Just curious; is it illegal to have gay sex with a sibbling aswell?
Just curious; is it illegal to have gay sex with a sibbling aswell?
So this is the point you claim no one's addressing.
Did you know that an aggressor doesn't have to be the victim's family for the victim to not want to accuse him? It could be a loan shark is heavily in illicit debt too, forcing himself on the victim because he knows that if the victim went to the police, she'd get into great trouble too. In such cases where there is a form of psychological coercion involved, some kind of vile blackmail, it's considered a case of aggravated rape with charges just beyond that in most civilized countries.
You are thinking of ways to portray these sort of coercions as uniquely incestuous, yet you don't realise they are part of a greater, separate branch of offenses. This is the main problem. You are hell-bent on tying everything possible to incest, and you aren't willing in the slightest to concede that doing so intellectually disingenuous. You are failing to see distinctions that as plain as day, though whether on purpose or otherwise, I can't tell.
In the sort of case you cited, the law is already adequately equipped to handling. Incest-specific laws are once again unnecessary.
You're mis-reading me is the problem. I didn't say "Legally enforced 'ick' factors are perfectly acceptable logical grounds" - it's absolutely illogical, that's what I was saying in my first post to which you responded. Modern social norms are based largely on social customs, superstititions and stigmas - the taboo of incest being one of them.
The argument against incest is based on harm to potential children - but if no children are created - then no children can be harmed - and that argument collapses. Therefore, our (society) continued predilection against incest is not based solely on the baby argument, but an 'ick' factor - and it's perfectly normal to make laws based solely on shared disgust: regardless of logic.
I'm using Sharia law to suggest that all cultures define their laws not based on what it logical - that reason doesn't play a part in it. We collectively decide what good and bad are, we decide what the laws are - and not a single Philosophy of Logic major in the world is employed in the process.You're using Sharia Law as an example of "acceptable" actions taken because of social norms, that alone is reprehensible beyond hope of reason. It's a culture that is literally twisted, perverted, and incapable of societal evolution because it's shackled to insane notions; again based on nothing more than an ancient system of control.
Sorry, Quetzl, but I've been the one acknowledging the difference all along; that's why incest laws are a necessity.
The circumstances that lead to, and fall out from, incest are why the law views it differently in Scotland. Once again, you're arguing on some theoretical basis that's against the decision trained legal regulators made and the conclusion they came to after being properly educated in the subject. Do you honestly expect your diatribe to wash? As for the criticism that I'm tying everything to incest, this is the point of the debate I take my leave; I've been consistent throughout this discussion that incest is a specific form of abuse, and that's why it needs its own legislation.
Frankly, it's utterly bizarre that I'm now being criticised for doing something that I've not done, leaving you to make the point for me.
Incest is illegal because it's a form of abuse that other laws, at least in Scotland, do not cover. Don't try and turn my argument into something it's never been because you now know I've answered your (and the OP's) question. I'm Scottish. We educate our people here. Part of that means that Internet debate tactics are pierced for what they are the moment they appear.
Have fun continuing to argue that incest is A-Okay in a country where its professional legal representatives intellectually and logically disagree, while ignoring all of the reasons why it's not okay. It won't be with me.
Although we consider Incest to be taboo, if you were to have been raised a monarch in Feudal Europe you would have not had the same preconceived notions about incest. I want to make myself clear I am not talking about incestuous rape. I am talking about two consenting adults committing incest. If it is bad because it does harm to the child you find yourself arguing from a slippery slope. I could very well tell two alcoholics that they cannot reproduce because they will have unfavorable offspring. Gay and incestuous Marriage are comparable because most of us have preconceived notions about one or the other. If the argument is 'marriage for everyone' how can you argue against a couple wanting to entering into an incestuous marriage.
just gonna point out, from a biological view point, the female human is perfectly ready by the age of 15 to have children, and in fact the ages of 15-18 are the best times to do this, speaking purely from a biological standpoint, it is society and politics that have put a ban on such things, and even then, u still have millions of underage pregnancies partly due to ignorance or inability to use contraceptives, but why is wrong/bad when biologically, there is nothing to support a "no" vote.