Printable View
Sex is always such an issue for people. It doesn't matter whether you're doing it by yourself or with your legal, married, heterosexual spouse -- there is always some kind of mental "OH NO OMG" associated with it.
Honestly, we could be arguing about whether it's okay to cheat on your spouse, and we could probably get as many responses.
What kind of logic is this??? The very fact that it's a small (not just small but infintesmal) percentage tells yopu that this is unnatural. There are always anomalies, and in this case this anomaly is a perversion. If you don't understand natural law and how most legal systems build upon it, look it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
Estabished culture of thousands of years across every culture.Quote:
--- now the argument of immorality.... so who gave anyone here the right to decide what is immoral and moral for all humanity... for even any other person beside themself...
You live in a democracy? Do you know of any politician anywhere in the world that is running on legalizing incest? I dare any politician to run on this issue. I dare anyone to bring it up as a referendum. It would fail miserably. You have a biased demographic here on lit net of young people who believe in complete unadulterated freedom. And it still lost 37-12. That's over three to one. In the general population this would easily lose 10 to 1 if not even worse.Quote:
secondly, the immorality argument, is entirely egotistical and self righteous.. who appointed each one of us god over all others??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
are you serious??? Majority means right, eh???
well look at the holocaust, a majority got convinced that murdering jewish people was the answer to all problems...
and rwanda in 94... well, the entire hutu population with very few dissenters decided they needed to wipe the entire tutsi population off the face of the earth with machetes... hmmm... again majority rules as you say... so those people were right in your books??? or anyone else who makes the leap of logic that majority means the way it should be...
oh, I know about natural law, and how legal systems like to build off it... or say they do anyways... off some supposed natural laws... natural laws eh??? well everyone who has responded ignored most of my post... there is a natural law called law of the jungle where the bigger, faster, stronger are the better.. maybe we should revert to that as well... if you are stronger you can take from those who are weaker with impunity.. that is so called natural law.... maybe we should just revert to primitive caveman culture... I would argue against the existence of any so called natural laws... it is a dead philosophy.. natural theories maybe, but laws... I think not... there are no objective, universal truths or laws about nature and humanity... that is the nature of the world... mankind has invented some to suit his purpose... if you want to take them as fact that is your choice... but don't force them upon me... as well, everything any human does is natural to that person, just for the fact they are doing it... we do what we feel is natural to us... so you are calling everyone who doesn't follow the common, and majority way of being natural, well you are basically calling us all a little off our rockers... or perverse, or however you want to put it.. you are saying there is something wrong with not following the natural path of the majority... well I have many ways I walk the far from natural path... am I a perversity?
and the animals that commit incest are not ostracized, nor persecuted.. hmm.. stating that other animals don't seem to mind... I guess that's human rationality and reason, or these supposed faculties, I guess they are operating so well here.... oooohhh,,, someone I don't know is in love with their brother... put them in jail or else the world will fall into corruption and perversity...
and you concentrate on one part of my post... what about the others.. I am interested to see what is thought here... obesity happens in no animals besides humans... well, not wild animals anyways... and I doubt it happened before we started leading our sedentary modern lifestyles... so as I asked before shouldn't we put these people in jail too.... oh and the smokers, they are harming infinitely more people than people commiting incest... and for that matter lets put everyone who drives a big suv, or a truck in the city in jail as well.. they're polluting the planet and harming all of humanity... and so on and so forth...
but instead we should concentrate on keeping love from happening at all cost when it is incestuous... not because it harms anyone... but because we have delicate sensibilities with regards to it...
homosexuality was also considered a perversion and evil by all these established cultures over thousands of years, that you speak of, or most anyways... should we start condemning and persecuting them again... is that what you are saying, condemn all people who aren't into the traditional and so called normal way of life? I just can't see that working for some reason... no one is perfect, and condemning people because they have a different morality then you is not the answer... so these cultural/religious moralities have already shown their inherent fallibility in many ways... usury at one point was one of the worst sins... read Dante's "Inferno"... now it is the most common way to lend money.. excessive interest rates... as said above, homosexuality... ummm, lets see.. premarital sex was a sin... having a bast&)d child was definitely not okay for ages and ages... adultery at different times was punishable by death... some cultures girls were married off at 10 years old... I don't think that the fact a culture has a long established morality has anything to do with it being right... that is laughable, in fact with what many cultures, well, all cultures have supported and propped up with regards to morality and ethics for thousands of years, and in many cases continue to do so... lawyers are supposed to lie in court... haha.. if your client admits that he murdered someone, but he wants to say he didn't you either have to let someone else take the case, or defend him by lying... and we worry about harmless incest...
unadulterated freedom? freedom to do what harms no one is not unadulterated freedom, and is not anarchy... if it is please do explain? I am not saying people should be able to murder or rape, or steal, or abuse or various other harmful crimes... I am saying they should be free to do as they please as long as it harms no one... but instead we should continue to concentrate on persecuting those who harm no one, while ignoring almost all of the white collar crime, tax evasion, fraud, etc. that goes on in the western world... yes, lets focus on incest and how it offends us so therefore should be a crime...Quote:
Well, running on a platform that included legalized incest would certainly pound several nails into any political career! You certainly got that right, Virgil. I think the politician would be stoned or run out of town in disgrace.
Good point about the biased demographic here. I'm in the "over thirty" group of "older persons," myself. Call me "Grandma." LOL I think 10-1 in very conservative, though. More like 1000-1. Complete, unadulterated freedom is anarchy, is it not?
as well, again, who cares whether it is 1000-1... does majority mean right automatically... because as I said above, this says that mass genocides of the past were perfectly excusable because the majority of those countries thought they were correct.... and it doesn't matter that this is the majority of all humans that thinks this way... who cares... what right does the majority have to impose their moral belief system on anyone else with regards to things that harm no one????? I repeat again for emphasis: harm no one... does that mean nothing, that it harms no one.
and good for the politician who would be willing to be stoned out of town in disgrace for advocating freedom of choice, free will... I would be one of his very few votes...
What are you talking about? None of these are examples of democracies. I can turn the question around on you. Who made you God to decide what is not moral? Society has deemed a social impact to incest. There are victums and the blurring, not just blurring, obliterating of the distinction between familial love and romantic love is anti social.Quote:
well look at the holocaust, a majority got convinced that murdering jewish people was the answer to all problems...
and rwanda in 94... well, the entire hutu population with very few dissenters decided they needed to wipe the entire tutsi population off the face of the earth with machetes... hmmm... again majority rules as you say... so those people were right in your books??? or anyone else who makes the leap of logic that majority means the way it should be...
Well, we disagree. Incest is perversion.
I think religion is perverse and harmful, but I'm not clamoring to outlaw it.
yes we disagree and that is okay...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
It really does not matter whether those countries are democracies or not, as the majority of people participated in these things in those countries... if the majority in a democracy got convinced that the best path was to wipe out another population they would probably do it... the majority is easily manipulated, not that this is the cause of the illegality of incest, but it shows that majority is often wrong... so whether they were democracies or not the majority of people still committed awful atrocities and participated in genocide... and most of these people were normal people... at least before it began... in Rwanda hutus sliced up their neighbours and their friends, if they were tutsis for an example of how badly a majority can be manipulated... and how wrong they can be..
I did not claim to be god.. at least I don't recall... everyone is their own god with regards to what they believe is moral or immoral... that is quite obvious, whether some people take their moralities from an external source, it is still their choice to follow them.. even the law... with regards to the law though, the only things it should regulate and not allow are things that are harmful to others in my opinion... and who cares whether incest is anti-social... we can't persecute people for being anti-social... I am most often anti-social.. I want nothing to do with 99 percent or more of people... should I be condemned for that... but I will not judge others for what they do if it harms no one... and even then I won't but that is my choice... and I will do as I please as long as it harms no one, the law is irrelevant here... or so I believe... but it doesn't matter...
this thread is tiresome, it should go in the religious forum where people argue back and forth with no one ever changing their mind :D
There is no "societal impact" of incest. You know why? because legal or illegal, not that many people are doing it. It's not an epidemic and it's not going to be an epidemic. Let's just call a spade a spade. You want to legislate your reservations. It's just like Nietzsche said; democracy is the oppresion of the masses. So what if 99% of all people don't want it. Who cares? People suck anyway. It's like Neitzche said; democracy is just the oppression of the masses (which, by the by is why, contrary to popular belief, the United States is NOT a democracy, it is a democratic republic and there is a huge difference). And, by the way, though I know this comment wasn't directed at me Virgil, I feel the need to address it anyway. You say, "we disagree, incest is perversion." Well, uh, no. We don't disagree. Incest is perversion, I just don't want to legislate what I feel is perversion because it's none of my business. And also, I really could not care less about the damaging long term effects of consensual adult incest. They made the decision, they have to live with it and I refuse to aknowledge it as a reason for saying it should be illegal.
I suppose he means "anything that can happen in nature (no matter on how small a scale) = by definition natural".Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I agree with this. but this does not mean anything that is natural should be illegal. e.g. murder should clearly be illegal. the point is that as humans culture is our nature. we cannot appeal to nature to judge about one thing and to culture/morality to decide about another. the funny thing about the "nature" argument is that it seems to be always brought up when all other arguments fail. after all the legal, social etc. pro's and con's have been weighed and ppl are almost ready to legalize whatever it is, someone will shout "It's unnatural".
in my opinion, nothing that exists in nature can be "unnatural". who would have put it there if it's not part of nature? Un-Nature, the evil goddess of incest? ;) Satan? the tooth fairy? Whether we like these things or not is an entirely different question and when we discuss such issues we should always be aware that "nature" has nothing to do with it.
as for consensual adult incest and democracy, I think it's legal in France and France certainly is a democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
And in response to that, I would make the same argument in reverse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
If you're expecting me to disagree with you on that point, the I'm sorry to disappoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
I can't speak about the majority of Rwandans, I don't know enough about it. But the majority of Germans did not participate in the halocaust.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
Set that aside, your logic then proposes that majorities don't and shouldn't control anything. That's rediculous.
Do you mean that the US is a republic? And if so, Switzerland is not a republic? They have pure democracy there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
Well, I'm sure if it ever became prevelant, it would be made illegal. The very fact that is is so unusual -actually unnatural - saves them on this. In fact it's disgraceful.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
I did not know that about Switzerland. On one level that is good, on another it is bad. But I can see how it would prevent Switzerland from being a world power. I've never supported that kind of a system. In some cases on a State level in the US we have referendums, and to me I don't think citizens are qualified to understand the intracies of most issues. We elect and pay legislatures to study and discuss and debate issues. If we don't like their decisions we vote them out. And I wonder how many citizens in Switzerland actually vote every week. You don't have to answer that. It'll take the thread off topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
Yes, the US is a Federal Republic. I wasn't sure what you meant in that post.
My argument in reverse would be that if you start outlawing something just because you find it disagreeable, other opressive laws will follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
Yeah, YOU don't want to make any of those things illegal, but what if SOMEBODY ELSE does. Incest is a different matter TO YOU. To ME, it is oppressive, uneccessary and ridiculous legislation. And you guys keep coming back to that "society has to have laws, lines ahve to be drawn, etc. etc." argument. What I and others are saying is this shouldn't be a law and this is not where the line should be drawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
Not that Wikipedia should be considered necessarily a 'reliable' source of information, but there's an interesting article here :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest
I think incest is a hard issue to argue on a moral stand point. I completely understand the basis of the UK law (which is based around relationships of 'circumstance', primarily where there is a disproportion of power between the two involved in said relationship of 'circumstance', and therefore easy to abuse without it necessarily being 'abuse') and it seems to make sense; and I understand why it would have to be a criminal offence with a fairly hefty penalty (if you're going to 'outlaw' it, fines aren't going to cut it), but I don't know about US law, or anywhere else for that matter. Does anyone know, or is anyone prepared to comment on the basis or construction of the law ex-UK?
Can you have an opinion on the law if you don't know what the law actually is?