Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

Foxmint

krudler wrote: »

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

The only one 'outraged' and complaining and pontificatating about 'morals' and other peoples private consenting, loving, sex lives is you.

Czarcasm

Foxmint wrote: »

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.

You can keep saying that till you're blue in the face saying it, and it still won't make any difference to the current legal status regarding incest in this country.

krudler

Foxmint wrote: »

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.

...are you confusing my posts with someone else's or something? not once have I said on this thread people shouldnt be allowed sleep with family members, or be proscecuted for it. I'm not denying anyone anything. We do live by other people's morals btw, to think we don't is idiotic.

Foxmint

Czarcasm wrote: »

You can keep saying that till you're blue in the face saying it, and it still won't make any difference to the current legal status regarding incest in this country.

I remember exactly the same rubbish being pontificated about anti homosexualty laws, and apartheid laws as well.

krudler

Foxmint wrote: »

I remember exactly the same rubbish being pontificated about anti homosexualty laws, and apartheid laws as well.

Because they're all the same thing. Look if you find comfort in your mammy and prefer to go in where most children come out then that's your business, we won't tell anyone.

Crusades

Czarcasm wrote: »

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.

I understand that the LGBT rights movement isn't exclusively for those of the same sex.

The LGBT rights movement campaigns for non discrimination against trans people, gay people, etc.

If two brothers wanted to have sex that would be OK according to you because they're of the "same sex"?

Foxmint

krudler wrote: »

Because they're all the same thing. Look if you find comfort in your mammy and prefer to go in where most children come out then that's your business, we won't tell anyone.

Reduced to that now are you ? What a surprise, the mask slips again.

Crusades

The reasoning used to justify gay sex is exactly the same reasoning to justify incest.

I'm open to discussion on that.

You can't justify homosexuality and and then stop at incest because people think it's "icky". If there is a stop, what is this ethical boundary?

Czarcasm

Foxmint wrote: »

I remember exactly the same rubbish being pontificated about anti homosexualty laws, and apartheid laws as well.

No you don't because -


Homosexuality was decriminalised to recognise homosexual people as having the same right to sexual determination as heterosexual people.

Apartheid was abolished to recognise black people as having the same rights as white people.

It is still illegal for any of the above groups to engage in sexual intercourse with family members, and none of them were arguing for that right.

Your logic is like saying that polygamous marriage should now be allowed because gay people have the same marriage rights as heterosexual people. Neither groups are allowed polygamous marriages.

Foxmint

Crusades wrote: »

The reasoning used to justify gay sex is exactly the same reasoning to justify incest.

I'm open to discussion on that.

You can't justify homosexuality and and then stop at incest because people think it's "icky". If there is a stop, what is this ethical boundary?

Two consenting adults in a private loving sexual relationship, should be allowed to do whatever they want, and have all the same equal rights as homo/hetrosexual couples, it's as simple as that.

Foxmint

Czarcasm wrote: »

Your logic is like saying that polygamous marriage should now be allowed because gay people have the same marriage rights as heterosexual people. Neither groups are allowed polygamous marriages.

You arguement is based on "only law I agree with should never change and should be imposed on others", we've heard this bigots excuse before.

Then you'll be able to explain to us why this human right should be exclusive to homo/hetrosexual couples only ?

krudler

Foxmint wrote: »

Reduced to that now are you ? What a surprise, the mask slips again.

Mask? whut? do you think I'm someone else or something?

Czarcasm

Crusades wrote: »

I understand that the LGBT rights movement isn't exclusively for those of the same sex.

The LGBT rights movement campaigns for non discrimination against trans people, gay people, etc.

If two brothers wanted to have sex that would be OK according to you because they're of the "same sex"?

No, because that would be incest. The objection is not because they're gay, the objection is because they are related.

It's really not that hard a concept to grasp.

Crusades

Foxmint wrote: »

Two consenting adults in a private loving sexual relationship, should be allowed to do whatever they want, and have all the same equal rights as homo/hetrosexual couples, it's as simple as that.

So there is no ethical boundary then in your view?

Czarcasm

Foxmint wrote: »

You arguement is based on "only law I agree with should never change and should be imposed on others."

Yes, that's generally the way laws in society work?

Then you'll be able to explain to us why this human right should be exclusive to homo/hetrosexual couples only ?

As opposed to what other type of couples exactly?

krudler

Crusades wrote: »

The reasoning used to justify gay sex is exactly the same reasoning to justify incest.

I'm open to discussion on that.

You can't justify homosexuality and and then stop at incest because people think it's "icky". If there is a stop, what is this ethical boundary?

The people involved are biologically related? It's not that hard to figure out.

Crusades

Czarcasm wrote: »

No, because that would be incest. The objection is not because they're gay, the objection is because they are related.

It's really not that hard a concept to grasp.

Why does degree of kinship matter to two homosexuals? They can't reproduce, so there's no biological impediment to their behaviour.

Foxmint

Crusades wrote: »

So there is no ethical boundary then in your view?

Do you know what the term consenting adults involves ? Your ethics have nothing to do with other adults private, consensual, loving, sexual relationship.

Crusades

krudler wrote: »

The people involved are biologically related? It's not that hard to figure out.

So?

They are are consenting adults.

Please stop with the snarky tone as if the statements you are making are self-evidently true.

There is no reproduction in acts involving, say, a post menopausal woman and her son or an incestuous act involving contraception.

And besides hardly any sex is reproductive nowadays.

I am asking you to explain why there are limits to the "consenting adults" theory at the core of the LGBT rights movement.

Crusades

Foxmint wrote: »

Do you know what the term consenting adults involves ? Your ethics have nothing to do with other adults private, consensual, loving, sexual relationship.

So you believe there are no limits to what consenting adults can and can't do?

Just asking...

Foxmint

Crusades wrote: »

So you believe there are no limits to what consenting adults can and can't do?

Just asking...

In a private loving sexual relationship between consenting adults, why is it any of your business ?

Crusades

Foxmint wrote: »

In a private loving sexual relationship, why is it any of your business ?

It's my business because legislators (and those who vote for them) need to discuss sexual ethics so just laws are enacted.

Oh, so the act must be "loving" and "private" now?

That means prostitution is an ethical no-no in your book?

As is public "dogging"?

Czarcasm

Crusades wrote: »

Why does degree of kinship matter to two homosexuals? They can't reproduce, so there's no biological impediment to their behaviour.

Because they're related to each other. The fact they're gay either doesn't mean they're infertile, they can still have children of their own through surrogacy or adoption, and still the fact remains that they are brothers, which not only has an impact on their relationship with each other, but also it will have an impact on any children they choose to have together.

You're also neglecting the fact that the two brothers will have relations besides just themselves, and the psychological impact that will have on them. Your "just two consenting adults who love each other" isn't anywhere near a compelling argument yet, and tbh we're just going round in circles at this rate.

Read the post I made earlier with a link to the EHCR decision regarding incestuous relationships because I can't be bothered talking when you're just throwing out the same nonsense over and over.

Crusades

Czarcasm wrote: »

Because they're related to each other. The fact they're gay either doesn't mean they're infertile, they can still have children of their own through surrogacy or adoption, and still the fact remains that they are brothers, which not only has an impact on their relationship with each other, but also it will have an impact on any children they choose to have together.

You're also neglecting the fact that the two brothers will have relations besides just themselves, and the psychological impact that will have on them. Your "just two consenting adults who love each other" isn't anywhere near a compelling argument yet, and tbh we're just going round in circles at this rate.

Read the post I made earlier with a link to the EHCR decision regarding incestuous relationships because I can't be bothered talking when you're just throwing out the same nonsense over and over.

Apart from expressing a personal opinion, you haven't laid out any rationale as to why someone being related to their sexual partner is unethical.

You will need explain why incest in unethical.

krudler

Foxmint wrote: »

In a private loving sexual relationship between consenting adults, why is it any of your business ?

So you genuinely wouldn't have an issue if one of your parents was having sex with one of your siblings if you had any?

Crusades

krudler wrote: »

So you genuinely wouldn't have an issue if one of your parents was having sex with one of your siblings if you had any?

I would have serious issues.

Karl Stein

krudler wrote: »

So you genuinely wouldn't have an issue if one of your parents was having sex with one of your siblings if you had any?

It doesn't matter. What matters is the right of adult human beings to sexual self-determination.

If some dude and his sister want to be together, and they're both okay with it, then why do you want to murder them for it?

What is it about their relationship that makes you want to burn them to death?

0byme75341jo28

Crusades wrote: »

So you believe there are no limits to what consenting adults can and can't do?

Just asking...

To be honest, if it only affected the two consenting adults I couldn't care less.

Parent and sibling? Sure, I wouldn't be happy, but what could I do if it wasn't illegal?

Crusades

Elle Thankful Soil wrote: »

To be honest, if it only affected the two consenting adults I couldn't care less.

Parent and sibling? Sure, I wouldn't be happy, but what could I do if it wasn't illegal?

So if something is legal, it's right?

krudler

Karl Stein wrote: »

It doesn't matter. What matters is the right of adult human beings to sexual self-determination.

If some dude and his sister want to be together, and they're both okay with it, then why do you want to murder them for it?

What is it about their relationship that makes you want to burn them to death?

What? has anyone on here mentioned someone should be put to death for incest? I stated several times I don't even think it should be illegal if both parties are ok with it.

Czarcasm

Crusades wrote: »

Apart from expressing a personal opinion, you haven't laid out any rationale as to why someone being related to their sexual partner is unethical.

You will need explain why incest in unethical.

It's not just MY personal opinion though. It is the opinion of the majority in society, and it is a society that makes a collective judgment on ethics, by adhering to individual morality - most people are of the opinion that someone being related to their sexual partner is immoral, therefore as a society, it is deemed unethical.

0byme75341jo28

Crusades wrote: »

So if something is legal, it's right?

When did I say that?

Crusades

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's not just MY personal opinion though. It is the opinion of the majority in society, and it is a society that makes a collective judgment on ethics, by adhering to individual morality - most people are of the opinion that someone being related to their sexual partner is immoral, therefore as a society, it is deemed unethical.

51% get to decide what is right? Really?

What if the majority of the population was Muslim?

krudler

Crusades wrote: »

51% get to decide what is right? Really?

What if the majority of the population was Muslim?

Well...yeah, that's how democratic elections and referendums work?

Incest isn't legal for directly biologically related Muslims either, so not sure what that has to do with anything.

Czarcasm

Karl Stein wrote: »

It doesn't matter. What matters is the right of adult human beings to sexual self-determination.

The EHCR has already given their determination that criminalising incest does not impede on a person's right to sexual self-determination. That was the argument used by Stübing's lawyers, and the EHCR rejected the claims.

If some dude and his sister want to be together, and they're both okay with it, then why do you want to murder them for it?

What is it about their relationship that makes you want to burn them to death?

What is it with you and muddying the waters with that nonsense?

Crusades

krudler wrote: »

Well...yeah, that's how democratic elections and referendums work?

Incest isn't legal for directly biologically related Muslims either, so not sure what that has to do with anything.

If the people of Ireland reject gay marriage in Spring 2015, that would be ethically correct?

chinacup

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually even with children it is hard to know "Whats the harm". There is a common myth about incest that it "causes" genetic defects in Children but this is simply not true.

But yes, it is funny that people against the idea of adult consensual incest will often cite the children thing as their reason. Yet if you tell them "ok what if the two are entirely sterile is it now ok?" they still say no.

Which tells me one thing only: The reasons they are giving for being against incest.... are not their actual reasons. But reasons they cherry picked retrospectively to justify the position they already hold.

I myself struggle to understand if there are even arguments against incest at all that are valid. Assuming of course consensual adults. Alas "incest" is an umbrella term for many things, many of which have their own demerits that damn them. So one needs to make that clarification clear. Though even having made it I expect we will see all kinds of "Father with his kiddie daugther" type comments coming up in the thread.

What about the very common sense, instinctive idea that it is potentially very damaging to the family dynamic? What if it was to become mainstream? Do you really think it would not cause societal problems? There are reasons it has become a thing of the past, society functions better without incest. You might have this vaguely academic notion that if certain arguments aren't backed up by strict reasoning that they aren't valid but that itself is a fallacy. Your post suggests that incest doesn't increase the risk of disability in resulting children when it very much does. I'm not sure I understand your angle here.

Karl Stein

krudler wrote: »

What? has anyone on here mentioned someone should be put to death for incest?

They've advocated kidnap and imprisonment which isn't all that far off. I'm confident that if those same people had been making the decisions a few hundred years ago they would have been first in the queue to set light to the tinder at the foot of the pyre where gay people, witches, wizards etc would be burned alive.

For goodness sake please understand that those times are long passed.

krudler

Crusades wrote: »

If the people of Ireland reject gay marriage in Spring 2015, that would be ethically correct?

But we're not talking about gay marriage now are we, they're different issues and not directly related (pun very much intended)

krudler

Karl Stein wrote: »

They've advocated kidnap and imprisonment which isn't all that far off. I'm confident that if those same people had been making the decisions a few hundred years ago they would have been first in the queue to set light to the tinder at the foot of the pyre where gay people, witches, wizards etc would be burned alive.

For goodness sake please understand that those times are long passed.

...what in the absolute fcuk are you talking about? I havent mentioned kidnapping, imprisonment or burning at stakes once in this entire thread, I've said it shouldnt even be illegal.

Czarcasm

Crusades wrote: »

If the people of Ireland reject gay marriage in Spring 2015, that would be ethically correct?

I'm not sure you understand the difference between morals and ethics here tbh -


http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

Crusades

krudler wrote: »

But we're not talking about gay marriage now are we, they're different issues and not directly related (pun very much intended)

We were talking about this idea that the majority should determine what is and isn't ethically acceptable.

It's not an idea I have much time for.

Karl Stein

krudler wrote: »

...what in the absolute fcuk are you talking about? I havent mentioned kidnapping, imprisonment or burning at stakes once in this entire thread, I've said it shouldnt even be illegal.

Please don't curse at me Sir. I'm just trying to defend the natural right of people to be left alone if they're not harming others or themselves. I'm not looking for a fight here.

Czarcasm

Crusades wrote: »

We were talking about this idea that the majority should determine what is and isn't ethically acceptable.

It's not an idea I have much time for.

You would argue that the minority should decide the ethical standards for a society?

Well, I suppose you would, given that you're in the minority that would advocate that incest should be decriminalised.

Unfortunately for you, that's not the way a progressive and democratic society functions.

Czarcasm

Karl Stein wrote: »

Please don't curse at me Sir. I'm just trying to defend the natural right of people to be left alone if they're not harming others or themselves. I'm not looking for a fight here.

There is no such thing as "natural rights", let alone the "natural right" to be "left alone".

Karl Stein

Czarcasm wrote: »

There is no such thing as "natural rights", let alone the "natural right" to be "left alone".

I'm not comfortable engaging you in debate because I think you favour obfuscation and water muddying to honest discussion but I'll park it for the greater good of the readers of this thread.

Natural rights are rights such as the right to be alive, the right to be a child, the right to not be bought and sold, the right not to be born into slavery etc.

If you have a problem with these natural rights then what you're saying is nobody has a right to be alive, to be a child, to be a commodity to be bought and sold, a right not to be born to serve another.

If you think natural rights have to be won then it is you who tacitly supports unquestionable power and the misery it has wrought upon us as a species.

RobbingBandit

Czarcasm wrote: »

There is no such thing as "natural rights", let alone the "natural right" to be "left alone".

In Soviet Russia perhaps but this is America. :cool:

Iwasfrozen

As long as they don't have children I'm cool with it. Incestuous pro-creation should be illegal though for obvious reasons.

Czarcasm

Karl Stein wrote: »

I'm not comfortable engaging you in debate because I think you favour obfuscation and water muddying to honest discussion but I'll park it for the greater good of the readers of this thread.

Eh? You gave it welly with the burning people and putting people to death earlier on when nobody was arguing any such thing.

Natural rights are rights such as the right to be alive

There's no such right as the right to be alive. There's a concept called "The right to life", but that's as close as it gets.

the right to be a child

That was the tagline on a Persil advert, it's not actually a human right, notwithstanding the fact that no adult has the right to be a child. They can behave like a child, but that makes no difference in law.

the right to not be bought and sold, the right not to be born into slavery etc.

That's a basic human right mandated by the UNHRC, not a natural right.

If you have a problem with these natural rights then what you're saying is nobody has a right to be alive, to be a child, to be a commodity to be bought and sold, a right not to be born to serve another.

No, I have a problem with your interpretation of human rights to suit yourself.

If you think natural rights have to be won then it is you who tacitly supports unquestionable power and the misery it has wrought upon us as a species.

Natural rights are neither won nor lost, the concept simply doesn't exist, not the way you're interpreting it anyway. None of what I've written supposes that I support unquestionable power nor the misery it has wrought upon us as a species.

By that same token, I could suggest that your natural law concept would mean that humanity would abandon human rights law and return to the natural order of nature, and indeed the misery that had wrought upon us as a species, which is why laws came about to prevent us from destroying ourselves.

Those laws are what stops me from doing whatever the hell I want to another person whether they like it or not, and those same laws criminalise you for having relations with your relations.

Karl Stein

Czarcasm wrote: »

There's no such right as the right to be alive.

Good man. I think you've summed up your views in one sentence.

I think I'll ignore you from henceforth except when I think a greater good will result from my reminding others of this horrible view you advocate.