Page 17 of 41 FirstFirst ...
7
15
16
17
18
19
27
... LastLast
  1. #321
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Makronette View Post
    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.
    Disabled people have a great risk of having disabled children as well, should we ban them from having children as well?
    And who are you to judge what's right and wrong?

  2. #322
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Skavau View Post
    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).
    Not true, homosexual behaviour IS a part of them genetically as much as it is to have say, blue eyes. Not only that but it happens in a so many species:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...ior_in_animals

    Those are just the documented ones too, I expect many many more species to also do so.

    Incest however creates issues with the genetics of the child, resulting in much higher risks of deformities etc, and each generation that inbreeds results in a significantly higher chance each generation.

  3. #323
    Quote Originally Posted by Skavau View Post
    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.


    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.

    What?


    It is their choice to have a relationship. Not yours. Not the governments. Not mine. No-one's but theirs.


    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).
    You claim you know the difference between a singel atraction and a sexuality and yet you do not. The two would only be comparable if people which commited incest was only atracted to relatives.

    If my wife was my sister I would be completly fine with it.

    I compare the fact that I chose to sleep with some people and not with other to someone chosing to sleep with their sister.

    Yes that is their choise and it is my choice to belive it should be illgeal which is my right.

    The last one is so silly I'm not even gonna bother.
    Last edited by blib; 2012-04-13 at 11:07 AM.

  4. #324
    Incest is the best, put your sister to the test.

  5. #325
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Vultahn View Post
    Not true, homosexual behaviour IS a part of them genetically as much as it is to have say, blue eyes. Not only that but it happens in a so many species:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...ior_in_animals

    Those are just the documented ones too, I expect many many more species to also do so.
    I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying that many people deny that it is biological and insist that homosexuals have misplaced feelings, been influenced by negative influences on society and can be cured. They would use that as an argument to prohibit it. Just as people argue for incest to be prohibited.

  6. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by Skavau View Post
    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.
    Again, it's a risk to their potential children, and again, you're foolish if you believe all "incestual" relationships would even care if they produced offspring.

    Tearing people apart? They know EXACTLY what they're getting into, and in today's society it's simply foolish to expect otherwise. If you were a king in egypt a few thousand years ago you could knock yourself out though; you see society evolved.

    ---------- Post added 2012-04-13 at 11:05 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Arridor View Post
    Disabled people have a great risk of having disabled children as well, should we ban them from having children as well?
    And who are you to judge what's right and wrong?
    WE aren't the judges, we didn't make these laws, however I agree with them fully

  7. #327
    Disabled people have a great risk of having disabled children as well, should we ban them from having children as well?
    Depends... Is the disability genetic? Then yes, we should ban those disabled from siring (but not from adopting) children.
    (Oh, and yes: We should imprison alcoholic parents.)
    And who are you to judge what's right and wrong?
    I'm human, that's who. Human society hinges on the fact that humans like myself judge other humans (again, like myself). Without judgement, there can be no society.
    That isn't to say that my judgement doesn't conflict, but by judging my fellow humans as humans, and by not relying in an infallible authority, I can make much fairer judgement than those that hide behind something they refer to as 'greater than themselves.' I also take full responsibility for my own judgement, which means that my judgement can be altered when new evidence presents itself.
    Last edited by Stir; 2012-04-13 at 11:09 AM.

  8. #328
    Quote Originally Posted by Skavau View Post
    No, it means that just because society thinks X is wrong does not mean it actually is wrong.


    Saudi Arabian society and civil law disagrees and considers it dangerous. What is your advice to a homosexual stuck under that system?
    It does mean it is wrong in that society, that does not mean everyone think it is wrong but in this case I agree with society.

    I do not want to live in a society where families view eachother as sex objects.

    And I disagree with Saud Arabian law. Again the last part of your post is so silly I'm not gonna bother.

  9. #329
    So many stereotypes...

  10. #330
    Well I don't see why it's illegal, or even taboo for that matter. I'd call a brother and sister hooking up less weird than old and young people getting together, or even interracial relationships, and a hell of a lot less weird than homosexuality. Since all of those things aren't really all that frowned upon by our society anymore, there's no legitimate reason for this to be either. I may not like it, but standards are thrown out the window these days. This might as well be okay too, as long as they're both adults or, if not, similar in age. It should be discouraged, yes, but not illegal.
    Last edited by Itisamuh; 2012-04-13 at 11:09 AM.

  11. #331
    Legendary! MasterHamster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Land of the mighty moose, polar bears and fika.
    Posts
    6,183
    I see no reason to imprison siblings or close cousins for incest.
    However the societal consequences can be so major that they should be forced to separate.
    Active WoW player Jan 2006 - Aug 2020
    Nothing lasts forever, as they say.
    The problem is that nothing can really replace it either.

  12. #332
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Skavau View Post
    They would use that as an argument to prohibit it. Just as people argue for incest to be prohibited.
    I think the best argument vs incest is:
    Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected.[1] As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:

    Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
    Increased genetic disorders
    Fluctuating facial asymmetry
    Lower birth rate
    Higher infant mortality
    Slower growth rate
    Smaller adult size
    Loss of immune system function
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Results

    This one shows that (in this case the brother and sister) is #1 at the top alongside parent&child for the chances of deformation:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Calculation

    Edit: I know it's wikipedia but I don't really see them using any wildly wrong data on this topic.
    Last edited by mmocb22ba0bc6d; 2012-04-13 at 11:11 AM.

  13. #333
    Deleted
    Everyone knows its just morally wrong to have sex with someone within your family... But, indeed it should not be banned neither, however anyone should know that common sense plays as an factor in the world we live in today.

  14. #334
    Quote Originally Posted by Jogojin View Post
    Later they found out, they were sister and brother. But they didn't care and became a couple. Later they had 4 children. 2 of them have a mental handicap.

    -If you say that the children are harmed by this, because they may be born with a disability you should ask the children, if they prefer to live with a disability or to have never lived at all

    Of course it is weird, to know that people being brother and sister do love each other. But who do they harm by this? Noone.

    So what do you think?
    I left in the points i think are relevent and i must say your view is extremely short sighted. The reason it is illigal for incestual vaginal intercourse is because of what happened, the lack of a diverse genepool created two children born with disabilities.

    You ask who was harmed? Those children condemned to a life of care because their parents decided to ignore the law ignorant of the reason it is there in the first place.

    Now i couldn't care less at the fact they had a sexual relationship, if they do it behind closed doors and no harm comes of it who cares. However they had unprotected sex, created a living life, and condemned it to a life of care due to their own ignorance.

    Don't act like it was a victimless crime, those children have and will suffer the rest of their lives because of this. The law is there for a reason, the exact reason why it was there occured, children born with disabilities due to an insufficient gene pool.

  15. #335
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Volta View Post
    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.
    ok, fuck it, I'll just quote myself again my post was instantly buried under people arguing over ridiculous things such as genetics which has nothing to do with this situation. It's like trying to talk sense to a marketplace full of people.

    Lemme ask again:

    What was the crime they were charged with?

    Which legal value did they harm?

  16. #336
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by blib View Post
    You claim you know the difference between a singel atraction and a sexuality and yet you do not.
    Yes, I do.

    The two would only be comparable if people which commited incest was only atracted to relatives.
    This is irrelevent and had nothing to do with my point. The point is there is no fundamental difference between a state authority coming in and seperating you from someone of the same sex and the same authority seperating you from your sibling.

    If my wife was my sister I would be completly fine with it.
    Oh, don't play stupid. You're obviously talking from your current opinion now. If your sister managed to end up as your wife you'd obviously have different feelings and you'd be rightly aggreived. Try and see things from other points of views other than your bias.

    I compare the fact that I chose to sleep with some people and not with other to someone chosing to sleep with theire sister.
    Right. And how would you like it if the state entered your home and told you that you're no longer allowed to have sexual relations with your girlfriend? You'd feel extremely pissed and that is exactly how a siblings in a relationship forced apart would feel.

    Yes that is theire choise and it is my choice to belive it should be illgeal which is my right.
    Then, to me - you don't deserve personal liberty. You would take it away from others and as contemptible as I find it, I would still say you're entitled to have your beliefs.

    Because as I said, I'm for liberty.

    The last one is so silly I'm not even gonna bother.
    Then you refuse to look at the point. The exact arguments you make against incest are made by people against homosexuals.

  17. #337
    Deleted
    Don't act like it was a victimless crime, those children have and will suffer the rest of their lives because of this. The law is there for a reason, the exact reason why it was there occured, children born with disabilities due to an insufficient gene pool.
    They will suffer because of the biased society, tearing the family apart and thinking of disabled persons as people, that shouldn't even be born.

  18. #338
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiny212 View Post
    Again, it's a risk to their potential children, and again, you're foolish if you believe all "incestual" relationships would even care if they produced offspring.
    I don't, and I've already said that. We're talking about a couple without children here for the sake of argument.

    Tearing people apart? They know EXACTLY what they're getting into, and in today's society it's simply foolish to expect otherwise. If you were a king in egypt a few thousand years ago you could knock yourself out though; you see society evolved.
    This has nothing to do with anything. That they knew the risks of society doesn't mean you're not tearing them apart.

  19. #339
    Dreadlord Shuya82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    778
    Quote Originally Posted by Azivalla View Post
    I don't see smoking or drinking pregnant women getting thrown in jail.
    Those things won't alter a genetic line, and those who says "that doesn't matter because it'll take a long time" that is insane logic.

    I think jail time is pretty excessive unless they actually have child, then it's completely unacceptable and should warrant a harsher punishment.

  20. #340
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Vultahn View Post
    I think the best argument vs incest is:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Results

    This one shows that (in this case the brother and sister) is #1 at the top alongside parent&child for the chances of deformation:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Calculation

    Edit: I know it's wikipedia but I don't really see them using any wildly wrong data on this topic.
    Well, we're talking about sibling couples that choose not to reproduce.

Posting Permissions

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