Page 24 of 41 FirstFirst ...
14
22
23
24
25
26
34
... LastLast
  1. #461
    Mechagnome ryotte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    706
    Difficult question. Obviously it would be gross to most of us. But the mechanism that causes us to not bang our siblings is our familiarity with them in our home at a young age, so if they grew up together they wouldn't have that repulsion, besides what was morally ingrained by society and, speaking objectively and not just about this particular issue, it's dangerous to punish people for not conforming to societal norms.

    I do find it wrong to legislate morality, but if the kids actually had a significantly increased chance of significantly life-affecting abnormalities proven by several large scientific studies, then yeah, law against it. I don't know if those studies exist or if this is one of those things we've observed over time and come to believe. I understand the idea behind the genetics, but I don't know if one generation really has significant effects much of the time or if that's something we see in communities where people are relatively isolated and this happens over a few generations (some Amish communities, for example, display genetic mutations from lack of gene pool variation). But then who's to stop these kids' kids from happening to fall in love and getting married, and so on? The odds are low, sure, but in this particular instance if they KNOW mom & dad are brother and sister, it may not seem abnormal to them, they may even aspire to be like mom & dad...plus the whole getting taken away from their mother thing may lead to another generation of siblings who didn't have that "ew sibling" experience of growing up together. So honestly I don't have enough information to decide it should be illegal, no matter how disgusting society may find it.

    In this case it's a bit reprehensible that a 25yo man fell in love with a 17yo girl, and she's probably not the only one with mental issues if he intentionally was going to meet his blood family and once he got there decided he wanted to have sex with this young girl who is in fact his sister. The "omg don't bang sister" instinct from childhood wasn't there, but he was going there in order to meet his blood relatives...he shouldn't have tried to hook up with any of them, especially one 8 years younger with mental disabilities.

    I also feel sad that 3 kids got taken away. How could she be an unfit parent to 3 of the kids but okey-dokey for the other one? Either she's too bad of a parent to raise kids or she is okay to raise kids. Doesn't make sense to say "oh she'll do okay with this one, but not the others, she'd screw them up so bad there's no hope for parenting classes or anything, we just have to take them away." Also kids taken away from their parents rarely do better in foster care than with their own parents in the first place, unless said parents were actually abusive (and not slightly negligent or "off").

  2. #462
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokru View Post
    Beeing punished (going to jail is a punishment, is it not?) for having sex with your sibling because possible offspring has a higher possibilty of beeing handicapped is only another rhetoric around the same subject the Nazis had.

    Preventing (aka. punishing with sterialization) people with various genetical deseases from having handicapped children so that your "race" grows stronger
    vs.
    Punishing people for the possibility of having handicapped children so that those poor children don't have to suffer.

    Different words for the same goal: We don't want to have handicapped children.
    They aren't the same, this is apples and oranges.

    Incest laws are not preventing people from reproducing, merely restricting the range in which people can reproduce. We allow handicap people to reproduce under the same laws as everyone else. No one is being prevented from it, merely having their options narrowed.

    Nazis however solely prevented such a thing from happening, reducing their options to nil.
    Last edited by Vultahn; 2012-04-13 at 12:35 PM.

  3. #463
    Even though I find it utterly disgusting and just crazy, I still think that as long as both parties agreed and no one is harmed from it, it should be allowed. Imprisonment is just stupid.

  4. #464
    Quote Originally Posted by Araxie View Post
    FDR married his cousin, so... yeah. It's a big taboo in our society, that's true, BUT! Should we throw people in jail for it? Probably not, unless it's rape. How would you find out about it anyway? Police: Hey! Open up! We see you in there, stop it! That better not be your cousin!
    Nobody is sugesting starting a nation wide man hunt for incest, just don't make it more acceptable through making it legal.

  5. #465
    I don't know if they should go to jail, but they shouldn't be allowed to have children if they choose to have an incestuous relationship. Some people might say that that is taking away the rights that every person has, but would you really want to have a child knowing that there is a strong chance that it might have developmental problems or a disorder that it will have to live with for the rest of its life? I wouldn't. Some of you might disagree, but that's just the way I see it.

  6. #466
    Fluffy Kitten Baiyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    York, Blighty
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Lylandra View Post
    Yeah, but in any case, when two humans reproduce, there's a given chance that the offspring will be handicapped in a certain way (trisomy, bleeding sickness, affinity to certain forms of cancer, autism, spastic symptomes...). There are cases in which that chance of two non-related people can exceed the chance of directly blood-related people and there are cases in which chances for disorders would be close to zero, even if you look at brother and sister. The question is where would you put the line? At which chance would you say it would be "responsible" to not have any children? 20%, 5%, 1% or even lower? And would you have the state pay the genetic tests for every citizen?
    That's interesting to hear. And honestly, I have no idea. It's not a hypothetical I have given much thought to. I'm just doing some early 'rapping' on the idea. Getting into the legislation of people's biological activities is really tricky, as you pointed out, it opens up a floodgate of factors to consider.

  7. #467
    No, they shouldn't be imprisoned. While it is somewhat irresponsible to have children in such a relationship, because of the higher probability of a birth defect - you could say that about people with Huntingdons disease or similar running in the family.

    It didn't used to be particularly taboo in history or even unusual for the ruling classes and monarchs to marry close family to keep power inherited, and even normal people it wouldn't have been considered outrageous. There are sound medical reasons for not persuing such a relationship in regards to having children, but if both the parties in the relationship are happy... who am I say they shouldn't persue it... I might not find it a pleasant idea for myself, but then neither would i condemn a gay lifestyle, but I choose not to persue that either.

    I don't get why people are so quick to condemn something harmless in itself that they happen to find "disgusting". I don't even understand why it's illegal to be honest... (not talking abuse here, but to theoretically consenting adults)

  8. #468
    Epic! Tokru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The end of the rainbow
    Posts
    1,740
    Quote Originally Posted by blib View Post
    Hahahahaha this is priceless, you are actually brining nazisme into a discussion on wheather or not people should fuck theire sister:P
    When the main argument as to why it has to be illegal is equally retarded as their ideology on eugenics, then yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by blib View Post
    Nazies exterminated people for being different, we want people to not fuck theire sister and needlessly bring a suffering child into the world and you dont see the difference?
    Then why does nobody here advocate punishments for people that are not blood related and do the exact same thing? There are a lot people out there freely procreating which diagnosed severe genetical defects which much higher chances of passing them to their children. But no, they a free to do it, because their partners are accidental not thier brothers/sisters.

    Quote Originally Posted by blib View Post
    For one thing I'm failry sure the nazies was mroe concerned with purity then the suffering of the child but hey why split hairs.
    So apparently the same thing is completely fine when you put words around it that you like more.

  9. #469
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    Mothers over 35 have a higher chance of producing a child with a disorder... But not necessarily a HIGH chance.
    Over the age of 40, if the % increases by 1 per year, and the percentage originally is 2%, then you'll have a 2.02% at 41, 2.04% at 42 and so on. Not exactly the same as 50%, now is it?

    Of course there need to be limits. I wasn't saying that. But fucking your brother... Well; if you really want that, and he wants it too, then why shouldn't you?
    As for cannibalism: The way humans treat their deaths with ritual is important. Cannibalism CAN be a ritual, and in some cultures, it IS. In those cases, I do not oppose it too strongly (as there is a severe health risk involved I would not advocate for the ritual either).

    I don't favour incest. Though again, you lie in order to make me look bad (in order to make your argument better). I am opposed to causing harm. And making any form of legitimate romance illegal based solely on personal bias is, in my personal morality, wrong. I might not agree with the practice, but at least I can take a step back, analyse my opinion and the situation, and conclude that, as long as no harm is caused, it is their liberty to pursue their romance.
    It is very simpel, should family life be sexualized and more nomralized in public just so one man can keep fucking his much younger and slightly mentaly challenged sister? Personal bias=morals, it's you personal bias that is causing you to make the case in favoure of this, how is your personal bias more right then mine?

  10. #470
    Bloodsail Admiral Aurust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Staten Island, NYC
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Baiyn View Post
    That's interesting to hear. And honestly, I have no idea. It's not a hypothetical I have given much thought to. I'm just doing some early 'rapping' on the idea. Getting into the legislation of people's biological activities is really tricky, as you pointed out, it opens up a floodgate of factors to consider.
    The only factor I would consider is that less governmental oversight in the vast majority of areas within society is worth almost any risk.

  11. #471
    tbh if you allow homosexuals to have sex, you kinda have to allow this, at least brother+sister can procreate.

    Love to see the same from a gay couple.
    "Have you had the dream again? A black goat with seven eyes that watches from the outside."

  12. #472
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokru View Post
    When the main argument as to why it has to be illegal is equally retarded as their ideology on eugenics, then yes.



    Then why does nobody here advocate punishments for people that are not blood related and do the exact same thing? There are a lot people out there freely procreating which diagnosed severe genetical defects which much higher chances of passing them to their children. But no, they a free to do it, because their partners are accidental not thier brothers/sisters.



    So apparently the same thing is completely fine when you put words around it that you like more.
    Do you consider stoping a pregnant woman from drinking and smoking under the pregnancy nazisme?

  13. #473
    I think psychiatric courses would be more beneficial to all parties rather than prison, which will do very little to prevent their feelings for eachother.
    One cannot simply quit wow his way into Mordor.

  14. #474
    It is very simpel, should family life be sexualized
    Thats like saying legalising gay relationships has sexualised all male friendships ^^

  15. #475
    Quote Originally Posted by akamurdoch View Post
    tbh if you allow homosexuals to have sex, you kinda have to allow this, at least brother+sister can procreate.

    Love to see the same from a gay couple.
    Sex isn't solely about reproduction, don't kid yourself. Biologically speaking solely it is ofcourse, however more than just humans have sex for pleasure so it isn't as foreign a concept as it was earlier in the history of evolution, a new step maybe.

    Also homosexuality is very often found in nature.
    Last edited by Vultahn; 2012-04-13 at 12:42 PM.

  16. #476
    Quote Originally Posted by Aurust View Post
    The only factor I would consider is that less governmental oversight in the vast majority of areas within society is worth almost any risk.
    How very noble of you taking that risk considering you are not the one taking any risks..

    You can ask a child born with defects if it was totally worth getting them so his father could fuck his sister.

  17. #477
    The Lightbringer Firebane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In a Bordeaux vineyard
    Posts
    3,709
    It fucks up the gene pool; and 2 kids are handicapped, I'm amazed it's only half of them.

    Its unfair on the kids, and it shouldn't be allowed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boubouille View Post
    I'm just being a smart ass at this point.

  18. #478
    Quote Originally Posted by Maelle View Post
    Thats like saying legalising gay relationships has sexualised all male friendships ^^
    No and it baffles me that people make this comaprision. If you are atracted to men you are gay if not you are not, simple. Your sister is a girl, being atracted to a girl does not go against your sexual preferances, you just never think about your sister that way because she is your sister.

    ---------- Post added 2012-04-13 at 12:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by akamurdoch View Post
    tbh if you allow homosexuals to have sex, you kinda have to allow this, at least brother+sister can procreate.

    Love to see the same from a gay couple.
    You use the bigest drawback in the situation as a pro?

  19. #479
    Incest or no, sounds like he took advantage of an under aged mentally handicapped person... It's fucking disgusting but sex between two consenting adults should not be illegal incest(gross) or no. Banging your retarded sister on the other hand most definitively should be. I'm not saying I support incest in any way, all I'm saying is if two sick ass weirdos want to bang... well what ever it's not really my business.

  20. #480
    Quote Originally Posted by rederoin View Post
    If no babies are born out of it, nobody will get hurt. Why lock somebody up who isen't hurting anybody?


    Thats a stupid reason to lock somebody up.
    You clearly didnt read the OP, they had 4 children, 2 of them have problem, and the mother as mild mental disorder too......IMO they asked for it, and the men just basicly (personal opinion) used the girl effectively manipulating her. IMO incest + mother with predominant mental disorder problem ....they were bound to have mental handicap. Hell we try has much as possible to NEVER breed dogs with their close family so they dont become stupid and full of mental and physical problem.

    Banning incest isnt only a question of morality but also for the human species intregrity as a whole stronger breed. Just fyi most country sterilization hevaily mental handicaped people (at least in canada we do), incest should not happen in the same case, but we cannot sterilize them since they arent heavily mentally impaired. You want to marry your sister ....fine we sterilize the fuck out of you is how I see it would be alright with me ( I am not someone with morality issue, because those can be sometime borderline stupid and therefore in direct opposition to science and technologic advancement)
    ENGLISH ISNT MY MAIN SPEC
    YOU NOW BREATH CONSCIOUSLY

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •