yes (between consenting adults)
yes, but only if they get sterilized
no!
not sure
Originally Posted by Delta40
You wouldn't do something personally so you want to make it illegal for others?
The rest is incoherent; I clearly said we were considering consenting adults.
Also: I guess some men like other men to f uck them and others don't. I'm definitely in the don't category and would campaign heavily to uphold the laws which make homosexuality illegal. See how it's no different to what you said?
As has been pointed out before, people are born gay. Incest is not a sexual orientation. For many its a learned behaviour and they would grow into consenting adults. You might not have a problem with that but I do especially if the family pattern is going to repeat itself.
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
What part of 'non-reproductive' don't you understand? "or many its a learned behaviour"? Unless you have some evidence, that's just an argument by assertion.
So society doesn't have a right to say who can f uck each other but it can say who has the right to reproduce? What hypocrisy!
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
please do not put homosexuality next to incest. it is not the same.
one is born gay and so naturally one pursues a life style of that of same sex relationship. this does not involve others being hurt or molested when two gay people get together.
incest involves non-consensual sex too. where by one imposes sex on the other.
a brother and a sister are blood related. by definition a sister and a brother means they have the same mother or father which means they are to apply to what a sister and a brother mean. this include no sex between them otherwise they are no longer seen as brother and sister.
look at it like a role play:
four people get a card each telling them they are : gay/gay then brother/sister. they all four act out what their titles/roles are.
the two with a cards that says gay on them will act out a gay relationship which m ay or may not involve sex depending.
those with a card that says brother/sister will act out their roles as that and therein no sex is involved whatsoever just family bond.
because they are brother and sister born to that title and therefore must stick to the definition of family.
Last edited by cacian; 10-22-2013 at 05:06 AM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Perhaps you ought to look up 'hypocrisy' in the dictionary.
We are talking about consensual incest only. Non-consensual incest would be wrong because non-consensual sex is wrong, not because incest is.
Go ahead pick on my use of words instead of admitting where you think society has a say. I say no from the get go while you think there is healthy incest which can be controlled.
How come the law doesn't prevent bad heterosexuals from reproducing or marrying? We don't do background checks on whether a couples relationship is healthy or not because its none of our damn business. All heterosexuals - even convicted rapists and murderers cannot be excluded so why should incestuous families have the door slammed in their face if the incest law is lifted?
You can't pick and choose a select few from one group when the same law doesn't discriminate at all for another group .
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
Incestuous reproduction results in disorders in offspring - the state has a vested interest in preventing this. This has no impact on the morality of consensual sex that does not result in children.
yes it has. it sets the wrong example to others that it is ok when it is not. it is very clear what the role of a brother and sister in a family set up means. anything outside this compound that results in sexual contact between them is outside the frame of what a sister and a brother mean. it is borderline lunacy to think it has no impact on anyone.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
incest is has negative input and it only carries one meaning and that is of inappropriate undesired sexual act. a sister is to treat her brother like a brother and vice versa because that is what their respective titles suggest and what nature suggests too.
Last edited by cacian; 10-22-2013 at 11:35 AM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
You're missing the point completely. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The law of marriage for heterosexuals doesn't have any criteria attached to it at all. Obviously the state should have a vested interest in preventing all birth disorders don't you think? Yet even people with genetic diseases can reproduce and pass their problems down because that is their right so your argument that incestuous reproduction results in disorders in offspring is not a defense to include some incestuous couples but exclude others.
The fact is, if you lift the law on incest, you will have to face the reality that all people who engage in this practice, no matter what the relationship and however it came about, will have the thumbs up to marry AND reproduce. They don't have to account for their relationship nor will they have to ask for permission to reproduce because heterosexuals are not required to meet this standard. Goose. Gander.
At the moment, people who are engaged in incest are treated as second class citizens. By allowing marriage we demonstrate approval and validation of the practice. I won't allow this to happen. They can certainly live de-facto and reproduce to their hearts content but their relationship doesn't warrant legal recognition.
At the end of the day, the law against incest is society's way of saying we don't approve of the practice and although we can't prevent these unions, we won't formally legitimize them.
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
[At the moment, people who are engaged in miscegenation are treated as second class citizens. By allowing marriage we demonstrate approval and validation of the practice. I won't allow this to happen. They can certainly live de-facto and reproduce to their hearts content but their relationship doesn't warrant legal recognition.
At the end of the day, the law against miscegenation is society's way of saying we don't approve of the practice and although we can't prevent these unions, we won't formally legitimize them.
[At the moment, people who are engaged in homosexual relationships are treated as second class citizens. By allowing marriage we demonstrate approval and validation of the practice. I won't allow this to happen. They can certainly live de-facto and reproduce to their hearts content but their relationship doesn't warrant legal recognition.
At the end of the day, the law against homosexual relationships is society's way of saying we don't approve of the practice and although we can't prevent these unions, we won't formally legitimize them.]
If we allow incest, we ought to let incestuous couples have children. Nice strawman.
I now leave the thread for the same reasons as Volya
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote