultimately doesn't take place solely between consenting adults, so there's an argument for criminalizing incestuous breeding. But since sex and pregnancy aren't linked anymore, sexual relationships - especially those from which no offspring can result anyway, like same sex relationships - shouldn't be banned.
One could perhaps make sterilization a requirement for the legality of the heterosexual ones though. But that's such an intensive invasion of an individual's personal life, so probably better to simply outlaw incestuous procreation, and punish those then do so anyway (which is usually the only way these kinds of relationships are discovered by the authorities anyway, so it'd make for a far more enforceable law as well).
Generally, it takes some pretty fucked up internal psychological conditions and/or external environmental conditions to want to bed your brother/sister/father etc., but human sexuality have tons of bizarre outlets, and as long as they take place only between consenting adults, then banning them should be out of the question.
If you want to counter this stuff (or rather the social instability which is frequently, but not always, behind it), more extensive social services to support unstable families, and access to free mental health care, would be the way to go. Unlike some unenforceable ban, those measures might also actually work to reduce it.
It should be illegal. It's not incest I have a problem with, it's the results. Imagine a child gets a disability because their parents are related. Any child with a disability gets enough abuse at school as it is. If the other kids at their school find out their parents are brother and sister, it'll be a miracle if they make it through education without some serious depression and a case of Borderline Personality Disorder. But it wont end there. Adults are just as disgusted by incest as children are, if not more. Plenty of people will avoid them and they will be viciously discriminated against. Couple that with a potentially major disability that they will have to cope with their whole life and they will have one of the most miserable lives imaginable. If incest was legalised, even if a law was passed saying you could not have children, there would still be some people who would. How would you enforce a law like that? Forced abortions? Would any child who is born as the product of an incestuous relationship be an illegal child? Does that mean they have less rights than other children? They aren't a valid citizen of the nation they are born in? No. It should be illegal, thats the only way.
Pretty much this, although incest is pretty much evolution sped up about 1600x so it can't be all bad to see the results.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Not in real life, obviously, but in META ALTERNATE WORLD it'd be awesome to see.
I think my main issue with legalising it is the possibility for the law to be abused. There's no grey area with incest laws (it either happened or it didn't), whereas trying to prove consent or lack thereof is a whole different issue. If it could be guaranteed that it would be kept between consenting adults, then sure, go for it, but that's not a certain thing. Of course, if someone's the kind of person that would abuse that law, the current total illegality of it won't stop them, so my argument is pretty much invalid.
In the UK, first cousins are allowed to marry, so presumably the risk of genetic defects is sufficiently reduced at that level of separation. I'm still against making siblings having children legal, though. It's one thing if someone has a hereditary genetic illness, or if they're a woman over 35, because that's not something that they can help. However, deliberately conceiving a child in an incestuous situation (where there is undoubtedly choice involved) isn't right, IMO.
In the UK, first cousins are allowed to marry, so presumably the risk of genetic defects is sufficiently reduced at that level of separation. I'm still against making siblings having children legal, though. It's one thing if someone has a hereditary genetic illness, or if they're a woman over 35, because that's not something that they can help. However, deliberately conceiving a child in an incestuous situation (where there is undoubtedly choice involved) isn't right, IMO.
2 grown consenting adults of sound mind are involved, pay their taxes and all that crap just like everyone else? Let 'em have at it. It's none of my business. They want kids? Also none of my business. We (Amerikans) let all manner of screwed up people reproduce everyday and indoctrinate kids into unhealthy genetic trees, horrifying living conditions and outright terrifying cultural mores, I can't see this as being any different.
honestly as long as you don't go around saying HEY I JUST F**** MY SISTER. who is going to know anyways? It may be illegal but unless the government puts cameras in the bedroom nobody is going to know. In other words it doesn't matter if its illegal if two consenting siblings want to screw they have probably already done it.
But it isn't inherently unnatural, is it? Plenty of animals mate with their parents/siblings/whatever, look at lions. And I'm fairly sure that at least some of those pairs have offspring. So if by 'unnatural', you mean a sexual deviation from the norm unique to humans, then no, I don't think it is.