Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

Shakespeare's Sister

I heard of Turing recently - think it's fair to say genius. What a waste - of a life that, by not even 42, had achieved so much for humanity.
Imagine how much more he could have achieved.

Karl Stein

Czarcasm wrote: »

They actually don't. That's not how a society functions.

So people don't have a right to be left alone? What century are you posting from?

Authority takes it's direction from society.

Except for all those well documented times when society took its direction from authority.

Are you sure about that?

Yes. Most barbaric practices were outlawed without referendum.

Sand

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

The problem IMO though is: where does this attraction come from? Maybe it's totally innocent but when abuse is most likely to occur in families I'd be afraid of the possibility of grooming/conditioning being involved.

Apparently the theory is there is genetic imprinting/attraction. Family members are often willing to die/kill for each other afterall - a darwinian advantage that even animals share. On the other hand, Israeli kibbutz which tried to raise (non related) girls and boys together from childhood found that despite that closeness, practically none of the girls/boys actually had relationships or married - despite not being related, they felt like siblings and it was all at a gut level a bit creepy to have a relationship with someone they imprinted on from childhood. The childhood closeness actually worked against the people later forming adult relationships.

In cases where siblings or parent/children are separated this imprinting/attraction seems to lack that familiarity which acts as a check. Instead there's an attempt to try find a common link, to catch up on expected familiarity/intimacy, a recognition of resemblances, and it can misfire. There's a couple of stories in the media which seem to reflect this. A US mother in her 30s who was jailed for a sexual relationship with her teenage son having only met him after more than a decade apart, a British daughter who was expecting her fathers child having only met him 20 years after he left her mother, and that German case where a half-brother and sister have had several children together having met when the half-brother tracked down his maternal family - being raised separately.

It seems as if the instinct to love/protect your family can misfire, or misses a crucial stage of development when family are separated. Those sort of genetic misfires are not entirely uncommon - a man can find a woman extremely attractive due to her physically ticking all the boxes that meet basic procreation drives. That woman could be entirely unable to have children, so the attraction is a misfire (genetically) but its still there.

Czarcasm

Karl Stein wrote: »

So people don't have a right to be left alone? What century are you posting from?

The 21st century where there is no such Human Right as "The Right to be Left Alone".

Except for all those well documented times when society took its direction from authority.

Authority given Government by society. Unless of course you're talking about a dictatorship?

Yes. Most barbaric practices were outlawed without referendum.

I'm not sure what exactly that has to do with the fact that incest is still illegal? Do you mean that incest could be decriminalised without a referendum?

I don't.

eviltwin

Czarcasm wrote: »

Relationships between family members are fraught with difficult dynamics at the best or times.

Relationships between people who aren't related are fraught with difficult dynamics at the best of times.

Two or more family members entering into a sexual relationship is just a recipe for disaster from a sociological and biological perspective.

Society evolved from moving outside our own circles, incest would be devolution rather than evolution.

There are plenty of problems with it if you actually really gave it some thought.

I completely agree, its a recipe for disaster and I cannot see how anyone could have a sexual relationship with a family member and not have it cause major problems but that is life, people get into relationships all the time that are not suitable or that cause issues to the people around them, you still can't stop them nor should you. Sometimes people have to learn by their own actions. I can see your argument but I don't believe that is a reason to make it illegal.

Czarcasm

eviltwin wrote: »

I completely agree, its a recipe for disaster and I cannot see how anyone could have a sexual relationship with a family member and not have it cause major problems but that is life, people get into relationships all the time that are not suitable or that cause issues to the people around them, you still can't stop them nor should you. Sometimes people have to learn by their own actions. I can see your argument but I don't believe that is a reason to make it illegal.

There's the thing - it already IS illegal, and it will stay that way until such a time as society does not find incestuous relationships abhorrent.

You can say all you want that it's not for me to decide and it's not for the State to decide, but actually - it IS!

I know you're telling me I can't stop them nor should I, but I disagree with your assertion. I can at least try to stop them, and I should.

I can see your argument, but I see no reason to decriminalise incest.

Czarcasm

Delta Cello wrote: »

What should determine whether an act is illegal in your opinion?

How about you offer me some context and tell me what should determine whether incest be decriminalised in your opinion?

Czarcasm

Delta Cello wrote: »

My question is with respect to first principals so context would defeat the purpose.

Ohh you mean it's a loaded question? (I'm shocked!)

Well I don't answer loaded questions. You're obviously new around here, so perhaps you're not used to discussion forums where trick questions and nonsense like claiming you're basing your question on first principles really aren't helpful in a discussion.

nc19

If Cheryl cole was my sister and she was prancing around the house in her underwear (as all you wimins do) shed defo get it....

seamus

Czarcasm wrote: »

There's the thing - it already IS illegal, and it will stay that way until such a time as society does not find incestuous relationships abhorrent.

So basically what you're saying is that any law is OK provided that you can find enough people who say it is?

That's known as the "tyranny of the majority" and is one of the primary reasons why placing laws (like the abortion furore) into the constitution is a bad thing.

The law books should reflect laws which aim to serve the needs of society best. The wants and whims of society are not relevant.

With that in mind, every law needs to be justifiable on an ongoing basis. It does not become justifiable just because it exists.

Fr_Dougal

Deleted User wrote: »

i really tried to think of something to say but my mind was blank how does one reply to something like this

Oh you have an opinion alright.

Deleted User wrote: »

incest is way hot , as long as the people in question is over 18

Czarcasm

seamus wrote: »

So basically what you're saying is that any law is OK provided that you can find enough people who say it is?

I don't have to find enough people to say incest is not beneficial to society, in fact I don't have to look too hard for them at all. If you want the law changed to decriminalise incest, then the onus is on you to find enough people to support a change in the law.

I'm not saying ANY law is OK, there are plenty of laws I personally disagree with, but right now, in this thread, the only thing we're talking about is decriminalisation of incest. Many people in this thread maintain that they wouldn't have an issue with someone else engaging in incest, with the ever popular NIMBY and age of consent caveats. That position gives those people two choices -

- Campaign for decriminalisation of incest
- Move to a jurisdiction where there are no laws against the practice.

That's known as the "tyranny of the majority" and is one of the primary reasons why placing laws (like the abortion furore) into the constitution is a bad thing.

Well that isn't a loaded term at all, what with the word "tyranny" in there. I'd suggest that the will of the majority is a more accurate term, as it doesn't place any judgment on whether laws are "good" or "bad". If you want to change laws, then the onus is on you to make a compelling argument for the law to be changed. The law as it stands was made by the majority for the benefit of all in society. There will always be a minority in society who disagree with the law, but until the majority in society agree that the law should be changed, it won't be.

That's why you have the likes of a German think-tank saying there is no reason for the law to remain in place, but their opinion is meaningless, as the German Government which was elected by the people says that the law will stay in place for the benefit of all in German society.

The law books should reflect laws which aim to serve the needs of society best. The wants and whims of society are not relevant.

The law books already reflect laws which aim to serve the needs of society for the benefit of that society. The wants and whims of a minority in that society should not dictate that the laws be changed to suit them as that would not serve any need in society as a whole nor serve any benefit to society as a whole.

In my opinion, incest serves no need in society and serves no benefit to society.

With that in mind, every law needs to be justifiable on an ongoing basis. It does not become justifiable just because it exists.

If every law needed to be justified on an ongoing basis, the judicial system would be overwhelmed by appeals and challenges to the laws just to appease the individual who disagrees with the law. Cases would take decades, which is contrary to any effective judicial process.

A law exists because it has been justified. In order for incest to be decriminalised, a case must be made to show how it is unjustifiable and of no benefit to society as a whole.

Nobody here has yet been able to make that compelling case as to why incest should be decriminalised.

woodoo

Anything closer than a 1/8th relative is dangerous according to geneticists. So even marrying your cousin is bad news. Yet some cultures do it all the time.

0byme75341jo28

The only sister I want to ride is Sister Benidicta down the convent.

unfortunately

The genetic argument, which is essentially: incest results in a higher risk for genetic disorders in offspring which is undesirable therefore it should be illegal. But incest isn't the only way to have children with genetic disorders.

We don't stop people with genetic disorders from reproducing. Also, we all have mutations in our genome, usually this doesn't matter because other non-related people are unlikely to have those same mutations. Related people obviously have a higher likelihood of having similar mutations - but it doesn't make sense to criminalise it for that reason. There are non-related people who I could have a child with and it could have a higher risk of having a genetic disorder but that's legal.

If you are going to use the genetic argument then be consistent.

Czarcasm

Interesting background to the case mentioned in the OP actually -


German loses Human Rights appeal over incestuous relationship with sister

The European Court of Human Rights has upheld a German court's conviction of a man for an incestuous relationship with his younger sister, with whom he had four children.

The court ruled that there had been no violation of the right to respect private and family life, as the convicted 35-year-old man had argued when he brought his case to the Strasbourg-based rights court.

Stuebing had been placed in a children's home at the age of three and adopted at the age of seven by a foster family. He got back in touch with his biological family as an adult.

It was only then that he discovered he had a biological sister, Susan, who was seven years his junior.

They became close following the death of their mother in December 2000 and from January of the following year started living together. She was 16 years old when their sexual relationship began, the court noted.

They had four children, two of whom were handicapped. The couple subsequently separated and three of the four children are now in care.

After convicting Stuebing of incest several times, Leipzig district court eventually jailed him in 2005 for a year and two months.

The German courts did not convict Stuebing's sister, considering that since she suffered from a personality disorder and was very dependent on him, she was only partially liable, the Strasbourg ruling noted.

Stuebing appealed his conviction and when he lost there, turned to Germany's constitutional court. When that court rejected his case he went to the ECHR.

The Strasbourg court noted that there was no consensus on the issue.

Nevertheless, it argued, " ... all the legal systems reviewed, including those which did not impose criminal liability, prohibited siblings from getting married.

"There was therefore a broad consensus that sexual relationships between siblings were neither accepted by the legal order nor by society as a whole," said a statement from the court.

And actually when I made the suggestion earlier that someone who had no objection to incestuous relationships should move to a jurisdiction where there are no laws against the practice, I was actually thinking of France, which for many years had no laws against incest. Turns out my information was about four years out of date -


France makes incest a crime

France finally made incest a crime in its own right yesterday – reinstating it into the country's penal code more than 200 years after French revolutionaries threw it out as a "religious taboo".


Until now, incest was lumped together in French law in the category "rape" and "sex abuse", but French MPs have passed a bill specifically singling it out as an offence.

The vote was immediately welcomed by Isabelle Aubry, president of the international association for incest victims, who said: "Before fighting a taboo, one must start by naming it."

The new law defines incest as rape or sexual abuse "within the family, on a minor, by a relative or any other person having lawful or de facto authority over the victim". This includes parents, siblings and partners of family members.

The law is more than symbolic as it reinforces the notion of constraint.

"The text considers almost all incestuous acts on a minor as committed through constraint and thus qualified as rape or sexual aggression, and not as molesting without violence or threats, constraints or surprise," said a parliamentary spokesman.

"To be almost obliged to prove that no, one wasn't OK about having sexual relations with a member of one's family was an extra (form of) suffering," said Miss Aubry.

Louis Fort, an MP from President Nicolas Sarkozy's right-wing UMP party who drew up the law, described it as a victory for France's estimated "two million victims of incest".

The law also introduces measures to raise awareness in schools about incest and improve support for victims.

Duiske

Akrasia wrote: »

In ireland, the list of people who you can't marry includes plenty of non genetically related people.

A man may not marry his:

Wife’s Mother (mother-in-law)

Now there's a disappointment I can happily live with.

Czarcasm

Actually the more I read about this German case, the more it strengthens the case for maintaining the current laws against incest as they are. The case involves every conceivable objection I referred to earlier, that incest is never just as simplistic as "two consenting adults" nonsense -

Patrick Stübing (born 1977 in Leipzig, East Germany) is a German locksmith who has been in an incestuous relationship with his biological sister, Susan Karolewski, since 2001. The relationship has produced four children: Eric, Sarah, Nancy, and Sofia. Sofia, the only healthy child, remains with the couple. Two children suffer from severe physical and mental disabilities, and another was born with a heart condition that required a heart transplant. All three disabled children were placed in foster care.

The relationship caused additional controversy and legal action because incest is illegal in Germany.

Stübing is the third of eight children born into a low income family. He was fostered at age 3 due to being attacked with a knife[1] by his alcoholic father. He was adopted by his foster parents at age 7, with whom he lived in Potsdam. His sister was born in 1984, on the day their parents' divorce was finalised. Stübing did not meet his mother and biological family until 2000 when he was 23.[2] According to Stübing, the relationship between him and his sister became incestuous six months after their mother's heart attack, which caused her death, in 2001.

Karolewski is mentally subnormal, semi-literate, and was 16 at the time of giving birth to their first child in October 2001. The relationship was discovered when their first child was born. A nurse suspected Stübing was the father of his sister's child and contacted police. Upon his second conviction of incest, Stübing was sentenced to ten months in prison. He was later sentenced to two and a half years in prison for his third incest conviction.

During the latter sentence, Karolewski had a relationship with an unknown man who claimed to be her boyfriend and had a child with him, which she gave up rights to when Stübing was released from prison after.

Stuebing's and Karolewski's siblings and parents are dead.

Patrick Stübing, Wikipedia

Iwasfrozen

suicide_circus wrote: »

I've often said, if other let's say "non traditional" relationships are A-OK nowadays, I struggle to see the logical objection to incest.
Two consenting adults etc

One word. Children.

0byme75341jo28

The description of incest as a fundamental right is ridiculous in fairness..

TheBeardedLady

No, it shouldn't remain a crime but tbh, the idea turns my stomach and I wouldn't want to live in a society where it's prevalent and acceptable. Just because it turns my stomach doesn't mean it should remain a crime though.

Buona Fortuna

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

No, it shouldn't remain a crime but tbh, the idea turns my stomach and I wouldn't want to live in a society where it's prevalent and acceptable. Just because it turns my stomach doesn't mean it should remain a crime though.

It turns mine too. I think mainly because I still have the image of marrying my mother-in-law burned into my retinas. Thanks for loading that one up Duiske.

I wonder though if it could be left as illegal but just decriminalised. I just don't see the value in sending anyone to prison for it - unless they're working their way through the whole family.

Czarcasm

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

It turns mine too. I think mainly because I still have the image of marrying my mother-in-law burned into my retinas. Thanks for loading that one up Duiske.

I wonder though if it could be left as illegal but just decriminalised. I just don't see the value in sending anyone to prison for it - unless they're working their way through the whole family.

I think the whole idea of criminalising incest isn't actually to put people in prison for it, but more for the idea of prison to act as a deterrent to incest.

The reason I say that is because if you think back to when suicide was illegal, it was to act as a deterrent to people who had ideas about taking their own life. It was then decriminalised because of the stigma in society surrounding suicide (to my knowledge, nobody was ever actually prosecuted having attempted suicide and failed), but that's why we no longer say that someone "committed" suicide, because it's no longer a crime.

With euthanasia, it's much more difficult to call for it's decriminalisation because despite the idea that it is "mercy killing", it's still someone else assisting a person to take their own life. It's not very popular in Irish society, so it'll be a long time before euthanasia is decriminalised and legislated for in this country.

With incest, there's really no call in society for it at all. Everyone will say they've no problem with two consenting adults and whatever, but it's fairly safe to say that when the likelihood of it ever being legislated for in this country, the chances of it are somewhere between slim and none.

Before homosexuality was decriminalised in this country (fairly recently tbf), gay people were still getting their freak on and what not, and with the decline of the RCC, there was a massive shift in society and calls for homosexuality to be decriminalised. Now we're on the cusp of same-sex marriage, and though poll after poll is putting support for the idea around the mid 80% mark, advocates for SSM are beginning to realise the reality that they really can't take that 80% for granted, and that it could be a much closer call on Referendum day.

Ireland is still very conservative in it's thinking, across the whole demographic spectrum, not just the blue rinse, bible bashing sort, but also attitudes among young people that really aren't as liberal as they appear to come across online.

TL;DR: Because there is unlikely ever to be any call to decriminalise incest in Ireland, everyone can say they wouldn't have an issue with it (as opposed to actually coming out in public and advocating for incest to be decriminalised!), and they can still keep their liberal credentials intact.

krudler

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ireland is still very conservative in it's thinking, across the whole demographic spectrum, not just the blue rinse, bible bashing sort, but also attitudes among young people that really aren't as liberal as they appear to come across online.

Probably depend on what part of the country it is too tbh, small rural areas would be more conservative than bigger cities in general.

As for incest, I don't think someone should go to jail for it, that's a bit extreme, but it wouldn't sit well in a parent/child situation. Brother/sister mehh I dunno, it's a big moral grey area.

Foxmint

P_1 wrote: »

Well if no children result from the relationship and both parties to it are consenting adults, then where's the harm?

Should marriage be the exclusive right of ordinary homo/heterosexual couples ?

Foxmint

Elle Thankful Soil wrote: »

The description of incest as a fundamental right is ridiculous in fairness..

Czarcasm wrote: »

I think the whole idea of criminalising incest isn't actually to put people in prison for it, but more for the idea of prison to act as a deterrent to incest.

krudler wrote: »

As for incest, I don't think someone should go to jail for it, that's a bit extreme, but it wouldn't sit well in a parent/child situation. Brother/sister mehh I dunno, it's a big moral grey area.

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

No, it shouldn't remain a crime but tbh, the idea turns my stomach and I wouldn't want to live in a society where it's prevalent and acceptable. Just because it turns my stomach doesn't mean it should remain a crime though.

I used to hear all the exact same arguments made against homosexuality 20 years ago.

Crusades

I think the Germans are trying to remove the few remaining barriers to Occum's Razor for ethical sexual relations in 21st century democracies:
Use your sexual organs for whatever you wish, so long as all parties consent

(I don't agree with this maxim, but that's another matter)

bb1234567

If they are both consenting adults who make eachother happy, then who are we to make laws to prevent that. Its exactly like how gay people used to be treated, people thought the idea of the same gender marrying eachother was sickening. But now weve come to accept gay marriage. I personally think incest is wrong but i dont think I or any of us should have the right to stop other people having incest.

Crusades

You cannot be for the criminalisation of incest but against the criminalisation of homosexuality.

It's logically impossible.

krudler

Foxmint wrote: »

I used to hear all the exact same arguments made against homosexuality 20 years ago.

Implying? I'm not homophobic in the slightest, I think gay marriage should be legal and have no issue with gay people whatsoever. Family members getting it on, especially parents and offspring isn't something I'd really go along with though. But they're different scenarios.

Crusades

krudler wrote: »

Implying? I'm not homophobic in the slightest, I think gay marriage should be legal and have no issue with gay people whatsoever. Family members getting it on, especially parents and offspring isn't something I'd really go along with though. But they're different scenarios.

Do you agree you have an irrational fear of incestuous relationships?

bb1234567

Birneybau wrote: »

Incest can result in seriously deformed kids, that's why it's frowned upon.

Would you stop two people with downs syndrome from having a baby together (if they could)? Or two people with primordial dwarfism? If these people had babies together theres a higher chance itll be deformed than if two siblings had a baby together, yet theyre not stopped.

Czarcasm

Foxmint wrote: »

I used to hear all the exact same arguments made against homosexuality 20 years ago.

I don't know why you included my post there tbh because if you read the post that came from in context, that's exactly the point I was making.

What I didn't do though, was try and associate incest with homosexuality or vice versa, which is what your post is in danger of doing when you suggest that the same arguments were made against homosexuality.

Incest and homosexuality are in no way directly related to each other, so if you were to try and argue the case for incest, it's probably best avoid using homosexuality as your basis for arguing for it's decriminalisation.

Pedophiles have tried to use the LGBT equality argument to call for legislating for pedophilia, and guess what? It didn't go down too well. Using the LGBT equality argument to call for legislating for incest isn't likely to go down well either.

They're two very different and separate issues.

krudler

Crusades wrote: »

Do you agree you have an irrational fear of incestuous relationships?

It's not irrational, already said a brother and sister wouldn't really bother me, definitely not in an illegal sense. But a parent/child situation it would. Comparing a father having sex with his own daughter to two unrelated adults having sex or a relationship isn't the same thing. That does basically boil down to a question of ethics, I doubt you'd find many people who wouldn't think it odd for a parent to be sleeping with their own child, no matter how old either party is.

Foxmint

krudler wrote: »

Implying? I'm not homophobic in the slightest, I think gay marriage should be legal and have no issue with gay people whatsoever. Family members getting it on, especially parents and offspring isn't something I'd really go along with though. But they're different scenarios.

But if they are happy doing so, it's quite frankly, none of your business.

RobertKK

I remember watching the X files and an episode titled home.

It was not a great advertisement for incest.

Czarcasm

bb1234567 wrote: »

Would you stop two people with downs syndrome from having a baby together (if they could)? Or two people with primordial dwarfism? If these people had babies together theres a higher chance itll be deformed than if two siblings had a baby together, yet theyre not stopped.

Actually they are, in this country at least, because they are considered to lack the mental capacity to give informed consent to a sexual encounter. They are also prohibited from advocating for themselves in certain legal matters such as mortgage applications.

The genetics argument against incest goes beyond the first generation, but the issue of children borne of an incestuous relationship has more to do with their psychological welfare than their physical welfare.

Czarcasm

Crusades wrote: »

You cannot be for the criminalisation of incest but against the criminalisation of homosexuality.

It's logically impossible.

It's not "logically impossible", because they're two completely unrelated issues.

Crusades

krudler wrote: »

It's not irrational, already said a brother and sister wouldn't really bother me, definitely not in an illegal sense. But a parent/child situation it would. Comparing a father having sex with his own daughter to two unrelated adults having sex or a relationship isn't the same thing. That does basically boil down to a question of ethics, I doubt you'd find many people who wouldn't think it odd for a parent to be sleeping with their own child, no matter how old either party is.

Hardly any sex is reproductive these days. Homosexuality is definitely not reproductive.

What if a father didn't know the girl was his daughter? Would that be ok in your view?

krudler

Foxmint wrote: »

But if they are happy doing so, it's quite frankly, none of your business.

Who said it was? people can have an opinion on something without it being their business ya know.
I doubt you'd find many people who'd be totally ok with a guy riding his 18 year old daughter, or a mother having sex with her son. It's still not comparable to two gay men or women who aren't biologically related.

Foxmint

krudler wrote: »

Who said it was? people can have an opinion on something without it being their business ya know.
I doubt you'd find many people who'd be totally ok with a guy riding his 18 year old daughter, or a mother having sex with her son. It's still not comparable to two gay men or women who aren't biologically related.

It's directly comparable. I used to hear all the exact same 'opinions' against homosexuality, and then, as now, the sexuality and love between two consenting adults is none of your prudish business.

Crusades

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's not "logically impossible", because they're two completely unrelated issues.

We're talking about sexual ethics here.

If you justify homosexuality by utilising the well established maxim:

Use your sexual organs for whatever you wish, so long as all participants consent

it's logically inconsistent to do this:

Use your sexual organs for whatever you wish, so long as all participants consent*

*and the participants are above X degrees of kinship.

bb1234567

krudler wrote: »

Who said it was? people can have an opinion on something without it being their business ya know.
I doubt you'd find many people who'd be totally ok with a guy riding his 18 year old daughter, or a mother having sex with her son. It's still not comparable to two gay men or women who aren't biologically related.

Obviously I find the idea of it horrifying but still, people argued the exact same points years ago in favour of making homosexuality illegal. And they thought they were as correct as you do now about incest.

Czarcasm

Foxmint wrote: »

It's directly comparable. I used to hear all the exact same arguments against homosexuality, and then, as now, the sexuality and love between two consenting adults is none of your prudish business.

You didn't hear anything about LGBT people advocating for relationships with their own relations.

You can tell people it's none of their business all you like, but it doesn't make any difference to the fact that it IS their business, and it is the States business, and there's nothing prudish about anyone not wanting to encourage sexual relationships between family members.

krudler

Foxmint wrote: »

It's directly comparable. I used to hear all the exact same 'opinions' against homosexuality, and then, as now, the sexuality and love between two consenting adults is none of your prudish business.

Lol what, I'm prudish now because I'd find it somewhat questionable that a parent is having sex with their own child? If both people consented and they weren't taken advantage of as children then meh whatever, do what ye like. Doesn't mean people should just act like there isn't something off about parents screwing their own children. I never said it was any of my business, but hey, people are allowed have opinions on things, welcome to life.

krudler

bb1234567 wrote: »

Obviously I find the idea of it horrifying but still, people argued the exact same points years ago in favour of making homosexuality illegal. And they thought they were as correct as you do now about incest.

Ok then, do I think people should go to jail for having sex with family members, no. Would I be totally fine and see no issue whatsoever with a guy having sex with his own daughter? Not really no, and no it's none of my business.

Incest and homosexuality are not the same thing, different situations and morals involved.

Foxmint

krudler wrote: »

Lol what, I'm prudish now because I'd find it somewhat questionable that a parent is having sex with their own child? If both people consented and they weren't taken advantage of as children then meh whatever, do what ye like. Doesn't mean people should just act like there isn't something off about parents screwing their own children. I never said it was any of my business, but hey, people are allowed have opinions on things, welcome to life.

And two consenting adults that love one another in any way they choose are allowed a life as well, so get one for yourself.

Czarcasm

Crusades wrote: »

We're talking about sexual ethics here.

If you justify homosexuality by utilising the well established maxim:



it's logically inconsistent to do this:


*and the participants are above X degrees of kinship.

But you just added in the caveat there yourself that makes all the bloody difference - the participants are related to each other!

Homosexuality isn't arguing for sexual relations between family members, it's arguing for sexual relations with members of the same sex that are NOT related to each other.

Nobody, LGBT, hetero, or otherwise, is arguing for the right to engage in incest.

Incest is a completely different concept that has no bearing whatsoever on the legality of homosexuality.

Foxmint

krudler wrote: »

Incest and homosexuality are not the same thing, different situations and morals involved.

What morals ? Yours ? Since when did people have to live by your 'morals'. Thankfuly they don't. Consenting adults that love one another can have any sexual relationship they choose and its none of your business to say, claim, or try to deny them otherwise.

krudler

Foxmint wrote: »

And two consenting adults that love one another in any way they choose are allowed a life as well, so get one for yourself.

Course they are, am I stopping anyone from having incest? nope. I didn't make it illegal, and I dont think people should be prosecuted for it. So calm your outrage jets