I think it is crazy to send people to jail cause they love each other. Once again that makes me want to climb on top of a mountain and escape that joke. This is so crazy, this human being thing.
Printable View
oh yeah, I forgot to mention this: the judges themselves couldn't come up with any rational arguments, so they concluded that our "culture" does not allow incest. While the law is part of our culture, in my opinion, it is officially supposed to be independent, logic, rational etc and normally verdicts do not refer to/ rely on "culture" in such an explicit way. After all, halal meat is legal although 90+ percent of Germans are non-Muslim. So why not forbid halal meat for cultural reasons? ;)
You're so right! The other day a girl asked me if she could have gotten pregnant from having sex? Did she use protection I ask? "Protection?" *blank expression*Quote:
You would be surprised at some of the things that well educated people don't know, especially about their own bodies.
And she was heading out to an ivy league, just to push a point... :)
Je t'aime Sweets. You're not my sister so I'm allowed to :P
They did incestuous things all the time in the noble courts of the past, didn't they? Sure the result wasn't great... The genetical thing is indeed a concern, but, especially if the siblings didn't grow up together, I don't find it icky nor yucky. I guess all these people who find it icky and yucky don't approve of homosexuality and sex outside of a double bed in a room where the walls are painted white?:P
The LAW is always an exponent of culture. It reflects the norms and values of a culture and how these can best be protected, these norms and values change over time, and with that, the law changes. It's all through history, not such a big surprise.
When it comes to incest there might be more than just cultural conditioning that makes people think it is icky and yuck and other such exclamations of discomfort. (although culture certainly helps)
It can be related to genetics, a hard coded aversion to incest. It is survival of the fittest, and this core principle finds its way into everyday life, attractive people almost always have in common that they are physically strong specimen. A women will generally be more attracted to a tall man etc. It's subconsciously looking for signs of good genes for procreation that will create strong offspring. (high survival potential)
The tendency for genetic defects in children from incestuous relations is in our genes so to speak. Coupled with our brain understanding that there is an incestuous relation might trigger this aversion, not the actual genes themselves. (we don't have gene sniffers as a sense)
As further example; in the animal world, inbreeding is extremely rare, with groups often mixing. an example is lions, where new genetic material is introduced to a group through rogue males that wander around. (Ligers are cool though, and HUGE!)
That's all I was going to say really, to me it's a bit icky too, even yucky, but it helps to know where those feelings originate from. Then again, people do what people do.
If it is too repulsive to think of, there'd be no danger of you doing it if it were legalised, would there be? Or even if it were made compulsory!
But surely some of these things that are too repulsive to think about are precisely those that need to be rethought now & then? X% of the things that you and I belive in, live by or seek to avoid, were planted in us long before we had the capacity to evaluate them. In which case to what extent can we consider ourselves free men and women?
Shouldn't that be on-white as opposed tooff-white?
compulsory incest!!!! sounds fascinating:lol:
but seriously how can one say that something like this, which harms no one else should be illegal or legal, even put in law... I mean whether it grosses you out or not should be entirely irrelevant.. if it is between two consenting adults, who are capable of making decisions for themselves, of reasoning, and they decide they want an incestuous relationship, who are we to tell them they cannot do that??? and yes I do agree with all here and I do find it quite unappealing to say the least, but they have a right to do whatever they want as long as it is doing no harm to anyone else, and incest between consenting adults doesn't harm anyone...
I suggested a tax on junk food that would go to reducing the price of healthy food, and as well to nutritional education in the "am i a fattist" thread, and got attacked for it, everyone said we should be able to eat what we want and not have the government interfere, so what is the difference here... plus I only suggested a tax, one could still eat junk food it would just cost more... and unhealthy diets are much more harmful than incest, and create far more problems, so what is the difference?? I think the taboo is just too strong for people to want to allow freedom of choice in this....
so, whether or not we find it disgusting, gross, wrong, whatever... it is none of our business, and not our place to condemn incest, when we all have so many problems and vices of our own...
Brainwashed? Is that not just a bit extreme?
I'd like to think that I was brought up by two educated people who taught me to make my own judgements and not to base my opinion on whatever the media/mass/everyone else says. So this is purely my opinion and I'm quite sure I can judge for myself what I perceive as right or wrong.
So, in this case, I think incest is wrong. I absolutely don't care if the two involved keep it to themselves. It's their business. But I do find it particulary wrong when children are involved (there are 4 in total in this particular case) because they might have genetic defects which could have been prevented and who is going to be in charge of their upbringing? If they perceive incest as normal, will they then be incouraged to do the same?
And as Granny5 pointed out, if this is made legal or simply widely accepted as the natural or normal thing to do, then what prevents people from sleeping and having kids with other members of their family?
hahahha :) how many PrinceMyshkins does it take to turn a controversial, thought-provoking, SERIOUS thread into a commedy? ;) :thumbs_up
this is a very good point which I hadn't thought about (and wasn't mentioned in any of the articles I read, either). but you could always forbid incest between the offspring of incestuous couples if there is enough evidence that there is an even higher risk of disabilities here? but again this line of argument is not water-tight, because it's still legal for non-incestuous but disabled couples to have children and their offspring are allowed to have children with other disabled ppl again and so on..... :confused:
genetic defects... well fetal alcohol syndrome is a birth defect, yet it is not illegal to drink while one is pregnant, although it is now becoming more common not to... but still, according to your logic drinking while pregnant should be a criminal offense...
and I seriously doubt that incest would become widespread if it was legal, or not punished, for the simple sibling relationships that one is brought up with, they kind of turn one away from it, and then societal taboos will still be there whether or not it is legal or illegal...
As PrinceMyshkin says sexual intercourse between any two members of the human species is incest... to a degree... :lol: Sleepy, I think it takes only one PrinceMyshkin to bring forth the comedy in any situation! and that is a good thing...
now going away from worldwide incest... PrinceMyshkin are you advocating bestiality???:lol:
If the siblings didn't grow up together, it's obvious that it is nobody's fault they ended up together. You can't prevent falling in love, can you?
To clear this out, just because I don't approve of incest between two people who know they are siblings doesn't mean I don't approve of homosexuality or sex outside of a double room or that a pure, white wedding is the only way. Please don't assign stereotypes of other people because of one comment.
A lot of things where not mentioned in the articles I found: why was the last child left with the parents and the other 3 were taken from social services?
And there are so many variations between the articles, I seriously don't know how much of the details is true.
So you're saying that the first generation of siblings can reproduce but the second, the third and so on cannot? You see though, you are hypothetically applying a regulation here. If you (or anyone, not you specifically) think the first set can have kids, then why not their kids and so on?
I think it's fairly obvious I'm referring to genetic defects which affect children born from two siblings. I have not mentioned at all any other type of genetic disease, because it is not relevant to this topic.
I also seriously doubt and seriously hope that society will not turn round one day and decide incest should be widely accepted. I'd have to invest in a spaceship and find some other planet to live on :p