Originally posted by radiocerk
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
some things shouldn't be touched
Collapse
X
-
I am a sexy shoeless god of war!
Minus the sexy and I'm wearing shoes.
-
The problem with parent > child is as was said, the power dynamic in the relationship is not equal. Even if the child is a consenting adult, there is still that power dynamic. There's also the effect on the rest of the family, especially siblings. Its really just a Bad Idea(tm) all around.
If that dynamic is removed ( Through, say, adoption for example ) than the next concern is reproductive. However such pregnancies are usually a result of no knowledge of relation ( was put up for adoption ) or abuse. As its doubtful any two consenting adults aware of their close relation would risk a child.
The final concern is simply moral. The ick factor. We have a natural repulsion to incest. Though, curiously, only to direct incest. It's only in the western world where all incest is considered morally reprehensible.
In the rest of the world it can be acceptable to marry a cousin for example, and the statistical chance of birth defects between two cousins is only 1% more than between unrelated couples. If I recall the study they did in Australia right.
Of course if one family line only marries cousins over and over it will eventually thin out like European royalty and defects will emerge.
Personally, if its a case of no knowledge of relation, than fine, can't blame you for not knowing. Cousins? Sure, I'll accept that. But direct relation, with knowledge? No. There's something skewed there to have caused that to be honest. Its very difficult to say what the legal position should be however.
The chance of abuse, power imbalance, etc is too great for the law to ignore I think. Though what actions the law should take are probably debatable.Last edited by Gravekeeper; 10-04-2009, 09:51 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nyoibo View Post
So one assumes that you completely support the anti-gay marriage laws and tell any gay person that wants to get married to shut up or get the fuck out?
I'm done with this debate anyway; go fuck your mother if you like, just leave me out of it."Oh wow, I can't believe how stupid I used to be and you still are."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lace Neil Singer View PostPlease don't throw strawmen into the debate; it just makes it look as tho you have no argument.I am a sexy shoeless god of war!
Minus the sexy and I'm wearing shoes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lace Neil Singer View PostI'm done with this debate anyway; go fuck your mother if you like, just leave me out of it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by AdminAssistant View PostI feel the same way, Lace. Incest is not "icky", it's fucking sick. I feel the same way about pedophilia. Any grown person who gets their kicks by thinking about sex with children is a pervert whether or not they act on it.
Your argument is exactly the same that homophobes use. I hope you eventually realize your error and feel sick about your own behavior.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Flyndaran View PostI find that you are equating child rape with two consenting adults doing something that is none of your damned business rather juvenile and innately and logically wrong.
Your argument is exactly the same that homophobes use. I hope you eventually realize your error and feel sick about your own behavior.
But at this point...there really isn't any point in arguing with you is there? I mean, you're so damn determined to prove that it's somehow okay to have sex with your relatives. In many cases of incest, there is a power differential. I somehow think that very few of these cases are "Flowers in the Attic"-style experimentations between brother and sister. Fathers shouldn't lust after their daughters, mothers shouldn't lust after their sons.
And I wasn't equating it with child rape, I was equating it with pedophilia which you often go out of your way to defend and say isn't child rape.
And neither of these have anything to do with homosexuality. Homophobes are mostly 1) acting out of fear that homosexuals are a threat to hetero-normative gender roles or 2) gay themselves and trying to suppress it by hating everything gay to prove how 'straight' they are.
Comment
-
I think you're both going to extremes, to be honest.
Different people are wired differently and rarely have control of what they're attracted to ( Look how well trying to "fix" homosexuality has worked out for churches. ) The difference is civilized people do not act on uncivilized impulses. Much as I hate to wade in and appear to be defending either side of this.
Incest is icky, but someone having a passing naughty thought about a relative doesn't mean they're a horrible unspeakable godless monster. The same goes for pedophilia, zoophillia, orcphillia, Attractedtofistingaccountantswithcoconutsphillia and every other bizarre sexual fetish or attraction the human race has come up with and has likely always had since ages past to be honest. But there is a clear difference between thought, impulse and action, and that is what separates us from savages.
You can't condemn someone for thought crime. But at the same time, that doesn't mean something is ok just because its consensual.
Comment
-
I am not talking about dangerous thoughts like wanting to have sex with a child. I am talking, repeatedly, about consenting adults doing something that is none of our damned business.
Secular civilization is about personal freedoms as long as they hurt no one else. This is a case of not hurting anyone else.
It is exactly like gay rights, in that while many may find it icky it still isn't any of our damned business.
The only reason to hate it is religious, and I loathe religion based laws.
Comment
Comment