should incest between brothers and sisters be legal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

yes we disagree and that is okay...

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...

---

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.

Set that aside, your logic then proposes that majorities don't and shouldn't control anything. That's rediculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

I lived in a pure democracy for years - Switzerland. I, personally, never called the US a democracy because I know it's not. There are differences, I agree, but I don't agree they're huge.

---

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 SleepyWitch

as for consensual adult incest and democracy, I think it's legal in France and France certainly is a democracy.

---

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 Antiquarian

Yes, Switzerland is a pure, or direct, democracy. Parliament is powerless to pass any law. Everything must be voted on by the citizens. We voted at the Town Hall (Gemeinde) almost every Sunday. The preseident is not elected by the people but rotates every year among the members of Parliament, one from the Swiss canton, then the French canton, then the Italian canton, usually.

I always thought the US was a federal republic.

---

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.

Yes, the US is a Federal Republic. I wasn't sure what you meant in that post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Oh, that doesn't disappoint me at all. I'm tired, but have to be up, and I'm still trying to figure out what your argument in reverse would be. Sorry I'm so dense tonight. It's nearly three in the morning here.

---

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

I wouldn't want to laws against something just because I find it disagreeable.

I find it very disagreeable and annoying that so many people use the street I live on to cut through to another street, especially early in the morning when I'm still sleeping, but I don't think it should be outlawed.

I hate flip-flops in a restaurant, even a casual one. I hate flip-flops anywhere but the beach. They aren't real shoes and feet are dirty and ugly. But I don't think a law should be made outlawing flip-flops. Or feet. LOL

I don't think people should be able to play their car stereo so loud that it disturbs other drivers even when their windows are up, but I don't mind that much. I think there is a law against that, though, but I don't really care.

Incest, though, is a different matter. It's so potentially psychologically damaging. Some people say let the damaged ones lie in the bed they made, but often, it's the taxpayers who are paying the bill. It's that way in France.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

It's just a fact of life that laws aren't going to please everyone. I'm not pleased by all of them. But, that's life.

---

If that's the case, then don't complain about something you think should be illegal but others don't That argument only works here because it's a law YOU favor. If it was a law YOU were adamantley against being discussed, would YOU be so quick to say, "Oh, well we can't please everyone." And at the risk of sounding even more blunt than I usually do, I think that in this case, those of you who think it should be illegal are the ones who should not have your pleasure satiatited because, quite frankly, it's none of your business what they do. We can't please everyone, so why shouldn't YOU be the one who is unpleased in this case?

Final Warning:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

R e m i n d e r

Please discuss the ideas but not each other.

Posts resorting such comments will be deleted without any further notice.

---

There was loads of fuss about cannabis being taken down from class b to class c. Legalising incest would imply that it is acceptable.
However broad-minded a person people claim to be, they would be disgusted if they actually knew someone who's committed it or a relative offered to commit it with them. This is just a fact.
People have said 'It's their business' but it doesn't just affect them. What about their family, their friends, the people they know? Especially the family. 'Difference' can only be stretched so far- what about psychopaths? They're not 'different', they're ill. Not that incest and psycopathy on on a par but you understand what I'm saying.
In the UK, and most other places, people who commit incest will never be accepted into society, which is what our law is based around. Most people take the law as their guide- you may not admit it but you do- to what is right and what is wrong. Even if you legalised it, the few that have committed it, will essentially be imprisoned anyway by society and will never lead a normal life. That's as good as being in jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

There was loads of fuss about cannabis being taken down from class b to class c. Legalising incest would imply that it is acceptable.
However broad-minded a person people claim to be, they would be disgusted if they actually knew someone who's committed it or a relative offered to commit it with them. This is just a fact.
People have said 'It's their business' but it doesn't just affect them. What about their family, their friends, the people they know? Especially the family. 'Difference' can only be stretched so far- what about psychopaths? They're not 'different', they're ill. Not that incest and psycopathy on on a par but you understand what I'm saying.
In the UK, and most other places, people who commit incest will never be accepted into society, which is what our law is based around. Most people take the law as their guide- you may not admit it but you do- to what is right and what is wrong. Even if you legalised it, the few that have committed it, will essentially be imprisoned anyway by society and will never lead a normal life. That's as good as being in jail.

---

Very good post Kelby. You say this:

Quote:

---

However broad-minded a person people claim to be, they would be disgusted if they actually knew someone who's committed it or a relative offered to commit it with them. This is just a fact.

---

I would like to think that true, but based on what i've been reading in this thread, I don't know. I'm actually shocked that there are this many people that would defend this perversion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

However broad-minded a person people claim to be, they would be disgusted if they actually knew someone who's committed it or a relative offered to commit it with them. This is just a fact.

---

Good point... I don't think everyone here who defended the decision maybe really thought about what would happen if one of their family members tried to commit incest with them. But from what most people have said, they wouldn't care all that much even if it was their own family where the incest was occuring; but that is more directed at other people being involved, although I do believe some people said they would do it.
Also I think peoples reaction to a relative offering to commit it with them would depend on how the relative went about it. Most people will claim to have some creepy relative who hits on them... But maybe if it's a one of question thing, you say no, they understand and give up, I think most people could get over that easy, whereas others would still not be able to look at that person the same ever again though; but generally it would be better than if the relative kept harrassing you to do it.
I hope this makes sense... I know what I'm trying to say, but it's harder to say it at 4 am :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

I wouldn't want to laws against something just because I find it disagreeable.


I hate flip-flops in a restaurant, even a casual one. I hate flip-flops anywhere but the beach. They aren't real shoes and feet are dirty and ugly. But I don't think a law should be made outlawing flip-flops. Or feet. LOL

---

:lol: Antiquarian, I would be locked up, if they were illegal...OMG...I have a whole collection of flip-flops! They are the fancier 'sandal' type ones, not the ugly flat ones. They are the only thing comfortable for my big toe, which has a bone spur on it and hurts when it swells in the humidity:( . Do you feel same way about sandals? I wear open shoes all summer long. My feet need air! I do polish my toenails and make sure my feet are clean and groomed. If they became illegal, I would be :bawling: I'm 58 and proud to be a flip-flop wearer! It's true though - some feet should definitely not be revealed - ughly! Hope you still like me....

Otherwise - I see the contraversay rages on in here concerning the real topic. I think this thread has now become the most popular on the forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Oh, Janine! I only meant those totally flat plastic beach things that are barely there. I think sandals are quite nice. I'm sorry if I offended you. Hope you still like me! :blush:

---

:lol: OMG, you did not offend me at all, A...I really thought your post was hilarious. I liked all the things you brought up. Yes, the really sloppy ones, I hate too; I hate people wearing those jeans with all the big rips in them, like across the knees. There are many modern/fade type things I hate, but we can discuss that later, privately. I don't really want to offend anyone on here. NO, you did not offend me one bit. I just laughed, because I am wearing them this minute and I even wear them all winter, as my bedroom slippers....pretty weird, huh? I am kind of 'flip-flop' addicted by now.

I actually did get annoyed with my son on his 30th birthday - we took him to a nice restaurant and we all dressed up and he was dressed nicely, too, but had on flip-flops - I told him I was could not believe he was wearing those! He said "It is my birthday and I feel like wearing them". I thought they looked pretty silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

I have no "issues" with my personal sexual life. I never have had.

---

I wasn't talking about YOU personally. In general, society has a hard time about what is acceptable in regards to sex, whether it's sexual behaviour, or sex education.

I can't believe we're still talking about this. I am going to have to get another forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

:lol: OMG, you did not offend me at all, A...I really thought your post was hilarious. I liked all the things you brought up. Yes, the really sloppy ones, I hate too; I hate people wearing those jeans with all the big rips in them, like across the knees. There are many modern/fade type things I hate, but we can discuss that later, privately. I don't really want to offend anyone on here. NO, you did not offend me one bit. I just laughed, because I am wearing them this minute and I even wear them all winter, as my bedroom slippers....pretty weird, huh? I am kind of 'flip-flop' addicted by now.

I actually did get annoyed with my son on his 30th birthday - we took him to a nice restaurant and we all dressed up and he was dressed nicely, too, but had on flip-flops - I told him I was could not believe he was wearing those! He said "It is my birthday and I feel like wearing them". I thought they looked pretty silly.

---

Well, I don't mind open sandles on women, but I can't help feeling that it looks so wimpy on men. :p :lol: Now I know I'm going to get a whole bunch of ate mail. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Well, I don't mind open sandles on women, but I can't help feeling that it looks so wimpy on men. :p :lol: Now I know I'm going to get a whole bunch of ate mail. ;)

---

*Blurts out a huge laugh!* :lol: I am laughing at the 'hate mail 'part! You are such a riot, Virgil!

Probably, in the hate mail, they will call you a sexist or an anti-feminist/feminist(?)! ;) :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

*Blurts out a huge laugh!* :lol: I am laughing at the 'hate mail 'part! You are such a riot, Virgil!

Probably, in the hate mail, they will call you a sexist or an anti-feminist/feminist(?)! ;) :lol:

---

:D Glad I made you laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

actually shocked that there are this many people that would defend this perversion.

---

Nobody is defending incest. We are are simply saying; it is none of our business. There are any number of things I find disgusting and perverse, but they are none of my business. So it's perverse; why is that grounds for criminilization? That's not good enough for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

There was loads of fuss about cannabis being taken down from class b to class c. Legalising incest would imply that it is acceptable.
However broad-minded a person people claim to be, they would be disgusted if they actually knew someone who's committed it or a relative offered to commit it with them. This is just a fact.
People have said 'It's their business' but it doesn't just affect them. What about their family, their friends, the people they know? Especially the family. 'Difference' can only be stretched so far- what about psychopaths? They're not 'different', they're ill. Not that incest and psycopathy on on a par but you understand what I'm saying.
In the UK, and most other places, people who commit incest will never be accepted into society, which is what our law is based around. Most people take the law as their guide- you may not admit it but you do- to what is right and what is wrong. Even if you legalised it, the few that have committed it, will essentially be imprisoned anyway by society and will never lead a normal life. That's as good as being in jail.

---

With regards to cannabis... it is absurd that it is considered an illegal and dangerous drug when alchohol is not... alchohol is much more dangerous and messes your mind and body up far far far more than marijuana... people who are drunk, are much more susceptible to acts of violence, etc. as well... other drugs maybe are more problematic and i will not start an argument here about legalizing all drugs, whatever my opinion on the subject:D .... but marijauna... give me a break... make alchohol illegal first...

secondly, you are trying to say that no matter how broadminded a person may be they would be disgusted and appalled if they new someone who committed incest or had a relative approach them... what gave you this window into everyone's mind??? how do you claim to speak for all humanity... that is a ridiculous generalization that has no substance at all.. yes, maybe the majority, even the overwhelmingly large majority may be disgusted, but not all... and I am one of the tiny minority... and I am proud of it... and if a relative approached me, well, I would most likely say no, but frankly, I would have no problem with it, and would not find it in the least disgusting... and far more so if it was just people I knew who were committing incest... if it is love, good for them, I applaud them... and I always will... as well... if I did happen to say fall in love with a cousin or other relative, and they were in love with me, I would have no problem with committing incest myself.... now, that I think puts me wholly in the realm of the ridiculously perverse according to almost everyone here.... hahaha.... good, I like it... I love it... I don't see myself committing incest as I have met my relatives and am not in love with any of them, nor am I attracted to them in that way, but if one came along and we had something special, I would not hesitate however much of an outcast that makes me...

also, family and friends... well if they were accepting and actually cared for these people in a loving relationship they would have no problem... they make it their own problem and choose to be appalled and disgusted by it... so in my opinion the shocked family and friends rejecting them, they are the ones with the serious and perverse problem... and implying something is acceptable does not mean we are going to have an outbreak of it, I really don't see this happening... it is only a tiny minority who will ever be attracted to a relative, and much less to a sibling... so really, I don't follow this argument as being one of any validity...


Antiquarian, you posted examples of studies... well those studies are inherently biased in the first place because of how culture already regards incest and most likely the people conducting the studies... second the statement about most were not of a benign or positive nature to the female involved... well I think I have made it clear I do not support abusive relationships of any kind, incestuous or not, so that statement is irrelevant to this discussion... third, those people have not studied every single case of incest.... and I am sure some are based on just love... you can argue against that all you want, but the fact of the matter is, these people will be persecuted regardless and some great and amazing psychologist (sarcasm) will find some reason to say it wasn't real love and was harmful, or will convince those involved that they are seriously messed up and need help regardless of reality... so again you haven't shown me anything...

and incest is only psychologically damaging because society shuns these people and psychologists and friends, and family all do their best to convince them they are so messed up and borderline insane... so there is the problem... society's narrowminded nature... oh well, I guess it can't be helped...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metal134

Nobody is defending incest. We are are simply saying; it is none of our business. There are any number of things I find disgusting and perverse, but they are none of my business. So it's perverse; why is that grounds for criminilization? That's not good enough for me.

---

I have to disagree with you Metal. To say that matters like this are none of our business is to bury our heads in the sand. What about sexual abuse of children? In some cultures it is normal for a child to be "educated" sexually by an adult, but we frown upon it greatly here. If this started happening here, would you say that it is also none of our business? Should child molesting not be criminal either?

That is our business because there's a victim. But what consensual adults do is none of our business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

I have to disagree with you Metal. To say that matters like this are none of our business is to bury our heads in the sand. What about sexual abuse of children? In some cultures it is normal for a child to be "educated" sexually by an adult, but we frown upon it greatly here. If this started happening here, would you say that it is also none of our business? Should child molesting not be criminal either?

---

wow!!! again I have to ask: are you serious????

You are comparing incest to child molestation???

child molestation is abusing the defenseless... incest where there is only love involved is hurting no one... no matter what anyone says... seriously.... tell me who it actually harms.... and explain to me how... I would like to know... I really would... tell me how it harms just the normal person... the person who doesn't self inflict the harm upon themselves by getting all worked up and disgusted over the issue...

and by saying that in some cultures it is normal for children to have sexual experience with adults, you are only supporting the argument that thousands of years of culturally developed moralities mean nothing at all... zip... zilch... zero... nothing.... for if thousands of years of moral development lead to the idea that it is okay for adults to be sexually intimate with children.. well then I think it is safe to assume that just because a morality has been progressing for hundreds or thousands of years, it doesn't mean a thing with regard to being right in my books, or in another culture's viewpoint...

I am done with this thread... I have only found self-righteousness here... we are all human... we all have flaws... we all have perversities, if you would like to call them that... we all are different and that is what makes us interesting... that is what makes us unique... that is what makes us essentially human: the fact we choose for ourselves, our own path, our own nature, our own morality... everything a single human being does is natural, essentially, to that person... this is obvious... whether it is natural to all humans is an absurd point to ponder... there are no objective and universal laws in the universe.. none whatsoever... just theories.. and one may have faith in a theory, but at the same time they need to respect everyone else's right to have faith in their own ideas and theories! this should be obvious, but it is apparent from this thread and well my experience with humanity in general that this respect is seriously lacking... I am no judge of others, and I do not and will not ever judge another human being for doing something that harms no one... I will not, myself, even judge a human being for anything... who made me god... I try to love every single thing on this planet, as everything deserves love, whatsoever it is they may have done.... in my opinion the only immorality is something that harms someone else... everything else... and I repeat, everything else is moral!! in my opinion... but the narrowmindedness will prevail, as it always does, and people will continue persecuting others for being different, however harmless.. I guess if their is a natural law, it would be this... that humans persecute anyone different from the norm... whether it be the religiously different, the sexually different, the physically different, the mentally different... the fundamental fact of human history is that difference has always been persecuted...

goodnight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

In some cultures it is normal for a child to be "educated" sexually by an adult, but we frown upon it greatly here. If this started happening here, would you say that it is also none of our business? Should child molesting not be criminal either?

---

I would also add to this that I am completely unconcerned with what they do in other cultures. Did you know that in other cultures, they find eating beef to be about one of the worst crimes you can commit? So should we be worrying about what other cultures are thinking or doing?

And islandclimber pretty much hit the nail squarley on the head.

I am most desperately sorry for having offended anyone. This was never my intention. My argument was to the extreme and I am sincerely sorry.

Please allow me to clarify my position. My argument refers to incestuous couples having children. Of course it is no one's business what two consensual adults do, and I would absolutely never take away from the love between two people, no matter what their relationship.

I do, however, believe that there are some things for which every couple should be accountable. That, of course, is having a child. I do not think it is fair for anyone to bring a child into the world when there is such a high risk that the child will have serious health issues. To intentionally give birth to child whose life will be one of hardship is not fair, in my eyes. Is this child not, in a small way, a victim?Of Course, I know that this is not always the case, and I do not mean to imply that the couple could not be the most capable, loving, and devoted parents. I do, however, think that there are other ways if such a couple wishes to be parents.

Again, my most sincere apologies. I certainly do not mean to offend and I'll be more careful about my rash choice of words in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

I do, however, believe that there are some things for which every couple should be accountable. That, of course, is having a child. I do not think it is fair for anyone to bring a child into the world when there is such a high risk that the child will have serious health issues. To intentionally give birth to child whose life will be one of hardship is not fair, in my eyes. Is this child not, in a small way, a victim?Of Course, I know that this is not always the case, and I do not mean to imply that the couple could not be the most capable, loving, and devoted parents. I do, however, think that there are other ways if such a couple wishes to be parents.

---

But again, what about two people in a non-incestous relationship who have serious genetic problems with a high risk of passing it on to their children? Should they then be barred from having children?

I'm not saying anyone should be barred, or that they shouldn't! I'm not naive enough to think that that could or should ever happen. I'm simply saying that they have a much greater responsibility when deciding to take on such an endeavour.

Of course they do. But I'm just pointing out the fallacy of using the potential gentic problems as a reason for criminalization of incest. I've heard all of the arguments and I agree that there are many negatives. I just haven't seen or heard anything compelling enough to warrant a law.

According to my point of view ,I think its not good,but they can love each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metal134

Nobody is defending incest. We are are simply saying; it is none of our business. There are any number of things I find disgusting and perverse, but they are none of my business. So it's perverse; why is that grounds for criminilization? That's not good enough for me.

---

Correct. Not everything that is disgusting and perverse should be illegal. Just things that have a detrimental effect to society. And I think there is a solid case for that when it comes to incest.


I'm actually sick of this thread. I've made my case. I've listened to the counter arguments. I'm not going to change my mind. I'm done.

yep. we aren't exactly going to change each other's mind so it's agreeing to disagree

This case is not about brother and sister, but father and daughter, but I thought I'd post it here. Most of you may have heard about it already.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/ttv/news.jhtml

I was wondering if someone was going to post about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

I was wondering if someone was going to post about that.

---

Do you disapprove (of posting it, I mean?)

I was wondering how a crime like that could go unnoticed by family, friends, neighbours and authorities. Or did people just keep their mouths shut?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbara0207

Do you disapprove (of posting it, I mean?)

I was wondering how a crime like that could go unnoticed by family, friends, neighbours and authorities. Or did people just keep their mouths shut?

---

I don't disapprove (I was thinking about posting it myself).

I was wondering the same thing? Didn't the wife/mother/grandmother say she didn't know?

Yes, she did. But I can't imagine she had no idea or at least suspicion. But Fritzl is said to be a tyrant. Perhaps she did not dare to say anything because she was too afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbara0207

Yes, she did. But I can't imagine she had no idea or at least suspicion. But Fritzl is said to be a tyrant. Perhaps she did not dare to say anything because she was too afraid.

---

That's true, an article said that three of the kids grew up with the grandparents, how did people not wonder where those three came from?

Fritzl told them his daughter was living with a sect now and, being unable to raise her children, had laid the newborn babies at his door. But credulous must you be to believe that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbara0207

This case is not about brother and sister, but father and daughter, but I thought I'd post it here. Most of you may have heard about it already.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/ttv/news.jhtml

---

I saw it in yesterday's newspaper. Absolutely incredible that it could go on for 24 years. It's hard to believe she couldn't have had an opportunity to escape. I hope this man gets the harshest of punishment. Frankly he's lowest of the low.

I would love to hear his justification. That would be amusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I hope this man gets the harshest of punishment. Frankly he's lowest of the low.

---

I hope so, too.
He must have planned everything so meticulously and his whole life must have revolved around locking up those ppl and heaving children with his daughter.... I don't see what anyone gets out of planning such a crime and basing his whole life on it... :confused: :mad:

I can't believe people put this in the incest thread. That has nothing to do with incest between consenting people, it's RAPE and abuse. You people really use any means to reach your end, but I hope some people out there will avoid falling into the trap of "incest is wrong" because of this video.