Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

Czarcasm

Karl Stein wrote: »

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.

There is no such right as the right to be alive? You're alive or you're not, there's no inherent right there? It's merely a state of existence - alive, dead. That's it.

I don't think I'll be too bothered what people think of my views when they're being pointed out by someone who is coming out with nonsense like people have the right to be left alone, they also have the right to fcuk their relatives.

Leave your keys in the bowl at family gatherings...

RobbingBandit

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

The Swiss are just over the border they can euthanize any kids that pop out in this situation.

Quazzie

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

Is the obvious reason that they might go on to rule over nations, because many of the historical powerhouses of European royalty all practised inbreeding to keep the bloodline pure.

Monife

For posters saying it is ok if they are consenting adults, would you sleep with a sibling/father/mother?

It is so f*cked up. Family relationships are not meant to be sexual.

Foxmint

The first thing that needs to be changed is the bigoted term "incest."

Foxmint

Monife wrote: »

It is so f*cked up. Family relationships are not meant to be sexual.

Who says ? The same bigoted arguments were made about homosexuality, men weren't meant to fck men etc.

Slot Machine

Monife wrote: »

For posters saying it is ok if they are consenting adults, would you sleep with a sibling/father/mother?

What is the point of that argument? You can believe people should be free to do something while having no interest in it yourself.

Quazzie

Monife wrote: »

For posters saying it is ok if they are consenting adults, would you sleep with a sibling/father/mother?

I'm straight so wouldn't have a sexual experience with another man, that doesn't mean that I think others should not be allowed to.

Crusades

Monife wrote: »

For posters saying it is ok if they are consenting adults, would you sleep with a sibling/father/mother?

It is so f*cked up. Family relationships are not meant to be sexual.

That's what they said about gays 50 years ago.

Crusades

Pro-LGBT reasoning is pretty much the exact same as pro-incest reasoning.

How can someone be pro-LGBT, yet anti-incest? All I've heard sofar is personal "opinions" that incest is icky.

Foxmint

Crusades wrote: »

Pro-LGBT reasoning is pretty much the exact same as pro-incest reasoning.

How can someone be pro-LGBT, yet anti-incest? All I've heard sofar is personal "opinions" that incest is icky.

Here Here.
The first predjuce that needs to be changed is the biggoted and loaded term "incest". It will become as unacceptable as describing homosexual acts as sodomy and buggery, as we develop as a more civilised tolerent modern society. The Germans are ahead of the curve on this one. The US and UK will follow suit and then so will we.

Czarcasm

Foxmint wrote: »

Here Here.
The first predjuce that needs to be changed is the biggoted and loaded term "incest". It will become as unacceptable as describing homosexual acts as sodomy and buggery, as we develop as a more civilised tolerent modern society. The Germans are ahead of the curve on this one. The US and UK will follow suit and then so will we.

The German Government, which represents the German people, has already said it won't happen. I think you may have misread the article in the OP and thought some German think-tank represented the views of the German people. It doesn't.

France had no laws against incest for 200 years, they've also criminalised the practice recently. The EHCR is on-side with the German Government. As for the US, the UK and Ireland, there's not much point in stating the obvious at this stage because I think you're unable to tell the difference between your fantasies and reality.

Foxmint

Czarcasm wrote: »

The German Government, which represents the German people, has already said it won't happen. I think you may have misread the article in the OP and thought some German think-tank represented the views of the German people. It doesn't.

France had no laws against incest for 200 years, they've also criminalised the practice recently. The EHCR is on-side with the German Government. As for the US, the UK and Ireland, there's not much point in stating the obvious at this stage because I think you're unable to tell the difference between your fantasies and reality.

And your back to using the tired, old, failed, arguments that were used against homosexuality for hundreds of years as well.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Crusades wrote: »

Pro-LGBT reasoning is pretty much the exact same as pro-incest reasoning.

How can someone be pro-LGBT, yet anti-incest? All I've heard sofar is personal "opinions" that incest is icky.

What the hell? I'm all for LGBT but I don't think it's comparable to riding your father, now, come on.

Never mind the fact if you had a child with your father, you'd be giving birth to your own sibling. Probably born with webbed fingers or something and it wouldn't even be the child's fault, it's dangerous.

suicide_circus

Check out the Czech Republic's very NSFW answer to Jedward - Elijah and Milo Peters.

I stress again, NSFW.

Foxmint

LexieOnRale wrote: »

What the hell? I'm all for LGBT but I don't think it's comparable to riding your father, now, come on.

Never mind the fact if you had a child with your father, you'd be giving birth to your own sibling. Probably born with webbed fingers or something and it wouldn't even be the child's fault, it's dangerous.

So if two gay bothers want to get it on, or get married, why is it any of your business ?

Crusades

LexieOnRale wrote: »

What the hell? I'm all for LGBT but I don't think it's comparable to riding your father, now, come on.

Never mind the fact if you had a child with your father, you'd be giving birth to your own sibling. Probably born with webbed fingers or something and it wouldn't even be the child's fault, it's dangerous.

I'm just trying to get a rational explanation as to why you draw the line drawn at incest.

Czarcasm

Foxmint wrote: »

And your back to using the tired, old, failed, arguments that were used against homosexuality for hundreds of years as well.

So you say, but just because you can't tell the difference between homosexuality and incest, doesn't mean anyone else can't.

Quazzie

Czarcasm wrote: »

So you say, but just because you can't tell the difference between homosexuality and incest, doesn't mean anyone else can't.

What is the difference?

Foxmint

Czarcasm wrote: »

So you say, but just because you can't tell the difference between homosexuality and incest, doesn't mean anyone else can't.

Red herring fail again. 20 years ago we used to hear the argument "you can't tell the difference between hetrosexual acts and and homosexual ones"

Tar.Aldarion

The case used was a good example, two adults with children, didn't grow up together. Yet he gets put in jail. Also why didn't she in that case?
They're not advocating all incest there of course.

Czarcasm

Quazzie wrote: »

What is the difference?

Homosexual is a sexual orientation.

Incest is not.

There you go, keeping it simple as possible for you.

Crusades

Czarcasm wrote: »

Incest is not.

Really?

Czarcasm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

The case used was a good example, two adults with children, didn't grow up together. Yet he gets put in jail. Also why didn't she in that case?
They're not advocating all incest there of course.

12. With regard to the applicant’s sister, S. K., who had been charged with the same offence, the Leipzig District Court, relying on an expert opinion, found as follows:

“The accused, K., has a very timid, withdrawn and dependant personality structure. This personality structure, taken together with [an] unsatisfying family situation, led to her being considerably dependant on the applicant. In particular, after the death of their mother, she experienced this dependency to an extent that she felt that she could not live without him.”

The District Court concluded that this serious personality disorder, seen in conjunction with established mild learning disabilities, had led to her being only partially liable for her actions.

From the link to the EHCR decision regarding this case -

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-110314#{"itemid":["001-110314"]}

suicide_circus

The curtain twitchers never went away..

Crusades

I fail to understand how someone who is in favour of LGBT can draw an arbitrary line at incest. The best reason I've heard sofar is that it's "icky".

suicide_circus

There is no valid argument against it

Czarcasm

suicide_circus wrote: »

There is no valid argument against it

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it pretty much lays out some of the fundamental arguments against it and why incest differs from homosexuality -


I think there are a number of compelling differences.

1) Accepting the legitimacy of homosexual relationships doesn’t fundamentally alter relationships between child and sibling, or child and parent.

In contrast, if incest is legitimate, that socially recognized potential for sexuality will alter (and in some cases poison) the relationships between children and their siblings, and between children and parents. And this will be true for all families, not just those families that practice incest.

(Some might object that if homosexuality is accepted, then same-sex parent-child incest will be accepted with it. Not true. Parents don’t need social condemnation of homosexuality to avoid sex with their same-sex kids, any more than they need social condemnation of heterosexuality to avoid sex with their opposite-sex kids.)

2) Gays (including women and men) are a significant portion of society. probably between 1% and 4% of Americans are gay, and most will be gay for virtually their entire lives. There are tens of thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples.

It’s to society’s benefit that gays be integrated into society’s stabilizing institutions to as great an extent as possible. It’s beneficial to society that couples form commitments of caring and responsibility; it’s beneficial to society that children have the stability and security of married parents.

Furthermore, there are high costs to society if 1%-4% of the society is made into outcasts. Higher suicide rates, economic costs (non-outcasts form businesses and employ people), public health (non-outcasts take better care of themselves), and riots are just some of the costs society pays.

Sometimes treating people as outcasts has clear benefits which outweigh the costs (for instance, treating violent criminals as outcasts), but homosexuality is not such a case.

This provides us with some clear distinctions between homosexuality and incest. There is no incest equivalent to the Stonewall riot; there are not tens of thousands of children being raised by openly incestuous parents. There is no large population of “incestists” who it would benefit society to integrate into norms of mutual care and responsibility, and maintaining the ban on incest incurs virtually no costs on society (and has some benefits).

3) Sexual orientation is significantly different from an attraction to a particular inappropriate individual (such as a sibling). Forbidding someone the chance to pursue an inappropriate attraction is an ordinary part of life; but forbidding someone their entire sexual orientation is cruel and lifelong.

If Albert feels an attraction to an inappropriate person — for example, an already married woman — it’s not particularly cruel to tell Albert that he must forget that particular attraction. The same thing would be true if Albert feels an attraction to his sister. In both cases, Albert isn’t really being told to give up on love; he’s just being told to put it off until he meets someone who’s available.

I think that most of us, if we were honest, would admit to having at some point in our lives had an attraction to someone who it would be wrong to pursue. And (I hope) most of us did the right thing — we didn’t pursue the attraction and hoped to meet someone else.

But what if Albert is gay? The large majority of gay people, are gay for life, and won’t ever be genuinely attracted to people of the opposite sex. So if we forbid homosexuality, we’re not just telling Albert to put off love until he’s attracted to someone who is willing and available. We’re telling Albert that he must accept an entire life without even the hope of romantic, sexual love.

In that way, forbidding homosexuality is cruel in a way that forbidding incest is not.

Now, sometimes we should be cruel in the service of more important social goals — for instance, protecting children from adult sexual predators is laudable, and we rightly don’t care if this is in some sense cruel to the predators. However, the same reasoning cannot support needless cruelty towards consenting adults.


Taken from -

http://amptoons.com/blog/2009/08/13/justifying-homosexuality-without-justifying-incest/

MrPudding

Crusades wrote: »

Pro-LGBT reasoning is pretty much the exact same as pro-incest reasoning.

How can someone be pro-LGBT, yet anti-incest? All I've heard sofar is personal "opinions" that incest is icky.

The reasoning is not the same. It is possible to logically separate arguments for same sex marriage and arguments for incestuous relationships. There are a number of fundamental differences between the two.

First there is an issue with consent. A couple of people on the thread have said incest should be ok between consenting adults. For same sex marriage the idea of consent is a pretty simple one, and it is easy to establish that there is consent. With respect to incestuous relationships consent is trickier. I don't have the details to hand, but the German government, when they were (successfully) defending that ban in the EU courts, argued that incestuous relationships frequently began as abusive relationships, or at the very least, there could be extreme coercion at play. Over time, and continued abuse it is possible that the person abused may come to believe the relationship is OK, and what they want. This would make the idea that it is a relationship between two consenting adults questionable, in many cases.

There does seem to be evidence that consanguinity does cause medical problems. A quick search on google scholar will bring up plenty of papers on the subject. 'We will use contraception, we swear' isn't really sufficient to deal with this. Nor, I would argue would voluntary sterilisation in order to have a relationship approved. The administration of such a system would be difficult and open to abuse.

So, when you consider the issues that may exist with consent and a possible link with medical problems I think it is clear that the state might have an interest in banning this type of relationship. Same sex relationships do not have either of these problems. It is highly unlikely that a person will marry someone of the same sex against their will. Anti-same sex marriage opponent are quick to point out that same sex couples cannot 'naturally' have children, so there is not likely to be an issue with genetic problems.

The two relationships can also be distinguished in terms of scope. When someone with a same sex attraction is told they can't marry a person the same sex they are barred form marrying any person they might ever want to marry. With respect to a ban on incestuous marriage or relationships, that ban is only for an extremely small subset of all the people the person might ever want to have a relationship.

So on the one hand we have a relationship which causes no harm to society, that of same sex couples, and not he other hand we have a relationship which does appear to cause harm. I am pro-same sex relationships. My current position on incestuous relationships is the ban is justified on public policy grounds, though I am open minded enough on the subject to change that position should the issues I see with it be adequately addressed. I definitely have an issue with people, who tend to be anti-same sex marriage, trying to connect same sex relationships with people wanting to have sex with their brothers, sisters, pets, cars or other inanimate objects. It is a poor argument and even a cursory glance at the arguments would show the 'connection' to be without merit.

MrP

Crusades

All sexual relations between adults are OK, so long as all parties consent*.

*Except:

Czarcasm wrote: »

1) Accepting the legitimacy of homosexual relationships doesn’t fundamentally alter relationships between child and sibling, or child and parent.

In contrast, if incest is legitimate, that socially recognized potential for sexuality will alter (and in some cases poison) the relationships between children and their siblings, and between children and parents. And this will be true for all families, not just those families that practice incest.

(Some might object that if homosexuality is accepted, then same-sex parent-child incest will be accepted with it. Not true. Parents don’t need social condemnation of homosexuality to avoid sex with their same-sex kids, any more than they need social condemnation of heterosexuality to avoid sex with their opposite-sex kids.)

2) Gays (including women and men) are a significant portion of society. probably between 1% and 4% of Americans are gay, and most will be gay for virtually their entire lives. There are tens of thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples.

It’s to society’s benefit that gays be integrated into society’s stabilizing institutions to as great an extent as possible. It’s beneficial to society that couples form commitments of caring and responsibility; it’s beneficial to society that children have the stability and security of married parents.

Furthermore, there are high costs to society if 1%-4% of the society is made into outcasts. Higher suicide rates, economic costs (non-outcasts form businesses and employ people), public health (non-outcasts take better care of themselves), and riots are just some of the costs society pays.

Sometimes treating people as outcasts has clear benefits which outweigh the costs (for instance, treating violent criminals as outcasts), but homosexuality is not such a case.

This provides us with some clear distinctions between homosexuality and incest. There is no incest equivalent to the Stonewall riot; there are not tens of thousands of children being raised by openly incestuous parents. There is no large population of “incestists” who it would benefit society to integrate into norms of mutual care and responsibility, and maintaining the ban on incest incurs virtually no costs on society (and has some benefits).

3) Sexual orientation is significantly different from an attraction to a particular inappropriate individual (such as a sibling). Forbidding someone the chance to pursue an inappropriate attraction is an ordinary part of life; but forbidding someone their entire sexual orientation is cruel and lifelong.

If Albert feels an attraction to an inappropriate person — for example, an already married woman — it’s not particularly cruel to tell Albert that he must forget that particular attraction. The same thing would be true if Albert feels an attraction to his sister. In both cases, Albert isn’t really being told to give up on love; he’s just being told to put it off until he meets someone who’s available.

I think that most of us, if we were honest, would admit to having at some point in our lives had an attraction to someone who it would be wrong to pursue. And (I hope) most of us did the right thing — we didn’t pursue the attraction and hoped to meet someone else.

But what if Albert is gay? The large majority of gay people, are gay for life, and won’t ever be genuinely attracted to people of the opposite sex. So if we forbid homosexuality, we’re not just telling Albert to put off love until he’s attracted to someone who is willing and available. We’re telling Albert that he must accept an entire life without even the hope of romantic, sexual love.

In that way, forbidding homosexuality is cruel in a way that forbidding incest is not.

Now, sometimes we should be cruel in the service of more important social goals — for instance, protecting children from adult sexual predators is laudable, and we rightly don’t care if this is in some sense cruel to the predators. However, the same reasoning cannot support needless cruelty towards consenting adults.

Makes sense now.

Pwindedd

To be honest you could make it legal tomorrow. I can't see there being much of a take-up on it in reality. Most people would draw the line at incest. I know I do. You can't compare it to homosexuality really. If I'm gay I can chose from all the other gay people to be gay with. Incest on the other hand leaves me with just 4 potential participants. And the other party would need to also be "into it". I'm all for love but at what cost to the family unit. It's not just between 2 consenting adults - the whole family would be affected.

I don't think people should be punished for it though. Incarcerating people won't prevent it.

Czarcasm

Crusades wrote: »

All sexual relations between adults are OK, so long as all parties consent*.

YOU say they're OK. The onus is on YOU to come up with a compelling argument as to why incest should be decriminalised.

"Nobody else's business" just isn't going to cut it.

Makes sense now.

Excellent.

Stainless_Steel

Didn't want to keep reading the full thread but...Jeez boards is liberal beyond the point of sanity.

Absolutely disgusting. Don't give me that 'two consenting adults' cr@p. The two consenting adults should have the rest of society show them that they are sick fcuks.

suicide_circus

I don't think homosexuality and incest are comparable.

I do think what two consenting adults do in their own home is none of the states concern.

Foxmint

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Didn't want to keep reading the full thread but...Jeez boards is liberal beyond the point of sanity.

Absolutely disgusting. Don't give me that 'two consenting adults' cr-p. The two consenting adults should have the rest of society show them that they are sick fcuks.

I remember the exact same claims being made about homosexuality.

Crusades

Czarcasm wrote: »

YOU say they're OK. The onus is on YOU to come up with a

So you need a PhD in gender studies before you decide to hop in to bed with someone?

Hey look, I'm Catholic. We don't believe either homosexuality or incest are OK.

The only acceptable forms of sex are those that are both procreative and unitive in nature. That's a very succinct summary if you ask me.

Watching the LGBT community attempting to address the incest can of worms is amusing to say the least.

Stainless_Steel

Foxmint wrote: »

I remember the exact same claims being made about homosexuality.

Not from me you didnt.

We are talking about siblings / parent and child here. That is fcuking sick. I don't want to live in a society that accepts such sickness. The state should deal with it.

Foxmint

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

That is fcuking sick. I don't want to live in a society that accepts such sickness. The state should deal with it.

They used to say that about 'de dirty gays' as well

Stainless_Steel

Foxmint wrote: »

They used to say that about 'de dirty gays' as well

Why didn't you leave the line before that in the quote? Rather than have me address the same point over and over.

Czarcasm

Crusades wrote: »

So you need a PhD in gender studies before you decide to hop in to bed with someone?

Nope, nobody is asking for that. All I'm asking you for is a compelling argument as to why incest should be decriminalised.

Hey look, I'm Catholic. We don't believe either homosexuality or incest are OK.

Hey look, I'm Roman Catholic, and that has fcukall to do with anything.

(You musn't have been to mass in a while either, latest update from the Pope re gay people is they're A-OK! You're right about incest though so I don't understand why you were trying to argue for it? I hope you didn't mass to troll the Internet? Tut tut :pac: Caught the early morning edition myself, you wanna see the priests chalice work! :eek:)

The only acceptable forms of sex are those that are both procreative and unitive in nature. That's a very succinct summary if you ask me.

That's the only acceptable form of sex for you. So now you've attempted a piss poor argument for incest by comparing it to homosexuality, then come out and admitted you agree with neither, and you expect anyone to take you seriously at this stage?

Watching the LGBT community attempting to address the incest can of worms is amusing to say the least.

What's actually more amusing has been watching you get your knickers in a twist and tie yourself up in cognitive knots trying to justify incest on the back of homosexuality and making the justification look as ridiculous as it sounds.

Quazzie

Czarcasm wrote: »

(You musn't have been to mass in a while either, latest update from the Pope re gay people is they're A-OK! You're right about incest though so I don't understand why you were trying to argue for it? I hope you didn't mass to troll the Internet? Tut tut :pac: Caught the early morning edition myself, you wanna see the priests chalice work! :eek:)

A bit off topic but how can one pope say something totally different to another pope and for both of them to infallable?


BTW I think it's kind of funny to be so committed to an organization guilty or organized and systemic pedophilic rape but be against incestuous relationships between two consenting adults.

Foxmint

Quazzie wrote: »

A bit off topic but how can one pope say something totally different to another pope and for both of them to infallable?

It's called reporting and media spin.
Frankie didn't change anything.
Homosexual inclination = no problem. (aka we all have the disorded inclination to sin)
Homosexual acts = problem.
It's always been that way, no change. Just a different PR spin.

Crusades

Quazzie wrote: »

A bit off topic but how can one pope say something totally different to another pope and for both of them to infallable?

It's evident from that statement that you haven't a clue really. Google: papal infallibility.

Foxmint

Crusades wrote: »

It's evident from that statement that you haven't a clue really. Google: papal infallibility.

Do you know what it is ? I don't think you do, the last time it was used was 1858.

Crusades

Foxmint wrote: »

Do you know what it is ? I don't think you do,

Are you planning on doing a test on me or something?

Foxmint wrote: »

the last time it was used was 1858.

That's not a rigorous statement.

Anyway, off topic now.

Quazzie

Crusades wrote: »

It's evident from that statement that you haven't a clue really. Google: papal infallibility.

From Google
"Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error[1] "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

So one pope says homosexuality is bad, whereas the next says it's ok. So one of the was wrong if they both say opposite things.

Also someone who believes in a giant magical being in the sky, telling someone else they don't have a clue is laughably ironic.

Czarcasm

Quazzie wrote: »

A bit off topic but how can one pope say something totally different to another pope and for both of them to infallable?


BTW I think it's kind of funny to be so committed to an organization guilty or organized and systemic pedophilic rape but be against incestuous relationships between two consenting adults.

You're right, it is off topic, and two wrongs don't make a right either - I don't support rape and pedophilia, and I don't support incest.

Your logic is like saying how can one be so committed to their favorite football team when they covered up the fact that one player committed rape.

Quazzie

Czarcasm wrote: »

You're right, it is off topic, and two wrongs don't make a right either - I don't support rape and pedophilia, and I don't support incest.

Your logic is like saying how can one be so committed to their favorite football team when they covered up the fact that one player committed rape.

Ask ten people to name three things about the catholic church and I bet the majority will name pedofile priests as one of them, so it kind of is.

Anyways that doesn't answer my question. How can two popes say opposite things but still both be infallible.

Foxmint

Quazzie wrote: »

From Google
"Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error[1] "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

and the last time a new official doctrine was declared, and papal infalibity was used to settle it, was in 1858

Czarcasm

Quazzie wrote: »

From Google
"Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error[1] "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

So one pope says homosexuality is bad, whereas the next says it's ok. So one of the was wrong if they both say opposite things.

Also someone who believes in a giant magical being in the sky, telling someone else they don't have a clue is laughably ironic.

So the RCC are criticised for not getting with the times, then they're criticised for getting with the times?

Damned if you don't and damned if you do, eh?