Atheists and Incest? Yay or Nay?

Cactus Col

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424937.stm

This is a follow up article to the one linked in the original post. It gives a bigger over view about the couple's relationship.

Looking at the two articles we learn that Patrick, presumably made contact with his mother and sister in 2000.
"He did not meet his mother and biological family until he was 23. He travelled to Leipzig with a friend in 2000, determined to make contact with his other relatives."

So his sister would have been 15 at that stage (she was 22 in march 2007 when the article was published).

Their Mother passed away about 6 months later.

After which Patrick moved in with his sister. Their first child was born in 2001, when the sister was 16 years old. (maybe 17).


In theory, I agree what two consenting adults get up to in their own bedroom is their own business.

However, in this case at least, where you have a chap in his 20's messing about with his sister in her mid teens after her mother passed away ... well it's a bit on the creepy side.

Tigger

its not a bit anything its sick

ah common this is rediculious there are comparisons to homosexuality here which is crazy

sure what about beastiallity

athiesim is not about burning morals , its about being moral an good for humanities sake

im sure the nihilsim fourm is around somewhere

Dades

Tigger wrote: »

sure what about beastiallity

Animals can't give consent. Adult siblings can.

The question is should it be banned as a detriment to society, not because people find it unpalatable.

eddyc

It would be very hard to ban it, but people should be cautioned strongly that they are at risk of procreating people with severe genetic defects that will make their lives very difficult.

Dave!

Tigger wrote: »

its not a bit anything its sick

ah common this is rediculious there are comparisons to homosexuality here which is crazy

sure what about beastiallity

athiesim is not about burning morals , its about being moral an good for humanities sake

im sure the nihilsim fourm is around somewhere

Emotion overriding rationality by any chance?

Conar

I instantly voted no as I had that ewwww feeling when I first read it.
Now after reading though I would say maybe it should be decriminalised.
It is an awkward one though there are so many factors different to that of a "normal" couple.
Lets say for example in the situation of casual sex. I wouldn't like to think that it would ever get to the point where peoples sisters would be their fcuk buddies and an accidental pregnancy was the outcome.
At the same time I see no problem with 2 adults sharing their life together and minding their own business in their own relationship and bed in their own house. Who are we to impose our morals on something that causes no harm to others.
I'd also be interested in seeing some true stats as to the dangers of incestuous offspring.

JCB as mentioned by others we as atheists don't all follow the same moral code and I find it very annoying that people won't accept this.
Yes a much higher proportion of atheists may be pro gay marriage or pro-choice than Christians but no more so than more Democrats in the USofA are as opposed to Republicans.
We don't meet up every Sunday and agree on a combined stance on issues.
The only true common belief is a lack of belief in a supernatural Deity.

Zillah

Tigger wrote: »

athiesim is not about burning morals , its about being moral an good for humanities sake

What the hell does morality have to do with two consenting adults having sex? You're not objecting on moral grounds, you're being childishly squeemish, nothing more.

And atheism is about not believing in God, nothing more. Perhaps you're getting confused with secular humanism?

anti-venom

It's got to be wrong on so many levels. What about those defective genes that all of us carry? A child born from an incestious relationship would have a greatly increased risk of being born with mental or physical deformities. The parent's chromosomes have to be different to cancel out the defective genes.

It must be grossly immoral to take this risk knowing that your offspring could be severely deformed?

You don't need a detailed knowledge of genetics to know the risks. Socities such as the Australian Aboriginies have traditionally gone to elaborate lengths to avoid this danger. They were aware of the risks.

Dades

anti-venom wrote: »

It must be grossly immoral to take this risk knowing that your offspring could be severely deformed?

You appear to have glossed over the other posts in this thread that alluded to unrelated couples, one or more of whom carry a genetic defect.

Would you legislate against them reproducing also? Or is it okay for them as their relationship is not distasteful?

Rev Hellfire

anti-venom wrote: »

It must be grossly immoral to take this risk knowing that your offspring could be severely deformed?

I totally agree, perhaps we should also sterilise people who are handicapped through genetic conditions, poor eyesight is often inherited lets bar couples who are both require glasses, and fat people cos that's genetic now.

People take risks when it comes to breeding very day of the week, the risks from what I recall for isolated incest are nowhere as great as you make out, its rife in the animal kingdom.

Dave!

But anti-venom, does that mean that anybody who carries a hereditary disease, infection, condition, or pre-disposition should be forbidden to have sex?

Should alcoholics not be allowed to breed either?! Cancer is also more likely if there's a family history. Haemophilia is hereditary also, as is dwarfism.

Aside from that however, hypothetically (and it doesn't seem far-fetched to me) if 2 siblings were in a relationship where there were no risk of pregnancy, would you still oppose it? It's not unlikely that siblings in a sexual relationship would be aware of the risks, and so may opt to have a medical procedure to prevent that happening.

edit:

I see we all pounced at once. Carry on

Burial

Just reading the title, and not the thread. It's a big NAY for me. (Personally, wouldn't do it)

Any child produced from this is more easily able to get diseases due to not getting any new genes into the pool.* However, it's hypocritical of me to say they can't when I feel people should be able to as they like. As long as the people involved are over 18 and understood the risks, then they should be able so if they so wish. I personally wouldn't. I also wouldn't be a homosexual. (I don't swing that way) Doesn't mean I can stop them, because I don't do it. So they should be allowed if they like, however I feel I don't understand much about the subject to truely comment on the matter.

*Only example I can think of, of why it is bad. If this is the only arguement, it is quite a poor arguement. Social acceptence shouldn't count as an arguement against either.

*NOTE*

I'm not a homophobe, when writing this I don't mean to come across as one. I treat everyone the same. I don't look down or up at someone because of their sexual orientation.

Tigger

Dades wrote: »

Animals can't give consent. Adult siblings can.

The question is should it be banned as a detriment to society, not because people find it unpalatable.

of course animals can give consent i dare you to try to pet my dog on the head you'd lose an arm this is because he dosent give consent
people he knows tho he would allow to pat him anytime its true of all big animals


there are many things that people find unpalatable there are idiots on the local radio at the moment giving out about the govt vaccinating little girls against cervical cancer i find them unpalatable with their strange views based on their imaginary friend and what he may think but that s life and i accept it

i however do not accept that there is any sense in incest and as a lifelong athiest i believe there is a line and this is so far past it its unbelievable

Cactus Col

What about Father Daughter incest .... Mother with Son .... Father with Son, Mother with Daughter.

Assuming all are above the legal age of consent .... should the state have any say in these relationships?

Burial

Cactus Col wrote: »

What about Father Daughter incest .... Mother with Son .... Father with Son, Mother with Daughter.

Assuming all are above the legal age of consent .... should the state have any say in these relationships?

No, why should they have a say in any relationship? *EDIT* Unless one of the parties doesn't agree. I'm presuming both agree, and both understand the risks, etc.

Tigger wrote:

of course animals can give consent i dare you to try to pet my dog on the head you'd lose an arm this is because he dosent give consent
people he knows tho he would allow to pat him anytime its true of all big animals


there are many things that people find unpalatable there are idiots on the local radio at the moment giving out about the govt vaccinating little girls against cervical cancer i find them unpalatable with their strange views based on their imaginary friend and what he may think but that s life and i accept it

i however do not accept that there is any sense in incest and as a lifelong athiest i believe there is a line and this is so far past it its unbelievable

The animal can't give consent to anything. I very much doubt the animal gave you consent to "own" it in the first place. You can't say oh this dog just gave me consent because he just barked. You have no idea what a dog means and that is the problem. You'll never know when and where and why the dog gave consent. You only have the offenders word on the matter. So no. Dogs can't show consent. They can be obedient. You trained your dog to attack strangers and trained your dog to respect you.

For the vaccine, I don't know what the strange views against were, but if this helps erradicate this cancer without harming a child or a future adult, then I'm all for it.

wrote:

i however do not accept that there is any sense in incest and as a lifelong athiest i believe there is a line and this is so far past it its unbelievable

Please explain why incest isn't any sense. If you have said why in this thread, I'll find it and report back. I'm reading the whole thread now.

Tigger

Burial wrote: »

The animal can't give consent to anything. I very much doubt the animal gave you consent to "own" it in the first place. You can't say oh this dog just gave me consent because he just barked.

two points on this my dog was living in a small three bed hoise when i got him he was hyper and angry ande not being exercised properly exercised

he clicked with me instantly and i took him home with me on the tank of my motorbike thant friendship i no more own him than he owns me he in fact gets the better side of the deal
no i'm not promotiong beastiality but if he has a tick it can be hassel getting the head out if he has already worried the body off
i have to dig into his flesh and his eyes water with the pain but he lets me
he knows that i would never hurt him he consents to me to help him

second point in my opinion anyone who sleeps with their child is mentally challanged the child reaised by this freak (sorry but thats what they are) would be in far less of a position to give consent

You have no idea what a dog means and that is the problem. You'll never know when and where and why the dog gave consent. You only have the offenders word on the matter. So no. Dogs can't show consent. They can be obedient. You trained your dog to attack strangers and trained your dog to respect you.

why would i train my dog to attack strangers? thats some assummption . of course its consent if he likes someone they can pet him but they should talk to him first

For the vaccine, I don't know what the strange views against were, but if this helps erradicate this cancer without harming a child or a future adult, then I'm all for it.

christlanity

Please explain why incest isn't any sense. If you have said why in this thread, I'll find it and report back. I'm reading the whole thread now.

expalin rationally why in a logical manner insest makes no sense

ok after you explain why people are not allowed to fap in public libraries on the net

OK-Cancel-Apply

Making LAW shouldn't be about what personally disgusts us, as that's highly subjective and mostly irrelevant. What we should consider is on what grounds we take away the rights and freedoms of two consenting adults to do what the like with each other in private.

Why even talk about animals? Can't we stick to humans here? Whether bestiality should be legalised or not is a topic for another thread IMO.

Tigger

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Making LAW shouldn't be about what personally disgusts us, as that's highly subjective and mostly irrelevant. What we should consider is on what grounds we take away the rights and freedoms of two consenting adults to do what the like with each other in private.

Why even talk about animals? Can't we stick to humans here? Whether bestiality should be legalised or not is a topic for another thread IMO.

i disagree; can we discuss consent
i think that if a child is indoctrinated to believe that his father is allowed roger him once the age of consent is reached is he fully able to give consent?

i think that my
dog is far more likley to give a fully formed decision on whetrher he wants to have sex then tis stunted person raised by a freak

Cactus Col

I can't get behind legalising Incest.

The couple in the article that is linked to in the first post hooked up after the death of their mother. The brother was in his twenties, the sister in her mid teens (about 16/17).

On a bit of a tangent, when people say consenting adult, what standards are they using. The age of consent in China is 14. In Israel is 16 (however, sexual relations are allowed from 14 as long as the older partner is no more than 3 years older). The Austrian age of consent is 13 if the partner is not more than 3 years older... otherwise it's 14.

seamus

Tigger wrote: »

second point in my opinion anyone who sleeps with their child is mentally challanged the child reaised by this freak (sorry but thats what they are) would be in far less of a position to give consent

How so? Everyone is raised differently. Everyone's parents have their own issues. You can't make a blanket statement that if a person's parent is X, then that person cannot be normal. This of course is academic, but assuming that a girl and her father never had a sexual or otherwise romantic relationship before her 18th birthday, then how is her upbringing any different from every other girl?

That's the kind of rationale that some religious parents would use about atheists - "Ah shure the poor guy's not right. His parents are atheist you know?".

On a bit of a tangent, when people say consenting adult, what standards are they using. The age of consent in China is 14. In Israel is 16 (however, sexual relations are allowed from 14 as long as the older partner is no more than 3 years older). The Austrian age of consent is 13 if the partner is not more than 3 years older... otherwise it's 14.

Well, I would imagine everyone is working off the "adult" line here and picking 18 as the age. Consent varies from country to country, but I think most countries agree closer on what constitutes an adult, versus a child or teenager.

Dades

Regarding animals, Tigger, your dog allowing you to remove ticks, and a random animal getting buggered are inherently different. You need to see the distinction.

Tigger wrote: »

i think that if a child is indoctrinated to believe that his father is allowed roger him once the age of consent is reached is he fully able to give consent?

Eloquently put. I also would be less inclined to sanction a parent child relationship, given that the role of a parent is to protect a child, and this could allow for abuse.

However the case that prompted this thread involved a brother and sister that did not grow up together, which has to be viewed in a somewhat different light.

Cactus Col

seamus wrote: »

Well, I would imagine everyone is working off the "adult" line here and picking 18 as the age. Consent varies from country to country, but I think most countries agree closer on what constitutes an adult, versus a child or teenager.

I think the "adult" line is a complete cop out. Why would two randy teenagers wait til their 18th birthdays to consumate a relationship?

It's all well and good to say it's okay if both are consenting adults in full knowledge of the risks in theory. What happens when both siblings aren't two adults in full knowledge of the risks?

But what about in practice?

seamus

Cactus Col wrote: »

I think the "adult" line is a complete cop out. Why would two randy teenagers wait til their 18th birthdays to consumate a relationship?

They wouldn't, but they couldn't get married.

I'm not sure if incest itself is actually illegal, but we do know that siblings can't marry - which is really what this is all about. There is absolutely nothing that the law can do to prevent siblings from having a relationship. Having laws is all well and good, but you can't go beating down people's doors to make sure they're not shagging. So the only "control" we have is preventing them from getting married.

Which gives us a decent enough baseline - we tend to accept (in this country anyway) that only adults can give legal consent to marry.

Delirium

seamus wrote: »

I'm not sure if incest itself is actually illegal, but we do know that siblings can't marry - which is really what this is all about.

Saw a program on Channel 4 a couple of weeks ago about 2 english siblings in their 30s. They were being charged with incest and if found guilty were looking at 5 years in prison. Thats my recollection of the program.

EDIT: just found this on Irish Statue book web site, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0012/sec0004.html#zza12y1995s4

Prison is a possibly based on my reading of it.

Cactus Col

koth wrote: »

Saw a program on Channel 4 a couple of weeks ago about 2 english siblings in their 30s. They were being charged with incest and if found guilty were looking at 5 years in prison. Thats my recollection of the program.

Yeah .... I'm no lawyer ... but I'm pretty sure it is illegal here too

Burial

THANK GOD I BACKED-UP THIS POST!!! (It failed to post I lost all of it, but I had luckily put it all into a text document before hitting post )

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Interesting question. In the interest of eugenics, it would be outlawed of course. Not a morality thing but a health thing.


.

Isn't eugenics generally frowned upon, after Hitler tried murdering all the mental ill people in the hopes of removing all mental illness? Sorry for the use of nazi terminology, just isn't that the case today? I don't know much about eugenics, but if it doesn't effect your gene pool, what do you care?

seamus wrote:

Agreed. And I've totally forgotten what point (if any) I was trying to make
I tend to go off on tangents, forgetting there's an actual discussion taking place.
Consent is in fact where I think we should draw the line, but many people still have a problem with that - particularly when you get into the grittier aspects of sexual conduct - torture or even suicide. The argument could be made that if you're allowing serious torture or even suicide to take place in a sexual context, then the person being tortured or dying is not in the frame of mind to give proper consent.
Probably going a bit far, but I'm sure plenty of people would argue that those engaging (knowingly) in incest are not in the right frame of mind to be considered capable of giving consent.
Complete crap of course. I find scat to be more "offensive" than incest, yet if two adults want to crap on eachother for kicks, I see no reason to stop them.

Going into harm for pleasue is an issue, though off-topic to this thread. You seriously can't compare a woman wanting to be chocked and is killed, to incest? They are completly different. The government should interfere with suicide for pleasure, as it kills someone and someone else is involved. Your getting into another huge debate on assisted suicide, but assisted torture where consent is given, shouldn't be an issue, provided a finger isn't cut off and can't be replaced. This is getting hugely side-tracked and is moving away from the issue at hand.

theozter wrote:

Morally, I see nothing wrong with consenting adults, but when children become involved it becomes far greyer. They risk genetic defects, and they face social stigma.
Adopting would be a viable alternative.
I do not think government has any right to even know about it, let alone act on it.

The government only has a right to act once you waste resources. (Like smoking and the health sector. Governement has a right to charge a tax to people who use them. Same with drugs, they can ban them if it'll hurt the country more then benefit.)
If this child was already born and had weak genetics, would you stop that child from reproducing. Just because a child is deformed doesn't mean it doesn't have a right to life. The incesting adults aren't making their children deformed or are making their child out to be deformed. They are however increasing the chances that the child will be deformed.

Standman wrote:

In my opinion incest laws are another example of the law sticking it's nose where it has absolutely no business i.e. peoples private lives.

Agreed.

bogwalrus wrote:

maybe the law is necessary.
We have people getting pregnant in this day and age enexpectedly. Accidental births and the like. Who is'nt to say that these "brothers and sisters" might accidently get pregnant.
Sexual intercourse between two family members should probably not be allowed as there is still a percentage that the girl might get pregnant. And maybe the only way to prevent this is to make a law that is understood by all social classes.

I really can't understand your arguement here. Is it that you don't want people to have sex simply because there's a chance they'd get pregnant or are you saying they should only have sex if they try to have a child? Or does it only stand for Brothers and sisters? Even still, are you saying you support brothers and sisters having sex but are against them having a child or are you against them having sex completly? I'm genuinly cnfused with your comments. Maybe if you were definate on your stance, I'd understand where you stand on this, and not possibly or probably or maybe stand on this issue. you can argue for both sides, but I have no idea what you mean. All I know is you might want this "law" to which I have no idea what you mean by "law" either.

bogwalrus wrote:

well if i had a serious disease that i knew was hereditary i would make sure i could never have kids. As in i get a snippy snippy. That would be the right decision i think and that is where i think incest differs. Or the approach to it anyway.

Good for you! However, if there's a chance your children couldn't get the disease would you still have children? In fact, I'm presuming with your "if i had", you are a perfectly healthy person, which is why you approve of this method you speak of. I seriously doubt you'd do this if the roles were reversed. Imagine your wife, I'm presuming your male because you say your going to go "snippy, snippy", having a condition which her children are 1%, nah lets make it 5%, ah you know what 90%, sure of getting. Would you still have kids? If you have this hereditory disease, your solution is absurd. Why don't you remove yourself from the gene pool? You certainly wouldn't want your children living with it, so why would you want to live with it? (Sorry for the harshness, but I just don't get that arguement at all.)

Tigger wrote:

two points on this my dog was living in a small three bed hoise when i got him he was hyper and angry ande not being exercised properly exercised
he clicked with me instantly and i took him home with me on the tank of my motorbike thant friendship i no more own him than he owns me he in fact gets the better side of the deal
no i'm not promotiong beastiality but if he has a tick it can be hassel getting the head out if he has already worried the body off
i have to dig into his flesh and his eyes water with the pain but he lets me
he knows that i would never hurt him he consents to me to help him

Ok, you feel he trusts you. You don't know he trusts you. You only feel it. Thats the problem. He can let you dig a hole in his skull, but would he trust you with his life, or in fact your life with him? You don't know with a dog, because it is a dog.

wrote:

second point in my opinion anyone who sleeps with their child is mentally challanged the child reaised by this freak (sorry but thats what they are) would be in far less of a position to give consent

Agreed, however the topic is adults who are of consent who give consent and are brother and sister. (Brother and brother, etc doesn't matter.) Incest isn't exculisivly(spelling?) about peadophilles. There are some who do that, and everyone agrees here that that ISN'T acceptable and should be outlawed, which it is.

wrote:

why would i train my dog to attack strangers? thats some assummption . of course its consent if he likes someone they can pet him but they should talk to him first

So if he doesn't know someone and they pat him, he bites them, as you said, because he doesn't know them. Dogs are dogs. They get familiar with their surroundings and get comfortable with them. Your dog likes you because your a supplier or shelter and food. Make the dog get his own, find his own shelter, and imagine how much he'd like you then.

wrote:

christlanity

Maybe priests and Christian groups did, but you can't say a religion was against this. I was looking for the reasons why, in fact I wasn't even looking for any reasons. I was just wondering was there any besides the religious people who hate change. (Like health risk involved)

wrote:

expalin rationally why in a logical manner insest makes no sense
ok after you explain why people are not allowed to fap in public libraries on the netquote

In a library, you go there to read and study. You don't go there to have sex or masturbate. Also, I don't want to see a guy staring at me and getting himself on. I have no idea what a netquote is. I only presume you mean adult sites. If you still don't agree with what I'm saying then ask yourself, is it ok for people to watch me having sex? No. Is it ok for me to see other people having sex? No. Unless you get consent. And if you say consent is gotten from everyone in the library, it's a library, a government owned building. The government doesn't allow any sexual activities under it's watch as it'll distract you from your job and the goal of a library isn't to have sex. It's to learn adn read and study, ie to provide information. Now can you please contribute to this thread, and reply to my comment?

Tigger wrote:

i disagree; can we discuss consent
i think that if a child is indoctrinated to believe that his father is allowed roger him once the age of consent is reached is he fully able to give consent?
i think that my
dog is far more likley to give a fully formed decision on whetrher he wants to have sex then tis stunted person raised by a freak

Stop making the assumption all incestius people are peadophilles who go after their own children. In the scenario you raised, where the child was told it's ok by and adult during the upbringing, then it's not ok for that father to incest with the child, no matter what age. The father just trained the child to say yes when the child is older. It's teh same with a dog. You train it. At a young age if you preformed beatiality on it, it'd think it was right or at least ok, and be more willing. Even as an adult, it'd think that'd be ok. Besides as I say, and as I'll say again. Dogs are dogs, and you will never get consent from a dog.

Cactus_col wrote:

On a bit of a tangent, when people say consenting adult, what standards are they using. The age of consent in China is 14. In Israel is 16 (however, sexual relations are allowed from 14 as long as the older partner is no more than 3 years older). The Austrian age of consent is 13 if the partner is not more than 3 years older... otherwise it's 14.

I'm using Irish standard. You raise a good point, (Even if you don't mean to) about 14 year old chinese incest couple(father daughter) who come and live in Ireland. I'm not sure on that position. However if there of the same age then it should be fine. I don't think padeophillia should be allowed.

Seamus wrote:

They wouldn't, but they couldn't get married.

I'm not sure if incest itself is actually illegal, but we do know that siblings can't marry - which is really what this is all about. There is absolutely nothing that the law can do to prevent siblings from having a relationship. Having laws is all well and good, but you can't go beating down people's doors to make sure they're not shagging. So the only "control" we have is preventing them from getting married.

Which gives us a decent enough baseline - we tend to accept (in this country anyway) that only adults can give legal consent to marry.

Agreed, however the age to marry is the same for everyone regardless of who ya like. (I presume homosexuals can marry now yes?)

*NOTE*
Sorry for spelling and posting errors. This is a huge reply, and I'm actually tired after writing all this.

Cactus Col

Burial wrote: »

I'm using Irish standard. You raise a good point, (Even if you don't mean to) about 14 year old chinese incest couple(father daughter) who come and live in Ireland. I'm not sure on that position. However if there of the same age then it should be fine. I don't think padeophillia should be allowed.

I was thinking more the other way round ... Say a group of irish people in China.

(I had the Fairytale of Kathmandu in mind, where it seemed like the subject of the documentary was "grooming" and engaging teenage males in sexual relations)

Burial

Cactus Col wrote: »

I was thinking more the other way round ... Say a group of irish people in China.

(I had the Fairytale of Kathmandu in mind, where it seemed like the subject of the documentary was "grooming" and engaging teenage males in sexual relations)

Well, you'd have to accept their culture. Just like they'd have to respect ours when they come to our country.

From Wikipedia:

Wikipedia wrote:

The age of consent in Nepal is sixteen, thus no local law was violated.I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0000ff]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I Given that age of consent in Ireland is 17 years old,[3] and the the Irish government can prosecute for foreign acts,[4] the film caused considerable controversy in the Republic of Ireland.I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0000ff]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I

Honestly, legally I don't know what to do, but personally I feel he was ok to do it. If it's ok there then it should be no problem. However, if he abused local laws then he should pay for them. However he didn't and Ireland doesn't have jurisdiction there (I know it says Ireland can prosecute) This is a tough subject, and springing it to me right after lunch... Anyway the best solution, for consent anyhow, is that I believe Nepalise coming here should be 17, and Irish there should respect the Irish law of 17 and respect their law if higher. Sexual relations depend on the two countries and you must follow the oldest one, as you've been brought upto know that consent is 17, not 16. However, if I'm 16 and I go there it's alright for the Nepalise to have sex with me, as I pass their age of consent.

I hope I'm making sense here...

Tigger

ok

i'm gonna move to a position

i'll accept that siblings can have the loving if they grew up seperatly and are adults

i'll allow that if its what they really want to do that siblings that grew up together but are now adults can have the loving but i really canty accept two things

1 that cross generationla incest is ok

2 that i will be forced to treat them as equals when it comes to hiring them

i will never hire someone that grew up in the locxality and is now boning his sister

Burial

Tigger wrote: »

ok

i'm gonna move to a position

i'll accept that siblings can have the loving if they grew up seperatly and are adults

i'll allow that if its what they really want to do that siblings that grew up together but are now adults can have the loving but i really canty accept two things

1 that cross generationla incest is ok

2 that i will be forced to treat them as equals when it comes to hiring them

i will never hire someone that grew up in the locxality and is now boning his sister

I too was in your position, until I thought about it, and said wait why do i have a problem? You have still, as of yet, to provide any reason that it's not ok, simply for the fact that you don't like it. You said you would on this post:

Tigger wrote:

expalin rationally why in a logical manner insest makes no sense
ok after you explain why people are not allowed to fap in public libraries on the netquote

I would like to hear your logical reasoning behind not hiring people, based on who they are married to, rather then their skill.