Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says
Comments
-
I already have, can you tell us what's bad for society about two adult bothers in a loving sexual relationship getting married, and how it's different to two other men getting married, and why that is good for society.
Because the two other men aren't related to each other already through family, the most basic relationship that makes up a society, and allowing brothers to enter into an incestuous relationship and then enter into marrige would damage the most fundamental relationship in society which is the family.
You can't just decriminalise incest for brothers only, it must be decriminalised for everyone in society, so your specific set circumstances argument falls flat on it's arse.Other than "its icky to me" You haven't and you can't, that's because the German commitee are completely correct in their assertion.
Other than "it's none of your business", you haven't provided any compelling argument as to why society should advocate for incest to be decriminalised, and that's because the German Ethics Committee can say whatever the hell they like, and their opinion isn't worth jack shìt when the German Government, which represents the interests of the people of German society, says incest will not be decriminalised, and the EHCR agrees with them.0 -
Because the two other men aren't related to each other already through family, the most basic relationship that makes up a society, and allowing brothers to enter into an incestuous relationship and then enter into marrige would damage the most fundamental relationship in society which is the family.
How ?You can't just decriminalise incest for brothers only, it must be decriminalised for everyone in society, so your specific set circumstances argument falls flat on it's arse.
What's this obsession with other peoples arses and what they choose to do with them ?
The only thing that fell flat on your face was your social responsibilty argument that you ran away from.
Other than "it's none of your business", you haven't provided any compelling argument as to why society should advocate for incest to be decriminalised, and that's because the German Ethics Committee can say whatever the hell they like, and their opinion isn't worth jack shìt when not only the German Government which represents the people of Germany says incest will not be decriminalised, and the EHCR agrees with them.
It's very simple, consenting adults in a loving sexual relationship have the same rights as anyone else and you cannot deny them, not matter what bigoted argument you come up with. It didn't work against homosexuality, it won't work against denying other loving sexual relationships equal rights either, as the German ethics commitee have ruled. You can cling onto your bigotted dying dark ages laws, but they are changing all over europe for homosexuals and other couples with the same equal rights will follow as well. Your little bigot wall is being dismantled one brick at a time. Adult sibings are having loving sex all over the world tonight, and there is nothing you can do about it.0 -
How ?
How!
I didn't realise you were an American Indian? They don't approve of incest either.What's this obsession with other peoples arses and what they choose to do with them ?
You're the poster arguing that two brothers should be allowed fcuk each other?It's very simple, consenting adults in a loving sexual relationship have the same rights as anyone else and you cannot deny them, not matter what bigoted argument you come up with. It didn't work against homosexuality, it won't work against denying other loving sexual relationships equal rights either. You can cling onto your bigotted dying dark ages laws, but they are changing all over europe for homosexuals and other couples with the same equal rights will follow as well. Your little bigot wall is being dismantled one brick at a time.
You're obsessed with using homosexuality to argue for incest, but your argument isn't working because you're unable to make a compelling argument for the of decriminalisation of incest on it's own merits.
I've told you already it's your ideas were popular in the Dark Ages, and only four years ago France criminalised incest, so your attempts to conflate homosexuality with incest just don't hold up. You're going to have to make the case for incest on it's own merits.
So far you have failed to do so.0 -
How!
I didn't realise you were an American Indian? They don't approve of incest either.
Another fail to answer the questionYou're the poster arguing that two brothers should be allowed fcuk each other?
You're obsessed with using homosexuality to argue for incest, but your argument isn't working because you're unable to make a compelling argument for the of decriminalisation of incest on it's own merits.
I've told you already it's your ideas were popular in the Dark Ages, and only four years ago France criminalised incest, so your attempts to conflate homosexuality with incest just don't hold up. You're going to have to make the case for incest on it's own merits.
So far you have failed to do so.
People exactly like you for years tried the same failed arguments against homosexual couples. As the German ethics commitee found, all the arguments that give homosxual couples rights are exactly the same for consenting adult sibling couples. So far you haven't produced a single argument why they should be denied the same rights as anyone else.0 -
There's a 'big difference' between hetrosexuality and homosexuality, does that mean only one of them should have rights and not the other ?
WOW. I'm not homophobic, I believe hetrosexuals and homosexuals should have the same rights YES.
However since when is legal for hetrosexuals to fcuk their relatives?0 -
Advertisement
-
Another fail to answer the question
Indeed.People exactly like you for years tried the same failed arguments against homosexual couples. As the German ethics commitee found, all the arguments that give homosxual couples rights are exactly the same for consenting adult sibling couples. So far you haven't produced a single argument why they should be denied the same rights as anyone else.
The opinion of the German Ethics committee had NOTHING, ZERO, to do with homosexuality. I also didn't ask for the opinion of the German Ethics committee, I asked for YOUR opinion on why YOU think incest should be decriminalised in THIS country, Ireland!
Can you present a compelling argument, in your OWN opinion, as to why incest should be decriminalised, for the benefit of Irish society as a whole?0 -
Fat Christy wrote: »WOW. I'm not homophobic, I believe hetrosexuals and homosexuals should have the same rights YES.
However since when is legal for hetrosexuals to fcuk their relatives?
Homosuxuality was also once legal, it was ilegal for men to fck other men, did that make the law correct ?0 -
The opinion of the German Ethics committee had NOTHING, ZERO, to do with homosexuality. I also didn't ask for the opinion of the German Ethics committee, I asked for YOUR opinion on why YOU think incest should be decriminalised in THIS country, Ireland!
Can you present a compelling argument, in your OWN opinion, as to why incest should be decriminalised, for the benefit of Irish society as a whole?
Because, as per homsexuality, which was once ilegal and looked down upon as well, loving adult couples in a sexual relationship, should have the same rights as anyone else. It's up to you to explain why they should not, but all your tried and failed 'arguments' have already been tried and failed miserabley against homosexuality.0 -
Anyone else notice how prevalent incest is on the main page of major porn websites? You would think that most people would be disgusted by that sort of stuff yet the amount of videos of incest or acted incest is unreal. Has to be a lot more popular than you think
That's the cookies tracking your searches for the Ads. Mine is Japanese girls.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Because, as per homsexuality, which was once ilegal and looked down upon as well, loving adult couples in a sexual relationship, should have the same rights as anyone else. It's up to you to explain why they should not, but all your tried and failed 'arguments' have already been tried and failed miserabley against homosexuality.
Loving adult couples that weren't related to each other already. That's the point you consistently seem to be missing. LGBT rights aren't about LGBT people wanting to have sexual relationships with their family members, they're about giving LGBT people the same rights as heterosexual people.
Neither LGBT people nor heterosexual people have the right to commit incest. They are equal in that respect. Incest has fcukall to do with equal rights based on gender or sexual orientation.0 -
Loving adult couples that weren't related to each other already. That's the point you consistently seem to be missing. LGBT rights aren't about LGBT people wanting to have sexual relationships with their family members, they're about giving LGBT people the same rights as heterosexual people.
Neither LGBT people nor heterosexual people have the right to commit incest. They are equal in that respect. Incest has fcukall to do with equal rights based on gender or sexual orientation.
Yet again, as all through the thread, you have not given one single reason or argument why they don't have that right, in contrast to what was determined by the German ethics comittee0 -
Fat Christy wrote: »No, it didn't, homosexuality is a completely separate issue to incest.
P.S: Are you really fcuking your brother? Don't worry I won't tell anyone.
No I'm fcking your brother and then your ma sucks me off, and I don't mind telling everyone, and there is fck all you can do about it.
Banned0 -
-
I agree with Monife
there is something not right with one ore both siblings Imagine discovering your sister and brother are sleeping with each other. Dosen't bear thinking about0 -
-
Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »Not really saying it's ok, just that it shouldn't be criminalised if it's two adults who want to do it. Bridge too far that this is a crime, even if the thought of it isn't appealing.
In fairness though, you can surely understand, even in the example of the German couple in the case given in the OP, that it's almost impossible in these situations to determine consent (to the point where both individuals were charged with the same crime, but the sister was found to be less liable than her brother because of her circumstances -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.
Also what must be considered is that at the time when the relationship between them became sexual, his sister was 16, and he was 23 (age of consent in Germany is 14, over here the age of consent is 17, but that's currently being reviewed with a view to lowering it to 16), so at what point are we talking about 'adults'?
Once they reach the age of consent? Once they reach the age of majority (18)?
What if siblings were in a prepubescent sexual relationship and then only made it known when they reached the age of consent?
I'm speaking hypothetically obviously, but these are the kinds of questions that have to be considered, and whether decriminalising incest is actually beneficial to society as a whole, beyond just the "two consenting adults" mantra?
You also have to consider the effects on the other immediate family members, and the psychological effect on the children of such relationships, where the ability to have trust in their parents is paramount, and being able to work out their place in the family unit (I know there's been a few laughs about it on here, but for the children of these relationships, these matters would actually be fcuking serious!).
If we are to decriminalise incest and allow for relationships between family members to be treated in the same way as relationships between couples that are not related to each other, then it must be complete decriminalisation and no caveats about "as long as they don't have children", because you absolutely cannot force people into involuntary sterilization.
This is why think-tanks opinions should be regarded with as much scorn as Jeremy Kyle and Jerry Springer - they make fcukall sense, and really aren't representative of wider society in any way, shape, or form. Even the idea of an 'ethics committee' that sees no issues with incest, is a complete misnomer at best, and bloody short-sighted and dangerous at worst.0 -
I'm speaking hypothetically obviously, but these are the kinds of questions that have to be considered, and whether decriminalising incest is actually beneficial to society as a whole, beyond just the "two consenting adults" mantra?
I haven't read this thread, I have no huge care for it. But this part is just sh1t on a stick. Nothing should have to be justified for decriminalisation. Justifications should only be required for making something a crime. To remove something from statute books should be a simple case of the law no longer standing up to scrutiny.0 -
What about the very common sense, instinctive idea that it is potentially very damaging to the family dynamic?
Had you read my posts on the thread you would see I dealt with this already. Twice.What if it was to become mainstream?
Define "mainstream" in this context given the massively small % of people who appear to wish to engage in it?Do you really think it would not cause societal problems?
Not sure the onus is on me to suggest it would not given there has been no one so far who has suggested it will. What problems do you envision?society functions better without incest.
Substatiation for this claim is..... what.... forthcoming?
Also what do you mean exactly by "better" and in fact what do you mean by "without incest". Do you mean without it being over a certain threshold? What is that threshold exactly? Or do you mean without it AT ALL? In which case you are living in a fantasy world because it exists and it happens.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.
If an argument is not backed up by ANY reasoning then I would not say it is valid to be honest. And simply calling that a fallacy does not magically make it one.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.
I am not sure what you understand either.
What I said is that incest does not CAUSE those disabilities. It does not CAUSE genetic defects. Many people think it does. It does not.
What it DOES do is increase somewhat the likelihood that an EXISTING defect may be expressed in the off spring.
Which is massively different to what people think it means.0 -
But incest is not a right, so nobody is actually restricting anyone's rights?
People tried to make that same argument when "Loving" married in an inter race marriage. The judge declared that god did not want mixed race marriages, and people at the time made an argument that it was not their right to marry so their rights were not curtailed.
Thankfully that argument failed then. I have not much expectation it will convince anyone today either.
The "right" we are talking about however is, as another user spoke of, to have your private life left entirely alone if it is not harmful or detrimental to anyone else. Who I have sex with, in the privacy of my house, assuming informed consent, should be no one elses business.... let alone the states.If society were to constantly have to justify itself, we'd have referenda every day a bit like the Lisbon treaty
That is something of an egregious exaggeration by you. Daily is merely hyperbole from you. However I would myself like to see things go to votes MUCH more than they do. People seem to think that if something is voted for, then it is set in stone forever. I would like to see many things brought to the vote more often than that. Even on votes that go "my way" and I am happy with the outcome. If, for example, full access to abortion by choice before a certain cut off time was voted in.... which I fully want.... I would still like to see it voted on again in 10 or 15 years.
It is not so much "Keep going until we get the answer we want" as you paint it so much as it is "Keep checking to make sure it is the answer we STILL want".Me and my cohort? What?
As in you and the people who are bringing nothing to bear on the conversation but crass sexual scenarios.Argumentum ad personal distaste? Again - What?
As above, the only thing you have brought to the thread is sexual scenarios you personally find distasteful, into which you drop incest to make it dirty by proxy. You have said little to nothing about incest at all, just expressed your personal distaste for it."Nanny State", "Nanny Czarcasm"?
Yes. Or at least that is the only answer I can give to this given I am not seeing a question before the question mark. Perhaps if you could endeavour to formulate a sentence next time I can help you further.
Following the use of sentences you might then even manage to elevate your rhetoric to formulating a relevant argument or point on this topic.0 -
Advertisement
-
minidazzler wrote: »I haven't read this thread, I have no huge care for it. But this part is just sh1t on a stick. Nothing should have to be justified for decriminalisation. Justifications should only be required for making something a crime. To remove something from statute books should be a simple case of the law no longer standing up to scrutiny.
I already addressed this -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.
In the case of Stubing v. Germany (the case referred to in the OP), Stubing challenged the laws regarding incest in Germany, arguing that they infringed upon his human rights (specifically Article 8). The EHCR found in favour of the German Government (the laws were not unconstitutional, and the German Courts applied them correctly) -3. Assessment by the Court
55. The Court does not exclude that the applicant’s criminal conviction had an impact on his family life and, possibly, attracted protection under Article 8 of the Convention, as he was forbidden to have sexual intercourse with the mother of his four children. In any event, it is common ground between the parties that the applicant’s criminal conviction interfered with his right to respect for his private life, which includes his sexual life (see Dudgeon, cited above, § 41 and Norris, cited above, § 38; also compare Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. the United Kingdom, 19 February 1997, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑I). The Court considers that there is no reason to hold otherwise and endorses this assessment. The applicant’s criminal conviction thus interfered with the applicant’s right to respect, at least, for his private life.
56. An interference with the exercise of the right to respect for an applicant’s private life will not be compatible with Article 8 § 2 unless it is “in accordance with the law”, has an aim or aims that is or are legitimate under that paragraph and is “necessary in a democratic society” for the aforesaid aim or aims (see, among many other authorities, Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 68, ECHR 2002‑III).
57. The Court notes that the applicant’s criminal conviction was based on Section 173 § 2 (2) of the German Criminal Code, which prohibits consensual sexual intercourse between consanguine adult siblings and which is aimed at the protection of morals and of the rights of others. It follows that the measure in question pursued a legitimate aim within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 8.
58. It thus remains to be determined whether the applicant’s conviction was necessary in a democratic society. In this respect, the Court must examine whether there existed a pressing social need for the measure in question and, in particular, whether the interference was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, regard being had to the fair balance which has to be struck between the relevant competing interests at stake and the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the State (see, among many other authorities, A, B and C v. Ireland [GC] no. 25579/05, § 230, ECHR 2010).
59. The Court reiterates that a number of factors must be taken into account when determining the breadth of the margin of appreciation to be enjoyed by the State when determining any case under Article 8 of the Convention. Where a particularly important facet of an individual’s existence or identity is at stake, the margin allowed to the State will normally be restricted (see, for example, Dudgeon, cited above, § 52; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 90, ECHR 2002-VI; and Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 77, ECHR 2007‑IV). Accordingly, the Court has found that there must exist particularly serious reasons before interference on the part of public authorities concerning a most intimate aspect of private life, such as the manifestation of a person’s sexuality, can be legitimate for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 8 (see Dudgeon and Norris, both cited above, §§ 52 and 46, respectively).
60. Where, however, there is no consensus within the Member States of the Council of Europe, either as to the relative importance of the interest at stake or as to the best means of protecting it, particularly where the case raises sensitive moral or ethical issues, the margin will be wider. By reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, the State authorities are, in principle, in a better position than the international court to give an opinion, not only on the “exact content of the requirements of morals” in their country, but also on the necessity of a restriction intended to meet them (see, among other authorities, A, B and C, cited above, § 232, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24 ).
61. Applying the principles set out above to the instant case, the Court observes that there is no consensus between the member States as to whether the consensual commitment of sexual acts between adult siblings should be criminally sanctioned (see paragraphs 28-30, above). Still, a majority of altogether twenty-four[1] out of the forty-four States reviewed provide for criminal liability. The Court further notes that all the legal systems, including those which do not impose criminal liability, prohibit siblings from getting married. Thus, a broad consensus transpires that sexual relationships between siblings are neither accepted by the legal order nor by society as a whole. Conversely, there is no sufficient empirical support for the assumption of a general trend towards a decriminalisation of such acts. The Court further considers that the instant case concerns a question about the requirements of morals. It follows from the above principles that the domestic authorities enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining how to confront incestuous relationships between consenting adults, notwithstanding the fact that this decision concerns an intimate aspect of an individual’s private life.
62. The Court reiterates that in cases arising from individual applications it is not the Court’s task to examine domestic legislation in the abstract. Rather, it must examine the manner in which the relevant legislation was applied to the applicant in the particular circumstances of the individual case (see Pretty, cited above, § 75, ECHR 2002‑III; Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 86, ECHR 2003-VIII; and Zaunegger v. Germany, no. 22028/04, § 45, 3 December 2009). Furthermore, it is not the Court’s task to rule on the degree of individual guilt or to determine the appropriate sentence of an offender, those being matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national criminal courts (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 123, ECHR 2010‑..., and Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 116, ECHR 2004‑XII). The Court will therefore limit its examination to the question of whether the applicant’s criminal conviction in this individual case corresponded to a pressing social need, as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.
63. The Court observes that the Federal Constitutional Court, having analysed the arguments put forward in favour of and against criminal liability and relying on an expert opinion, concluded that the imposition of criminal liability was justified by a combination of objectives, including the protection of the family, self-determination and public health, set against the background of a common conviction that incest should be subject to criminal liability. The Federal Constitutional Court considered that sexual relationships between siblings could seriously damage family structures and, as a consequence, society as a whole. According to the court, criminal liability was further justified by reference to the protection of sexual self‑determination. By addressing specific situations arising from the interdependence and closeness of family relationships, section 173 of the Criminal Code could avoid difficulties in the classification of, and defence against, transgressions of sexual self-determination in that context.
64. The Court notes that according to the findings of the Leipzig District Court, the applicant’s sister first entered into a sexual relationship with the applicant following their mother’s death. At that time, the sister was sixteen years of age; the applicant was her senior by seven years. According to an expert opinion prepared before the District Court, the sister suffered from a serious personality disorder which, together with an unsatisfying family situation and mild learning difficulties, led to her being considerably dependent on the applicant. The District Court concluded that the sister was only partially liable for her actions. These findings were confirmed by the Dresden Court of Appeal and by the Federal Constitutional Court.
65. The Court considers that the above-mentioned aims, which had been expressly endorsed by the democratic legislator when reviewing the relevant legislation in the 1970s (see paragraph 46 above), appear not to be unreasonable. Furthermore, they are relevant in the instant case. Under these circumstances, the Court accepts that the applicant’s criminal conviction corresponded to a pressing social need.
66. Having particular regard to the above considerations and to the careful consideration with which the Federal Constitutional Court approached the instant case, which is demonstrated by the thoroughness of the examination of the legal arguments put forward by the applicant and further highlighted by the fact that a detailed dissenting opinion was attached to the text of the decision, and to the wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by the State in the absence of a consensus within the Member States of the Council of Europe on the issue of criminal liability, the Court concludes that the domestic courts stayed within their margin of appreciation when convicting the applicant of incest.
67. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
From here -
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-110314#{"itemid":["001-110314"]}
Now, if the EHCR determined that the German Government applied the law correctly after scrutinizing the law, what do you think the chances are of incest being decriminalised in Ireland?0 -
I already addressed this -
Not really. In the text you quoted of yourself all you did was throw your hands up at the thought of how difficult it would be to engage in. That hardly addresses the users point. Rather, it dodges it, by attempting to bury it under red tape.
That is the opposite of "addressing" it. You are avoiding addressing the users point by simply lamenting at how difficult it would be to implement.
And further, while using that difficulty to implement your dodge.... you are forced to exaggerate it by imagining almost daily appeals to every law.
And finally you assume that if a law exists it has been justified? That is just laughable.
Firstly because times change and society changes so even if there WAS justification at one time.... it does not automatically follow that the justification still holds.
Secondly however, where the real comedy comes from, is that there are websites showing the more comical laws in some countries and states..... and I would love to observe you try and adumbrate the justification for some of them based off your "If it is law it is justified" hypothesis. It would make for some seriously comical viewing and if you ever attempt it, please ensure I am in the audience or receive a video of it.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »People tried to make that same argument when "Loving" married in an inter race marriage. The judge declared that god did not want mixed race marriages, and people at the time made an argument that it was not their right to marry so their rights were not curtailed.
Thankfully that argument failed then. I have not much expectation it will convince anyone today either.
The "right" we are talking about however is, as another user spoke of, to have your private life left entirely alone if it is not harmful or detrimental to anyone else. Who I have sex with, in the privacy of my house, assuming informed consent, should be no one elses business.... let alone the states.
What we are discussing in this thread, at this time is not interracial marriage, is not homosexuality. The thread is discussing incest. If posters were drawing in polygamy into a thread about same sex marriage, they'd be quite rightly told to stop, and so when discussing incest, you cannot draw any comparisons, correlations, justifications, etc, with interracial marriage or homosexuality. Try and at least stick to the topic at hand.
As for the part in bold, you're sure as hell intelligent enough to understand the difference between what things are, and what they should be. What they are, is a determination made by society, what they should be, is merely a determination made by you.That is something of an egregious exaggeration by you. Daily is merely hyperbole from you. However I would myself like to see things go to votes MUCH more than they do. People seem to think that if something is voted for, then it is set in stone forever. I would like to see many things brought to the vote more often than that. Even on votes that go "my way" and I am happy with the outcome. If, for example, full access to abortion by choice before a certain cut off time was voted in.... which I fully want.... I would still like to see it voted on again in 10 or 15 years.
I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that way, though I'm sure there are people that do. Article 15.2 of the Irish Constitution allows for laws to be challenged as unconstitutional and allows for them to be scrutinized. To my knowledge at least, nobody in this country has yet challenged the laws regarding incest, and quite likely if they did, the challenge would be defeated, and defeated again in the EHCR.It is not so much "Keep going until we get the answer we want" as you paint it so much as it is "Keep checking to make sure it is the answer we STILL want".
I would say the law would only need checking when there is a demand in society for the laws to be changed. There is no demand in society for the laws regarding incest to be changed, so in the case of incest at least, the laws will remain as they are.As in you and the people who are bringing nothing to bear on the conversation but crass sexual scenarios.
The thread has moved on in your absence. We didn't get here through 27 pages of crass sexual scenarios. The thread is still missing a compelling argument to make the case for decriminalisation of incest with regard to the benefit of doing so for society as a whole. Any time you'd like to take a stab at it, I'm all ears.As above, the only thing you have brought to the thread is sexual scenarios you personally find distasteful, into which you drop incest to make it dirty by proxy. You have said little to nothing about incest at all, just expressed your personal distaste for it.
Thread has moved on in your absence, and as ironic as this may be - so far your contribution to this thread has been ad hominems and lofty language used as mere window dressing to disguise your lack of any substantive, cogent argument that could be used to make the case for the decriminalisation of incest.Yes. Or at least that is the only answer I can give to this given I am not seeing a question before the question mark. Perhaps if you could endeavour to formulate a sentence next time I can help you further.
Following the use of sentences you might then even manage to elevate your rhetoric to formulating a relevant argument or point on this topic.
Beam in your own eye there much? How about you help me out by making a compelling argument for the decriminalisation of incest on the basis that you can demonstrate it has overall benefit to society?
I'll give you a head start so we're not going round in circles -
You'll have to forget about basing your argument on the "two consenting adults" idea, as the Irish Constitution the way it stands would be supported by the EHCR -
i.e. You don't have any such right as the right to be left alone, and you don't have any right to do whatever the hell you like with another adult, let alone another family member as long as they give informed consent, not legally at least you don't.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Not really. In the text you quoted of yourself all you did was throw your hands up at the thought of how difficult it would be to engage in. That hardly addresses the users point. Rather, it dodges it, by attempting to bury it under red tape.
That is the opposite of "addressing" it. You are avoiding addressing the users point by simply lamenting at how difficult it would be to implement.
And further, while using that difficulty to implement your dodge.... you are forced to exaggerate it by imagining almost daily appeals to every law.
And finally you assume that if a law exists it has been justified? That is just laughable.
Firstly because times change and society changes so even if there WAS justification at one time.... it does not automatically follow that the justification still holds.
Secondly however, where the real comedy comes from, is that there are websites showing the more comical laws in some countries and states..... and I would love to observe you try and adumbrate the justification for some of them based off your "If it is law it is justified" hypothesis. It would make for some seriously comical viewing and if you ever attempt it, please ensure I am in the audience or receive a video of it.
More lofty waffle of little substance that fails to address the point of the thread. Regarding the bit in bold, you have an opportunity here to adumbrate the justification for challenging Irish laws regarding incest and decriminalising the act of incest. Since you take such umbrage to points being dodged, I'm sure you'll argue the case for the decriminalisation of incest on it's own merits, rather than draw justifications from comparisons with abortion, homosexuality, interracial marriage, etc, which have all been argued for on their own merits, and have nothing to do with the fundamental topic of this thread.0 -
What we are discussing in this thread, at this time is not interracial marriage, is not homosexuality.
I am not precluded from using them as examples to illustrate a point, regardless of what you think the topic is. I am well aware of what the topic here is and do not need to be told it by someone who appears unable to construct an argument on the subject.you cannot draw any comparisons, correlations, justifications, etc, with interracial marriage or homosexuality.
Nor did I try. There is a difference between drawing comparisons to those things.... and drawing comparisons to the arguments that were used in those contexts. I did the latter, not the former. Do keep up.As for the part in bold, you're sure as hell intelligent enough to understand the difference between what things are, and what they should be. What they are, is a determination made by society, what they should be, is merely a determination made by you.
Way to not answer the point made in the text you bolded at all. Nothing you have just written here addresses the fact that there is no argument on this thread, much less so from you, to suggest why who I have adult consensual sex with should be your business or the states, or what any moral argument against it may or may not be.The thread has moved on in your absence. We didn't get here through 27 pages of crass sexual scenarios.
I was replying to you, not the thread, and the fact still remains that you have not constructed a single argument against the morality of incest other than your crass attempt to build up sexual scenarios distasteful to you and simply drop incest into them.The thread is still missing a compelling argument to make the case for decriminalisation of incest with regard to the benefit of doing so for society as a whole. Any time you'd like to take a stab at it, I'm all ears.
Why would I take a stab at an argument I have not been making? Again, do keep up with who is saying what. My point was, and remains, that I am unaware what the actual moral arguments against incest are.... and when you find someone anti incest and ask them to adumbrate them they.... as exampled so well by you.... simply flail about ineffectually and throw out a few points about their own personal distaste.
If you simply have no such arguments, or the ability to formulate one, that is fine. No problem. No one is judging you or compelling you to do so. But let us not act like your failure to do so is actually my failure not to defend a point or position I never once espoused or expressed.and as ironic as this may be - so far your contribution to this thread has been ad hominems and lofty language used as mere window dressing to disguise your lack of any substantive, cogent argument that could be used to make the case for the decriminalisation of incest.
I have neither engaged in ad hominems nor have I expressed any position on the decriminalization. All that is happening here is you have failed to keep up with who has been making what points. My failure to support a point I have never made is your failure not mine.... as there is no reason for me to defend a position I did not expressed.
I am sorry if my language is "lofty" to you but I merely speak the way I speak. I can only hope you can follow it and keep up. But once again my only position so far on this thread is that I am unaware of any moral arguments against incest and when I ask someone who is anti incest what those arguments might be..... I simply get hot air and bluster and personal distaste.... which you exampled so well.Beam in your own eye there much? How about you help me out by making a compelling argument for the decriminalisation of incest on the basis that you can demonstrate it has overall benefit to society?
As above the beam is solely in your eye and no one elses as you keep asking me to defend a position I have not actually expressed.
However I would point out that showing it has an overall benefit should not, in my opinion, be a prerequisite for decriminalization of anything. Rather I think what is illegal should be something we can show is harmful and needs to be illegal. If there is no good argument for keeping it illegal.... and there so far is not, much less so from you...... then I am all for dropping laws from our books that have no utility or application.
But again, in the hope that if I say it often enough it might sink in, decriminalization of it has never been my position on this thread. My position is, was, and will continue to be that I am currently unaware of any cogent arguments against the morality of incest and no one, much less you, appears to be able to formulate one for me.More lofty waffle of little substance that fails to address the point of the thread.
Very nice of you to start your paragraph with a description of the contents of that paragraph. However the issue, again, is that you are not addressing my point, and instead getting haughty and uppity that I am not addressing the point you want me to be discussing.
I address my own points that I wish to make, not points you desperately want me to be making, likely because you can not address the one I am making so you need me to be talking about something more palatable to you.0 -
Josef Fritzel may have a leg to stand on then.0
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »However I would point out that showing it has an overall benefit should not, in my opinion, be a prerequisite for decriminalization of anything.
Important part highlighted in bold there, and without meaning to sound facetious, but that is indeed, just your opinion, and you know full well that laws are not made on the basis of one individuals opinion alone, and they are not changed on the basis of one individuals opinion alone.
You're also aware that the way you think laws against acts should be made or decriminalised, is not the way the judicial system or drafting legislation, or reforming legislation is done. That's why we have bodies like the Law Reform Commission, to examine submissions from the public and determine the agenda to be put forward to Government.Rather I think what is illegal should be something we can show is harmful and needs to be illegal. If there is no good argument for keeping it illegal.... and there so far is not, much less so from you...... then I am all for dropping laws from our books that have no utility or application.
So far actually there has been. It just hasn't suited you personally, but because you're unable to form an argument against it, you keep coming out with the way things should be according to the word of nozzferahtoo. That's little more than a childish way of arguing "Whyyyy?", and ignoring all the reasons you're being told exactly why! The onus is then on you to argue why the laws should be challenged.But again, in the hope that if I say it often enough it might sink in, decriminalization of it has never been my position on this thread. My position is, was, and will continue to be that I am currently unaware of any cogent arguments against the morality of incest and no one, much less you, appears to be able to formulate one for me.
I happen to be of the same opinion as the EHCR, so I shall just leave out for you here, their reasons for agreeing with the decision of the German Courts -13. On 30 January 2007 the Dresden Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The court considered that there were certain doubts as to the constitutionality of the relevant provision. However, it determined that these were not sufficient to call the validity of the law into question.
14. On 22 February 2007 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, arguing, in particular, that Section 173 § 2 (2) of the Criminal Code had violated his right to sexual self-determination, had discriminated against him and was disproportionate. In addition, it interfered with the relationship between parents and their children born out of incestuous relationships.
15. On 26 February 2008 the Federal Constitutional Court, by seven votes to one, rejected the complaint as being unfounded. The decision was based on the following considerations. With the criminal provision of Section 173 § 2 (2) of the Criminal Code, the legislature had restricted the right to sexual self-determination of biological siblings by making sexual intercourse between them a punishable offence. This limited the conduct of one’s private life by penalising certain forms of expressions of sexuality between persons close to one another. However, the provision did not infringe the core area of private life. Sexual intercourse between siblings could have effects on the family and society and carry consequences for children resulting from the relationship. As the criminal law prohibited only a narrowly defined scope of behaviour and only selectively curtailed opportunities for intimate contact, the parties concerned had not been placed in a position which would be incompatible with respect for human dignity.
16. The legislator had pursued objectives that were not constitutionally objectionable and that, in any event, in their totality legitimised the limitation on the right to sexual self-determination. The primary ground for punishment was the protection of marriage and the family. Empirical studies had showed that the legislature was not overstepping its margin of appreciation when assuming that incestuous relationships between siblings could seriously damage the family and society as a whole. Incestuous relationships resulted in overlapping familial relationships and social roles and, thus, could damage the structural system of family life. The overlapping of roles did not correspond with the image of a family as defined by the Basic Law. It seemed clear, and did not appear to be far‑fetched to assume, that the children of an incestuous relationship might have significant difficulties in finding their place within the family structure and in building a trusting relationship with their closest caregivers. The function of the family, which was of primary importance for the community, would be decisively damaged if the required family structures were shaken by incestuous relationships.
17. Insofar as the criminal provision was justified by reference to the protection of sexual self-determination, this objective was also relevant between siblings. The objection that this right was sufficiently protected by the specific provisions on offences against sexual self-determination overlooked the fact that Section 173 of the Criminal Code addressed specific situations arising from the interdependence and closeness of family relationships, as well as difficulties in the classification of, and defence against, transgressions of sexual self-determination in that context.
18. The legislature had additionally based its decision on eugenic grounds and had assumed that the risk of significant damage to children who were the product of an incestuous relationship could not be excluded. In both medical and anthropological literature, which was supported by empirical studies, reference had been made to the particular risk of the occurrence of genetic defects.
Pay particular attention to no. 13, the emphasis in bold was my own, to highlight that the onus is on you to make a valid argument in favour, the onus is not on me to make a valid argument against the decriminalisation of incest. The valid arguments have already been made. They're just not arguments that suit you, but they're arguments that suit the majority in society, seeing as there's no demand in society for them to be changed.Very nice of you to start your paragraph with a description of the contents of that paragraph. However the issue, again, is that you are not addressing my point, and instead getting haughty and uppity that I am not addressing the point you want me to be discussing.
Can you honestly blame me for getting frustrated that you have failed time and again to address the point of the thread?I address my own points that I wish to make, not points you desperately want me to be making, likely because you can not address the one I am making so you need me to be talking about something more palatable to you.
Now that paragraph is a bit rich nozz considering that you say you're only addressing points you wish to make (thereby doing exactly what I referred to earlier - ignoring that which doesn't suit you), and certainly not withstanding the fact that you have already dismissed my earlier posts as unpalatable to you so you wouldn't be addressing the content of those posts either.
At some point, you're going to have to directly address the point of coming up with valid arguments to challenge the laws you disagree with in relation to incest in this country, and if you cannot do that, the laws will stay as they are, as there is no demand in society for them to be changed, as incest has been shown to be harmful to society, offers no benefit to society, and so there is a need for it to be kept illegal, and not be subject to the whims and opinion of one individual who disagrees with it's criminalization.0 -
basically just another symptom of the decline of western civilisation...europe is turning into some sort of fellini movie reminiscent of rome in the 5th century...and while the “why not? consenting adults etc.” argument seems to have some value, i still think certain things are just wrong by nature...even animals would normally avoid incest...0
-
As usual the thread has been hijacked by two people arguing..
To the people who say its ok as long as they dont have kids and they are both consenting adults.. If that was you and your brother/sister.. and it was legal here, would you do it? Why? Why not?
Im guessing the majority would'nt0 -
Advertisement
-
Important part highlighted in bold there, and without meaning to sound facetious, but that is indeed, just your opinion
Yes. I said as much. I do not need my own positions explained back to me thanks.
I was merely indicating that I would prefer to live in a society where if a law becomes defunct or useless, was established for no good reason, or the good reasons at the time were no longer valid now..... that it would be dropped.
Currently no one can put together a single, let alone a set, of argument for having incest illegal. Certainly you can not and have merely flailed about at the topic. So why it is illegal at all is certainly opaque to me.So far actually there has been.
Except no, there has not. Certainly not from you. And you merely declaring there has been, does not magically make them appear. But if you are aware of any argument for incest to be illegal, or be considered immoral, then by all means lay them out for me.The onus is then on you to argue why the laws should be challenged.
No, since my position has never been this. I explained this was not my position 4 or 5 times in the previous post. I even indicated I was doing so repeatedly in the hope it would actually sink in. Clearly it has not.
I have no onus.... _at all_.... to support a position I have never espoused.
My position.... AGAIN.... since you still do not get it..... is that I have never once.... least of all by you..... been shown an argument for why we should consider incest immoral or wrong.
If you are aware of any such argument, by all means throw it out there. But until then, your attempts to suggest I should make arguments for decriminalizing it are just your shrill attempts to dodge what I am actually saying in favor of trying to make me say something else.Can you honestly blame me for getting frustrated that you have failed time and again to address the point of the thread?
Your frustrations are not my concern. I made a point and I have been sticking to that point. If you are frustrated that I will not address a DIFFERENT point to the one I am making..... then you have my sympathy, but my sympathy alone. I am not about to pander to you trying to have me support positions I have not espoused or expressed.
If I am not discussing what you want me to discuss.... then I should simply point out no one is compelling you to reply to me.
And as for presuming to admonish me on the "purpose of the thread" you are about the lowest user on the scale of who has a pedestal to do that from given the last paragraph of post #47 which was just a crass propaganda move with little bearing on anything.Now that paragraph is a bit rich nozz considering that you say you're only addressing points you wish to make (thereby doing exactly what I referred to earlier - ignoring that which doesn't suit you)
Nope it is still just you. I entered the thread and made a couple of points. You simply ignored those points and asked me to address a different one. I shall not be doing that. I made my points and I am sticking to them. It is you, not I, deflecting and dodging here.
Once again my point was I am unaware of any arguments as to why people consider incest wrong or immoral. Much less from you.
Once again YOUR point was that if I wanted to change the law on this then I would have to do X Y and Z.
Once again I never made a claim about the law, so you are asking me to support a contention I never made.
Simples.
If you are aware of good arguments against the morality of incest, or good arguments for why we would want it to be illegal..... then by all means lay them out there for me. Anything else however is talking at me or past me, and not responding to a thing I have actually said.conspiracycat wrote: »To the people who say its ok as long as they dont have kids and they are both consenting adults.. If that was you and your brother/sister.. and it was legal here, would you do it? Why? Why not? Im guessing the majority would'nt
I am guessing the majority would not either. However I am not sure what the point of highlighting this fact is? Just because the majority would not do it.... so what? What is your point? Where are you going with this?0 -
Yeh western civilisation was so much better even just 70 years ago. Wtf?Wurzelbert wrote: »basically just another symptom of the decline of western civilisation...europe is turning into some sort of fellini movie reminiscent of rome in the 5th century...and while the “why not? consenting adults etc.” argument seems to have some value, i still think certain things are just wrong by nature...even animals would normally avoid incest...
What on earth? Do people have to be ****ing family members in order to prove how they don't believe incest between consenting adults should be criminalised?conspiracycat wrote: »As usual the thread has been hijacked by two people arguing..
To the people who say its ok as long as they dont have kids and they are both consenting adults.. If that was you and your brother/sister.. and it was legal here, would you do it? Why? Why not?
Im guessing the majority would'nt
It can't be that difficult to grasp that most people wouldn't be into it but if a tiny number of people are and aren't hurting anyone, then, even though it's a pretty manky idea, there isn't cause to make criminals of them.
It simply cannot be difficult to grasp this.
The fact most people wouldn't be into incest has no bearing on the above view.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Once again my point was I am unaware of any arguments as to why people consider incest wrong or immoral. Much less from you.
Here are the arguments presented as to why I consider incest has no benefit to society, is harmful to society, and is therefore considered unethical -
1. Sexual intercourse between siblings could have effects on the family and society and carry consequences for children resulting from the relationship.
2. Incestuous relationships resulted in overlapping familial relationships and social roles and, thus, could damage the structural system of family life. The overlapping of roles do not correspond with the image of a family as defined by the Basic Law. It seems clear, and does not appear to be far‑fetched to assume, that the children of an incestuous relationship might have significant difficulties in finding their place within the family structure and in building a trusting relationship with their closest caregivers. The function of the family, which is of primary importance for the community, would be decisively damaged if the required family structures were shaken by incestuous relationships.
3. In both medical and anthropological literature, which is supported by empirical studies, reference had been made to the particular risk of the occurrence of genetic defects.
4. It is true that in cases of sibling incest, guardianship and youth welfare measures come into consideration.
Now you are aware of the arguments.0 -
Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »Yeh western civilisation was so much better even just 70 years ago. Wtf?
What on earth? Do people have to be ****ing family members in order to prove how they don't believe incest between consenting adults should be criminalised?
It can't be that difficult to grasp that most people wouldn't be into it but if a tiny number of people are and aren't hurting anyone, then, even though it's a pretty manky idea, there isn't cause to make criminals of them.
It simply cannot be difficult to grasp this.
The fact most people wouldn't be into incest has no bearing on the above view.
Well that's just not true. In any case, it's even so contentious that to coin a phrase by Jerry Springer -
They may indeed be hurting themselves, and each other.0 -
Should they be criminalised for this though? If they want to be together anyway, they'll be together. Problems they encounter are up to them to tackle.Well that's just not true. In any case, it's even so contentious that to coin a phrase by Jerry Springer -
They may indeed be hurting themselves, and each other.0 -
Wurzelbert wrote: »basically just another symptom of the decline of western civilisation...europe is turning into some sort of fellini movie reminiscent of rome in the 5th century...and while the “why not? consenting adults etc.” argument seems to have some value, i still think certain things are just wrong by nature...even animals would normally avoid incest...
So do humans0 -
Advertisement
-
Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »Should they be criminalised for this though?
My personal opinion? Yes, absolutely. People should be criminalized for it, as there should be a deterrent in place against the practice. Whether I believe they should actually be serve a custodial sentence for it would be entirely dependent upon the particular set of circumstances in each case, as evidenced by the Stubing case where both were charged with the crime, but because the sister was found to be less liable for her actions, she was not incarcerated. As far as I'm aware, from my reading of the case, Stubing was given numerous warnings before being incarcerated.If they want to be together anyway, they'll be together.
And that's part of the issue, is whether they would be able to form normal relationships outside of the bonds of the family when that transgresses into a sexual relationship. Again, as evidenced by the Stubing case, when her brother was incarcerated, the sister formed a relationship with another man, had a child within that relationship, and when Stubing, her brother, was released, the sister gave up that child for adoption and carried on her relationship with Stubing effectively where they left off.Problems they encounter are up to them to tackle.
They're not just up to them to tackle though, as they are citizens of the State, and even if they chose not to have children (who would also be citizens of the State), they are as individuals entitled to the protection of the State, and they have a responsibility towards society in return for the protection that society affords them, so no, the problems they encounter wouldn't just be their problems to tackle.
Incest presents a number of problems that could well be incumbent upon society to tackle, and that's one of the main reasons why there is no demand in society to legislate for incestuous relationships. It's not a question of equality in relation to sexual identity, orientation or gender, and it's not a question of equality in terms of race or ethnicity either.
It's a question of human rights and the right to sexual self-determination, and the denial of an incestuous relationship to individuals is not an infringement of their human rights.0 -
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.
I think he means if 51% of the population were muslim , then what the country considers ethical or not would change. For instance homosexuality is considered unethical by most muslims, whereas most Irish Christians will probably vote to legalise gay marriage in the referendum. So most of us think homosexuality is okay, but incest is not. But if most people here were muslims homosexuality would be considered unethical again in our country.0 -
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.
If we have learnt anything from history it must be that the views of the majority are not always right and can be very far from ethical. In the past the majority of irish people believed homsexuality should be illegal and was unethical, now of course we the majority do not think that anymore and we consider their harsh views on homosexuality unethical. People's views change, everything is relative0 -
conspiracycat wrote: »As usual the thread has been hijacked by two people arguing..
To the people who say its ok as long as they dont have kids and they are both consenting adults.. If that was you and your brother/sister.. and it was legal here, would you do it? Why? Why not?
Im guessing the majority would'nt
Can people stop using the majority wouldnt approve as their argument. The majority of people would also not engage in homosexuality as they are not homosexual yet its legal0 -
If we have learnt anything from history it must be that the views of the majority are not always right and can be very far from ethical. In the past the majority of irish people believed homsexuality should be illegal and was unethical, now of course we the majority do not think that anymore and we consider their harsh views on homosexuality unethical. People's views change, everything is relative
Isn't that negating your own point?
At various points throughout history homosexuality, incest (insert whatever social taboo you like here) were par for the course and perfectly acceptable in society. Smoking was perfectly acceptable in society. Because they were practiced by the majority in that society.
These concepts have been around since the dawn of man, and as society evolved, we dropped some things, brought back others, made laws that gave society structure and a moral and ethical code to adhere to for the benefit of society.
There are arguments can be made for homosexuality that are clearly beneficial overall to society. Smoking has no overall benefit to society, incest has no overall benefit to society.0 -
Advertisement
-
Isn't that negating your own point?
At various points throughout history homosexuality, incest (insert whatever social taboo you like here) were par for the course and perfectly acceptable in society. Smoking was perfectly acceptable in society. Because they were practiced by the majority in that society.
These concepts have been around since the dawn of man, and as society evolved, we dropped some things, brought back others, made laws that gave society structure and a moral and ethical code to adhere to for the benefit of society.
There are arguments can be made for homosexuality that are clearly beneficial overall to society. Smoking has no overall benefit to society, incest has no overall benefit to society.
No it doesnt negate my point as I was saying that in time people will probably come to accept incest, and itll be viewed as okay just like how homosexuality is now0 -
No it doesnt negate my point as I was saying that in time people will probably come to accept incest, and itll be viewed as okay just like how homosexuality is now
Aye, that'll happen roundabout the time society stops giving a shìt about bestiality, pedophilia, rape, murder, all those other sorts of things that are detrimental to society as a whole...
Seriously though, I understand what you're saying and all, but incest, as has even been seen in this thread from some more enlightened and liberal posters, the general opinion seems to be "wouldn't be for me, but two consenting adults, etc".
Nobody has actually come out and said they actually support, encourage, or even accept incest, unconditionally, and it's unlikely ever to be adopted and legislated for in this country. This will give you some idea of the current legal status of incest in Ireland -Republic of Ireland
Incest is illegal in the Republic of Ireland under the Punishment of Incest Act 1908, which pre-dates the foundation of the state.
It is illegal for a male to have sexual intercourse with his granddaughter, daughter, sister (including half-sister), or mother; and for a female (over sixteen years of age) with her grandfather, father, brother (including half-brother), or son. The act does not refer to other familial relationships (such as grandson-grandmother), or same-sex relations.
It is punishable by up to seven years imprisonment for a female and up to life imprisonment for a male. The maximum sentence for males was increased from seven years to twenty years by the Criminal Justice Act, 1993; and further increased to life imprisonment by the Criminal Law (Incest Proceedings) Act, 1995.
The maximum sentence for females has never been increased from the seven years specified in the original 1908 act. A private members' bill introduced in 2012 by Denis Naughten TD attempted to redress this inequality in sentencing by increasing the maximum sentence for females to life imprisonment. However, during a speech made during the second stage reading of the bill in March 2014, Justice Minister Alan Shatter TD stated that while he was not opposed to the bill in principle, a sexual offences bill announced by the government on 17 December 2013 will "include measures to equalise upwards the penalties for incest by male and female offenders" and also "take a more comprehensive approach to reform of the law in this area".
Occasionally, offenders convicted of incest will be admitted to a psychiatric hospital for psychiatric treatment.
Source: Laws regarding incest, Wikipedia
There has simply been no demand for the law to be challenged in this country, apart from calls equalising the punishment for the act of incest for both genders.0 -
Here are the arguments presented as to why I consider incest has no benefit to society, is harmful to society, and is therefore considered unethical
What has "benefit" got to do with it? Nothing at all. Something does not have to be beneficial to be considered moral, and lacking benefit does not make it immoral or unethical. If it did then vast swaths of our society, and especially popular culture, would fall under the purview of this judgementalism.
Showing it to be HARMFUL will be at least answering my question, at last, rather than dodging it or demanding I support a position I never held. So this, at least, is progress.
So let us consider your arguments..........1. Sexual intercourse between siblings could have effects on the family and society and carry consequences for children resulting from the relationship.
Sexual intercourse between ANYONE can have "effects" on family, friends, social circles, society, children, careers, and much much more. So this point is really poor to begin with.
All you appear to be doing here is lording the word "effect" in an ominous fashion as if it means something horrific and so incest will be considered nasty by proxy. Merely having "an effect" says literally nothing. It is similar in some discussions where people throw out the word "consequences" as if the word in and of itself says something.
So I am afraid your point 1 says pretty much nothing, but somehow uses a lot of words to say it.2. Incestuous relationships resulted in overlapping familial relationships and social roles and, thus, could damage the structural system of family life.
Again.... what? "Could do this" "might do that". Overlapping of what exactly? What "roles" exactly are you talking about? In modern society there is not much concept of "roles" left. Certainly the male/female "roles" have been diluted into nothing and have equalized between the sexes. So it is not clear here what you even mean or are talking about.The overlapping of roles do not correspond with the image of a family as defined by the Basic Law.
Again what "roles"? And why does something need to "correspond to the image of law" in order to be ethical or moral?children of an incestuous relationship might have significant difficulties in finding their place within the family structure
I see no reason to "assume" this so lets stick to facts and not your assumptions shall we?
Also are similar arguments not leveled against children of single parents? Or homosexual parents? This argument fails in those contexts. What makes you think it is magically applicable to this one?if the required family structures were shaken by incestuous relationships.
More "ifs" in your campaign of what-iffery then?3. In both medical and anthropological literature, which is supported by empirical studies, reference had been made to the particular risk of the occurrence of genetic defects.
Which is not as high or significant as you might want to believe it to be or want to assume it to be in order to manufacture a point.It is true that in cases of sibling incest, guardianship and youth welfare measures come into consideration.
You will need to elaborate on this one as I have no idea what you are talking about. Considering I, and a few others on the thread, made it DAMN clear numerous times we are talking about "adult relationships involving informed consent" it is unclear what "guardianship and youth welfare" measures you are referring to.Now you are aware of the arguments.
Nope, nothing good or relevant there at all. Just a series of fails I am afraid. A few assumptions packed in with a few overstatements.... all topped off by an ending point that requires elaboration as it is not clear what you are saying at all. I remain entirely unaware of any arguments supporting the contention that incest should be considered immoral or unethical, much less from you.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I remain entirely unaware of any arguments supporting the contention that incest should be considered immoral or unethical, much less from you.
You only asked for the arguments against it. I gave you the arguments against it. Whether or not those arguments are good enough for you personally or not is neither here nor there, and certainly I don't have to argue them. They're good enough for me, that's all I care about.
Other than that, I really can't help you any further.0 -
Call Me Jimmy wrote: »So do humans
of course they do...as i wrote, it's natural to avoid incest...0 -
You only asked for the arguments against it. I gave you the arguments against it. Whether or not those arguments are good enough for you personally or not is neither here nor there
It is not about "me personally". I showed exactly why either A) the arguments fail or
they require clarification. Nothing to do with "me personally". The arguments fail, or require clarification, independent of me.Other than that, I really can't help you any further.
Further? You have not helped me at all. I entered the thread unaware of any arguments that hold up that support the contention incest should be viewed as immoral or unethical. I remain in this position now.
Having said that, had you actually bothered to read and then answer the questions I put in my post.... such as requests for clarification on a couple of issues.... that would have been "helping me further". As such it seems it is not that you "can't" help me further, as you just claimed, but that you simply are unwilling to do so.Wurzelbert wrote: »of course they do...as i wrote, it's natural to avoid incest...
Quite a lot of creatures do not avoid it. At all. So I am not sure how far the word "natural" extends in this case.
And of course it is worth noting, just in case anyone runs away with this, that what is "natural" or not does not in any way map onto what is ethical or not, or moral or not.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »It is not about "me personally". I showed exactly why either A) the arguments fail or they require clarification. Nothing to do with "me personally". The arguments fail, or require clarification, independent of me.
It IS about you personally, because you have maintained consistently throughout this thread that you are unaware of any argument that incest should be viewed as immoral or unethical. I simply presented you with the arguments, so now you are aware of them.Further? You have not helped me at all. I entered the thread unaware of any arguments that hold up that support the contention incest should be viewed as immoral or unethical. I remain in this position now.
Having said that, had you actually bothered to read and then answer the questions I put in my post.... such as requests for clarification on a couple of issues.... that would have been "helping me further". As such it seems it is not that you "can't" help me further, as you just claimed, but that you simply are unwilling to do so.
You catch on quick!Quite a lot of creatures do not avoid it. At all. So I am not sure how far the word "natural" extends in this case.
And of course it is worth noting, just in case anyone runs away with this, that what is "natural" or not does not in any way map onto what is ethical or not, or moral or not.
On that much we can agree, which is why society maintains laws that govern that society and maintain social order. Otherwise, there would be anarchy as people could do whatever the hell they liked, in the absence of laws about consent, etc.0 -
It IS about you personally, because you have maintained consistently throughout this thread that you are unaware of any argument that incest should be viewed as immoral or unethical.
Repetition of an assertion does not make the assertion true. You wanting it to be about me personally therefore does not make it so.... the arguments fail for the reasons I gave... and those reasons are independent of me. I merely articulated them and my part in it ends there.
The arguments fail, or require clarification, independent of me. Alas you have openly indicated you simply can not be bothered to do so.I simply presented you with the arguments, so now you are aware of them.
No, I remain unaware of any valid arguments supporting the contention that incest is immoral or unethical. What I am aware of is you have some points which fail, or require clarification. But that is not what I asked for. I at no point asked to be made aware of arguments that fail or need clarification. I asked to be made aware of arguments that are valid and actually support the contention incest is immoral or unethical.
You have provided not a jot thus far to answer this.You catch on quick!
So you openly admit that when you said "cant" you did not actually mean "cant" but "wont". At least you are honest when called on your misrepresentations, I give you that.On that much we can agree, which is why society maintains laws that govern that society and maintain social order. Otherwise, there would be anarchy as people could do whatever the hell they liked, in the absence of laws about consent, etc.
And my ideal society IS one where people can do what they want, unless it can be justified somehow that what they are doing is immoral or harmful and should be prevented through law or other means.
Thus far I see no reason why an idea society would consider incest immoral or harmful.... or that it requires prevention.
But I guess in my time on internet forums I have discovered that people _generally_ fall into two categories. Those that want everything to be permitted and we ban that which has good arguments for banning it............... and those that want everything to be banned and we PERMIT things that have good arguments for why they should be allowed.
Your tone so far suggests you are, in this subject at least though maybe generally, in the latter camp. You wish it to be banned and illegal for no discernible reasons, and you wish others to justify legalizing it.
Whereas I am in the former category, which I often adumbrate as "Innocent until proven guilty". And as such I would like to see things, including incest, left well alone by the state, laws and nanny moralists unless they can succeed in arguing as to why something is harmful or immoral. Which you, thus far, have not just slightly but ENTIRELY failed to do.
Given those two approaches therefore we are doomed to talk past each other and the best I can do in this context is show how badly the anti arguments you have attempted thus far fail. Until, of course, such time as someone manages to present me with a compelling argument to support the anti side, at which point I will happily change my position on this. I just do not expect this to be from you.... not just judging by the poor quality of your points to date.... but also because you just openly admitted you simply can not be bothered to try.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Repetition of an assertion does not make the assertion true. You wanting it to be about me personally therefore does not make it so.... the arguments fail for the reasons I gave... and those reasons are independent of me. I merely articulated them and my part in it ends there.
The arguments fail, or require clarification, independent of me. Alas you have openly indicated you simply can not be bothered to do so.
No, I remain unaware of any valid arguments supporting the contention that incest is immoral or unethical. What I am aware of is you have some points which fail, or require clarification. But that is not what I asked for. I at no point asked to be made aware of arguments that fail or need clarification. I asked to be made aware of arguments that are valid and actually support the contention incest is immoral or unethical.
You have provided not a jot thus far to answer this.
So you openly admit that when you said "cant" you did not actually mean "cant" but "wont". At least you are honest when called on your misrepresentations, I give you that.
And my ideal society IS one where people can do what they want, unless it can be justified somehow that what they are doing is immoral or harmful and should be prevented through law or other means.
Thus far I see no reason why an idea society would consider incest immoral or harmful.... or that it requires prevention.
But I guess in my time on internet forums I have discovered that people _generally_ fall into two categories. Those that want everything to be permitted and we ban that which has good arguments for banning it............... and those that want everything to be banned and we PERMIT things that have good arguments for why they should be allowed.
Your tone so far suggests you are, in this subject at least though maybe generally, in the latter camp. You wish it to be banned and illegal for no discernible reasons, and you wish others to justify legalizing it.
Whereas I am in the former category, which I often adumbrate as "Innocent until proven guilty". And as such I would like to see things, including incest, left well alone by the state, laws and nanny moralists unless they can succeed in arguing as to why something is harmful or immoral. Which you, thus far, have not just slightly but ENTIRELY failed to do.
Given those two approaches therefore we are doomed to talk past each other and the best I can do in this context is show how badly the anti arguments you have attempted thus far fail. Until, of course, such time as someone manages to present me with a compelling argument to support the anti side, at which point I will happily change my position on this. I just do not expect this to be from you.... not just judging by the poor quality of your points to date.... but also because you just openly admitted you simply can not be bothered to try.
Soo... not about you at all then, no?
The thing is, I'm quite satisfied with the laws as they are in this country. I'm also quite satisfied that the EHCR would uphold any decision regarding those laws, and I'm quite satisfied that those laws are compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
What YOU want then, and what way you wish society to be, is really for me neither here nor there. The arguments work for me, and I will support maintaining the laws regarding incest in Ireland as they are.0 -
I don't agree with incestuous relationships mostly because the majority of such interactions are founded by abusive qualities, I have seen and heard enough abusers claim that the relationship was consensual, when in fact brain washing was they key element! Whilst I am well aware that statistically young adults do engage in underage sex, what are the chances that incestuous relationships will start maybe pre teen or very early teens?
How many abusers currently in prison will start saying it was consensual all along? Many abusers often say actual intercourse didn't occur until the other person was of legal age.
Will the victim now have to go proving their character on top of the trauma the have experienced?
How does a court prove consent or Stockholm syndrome?
I didn't realise how strongly I felt about this subject till I started to write about it...0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement