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.
My main problem is the misuse of parental power in cases of parent child incest. Even if the child in question is of legal age there is still the question of grooming them to accept a relationship beyond parent/child. I can see coercion being a huge problem.
Much like many teacher/student, or priest/altar boy relationships that generally use a position of power to coerce.
That is my view as well. The parent had to have groomed the child, mentally or emotionally abused them for years. A parent who sleeps with their child (like the mother in that thread) are straight up predators.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,047,835 times
Reputation: 11862
How many here would be okay with making brother-sister incest legal if there was a 0% chance of any offspring? Would be an interesting poll. Of course, there's a chance they could have a secret relationship. An interesting one is homosexual incest between siblings. A gay youtube blogger actually said he got this very question, whether he felt it was okay for two gay brothers to engage in intercourse. It's not something that even occurs to some people but I'm sure it happens. What about two gay identical twins doing it together? Once saw this site (when I was a bored teen, I wasn't a real pervert or anything, honest) which featured identical twins engaging in lesbian acts with each other. Gives knew meaning to the phrase 'would you do yourself?'
Also interesting is cousins. Historically and in some cultures, it's perfectly okay to marry your first cousin. I don't think the risk of deformities.etc is anything like a brother-sister pairing. It's interesting, back then marrying your cousin was seen as more acceptable than gay marriage, while today it's illegal and many liberals would probably find it unacceptable. So standards change with the times.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,047,835 times
Reputation: 11862
I once posed the question on yahoo answers, 'homophobes, would you rather have sex with a man or a ewe (female sheep)?' The question got taken down, but it was actually a serious question. I wouldn't be surprised if many men WOULD prefer the sheep. As for me, I'd go gay. ROFL
The best solution to marriage is to get government out of it. Marriage should be a religious event and defined by your religion. If I want to marry a fence post or a lizard, that should be OK with government.
And don't confuse marriage with sex.
I completely agree, though I do think the government should still protect the rights of non-consenting sentient beings (children, animals). I don't care if someone wants to marry an object (it happens) because the object in question cannot feel.
Assuming that marriage entails having sex on a regular basis, then marrying a child or an animal would involve habitual rape, which is what makes it wrong in my book.
Beyond that, I think we should abolish the legal institution of marriage altogether and just leave it up to private entities to define and grant as they deem appropriate.
For what it's worth, I'm gay. You can see tons of my posts against gay marriage in this thread.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,047,835 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
I actually think there's nothing inherently wrong with incest between two consenting adults as long as no children come from it, because the genetics of incest can lead to various kinds of diseases. If they want children they should adopt or use a sperm donor.
If you don't believe in any ultimate code of morals or ethics, morality is pragmatic anyway.
Not too long ago there was a 60 minutes story here of a father-daughter couple.
This woman met her biological father for the first time as an adult without knowing it (so the story goes) and they began a sexual relationship. She was about 40 and he was in his 60s. When they DID find out, they felt they were too deeply in love and that was just a minor detail...Of course their respective families/family were totally aghast and they were kind of ostracized but they didn't care. What's more, both of them raised this woman's daughter, which I personally feel is deeply wrong.
Anyway there was a big public outcry here in Australia over how disgusting they were. Nothing to do with religion, people are just naturally totally grossed out by it. Also because they were raising a child in that environment.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,047,835 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
So, you have your definition. But you are no different than those who believe marriage should be between one man and one woman only. You just choose to define marriage to suit your opinion, but still put restrictions on it.
You can't support homosexual marriage if you oppose other forms of non traditional marriage. That's hypocritical.
Did you even think about that last sentence before you typed it?
I'd like to hear more about this! But I think Roadking makes a good point, or, at least according to one other person at Yahoo!, some nonrelated couples actually have a higher risk of producing offspring with mental retardation or deformities. As for these diseases, I'm not sure I've heard of them.
The specifically-defined incest-related risks are usually related to deformities, but every family's genetic history is unique. Every family could be carrying any number of recessive genes that, if allowed to express themselves phenotypically, would lead to a painful disease. Since each family is different, there's no way to rattle off all the possible genetic diseases. Even without taking incest into account, each family has its own genetic makeup and history of illnesses, so that would be equally unique with an incestuous family, the difference being that any recessive genes would have a much higher chance (25%) of being expressed.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,047,835 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
I completely agree, though I do think the government should still protect the rights of non-consenting sentient beings (children, animals). I don't care if someone wants to marry an object (it happens) because the object in question cannot feel.
Assuming that marriage entails having sex on a regular basis, then marrying a child or an animal would involve habitual rape, which is what makes it wrong in my book.
Beyond that, I think we should abolish the legal institution of marriage altogether and just leave it up to private entities to define and grant as they deem appropriate.
For what it's worth, I'm gay. You can see tons of my posts against gay marriage in this thread.
But marriage is more a legal arrangement which obviously DOES involve the government.
My guess is most gay couples just want those legal benefits, than for their union to be approved by God or gods. They just want the legal/social status of marriage. I'm sure they are aware that no matter what the law many, many people will never accept their marriage.
If you don't believe in any ultimate code of morals or ethics, morality is pragmatic anyway.
Not too long ago there was a 60 minutes story here of a father-daughter couple.
This woman met her biological father for the first time as an adult without knowing it (so the story goes) and they began a sexual relationship. She was about 40 and he was in his 60s. When they DID find out, they felt they were too deeply in love and that was just a minor detail...Of course their respective families/family were totally aghast and they were kind of ostracized but they didn't care. What's more, both of them raised this woman's daughter, which I personally feel is deeply wrong.
Anyway there was a big public outcry here in Australia over how disgusting they were. Nothing to do with religion, people are just naturally totally grossed out by it. Also because they were raising a child in that environment.
But marriage is more a legal arrangement which obviously DOES involve the government.
My guess is most gay couples just want those legal benefits, than for their union to be approved by God or gods. They just want the legal/social status of marriage. I'm sure they are aware that no matter what the law many, many people will never accept their marriage.
Yes, now it is. I'm arguing that it should become separate from legal benefits. I think it would be better if we were all just individuals in the eyes of the state.
I would guess that you're right, but if those benefits were taken away from heterosexuals as well, then I don't think the gay community in general would be so bent on having them too. It's the fact that straight people can have them and gay people can't (while marrying the person they love) that makes it unequal. But if straight people aren't allowed to a special set of rights that no one else gets (not just gay people, but polyamorous people and other sexual minorities as well), then there is nothing left to be desired.
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.
