• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Legal inscest [W:43]

Inscest good or bad!

  • Bad and I will give sociol issues it can create

    Votes: 3 20.0%

  • Bad just for the fact its totally wrong

    Votes: 6 40.0%

  • Good and I will state my reasons

    Votes: 3 20.0%

  • Only okay in given circustances should be banned in others

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • Total voters
    15
Unless a child is involved, why is it anyone's business?

Is there a reason the govt needs to get, or remain, involved in laws regarding this?
 
Joey said:
Hi Korimyr,

One generations is enough, but the risk and the degree (as in how much deformation occurs) increases when continued over generations.

And this you see more clearly and commonly in remote villages where people, even though they are not direct family, are often related to each other in someway because the community is too small to have a good mixing ration of genes. A serious problem in small remote communities and small islands. With todays travel options this is fortunately more and more becoming a thing of the past, but it is still there.


Joey
Click to expand...

"Remote villages" involve many generations of related people. Birth defects are not common in a single generation/couple.
 
MisterLogical said:
Now most people would say no to this based on the fact its wrong and super creepy. I personally agree with that. I think it is. Another reason and the law seems to follow this logic "Saying you cant marry blood relatives" that it can create retarded babies and mental issues. The reason this happens is diversity is key in birth giving. The reason is you have more variety to block out all the negatives traits which might exist in your family, and having too many similar traits create a lot of problems. However people before have tried to justify gay incest since it does not have those kind of reproductive issues. I still thinks its super creepy.

So state your case and a reason for why you think insect should stay or legal or why you believe its unfair that it is?
Click to expand...

Opposition to it has nothing to do with genetic fears (at least from me). Legal opposition is defined this way: In a family-like environment one has authority or influence over the other (parent over child - older sibling over younger sibling). Legally, incest is opposed because it gives unjust influence of the superior over the 'infant' (legal term application of infant).

Ergo: Incest is seen as unethical because it encourages coercion and rearing one to see it as normal (etc).

And people can argue against that by saying 'people aren't like that' - but that's how it really is.
 
Jerry said:
Doesn't matter, it is, time to deal with it.
Click to expand...

It's a question on a discussion forum. I wasnt aware of any current legislation being proposed.

Where is this question of 'public policy' arising?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Opposition to it has nothing to do with genetic fears (at least from me). Legal opposition is defined this way: In a family-like environment one has authority or influence over the other (parent over child - older sibling over younger sibling). Legally, incest is opposed because it gives unjust influence of the superior over the 'infant' (legal term application of infant).

Ergo: Incest is seen as unethical because it encourages coercion and rearing one to see it as normal (etc).

And people can argue against that by saying 'people aren't like that' - but that's how it really is.
Click to expand...

Excellent point you bring up.
 
In a purely legal context, incest is 100% fine in cases not involving coercion (like rape).

From my own perspective, I dont mind if others engage in such acts but I would be angered if they were to procreate. It is a scientific fact that inbreeding is extremely harmful for the gene pool of a given species.
 
legal perversions are everywhere
 
Lursa said:
It's a question on a discussion forum. I wasnt aware of any current legislation being proposed.

Where is this question of 'public policy' arising?
Click to expand...
This is exactly like someone trying to discuss a biblical story and here you are challanging the very existance of god.

SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundimental right, and the governments do in fact need to regulate the flow of property and cusdoty of children. You're silly loosertarian idea that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage falls moot. It is. That's not going to change. Ever. Deal with it.

This is not about incestuis couples, this is about **a law** regarding incest. Very different things.
 
Joey said:
Hi Korimyr,

One generations is enough, but the risk and the degree (as in how much deformation occurs) increases when continued over generations.

And this you see more clearly and commonly in remote villages where people, even though they are not direct family, are often related to each other in someway because the community is too small to have a good mixing ration of genes. A serious problem in small remote communities and small islands. With todays travel options this is fortunately more and more becoming a thing of the past, but it is still there.


Joey
Click to expand...

I've nursed a kiddie whose father was also his grandfather. It wasn't pretty.
 
Jerry said:
This is exactly like someone trying to discuss a biblical story and here you are challanging the very existance of god.

SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundimental right, and the governments do in fact need to regulate the flow of property and cusdoty of children. You're silly loosertarian idea that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage falls moot. It is. That's not going to change. Ever. Deal with it.

This is not about incestuis couples, this is about **a law** regarding incest. Very different things.
Click to expand...

Where in this thread did I say that the govt shouldnt be involved in marriage? It's a basic assumption here.

Again...where is the public policy issue involved in incestuous (consenting adult) couples marrying?
 
Lursa said:
Where in this thread did I say that the govt shouldnt be involved in marriage? It's a basic assumption here.

Again...where is the public policy issue involved in incestuous (consenting adult) couples marrying?
Click to expand...
Post #54.

Laws regarding marriage are all public policy and thus are everyone's buisness.
 
Jerry said:
Post #54.

Laws regarding marriage are all public policy and thus are everyone's buisness.
Click to expand...

Ah. Well then what, involving 2 related people marrying, is more...or less..."other people's business" than non-related people marrying?
 
Lursa said:
Ah. Well then what, involving 2 related people marrying, is more...or less..."other people's business" than non-related people marrying?
Click to expand...
All public policy is everyone's business.

Think about it...if it's non of your buisness, then you aren't justified in telling others it's non of their buisness...because the topic is non of your buisness to comment on.
 
Luftwaffe said:
In a purely legal context, incest is 100% fine in cases not involving coercion (like rape).

From my own perspective, I dont mind if others engage in such acts but I would be angered if they were to procreate. It is a scientific fact that inbreeding is extremely harmful for the gene pool of a given species.
Click to expand...

No. It's not 100% purely legal save for situations of rape.

It's illegal save for the rare occasion in which people are related and don't realize it (like two people separated by birth - only finding each other by happenstance later. Happened a few years ago). And certain degrees of incest change depending on where you live. In the US - some states are okay with kissing cousins, others aren't.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
No. It's not 100% purely legal save for situations of rape.

It's illegal save for the rare occasion in which people are related and don't realize it (like two people separated by birth - only finding each other by happenstance later. Happened a few years ago). And certain degrees of incest change depending on where you live. In the US - some states are okay with kissing cousins, others aren't.
Click to expand...

I thought this was supposed to be our opinions?
 
Jerry said:
All public policy is everyone's business.

Think about it...if it's non of your buisness, then you aren't justified in telling others it's non of their buisness...because the topic is non of your buisness to comment on.
Click to expand...

You didnt answer my question, you are just repeating yourself. I wrote what I wrote because I see no difference...not more or less... than other legal marriages. If you do not, why not? What makes a difference here? I believe that is what the OP is asking.
 
Lursa said:
You didnt answer my question...
Click to expand...
Because neither is more or less. They are all equally everyone's buisness. Ask a question that CAN be answered if you actualy want an answer.

Jesus H christ I have to spell this out like you're a 4 year old.
 
Jerry said:
Because neither is more or less. They are all equally everyone's buisness. Ask a question that CAN be answered if you actualy want an answer.
Click to expand...

So you really had nothing to contribute then?

OK.
 
Lursa said:
So you really had nothing to contribute then?

OK.
Click to expand...
Ahh look who's trolling, how typical. Public policy always has been and always will be everyone's buisness; and that's why there never has been and never will be a looserterian president. It's about time you deal with that fact.
 
Jerry said:
Ahh look who's trolling, how typical. Public policy always has been and always will be everyone's buisness; and that's why there never has been and never will be a looserterian president. It's about time you deal with that fact.
Click to expand...

Shes not a libertarian (assuming thats what your inflammatory word refers to).
 
Lursa said:
Ah. Well then what, involving 2 related people marrying, is more...or less..."other people's business" than non-related people marrying?
Click to expand...

Because it's a question of law - not an individual case of marriage - that's in question.

Laws govern what everybody can and cannot do. You. Me. My kids. My uncle. My cousins.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Shes not a libertarian (assuming thats what your inflammatory word refers to).
Click to expand...
If it walks like duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom