You say "less likely", yet you're sure the daughter has no culpability.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Switzerland my allow incest between siblings, and parent and adult children
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
When did I say I was sure she has no culpability?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
It happends.
Is that a combination of "It happened" and "It happens"? I like it.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:yes:
I gleaned that attitude from this....
-----------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revoltingest
In this case....
David Epstein Incest Charges: Columbia Professor Charged With Sleeping With Daughter
....it appears that the father is prosecutable, but the adult daughter is not.
Does it make sense that when 2 consenting adults commit exactly the same crime, one is automatically exculpated by reason of gender or family relationship?
(Btw, I've seen nothing about her lacking capacity to make such a decision.)
"They're not performing the exact same crime. The crime of the father is wrongly influencing his daughter into sleeping with him."
-----------------------------------------------------
You express no doubt in your response to my query about the daughter escaping prosecution.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I'm assuming that's why she is. It's a logical reason for her not to be charged, and one that could be used in this case. I don't know for sure that he's guilty of influencing her, but I'm assuming that's the reasoning they're using.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Doesn't bother me...incestuous relationships are utterly disgusting and people who are involved in them are sick in the head, for the sake of a healthy society with a healthy gene pool these people should be punished and their behaviour corrected.
I would happily imprison a man who has sex with his daughter...10 years solitary would be too lenient in my view.
The Swiss can degenerate to the level of Bonobo chimps if they want...can't stand the dirty Swiss and their corrupted banking system anyway...but not in my country.
Last edited:
Would you grant your government the authority to ban anything & everything which the majority finds disgusting?
Note that when you give them great power to do things for you, they can also use it to do things to you.
Don't knock my bonobos....what did they do to deserve such scorn?
Comicaze247
See the previous line
Allow me to refer you back to my first post.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2275617-post27.html
But to sum it up:
-The definition of incest is culturally defined. People aren't born with an aversion to incest. It's learned.
-Incest itself being the cause of genetic defects is a misconception. Incest only increases the chance if there's family history of a genetic defect. It's not caused by incest itself.
-People who aren't related and carry a defective gene can just as likely pass it on to a child as people who are related. What makes that less wrong?
-If one family has 'perfect' genetics (i.e.: no family history of any genetic defects), how would there be any risk of passing on any genetic defect if an incestuous relationship in that family result in a child?
My first post also has sources you can look up. If you don't like Wikipedia, click on the sources they cite.
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Wow, tell us how you really feel. This warped view is especially odd coming from a Luciferian. I would think you'd understand the need for society to not form laws based on what they don't like or what they find disgusting.
You're correct that some incestuous relationships involve mental problems, but that's not reason to make them illegal. The fact is most incestuous relationships are perfectly fine. The people involved might not be the healthiest mentally, but it's not our job to force them out of a mental state that's not hurting anyone.
I find you last comment especially disgusting. Does that mean we should arrest you for it, and throw you in prison?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
How do you know this?
I mean in that both participants are at least consenting and there is no harm done. Actually, mainly what I mean is there's nothing inherently wrong with having a romantic relationship with a relative. It can create or be created by mental problems, but that's no reason to make it illegal.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
I am warped because I abhor incestuous relationships?
Touch a nerve did I?
Related to yourself are you, your mum's your sister as well is she?
You think damaging the gene pool is not important..you think its our duty to support genetic inbreds...well good for you LOL
You can think it's fine to bone your kids/mum/nan if you want...but I don't think it's fine and people like you are just as vile.
Revolting libertine idealism...makes me vomit...such views disgust and anger me.
As for my Luciferian beliefs they do not include moral degeneracy..and dont you ever tell me what I should or should not think...you are no one.
Last edited:
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Its not about being disgusting, its about genetic health and social order.
Things very stupid people do not understand.
Last edited:
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Do you believe an incestuous relationship where the woman involved is past the menopause should still be illegal?
Do you believe that a sexual relationship between two people who are unrelated but knowingly share a genetic trait meaning there is a 25% chance of their offspring suffering a major disability should be illegal?
Please note, I'm not supporting anything, just trying to get to the bottom of the rational behind such heartfelt objections.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
No....I guess I have no practical objection...just reservations about how much damage that family is going to suffer.
Not illegal but medical intervention should be exercised whenever possible.
Also said people should not expect the state to support their offspring if they knowingly had a high chance of producing a child with serious disabilities.
No problem...
Morally I find the idea disgusting...but that alone is not enough to justify imprisoning someone...hopefully society will punish these people in the natural way society does with people who act particularly abnormally.
If the issue is genetics, then why not legislate to it directly?
If your main worry is that both partners in a closely-related couple might carry the gene for Tay-Sachs disease or cystic fibrosis, for instance, then why not just test for that gene?
Also, why do you think that genetic problems aren't used to deny marriage to other people? While some states still require blood tests before marriage, most don't, and those that do would typically only "counsel" a couple that shares a problematic recessive trait rather than issue an outright prohibition on them marrying.
But that's the thing - even a child of two siblings doesn't have a high chance of producing a child with serious disabilities. The risk is higher than normal, but it's still very low.
And IMO, the risk is in keeping with other cases that are legal. For instance, is the risk of disability greater for a closely-related couple in their 20s, or for an unrelated couple in their late 40s? I'm not sure, myself.
IMO, the main problem I have with legalizing incestuous marriages is the issue of consent and undue influence. I think that the issues around genetics are minor and are manageable through things like blood testing.