- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 27,101
- Reaction score
- 12,359
- Location
- Granada, España
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
I thought about this a bit while I read through the thread.
We as a society have decided that we do not tolerate sexual harassment,
be it in the workplace, or in schools, even when all parties are adults.
Our disapproval comes from the idea that if a person has some type of authority
over another individual, there is a risk they could compelled the subordinate into a sex.
If there is anything "wrong" with the mother daughter marriage, I think that would be the issue.
As crazy as I think it is, I don't think incest should be illegal. Nor should polygamy be illegal.
As long as they are consenting adults, I don't see the problem.
It's not my place to push my morals onto other individuals.
Really...i thought those protesters in ohio had a roght to be in front of the sex offenders house
I don't think off-spring is an issue with the Mother Daughter thing, but, I suspect some mental issues will be involved.What I find fascinating is some people can completely override what occurs naturally in most. Incest is illegal for a reason. It is morally reprehensible, its culturally taboo, genetically messed up, and the off-spring of such a relationship can suffer from a multitude of problems physically and mentally.
I’d hate to see some of these people’s family tree. It’s probably shaped like a stump.
The purpose of these marriages is pretty evident from the info, she is trying to gain something from a legal relationship with her children, establish a legal relationship of some type with them due to losing custody when they were younger. There is something more there as well though, since child services was somehow involved.
Wouldn't "adoption" be a better path forward if it's strictly about a legal mother/daughter tie being reinstated?
Surely it's better than wife-wife.
Incest is illegal because the offspring of such pairings are horrible. ALSO Incest tends to promote and hide abuse, sexual abuse of children. This isn't about "Pushing my morals" it's about having a standard of decency, of protecting innocent lives and preventing genetic abominations.
It's icky, seriously icky.
As crazy as I think it is, I don't think incest should be illegal. Nor should polygamy be illegal.
As long as they are consenting adults, I don't see the problem.
It's not my place to push my morals onto other individuals.
Since I believe the reason behind incest statutes is that birth defects are thought to be very likely in the case of incest, I see no reason to waste taxpayer money prosecuting them.
Prosecutors should close their eyes, hold their noses and fuggetaboutit.
Sexual abuse of children, or anyone for that matter, is already a crime. A sexual relationship of any kind with a child is already a crime.
If you think the offspring are "genetic abominations," I believe you have a vastly inflated impression of the genetic issues caused.
I agree. My personal moral disapproval is not reason in of itself to deny someone the right to do something.
Cool jack off in public...piss any where u want..
As usual you speak without understanding.
Incest can PROMOTE sexual abuse of children. Does it matter that such act is already illegal? Nope. So your comment here is meritless.
Understanding Genetics
A Primer for you on the dangers of incest and the horrors of genetic aberration. Or you could just watch Deliverance.
This is your one thread of conversation to prove I should bother reading you for the month, make it a good one!
I think you just ended it. Thank you for wasting my time again, see you next month.You mention Deliverance, proving my claim that you have an inflated view of the risks.
But something you should understand, seeing as how we're on the "understanding genetics" bit: Everyone is inbred. It's just a matter of degree. People tend to live in somewhat homogenous communities. My area was settled by a lot of german and scandinavian types back in the day, so a large part of the population reflects that. Any random woman I bone is probably my 15th cousin, or something. But the risks here are acceptably low, and there's no social taboo.
Greater degrees of inbreeding do carry higher risks of various problems, but this is largely something that occurs over several generations of strict inbreeding.
This brings up an interesting question: what degree of genetic disorder risk is acceptable? If I'm a carrier for some genetic trait that is considered negative, does that risk give society the right to prevent me from having children? Because my child will have a 10% chance of having the issue instead of 5%? What about 50% instead of 5%?
How far can this conversation go before we're talking eugenics?
While on the surface i do agree, there is a eugenics implication. Children born from incest are far more likely to have defects and experience disabilities.
I think you just ended it. Thank you for wasting my time again, see you next month.
/wave
Since I believe the reason behind incest statutes is that birth defects are thought to be very likely in the case of incest, I see no reason to waste taxpayer money prosecuting them.
Prosecutors should close their eyes, hold their noses and fuggetaboutit.
Yes, which is why I'm personally still a bit iffy on incest; I can totally get behind polygamy being legal, but incest I just don't fully know.
I don't think off-spring is an issue with the Mother Daughter thing, but, I suspect some mental issues will be involved.
Remember back during the early days of the gay marriage debate when concerns about incest and pedophilia were waved off as "slippery slope" arguments?
Good times. Good times.
Indeed.
Yeah, next there'll be 'The sect of Lott' which will reserve incest as some sort of religious freedom. :roll:
Soon there after NAMBLA will get a government subsidy. :doh
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?