Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is extremely difficult for me to conceive of a 20 year old girl (as was mentioned in this case) having the capacity to consent to sex with her 40+ year old father.
I replied: . It may be difficult for you to handle, maybe you do not have the mental capacity understand that for that BUT maybe others can.
They you wrote:
Don't you dare question my mental capacity on this thread. And we're not talking about creating new laws. You do understand that these laws do exist already, don't you?
I understand your reaction and I do take that back. I should have re-read my statement. I apologize.
Maybe I should have written that you have not reached a level of tolerance which affects your emotions on the issue because so far your statement seem to be based on emotions. You brought up the genetics parts and that is worth looking into that. I am willing to see what you have. There is where I think I keep an open mind, not shut down the point because it is disgusting.
As far as your question: I know laws exist but it is now your turn to look at the thread title so I am just stating an opinion on the subject itself along the way I simply add that I think it should not be ilegal. Anything wrong with that?
after reading all the different threads about what is worthy of legalization and what is not I have come to a very simple conclusion. nothing should be illegal to do as an adult in private provided it in no way harms or puts a burden on any other person.
Nice idea in theory. Unfortunately, "in no way harms or puts a burden on any other person" can be a lot more complicated and very subjective. And what about harm to the person themselves?
Nice idea in theory. Unfortunately, "in no way harms or puts a burden on any other person" can be a lot more complicated and very subjective. And what about harm to the person themselves?
Basically you have to draw the line somewhere.
Draw the line here: Direct harm.
For example, If I hit you, I directly harm you.
Another example, If you and I are married, and If I take my paycheck and spend it on gambling, you are not directly harmed. You may be harmed, but not directly--you are harmed through me not paying the rent--an indirect harm.
Draw the line here: Direct harm.
For example, If I hit you, I directly harm you.
Another example, If you and I are married, and If I take my paycheck and spend it on gambling, you are not directly harmed. You may be harmed, but not directly--you are harmed through me not paying the rent--an indirect harm.
If I take my paycheck and spend it on a motorcycle or season NFL tickets, that does the same indirect harm. Twenty years in prison?
Good information. I also read other sources on my own. In my personal opinion the percentages are too high to allow procreation under incestual circumstances. The question is, who picks the percentage line to say it is too high to allow it? This is subjective. However, for me they are. Does that mean I do not believe a father/daughter, brother/sister, mother/son should not be allowed to form a couple? No in my opinion.
I believe they should still have that right. But, just as let us say prostitutes in Nevada are allowed to practice that profession because it is their right, that right is regulated by making it mandatory for them to be checked for diseases for their protection and their clients. Also, I may have the right to sell food to others but that right is regulated by demanding I have food handling classes and requirerments. These instances show that laws can be applied for the protection of society and still respect that rights the people have.
The same principle may be applied to incest. The couple is responsible by sterilizing themselves. The law may regulate such situation. What this does is not interfere with that right as consenting adults to have sex and not bring children to this world since the percentages are to high for them to unfairly inherit disorders.
Lastly, your wrote:
You made a comment if I was aware the it was legal or not.
The thread title is: Should Incest, between consenting adults, be prosecuted
This is the name of the thread. You asked me it is illegal. I know that. The title says if they should be prosecuted. Well, why have a law if it is not going to be enforced? But my discussion here is that such law should not exist because it interferes with people's right to privacy.
The bottom line is that trying to create laws because something is disgusting is not a good reason to enact them. Do you really want to regulate people's lives using disgust as your grounds?
Good information. I also read other sources on my own. In my personal opinion the percentages are too high to allow procreation under incestual circumstances. The question is, who picks the percentage line to say it is too high to allow it? This is subjective. However, for me they are. Does that mean I do not believe a father/daughter, brother/sister, mother/son should not be allowed to form a couple? No in my opinion.
I believe they should still have that right. But, just as let us say prostitutes in Nevada are allowed to practice that profession because it is their right, that right is regulated by making it mandatory for them to be checked for diseases for their protection and their clients. Also, I may have the right to sell food to others but that right is regulated by demanding I have food handling classes and requirerments. These instances show that laws can be applied for the protection of society and still respect that rights the people have.
The same principle may be applied to incest. The couple is responsible by sterilizing themselves. The law may regulate such situation. What this does is not interfere with that right as consenting adults to have sex and not bring children to this world since the percentages are to high for them to unfairly inherit disorders.
Lastly, your wrote:
You made a comment if I was aware the it was legal or not.
The thread title is: Should Incest, between consenting adults, be prosecuted
This is the name of the thread. You asked me it is illegal. I know that. The title says if they should be prosecuted. Well, why have a law if it is not going to be enforced? But my discussion here is that such law should not exist because it interferes with people's right to privacy.
The bottom line is that trying to create laws because something is disgusting is not a good reason to enact them. Do you really want to regulate people's lives using disgust as your grounds?
You have a great day.
El Amigo
Your proposal regarding sterlization being required as a condition of enganging in incestuous relationships would be nearly impossible to enforce.
Do I want to regulate people's lives using disgust as a grounds? No. But, at the same time, I see the complexity of family relationships as something that could make true "consent" far more difficult and make coercion far easier.
I also question whether all crimes that some people feel are "victimless" should be eliminated. There is something to be said for the benefits of having a society based on order and imposing limited restrictions on behavior. Courts have ruled incest laws constitutional. If the Constitution says it's OK to ban something, I don't have a problem with it.
Nice idea in theory. Unfortunately, "in no way harms or puts a burden on any other person" can be a lot more complicated and very subjective. And what about harm to the person themselves?
Basically you have to draw the line somewhere.
I think there is a very simple way of drawing the line for harm (besides obvious direct harm), and just to be clear I am talking about adults. Emotional damage does not count, ie a son going off and becoming a heroin addict does not constitute as harm to his parents. I think the line for harm is drawn by who a person is legally responsible for, so if you are married you become responsible to your spouse, if you have children who are minors then you are still responsible to them. Thus any parent and or married person is no longer completely independent and should not be free to do what they want anymore because it could harm those whom the parent/spouse should be responsible for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Your proposal regarding sterlization being required as a condition of enganging in incestuous relationships would be nearly impossible to enforce.
Do I want to regulate people's lives using disgust as a grounds? No. But, at the same time, I see the complexity of family relationships as something that could make true "consent" far more difficult and make coercion far easier.
I also question whether all crimes that some people feel are "victimless" should be eliminated. There is something to be said for the benefits of having a society based on order and imposing limited restrictions on behavior. Courts have ruled incest laws constitutional. If the Constitution says it's OK to ban something, I don't have a problem with it.
I don't believe any consensual incestual relationship would want to procreate, but then again I also beleive everyone knows incest leads to retard babies. I would not worry about enforcing sterilization, it would not be a big issue.
You raise a good point about the family making it hard to get true consent and thats why I am completely against anyone doing it, but I believe we should not be able to stop anyone either. Maybe the law would raise the age of consent to be a lot higher, like 25 or something, because an 18 year old is still most likely going to be dependent on their family so there is potential for coercian here.
And as for your last point I think the real problem is we do not know what to do with the people who would choose to become unproductive. Like if people were free to do what they want a lot of people would use drugs and what not and would not be productive, and eventually they would start not being able to support themselves. So what could/should we do for them? Do they deserve charity? Should government money pay for rehab or anything of that nature? And I should note that we need these things for people who have come into a terrible situations for reasons outside of their own personal choices, but what to do with those who chose of their own free will to become wastes of life? This last point is probably the reason a lot of 'harmless' or 'victimless' activities are kept illegal.
And as for your last point I think the real problem is we do not know what to do with the people who would choose to become unproductive. Like if people were free to do what they want a lot of people would use drugs and what not and would not be productive, and eventually they would start not being able to support themselves. So what could/should we do for them? Do they deserve charity? Should government money pay for rehab or anything of that nature? And I should note that we need these things for people who have come into a terrible situations for reasons outside of their own personal choices, but what to do with those who chose of their own free will to become wastes of life? This last point is probably the reason a lot of 'harmless' or 'victimless' activities are kept illegal.
I think this is very correct. Unless and until we all have full personal responsibility for our actions, these "victimless" (and I do not see them as being entirely victimless, but perhaps this is where we disagree) crimes have to remain. Unless we are willing to really get to the point where there is no "safety net" and no government help available, the government has every right to legislate behavior that may make people more likely to need that assistance.
As far as parent/child incest, I worry that if it became legal once the child reached a legal age, fathers could begin raising their daughters in a manner grooming them to become sex toys. Would this be common? Absolutely not. But I think it would promote brainwashing children, cults, and things of that nature.
I think this is very correct. Unless and until we all have full personal responsibility for our actions, these "victimless" (and I do not see them as being entirely victimless, but perhaps this is where we disagree) crimes have to remain. Unless we are willing to really get to the point where there is no "safety net" and no government help available, the government has every right to legislate behavior that may make people more likely to need that assistance.
As far as parent/child incest, I worry that if it became legal once the child reached a legal age, fathers could begin raising their daughters in a manner grooming them to become sex toys. Would this be common? Absolutely not. But I think it would promote brainwashing children, cults, and things of that nature.
However, if we let people do what they want--with very few exceptions (cocaine, heroin, etc) ---they will suffer their own consequences. How is that bad. Remember: this conversation is about adults.
The reason that some drugs should be illegal is that they are so addictive, many people don't have the opportunity to change their minds and stop doing the behavior--kind of like cigarettes. Wheras, with prostitution, gambling, etc people are able to change their minds and their behavior.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
