"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
The children they bring to the world, you know there is a reason people shouldnt have kids with their own family members..
In a country like pakistan inbreed is such a huge problem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN-zHKTtdsA
Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.
Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
Right. So you've just contradicted yourself. Obviously when you said:
Yet if society made apostasy and homosexuality punishable by death, you would disapprove. So my point is that just because society thinks that X should be immoral does not mean they are right.It's not about his standars, mine or yours. It's about societys. If society decides that this should be accepted then I will bown down to the idea since my only objection, if you remove kids from it, is moraly.
You really dont see the difference between a sexuality and a singel case of atraction? Do you think people that commit incest are only atracted to theire relatives? Decimate theire lives? Really?:P There have been plenty of people I have wanted to have sex with which I didn't without it ruining my life.
Incest is not a life choice:P Me having sex with the girl next door is not a life choice.. neither is having sex with your sister, its a case of atraction leading to sex.
Banning homosexuality is banning them from ever finding a partner, banning incest is stoping people from fucking theire sister...
I really don't believe that incest has a greater following than death metal but ok, let's accept the premise. Is death metal a health risk to your newborns? Not directly, no.
And by the logic that we're "using them" by imposing laws on them, ok we're USING everyone who ever submitted to a law! We've imposing are vicious norms and ideas on people that did nothing but be born in our country; how awful.
In our culture it's seen as gross and I do think it isn't right but in many cultures it's concidered normal having sex with your relatives. I think it is idiotic he got locked up as they both agreed and technically he didnt do anything wrong but morally in our eyes he did something horrible.
You do realise you are not making sense here?
"So my point is that just because society thinks that X should be immoral does not mean they are right." It means you doesn't think they are right.
Just as I find stoning homosexuals wrong.
Just because I accept that something that is purely a moral choice is left to society to decide wheather or not it should be legal does not mean I agree with the outcome. You cannot understand this nuance? You should also put a little emphasis on the part where I said "that is PURELY a moral choice".
Oh, I do.
I see no difference between a knight templar state legislating against a sexual preference and who someone is attracted to.
You sneer and yet I'd like to see how you'd feel if some authority came to your house and told you that you're no longer allowed to see your girlfriend/wife forever.Do you think people that commit incest are only atracted to theire relatives? Decimate theire lives? Really?:P
So you're comparing the fact that you chose not to sleep with some people as the same as the state seperating a couple by force.There have been plenty of people I have wanted to have sex with which I didn't without it ruining my life.
What?
It is their choice to have a relationship. Not yours. Not the governments. Not mine. No-one's but theirs.Incest is not a life choice:P Me having sex with the girl next door is not a life choice.. neither is having sex with your sister, its a case of atraction leading to sex.
Not true: it is banning homosexuals from having partners of the same sex (since of course, many deny that attraction towards the same sex is biological).Banning homosexuality is banning them from ever finding a partner, banning incest is stoping people from fucking theire sister...
The same is true about usury, yet the prime motive force of (current) banking IS EXACTLY that! AND NONE EVEN TALK ABOUT IT! And it is the prime reason of every crisis and war ever made / fought!
"It spreads poverty and slavery, while at the same time denying the "truth" and freedom to the people!"
// sorry for hijacking the thread
Rather unusual that in every mythology incest between gods was quite a common and frequent theme.
Whether it has a larger following than incest is irrelevent.
How is two siblings having sexual intercourse with each other a health risk to anyone but themselves?
No, you're tearing people apart just because of what other siblings might do.And by the logic that we're "using them" by imposing laws on them, ok we're USING everyone who ever submitted to a law! We've imposing are vicious norms and ideas on people that did nothing but be born in our country; how awful.
I think it's an absolute shame that people think it's ok to be put in jail just for having consensual sex with your sibling.
All those arguments concerning the health of unborn children are nothing but void and pathetic. If that really was the concern then everyone who has a genetic desease shouldn't be allowed to procreate too. I would love to see the uproar when something like this was announced because that's exactly what the Nazis were trying to do.
The kids, kids that come from an incestuous relationship are more likely to be handicapped or have problems due to the fact that both parents have the same genes, other than that no it doesn't harm anyone else but that doesn't mean it's right.
I don't think he should be imprisoned for this but then they knew the risks when they found out they were Brother and Sister... why the Grandad didn't go to the police before they had kids is beyond me =/
For the Horde!
Ok, I've only read a few pages of this, and this topic is all over the place....
Let me ask a few questions first:
What was the crime they were charged with?
Unlike the arbitrary common law prevailing in english speaking countries, the continental law (which in case of almost all states in Europe was in some way influenced by the German Law and they evolved based on their initial theories about everything) always has a strictly defined Legal Value (so to say, donno how to translate it to english terms) whose damage is punishable. No criminal act can be arbitrarily invented if it has nothing to to with a particular legal value, so which one did they damage?
You also can't be punished for inflicting damage on something that doesn't exist in the first place (for all those people saying ''it's the children that are harmed''). This isn't my opinion, this is the common agreement and understanding of criminal law in continental laws. You can't punish a ''potential'' other than a potential do cause mass damage to some legal value (such as destroying road signs which could then lead to car crashes, even if no car crash yet happened, destroying those signs is punishable).
So which legal value did they harm?
About the incest being legalized and stuff, you really have to distinguish the situations when there is a child involved from those that aren't. A child in the legal term is someone under the age of 14, and a minor is from 14 to 16 according to the usual criminal law of continental states (even though that's not the so called ''legal age'' which is somewhere 18 and in other countries 21). If consensual sex between a non-family related couple of 25 years and 17 years isn't punishable, why is it punishable when it involves incest? Unless this whole story really has absolutely nothing to do with incest and strictly to do with the age of participants.
About drinking pregnant women and social services - their children aren't taken away because drinking is bad - they are taken away from them because every child has their personal non-commercial right of free and undisturbed development and growth, which is harmed by the mother not fulfilling her legal obligations of providing the best possible care according to her abilities. Not because ''drinking is bad'' -.-
Also for those comments ''I think it's wrong and therefore it should be illegal'', seriously....
Criminal law exists to prevent the harm of those legal values without which social life (or living normally in a society) would be impossible. NOT because something is ''disgusting'' or just plain ''wrong''. There are very strict rules about what is legally punishable and what isn't. You don't send someone to prison for theft of 1 cigarette.
Last edited by mmocd8a3ba3df1; 2012-04-13 at 11:06 AM.
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
What would you do, if you had such feelings for example for your sister (I don't know your gender, I guess male)? And fshe reciprocrates them.I love my close relatives very much, but the idea of being in sexual relationships with any of them is disgusting beyond belief, and I think it's a good thing that we as a society do not try to legitimize it.
You can't control your sexual affection to someone. If you are in love, you are in love. That the society hates yoi for that, doesn't not generally kill these feelings.
It would be nice, if you try not to be so ignorant a la: "I think it's wrong, they should end in hell" (I know you didn't say it that way, I know that I'm exaggerating right now, but you show off a quite intolerant attitude)