Normal Marriage V. Same-Sex Marriage V. Polygamy V. Incest

[quote name='dmaul1114']No one is saying any of that. It is disgusting IMO. And it should be against social norms and people should be shamed etc.

It just shouldn't be illegal if it's two consenting adults. We can shame whoever we want as a society. But we shouldn't legislate social norms.[/QUOTE]

But where do you draw the line? There have to be some behavioral laws in place to protect potential victims. Like age of consent, like animal abuse (why shouldn't you be able to stick a firecracker up a frog's ass-it may be offensive, but where's the crime?), like threatening speech (not actually attacking someone, but threatening to attack them).

Our society, and medical professionals tell us incest is hurtful. What's so wrong about creating a law that prevents it? And if you don't think there should be one, why can't an emotionally mature 13 year old girl, have a sexual relationship with a 50 year old man? It's a can of worms. It's why we have laws to govern some types of behavior that society says is unacceptable.
 
[quote name='Clak']But there are plenty of things which increase the risk of birth defects in children, we don't ban all of those. A woman can drink and smoke as much as she wants, and society might call her a terrible mother, but that isn't illegal to do that despite the potential for harm to the baby.

Lets be honest here, banning incest is more about the ick factor than any real concern for a potential child.[/QUOTE]

The ick factor is certainly #1, but I think there is significant concern that the situation makes it far too easy for children or those in defenseless positions to be exploited. Your dad is your parent. He pressures you to have a sexual relationship as an adult, and he has psychological power over you. Being told to do something by your boss at work carries more weight than the secretary. Same principle applies.
 
Polygamy would seem to create a legally unequal relationship between the “wives” or non-married spouses.
 
[quote name='berzirk']The ick factor is certainly #1, but I think there is significant concern that the situation makes it far too easy for children or those in defenseless positions to be exploited. Your dad is your parent. He pressures you to have a sexual relationship as an adult, and he has psychological power over you. Being told to do something by your boss at work carries more weight than the secretary. Same principle applies.[/QUOTE]

That's still the issue of consent though.

Nothing wrong with a boss and subordinate getting involved in a purely consensual relationship. But their are sexual harassment laws to protect against bosses pressuring subordinates into sexual relationships.

Difference with incest is that it's harder to have a law that focuses on exploitation unless it's actual rape. So I do get your point.

It's not like this is something I feel strongly about. I'm fine with incest being illegal. Just saying I'd also be ok with it being legalized for consenting adults as I just don't give a fuck what people do if they aren't harming me or anyone else.
 
[quote name='nasum']Dear berzirk,

As much as I am a fan of entropy, please do not breed.

Thank You,
nasum[/QUOTE]
Dear nasum,

Too late. I have two beautiful children, neither of which I plan to f**k. Sorry to disappoint. You'll have to find pics elsewhere.

Love,
berzirk
 
I'm not too proud to admit it, I lol'd...
the "where's the crime in animal abuse" thing is kinda stomach turning though.
 
[quote name='nasum']I'm not too proud to admit it, I lol'd...
the "where's the crime in animal abuse" thing is kinda stomach turning though.[/QUOTE]

;)

The disgust in such a belief was exactly my point. I do think stuffing a firecracker up a frog's ass is a crime, or the abuse of animals is a crime (legally and ethically), just as I think incest is a behavioral crime that can still have a willing victim. Perhaps blowing a dog would've been a better analogy, but it was my effort at saying I'm A-OK with behavior-governing laws for acts that society deems to be grotesque and hurtful, even if those involved consent.
 
[quote name='berzirk'];)
Perhaps blowing a dog would've been a better analogy, but it was my effort at saying I'm A-OK with behavior-governing laws for acts that society deems to be grotesque and hurtful, even if those involved consent.[/QUOTE]

A dog can't give consent, so yeah, that's irrelevant to the point you were trying to make anyway.

I just hate any laws that make anything consensual between adults (or a person themselves like choosing to use a drug) a crime. If people aren't hurting others they should be able to do anything they want to themselves, and to anyone else who consents to it (and is of age to consent, not being coerced/exploited etc.).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']A dog can't give consent, so yeah, that's irrelevant to the point you were trying to make anyway.

I just hate any laws that make anything consensual between adults (or a person themselves like choosing to use a drug) a crime. If people aren't hurting others they should be able to do anything they want to themselves, and to anyone else who consents to it (and is of age to consent, not being coerced/exploited etc.).[/QUOTE]

I hear ya, but you keep mentioning the age of consent, which I assume you approve of, but that concept isn't much different than putting a ban on incest. Why can't the age of consent be 12 years old? One would say because a 12 year old lacks the maturity or emotional well being to make good decisions, right? So when a parent is pressuring sex with their child, whether they're 12, or 21, having a parent pressure you to do something, is much different than the neighbor kid pressuring you, potentially putting you in an emotionally susceptible position.
 
The age is arbitrary, but well accepted.

And again, something needs to be in place to stop coercion. As I said before, nothing wrong with a boss sleeping with subordinates if it's just a consensual relationship--but we have sexual harrassment laws to stop that.

They key is to focus the law on abusive situations and not on outlawing whole categories of behaviors just because we don't like them.

Lots of people would still like to ban alcohol for moral reasons, because of drunk driving and other problems it causes etc. Prohibition showed that was faulty and it's best to just focus the law on the problem behaviors like DUI, public intoxication etc. and not ban the whole practice.

The same should be applied to drugs, prostitution and other things. Legislate abuses related to these things, not the whole behavior itself as the practice itself usually doesn't hurt anyone other than those willing involved. Focus the laws on the exceptions to that.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The age is arbitrary, but well accepted.

And again, something needs to be in place to stop coercion. As I said before, nothing wrong with a boss sleeping with subordinates if it's just a consensual relationship--but we have sexual harrassment laws to stop that.

They key is to focus the law on abusive situations and not on outlawing whole categories of behaviors just because we don't like them.

Lots of people would still like to ban alcohol for moral reasons, because of drunk driving and other problems it causes etc. Prohibition showed that was faulty and it's best to just focus the law on the problem behaviors like DUI, public intoxication etc. and not ban the whole practice.

The same should be applied to drugs, prostitution and other things. Legislate abuses related to these things, not the whole behavior itself as the practice itself usually doesn't hurt anyone other than those willing involved. Focus the laws on the exceptions to that.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. On the incest one, agree to disagree. I find the behavior to be so abhorrent, not to mention the emotional and physical (birth defects) ramifications to be so significant, that outlawing it is an acceptable lost right to me.
 
How about this situation, a situation which does happen occasionally. Say that two people who have never met before get together and even get married, later on they somehow find out they're actually brother and sister but were seperated at birth and adopted by different parents.

Is this still wrong?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The age is arbitrary, but well accepted.[/QUOTE]

So is not having sex with your own kids! Are people actually arguing "incest is cool and all but just not for me"???
 
[quote name='javeryh']So is not having sex with your own kids! Are people actually arguing "incest is cool and all but just not for me"???[/QUOTE]

No. Everyone has said it's disgusting.

But that the government shouldn't be in the business of passing laws against things that people find disgusting that don't harm anyone.

Gay sex, as well as even hetero sex acts like sodomy and oral sex, where (and still are in some places) against the law because people found them gross (or considered them sins) etc.

Incest has added risks of coercion/molestation and birth defects--so that does it make it different than those things above. But, again, put laws in place to deal with those things rather than making it a crime for two consenting (without coercion), related adults to get it on.

Just cause me, you and the vast majority find it fucking disgusting isn't a reason two consenting, related adults should get criminal records for fucking.
 
[quote name='Clak']How about this situation, a situation which does happen occasionally. Say that two people who have never met before get together and even get married, later on they somehow find out they're actually brother and sister but were seperated at birth and adopted by different parents.

Is this still wrong?[/QUOTE]

Let's assume that by "occasionally" you actually mean an episode of Melrose Place because if you can point me to any proof that this has ever happened more than once in recorded history I'll be shocked. Anyway, a situation like that would be unfortunate but also kind of after the fact. Wrong? Like morally wrong? I don't know but I don't think so - I mean knowledge has to factor in at some point. I don't think incest a strict liability crime, is it? For every rule you can always point out an extreme case where the application of the rule would be unfortunate but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the rules in place to begin with.


[quote name='dmaul1114']No. Everyone has said it's disgusting.

But that the government shouldn't be in the business of passing laws against things that people find disgusting that don't harm anyone.

Gay sex, as well as even hetero sex acts like sodomy and oral sex, where (and still are in some places) against the law because people found them gross (or considered them sins) etc.

Incest has added risks of coercion/molestation and birth defects--so that does it make it different than those things above. But, again, put laws in place to deal with those things rather than making it a crime for two consenting (without coercion), related adults to get it on.

Just cause me, you and the vast majority find it fucking disgusting isn't a reason two consenting, related adults should get criminal records for fucking.[/QUOTE]

You are talking as if there are a large majority of incestuous relationships that are 100% consensual from both parties involved who as a group are being oppressed by our laws against incest. This is clearly not the case. I also believe that by definition an incestuous relationship is harmful - physically, mentally, emotionally - take your pick - to at least one participant (not to mention the whole kids thing) in probably 99.99% of all incestuous relationships. It's OK for it to be illegal.
 
And you're also focusing on things like father/daughter, brother/sister etc. where the majority of issues with marriage and incest (which is the topic of the thread) are things like cousins.

And it's not so hard to fathom consensual relationships there, and more common for people to not even know who their cousins are. Especially in today's world where in many families, being close with extended families are a thing of the past. I hardly saw any of my aunts, uncles, great aunts etc. growing up (much less now)--much less cousins etc.
 
If its against the laws of Nature...

two relatives create weaker offspring, two of the same sex unable to create anything.

Thread Closed

Signing off.

Seacrest out.
 
[quote name='phantasyx']If its against the laws of Nature...

two relatives create weaker offspring, two of the same sex unable to create anything.

Thread Closed

Signing off.

Seacrest out.[/QUOTE]

Hey retard, way to think outside the box.
Two OLD people HETEROSEXUAL people aren't able to create babies. Some heterosexual people whom ARE young are sterile and they can't produce children.

But I'm sure "that's ok" huh?
 
[quote name='Clak']You realize homosexuality exists in nature, right?

Of course you don't.[/QUOTE]

Ummm... now, I'm not saying anything for or against homosexuality or incest with this statement I'm about to make, but...

You realize that incest exists in nature, right? Don't ever get into raising hamsters... ugh.
 
[quote name='lilboo']Hey retard, way to think outside the box.
Two OLD people HETEROSEXUAL people aren't able to create babies. Some heterosexual people whom ARE young are sterile and they can't produce children.

But I'm sure "that's ok" huh?[/QUOTE]

My girlfriend and I don't plan on having babies either. I guess we should be officially prohibited from ever getting married too. :cry:

also, that should be "who", not "whom" up there.
 
[quote name='camoor']I think marriage is a useful concept, like everything else it just has to be updated to stay with the times.[/QUOTE]

I feel left out with my harem of robots, puppets, and pet rocks. Jigsaw taught me the value of true love, but damn my ideological faction isn't up to numerical par yet :roll: Alpha Centauri Cloning Vats, go!
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Ummm... now, I'm not saying anything for or against homosexuality or incest with this statement I'm about to make, but...

You realize that incest exists in nature, right? Don't ever get into raising hamsters... ugh.[/QUOTE]

I like the nature argument because a lot of bad things like sadism, murder, and solar power are ALL-NATURAL and must be cereal-box good for you. MMMM, VITAMINS ARE GOOD! I wanna go outside right now at 2 am and shout to the neighbors: "Contract cancer, it exists in nature!"

But yeah, from an evolutionary point of view, incest might be good for the hamsters if the alternative means their species is going to die out, and if you think about it that's probably what a hamster feels like when they're in captivity. For all they know they're never going to get out so they might as well get it going on with the nearest family member (by the way, captivity is a natural state for animals, right?)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Ummm... now, I'm not saying anything for or against homosexuality or incest with this statement I'm about to make, but...

You realize that incest exists in nature, right? Don't ever get into raising hamsters... ugh.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I have actually. Mine never got to get it on because mom ate da babies.:bomb:
 
[quote name='Clak']Yeah, I have actually. Mine never got to get it on because mom ate da babies.:bomb:[/QUOTE]

Another rather icky thing. But I suppose it happens in nature, so it's cool for humans to start eating their young? (Again, this isn't supposed to be any kind of comment for or against homosexuality or incest - just pointing out the obvious, that the idea of something happening in nature doesn't mean it's something worth emulating)
 
There are a variety of reasons why an animal might eat it's young. From a survival standpoint, eating their young makes perfect sense. People do it too in times of desperation, to young and old alike. So we actually have, and continue to do it , and it isn't emulating anything , we do it as naturally as any other animal.
 
only here could cannibalism be somehow or another construed as a pro or con argument for homosexuality and incest...
 
It's like there's some meta game going on in every thread: "how many steps does it take to connect the thread topic to total batshittery."

What's the best score right now? Two leaps? Marriage -> Behaviors found in nature -> SHITKNOCKING CLOWNTIME!
 
[quote name='Strell']It's like there's some meta game going on in every thread: "how many steps does it take to connect the thread topic to total batshittery."

What's the best score right now? Two leaps? Marriage -> Behaviors found in nature -> SHITKNOCKING CLOWNTIME![/QUOTE]

HAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAA. This is the second thread in a row that Strell has won with a walk-off shot like this.

I wonder if the people who are saying we all run around f****g our relatives and eating each other, really type that with a straight face. It's possible we're just slow in picking up new fads in Oregon, but those type of actions would be rather rare out here.
 
[quote name='Clak']I keep feeding the bob, I'm sorry.[/QUOTE]

No, thank phantasyx for trying to use "nature" as a justification for a moral and behavioral code.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top