NY Post - ‘Consensual incest’ should be decriminalized, advocates say

[Gondwanaland]

Same thing I was talking about before.

You claimed a stranger is more likely to coerce a person than a family member.

Remember you ran away when I asked you to explain that?

Oh. I didn't realize I had to explain basic statistics to you.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Is this thread some sort of attempt to say homosexual relationships should be discouraged just like we do with incestuous ones or are you really an advocate for incest?

Why would I try to discourage homosexual relationships? I'm a libertarian - we were fighting for marriage rights for lesbians and gays decades before Democrats finally flipped and decided to support it.

I'm an advocate for people being able to marry and enter into relationships with anyone else, so long as the parties involved (be that two or even more) are consenting adults. The government does not have any business preventing them from doing so let alone criminalizing such relationships.

 

[Gondwanaland]

1.) since they are not the same they actually dont

They don't need to be precisely identical in order to line up. Just like gays and lesbians in marriage didn't have to be identical to interracial marriages to line up.

2,.) but its not hence the reason you cant name how and what illegal discrimination it is

They are being criminalized and directly prevented by the government from marrying the consenting adult of their choice. Just like gays and lesbians were. How is this difficult to grasp.

3.) again those are factually not the same. Name the illegal discrimination

Already named it. Are you slow?

4.) then you should say hilarious shit that will get laughed and not taken seriously y because of how absurd they are

Why should I say 'hilarious shit that will get laughed at'?

5.) you haven't provided any reality, so the doubt remains LOL

I'm sorry you are unable to read basic English in the article linked.

6.) factually different since thats not reality, nice try but a complete failure. Again . .name the illegal discrimination you cant hence why you dodge the question

No. Again, already named it. I get you want to be just like the people that argued against gay marriage and pretend the discrimination does not exist and that comparing it to interracial marriage was invalid. You are literally identical in the way you are behaving right now.

7.) thats very telling, I have no idea how to explain it if you are confused

YOu rambled something about gays being lesbians and vaguely said something about something not being the same as something else.

 

[CLAX1911]

Oh. I didn't realize I had to explain basic statistics to you.

If it's basic it should be easy to explain yet you aren't... Rather odd.

 

[CLAX1911]

Why would I try to discourage homosexual relationships? I'm a libertarian - we were fighting for marriage rights for lesbians and gays decades before Democrats finally flipped and decided to support it.

Well Democrats decided to support it shortly after the oberfel decision

I'm an advocate for people being able to marry and enter into relationships with anyone else, so long as the parties involved (be that two or even more) are consenting adults. The government does not have any business preventing them from doing so let alone criminalizing such relationships.

But no issue with the Arbitrarily and varying age of consent?

That's odd.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Well Democrats decided to support it shortly after the oberfel decision

And libertarians have been supporting it since the 70s.

But no issue with the Arbitrarily and varying age of consent?

That's odd.

What are you on about now?

 

[CLAX1911]

And libertarians have been supporting it since the 70s.

I figured the more libertarian approach would be remove government involvement in marriage

What are you on about now?

Same thing as before I don't know why you have such a difficult time following.

You wouldn't have to keep asking if you just paid attention.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) They don't need to be precisely identical in order to line up.
2.) Just like gays and lesbians in marriage didn't have to be identical to interracial marriages to line up.
3.)They are being criminalized and directly prevented by the government from marrying the consenting adult of their choice. Just like gays and lesbians were. How is this difficult to grasp.
4.) Already named it. Are you slow?
5.) Why should I say 'hilarious shit that will get laughed at'?
6.)I'm sorry you are unable to read basic English in the article linked.
7.)No. Again, already named it.
8.) I get you want to be just like the people that argued against gay marriage and pretend the discrimination does not exist and that comparing it to interracial marriage was invalid. You are literally identical in the way you are behaving right now.
9.)YOu rambled something about gays being lesbians and vaguely said something about something not being the same as something else.

1.) yes they did because it didnt make sense.
2.) what are you talking about, the line up was about the title, used terms and article it had nothing to do with gays . . WOW
3.) its not difficult to grasp, in fact its easy to grasp your claim is factually wrong. Want proof? . . sure . . .ill ask you AGAIN. whats the illegal discrimination
4.) no you didnt. posting a lie about it now wont change that fact
5.) you shouldnt
6.) this doesnt change the fact you haven't provided any reality, that article doesnt factually make it any real established movement. that would be just your OPINION
7.) nope you factually have not named the illegal discrimination
8.) that would be another factually wrong claim. Making things up wont change the fact you cant name the illegal discrimination, thats your issue not mine.
9.) again your issue not mine

so here we are in the same spot, please let us know when you can tell us what the illegal discrimination is you keep claiming exists. thanks!

 

[Gondwanaland]

I figured the more libertarian approach would be remove government involvement in marriage

Sadly, government and marriage have been inextricably linked for a long time. Sometimes it's easier to work within the system than to try to pry out thousands of tendrils. Marriage is involved with government and laws that most people don't even have the first idea. Tax laws, custody laws, etc..

Same thing as before I don't know why you have such a difficult time following.

You wouldn't have to keep asking if you just paid attention.

Come back whn you are capable of explaining it coherently/

 

[Gondwanaland]

1.) yes they did because it didnt make sense.
2.) what are you talking about, the line up was about the title, used terms and article it had nothing to do with gays . . WOW

The nI have no clue what the **** you're talking about, my dude. I'm glad you seem to in the noggin of yours.

3.) its not difficult to grasp, in fact its easy to grasp your claim is factually wrong. Want proof? . . sure . . .ill ask you AGAIN. whats the illegal discrimination

And I will answer you AGAIN: They are being criminalized and directly prevented by the government from marrying the consenting adult of their choice. Just like gays and lesbians were. How is this difficult to grasp.

4.) no you didnt. posting a lie about it now wont change that fact

Now you're just being a twat.

5.) you shouldnt

You said I should. Do you not remember your own words?

6.) this doesnt change the fact you haven't provided any reality, that article doesnt factually make it any real established movement. that would be just your OPINION

It literally ****ing lists the movement, you nitwit.

7.) nope you factually have not named the illegal discrimination

Again, you've already had it spelled out for you.

8.) that would be another factually wrong claim. Making things up wont change the fact you cant name the illegal discrimination, thats your issue not mine.

There you go lying. Already named the illegal discrimination. Just because you want to play ignorant doesn't make it go away.

9.) again your issue not mine

so here we are in the same spot, please let us know when you can tell us what the illegal discrimination is you keep claiming exists. thanks!

So here we are again, with you being a little twat, unable to address the fact that you already had the discrimination explained to your small mind.

 

[CLAX1911]

Sadly, government and marriage have been inextricably linked for a long time. Sometimes it's easier to work within the system than to try to pry out thousands of tendrils. Marriage is involved with government and laws that most people don't even have the first idea. Tax laws, custody laws, etc..

I would still think the libertarian position is no government involvement. Compromise isn't a fundamental position it's a way to get what you want

Come back whn you are capable of explaining it coherently/

what's incoherent did I speak a language you didn't understand? Did I make typing errors why are you so afraid of this?

 

[AGENT J]

1.) The nI have no clue what the **** you're talking about, my dude. I'm glad you seem to in the noggin of yours.
2.)And I will answer you AGAIN: They are being criminalized and directly prevented by the government from marrying the consenting adult of their choice. Just like gays and lesbians were. How is this difficult to grasp.
3.) Now you're just being a twat.
4.)You said I should. Do you not remember your own words?
5.) It literally ****ing lists the movement, you nitwit.
6.)Again, you've already had it spelled out for you.
7.)There you go lying. Already named the illegal discrimination. Just because you want to play ignorant doesn't make it go away.
8.)So here we are again, with you being a little twat, unable to address the fact that you already had the discrimination explained to your small mind.

1.) yes thats obvious and again your issue, not mine
2.) thanks for proving me right again. But I see the issue now. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to rights, marriage, illegal discrimination, the 14th amendment etc.
Nothing you said is illegally discriminated against its just your claims and feelings. Thats way its FACTUALLY not just like the gays.
3.) sorry facts upset you but its a fact you haven't posted an example of illegal discrimination, calling me names and personally attacking me wont change that fact it only makes me laugh
4.) you shouldnt
5.) which is meaningless and doesnt change the fact you haven't provided any reality, that article doesnt factually make it any real established movement. that would be just your OPINION
6.) nope as I already proved you haven't and thats because you simply don't even know what illegal discrimination or the 14th amendment.
7.) no you haven't, everytime you claim you did its a lie and it further proves you dont know what illegal discrimination actually is. Illegal discrimination is based on race, ethnicity, religion, age, sex (sexual orientation, gender identity, biological sex) etc. You haven't named any that supports your false claims.
8.) as I already proved . . . no, you haven't named any illegal discrimination nor do you even know what it is and how laws, rights work in this country. Posting a meltdown wont change that.

Let us know when you can tell us what illegal discrimination supports your claims, thanks!

 

[Gondwanaland]

I would still think the libertarian position is no government involvement. Compromise isn't a fundamental position it's a way to get what you want

And that's exactly the sort of mindset that has gotten this country into the disaster of political insanity that it's in today.

 

[CLAX1911]

And that's exactly the sort of mindset that has gotten this country into the disaster of political insanity that it's in today.

You are the one that compromised your views to work within the system.

I still think the libertarian view on marriage would be no government involvement at all.

Explain to me why that viewpoint is not libertarian?

 

[lurchadams]

And now we get to the personal attacks because you can't come up with a rational argument. And you show again you can't read the OP. No one invited you here. If you can't formulate an argument, get lost.

<shrug> So you're NOT endorsing incest? You, my friend, are a nut. I'm outta here.

 

[Mithrae]

But why? Grooming can occur and is much more common outside of parent/child relationships.

And what about, say, a family where the parents are deadbeat and the kid is largely raised by, say, a family friend, neighbor, etc.? We don't stop such relationships when they are adults if they choose to enter into them, despite having similar 'imbalance of power'.

You're essentially arguing that since there are major power imbalances in a small fraction of currently-accepted relationships, acceptance should therefore be extended to currently-taboo parent/offspring relationships where there's a major power imbalance ~99% of the time. That obviously doesn't follow. Even narrowing the focus down to specific scenarios like you've described, I think most people would treat them with caution and Roguenuke explicitly suggested they should be illegal; but creating new laws against less well-defined scenarios such as that is a much more dubious prospect than simply retaining laws against parents marrying their kids!

 

[roguenuke]

Definitely agreed.

But why? Grooming can occur and is much more common outside of parent/child relationships.

And what about, say, a family where the parents are deadbeat and the kid is largely raised by, say, a family friend, neighbor, etc.? We don't stop such relationships when they are adults if they choose to enter into them, despite having similar 'imbalance of power'.

And why should there be such restrictions on siblings raised together? What is the reasoning there?



Okay. But why only if they did not know each other before becoming adults? There's no reason to limit it there. I grew up with my next door neighbor spending most of their time at our farm. Essentially a sibling type relationship. I would not be prevented from entering into a relationship with her. So why is it different for blood siblings? And what about unrelated siblings (stepsiblings)? Are you okay with those?

Grooming is most likely to occur within relationships where the adult is caring for the child, or an older siblings has responsibility over a child in some way which means in familial relationships. Siblings can be involved in grooming too.

I believe in the Westermarck Effect, which should prevent most of those raised together from developing intimate relationships in most cases unless there is some form of abuse, neglect, or grooming within the household, some other, purposeful or negative psychological manipulation.

Westermarck effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Stepsiblings or adopted if they too were not raised together (met sometime after childhood) should be allowed to use that as reasoning to be in relationships. Several laws (they do vary) restrict adopted siblings from having intimate relationships, marrying. Stepsiblings should be treated the same as adopted, with potential for exceptions.

Legality of incest in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In reality, I don't care, although I believe any such relationships should have to get genetic counseling on the potential for genetic disorders and defects in offspring, particularly with 2nd and 1st degree incest, where that risk is around 40%. That is huge and at high levels, should be taken into account for the potential cost on society. No other relationships have that level and potential for such defects. But I absolutely see the reasoning behind such laws being in place and won't fight for those laws to change more than what I said in my first post.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I'd never call you crazy. I've always supported any consenting adults being able to have their relationships without government interference. Be that gays, trans, incestuous folks, or polyamorous folks.

Cis males have been raping and killing their spouses for centuries, we keep letting them get married so why not non-violent folk?

I think I’m with you on this one.

 

[HenryChinaski]

I.... agree. Consensual incest should not be illegal. Change My Mind.

I've yet to come across an actual, valid argument for them being illegal - every argument against it that I've seen, quickly falls apart or shows flagrant double standards, and typically just ends up being a complicated excuse to say "eww, it grosses me out, so it should be illegal" (plenty of things gross me out, including incest, yet I don't think the government has any place telling people not to do it - incest, guys having sex with guys, transgender people having sex with anyone, fat people having sex with anyone, eating cilantro, etc.).

If some grown adult wants to marry, or have a romantic/sexual relationship with another grown adult who happens to be related to them, they should be able to.

‘Consensual incest’ should be decriminalized, advocates say

Consensual incest advocates are rooting for an anonymous New York parent who wants to marry their own adult child. Australian Richard Morris, who is pushing to change incest laws in about 60 countr…

nypost.com

You got a hot sister or something?

 

[calamity]

No, I read it fine. You want to **** your sister because you can't get a date in the real world.

Why would I try to discourage homosexual relationships? I'm a libertarian - we were fighting for marriage rights for lesbians and gays decades before Democrats finally flipped and decided to support it.

I'm an advocate for people being able to marry and enter into relationships with anyone else, so long as the parties involved (be that two or even more) are consenting adults. The government does not have any business preventing them from doing so let alone criminalizing such relationships.

So, a father should be allowed to groom a daughter, as long as he waits until she turns 18 before consummating the physical aspects of the relationship.

Nah, I can’t get onboard with that kind of freedom. I don’t even approve of what Woody Allen did, and that wasn’t technically incest.

 

[Gondwanaland]

You are the one that compromised your views to work within the system.

I still think the libertarian view on marriage would be no government involvement at all.

Explain to me why that viewpoint is not libertarian?

People 'compromise' their views all the time. People like you are why nothing useful is ever done these days. Because you're incapable of it.

Marriage is inextricably linked with government. There's no feasible way of reversing it. So, instead of wasting time, we worked to make things equal for others in the confines of reality.

 

[Gondwanaland]

<shrug> So you're NOT endorsing incest? You, my friend, are a nut. I'm outta here.

You, my friend, are a moron who clearly did not read my OP in which I said that personally, things like incest, homosexuality, etc., are not things that I like, endorse, or would do. Yet I support the rights of others to do those things. How is this a hard concept to grasp? I don't have to approve of or endorse something to think the government shouldn't make it illegal. I don't smoke weed, can't even stand the smell. Yet I support the right of others to choose what to put in their body without the government making it illegal.

Clearly freedom is something you are incapable of understanding.

 

[Gondwanaland]

You're essentially arguing that since there are major power imbalances in a small fraction of currently-accepted relationships, acceptance should therefore be extended to currently-taboo parent/offspring relationships where there's a major power imbalance ~99% of the time. That obviously doesn't follow. Even narrowing the focus down to specific scenarios like you've described, I think most people would treat them with caution and Roguenuke explicitly suggested they should be illegal; but creating new laws against less well-defined scenarios such as that is a much more dubious prospect than simply retaining laws against parents marrying their kids!

See, here you go making stuff up. No, there is not a major power imbalance anymore than other currently-accepted relationships. And no, incest does not consist solely of 'parent/offspring relationships' either.

 

[Gondwanaland]

You got a hot sister or something?

You got an inability to ****ing read the OP or something?

 

[Gondwanaland]

So, a father should be allowed to groom a daughter, as long as he waits until she turns 18 before consummating the physical aspects of the relationship.

Nah, I can’t get onboard with that kind of freedom. I don’t even approve of what Woody Allen did, and that wasn’t technically incest.

People are groomed all the time in relationships that society finds perfectly acceptable. 25 year old men dating 15 year old girls. Society doesn't bat a ****ing eye. SO that's not an argument, unless you want to similarly apply your logic to all relationships and not allow any because someone somewhere might groom someone.