Whuh? You expect legislators to use quantitative risk analysis when writing laws?
It's all about culture & personal whim.....& getting re-elected by mouth breathing voters.
-
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
It's all about culture & personal whim.....& getting re-elected by mouth breathing voters.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Read this pro perversionists...
''The dangers of marriage between first cousins are to be highlighted by a leading professor, with a warning that their children are at risk of genetic defects.
Baroness Deech, a family law professor and crossbencher, will call next week for a “vigorous” public campaign to deter the practice, which is prevalent in Muslim and immigrant communities and on the rise. She will reignite a debate started five years ago when Ann Cryer, MP for Keighley, drew attention to the number of disabled babies being born in the town and called for cousin marriage to be stopped.
Fifty-five per cent of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins and in Bradford the figure is 75 per cent. British Pakistanis represent 3 per cent of all births in Britain but one third of children with recessive disorders.
Lady Deech will also warn that marriage between first cousins can be a barrier to the integration of minority communities. In a lecture she will call for testing for genetic defects where such marriages are arranged and the keeping of a register of people who carry genetic diseases, so that two carriers are not introduced. “Some variant of this could be possible in cities such as Bradford with a high density of immigrant population,” she will say.
Times Archive
Lady Deech, who chaired the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for eight years, will also suggest that married first cousins use invitro fertilisation so that embryos can be tested for recessive diseases.
“Human rights and religious and cultural practices are respected by not banning cousin marriage,” she will argue. “But those involved must be made aware of the consequences.” Her comments will be made at the Museum of London in the last of a series of family law lectures that she has given under the auspices of Gresham College. Other topics have included marriage, divorce law, cohabitation and gay partnerships; last week she argued that children do better in two-parent families of different genders.
“The local estimate was that 75 per cent of Bradford disabled children had cousin parents and the rate of cousin marriage in the UK Pakistani community is increasing,” Lady Deech will say.''
The Sunday Times article 7069255
''The dangers of marriage between first cousins are to be highlighted by a leading professor, with a warning that their children are at risk of genetic defects.
Baroness Deech, a family law professor and crossbencher, will call next week for a “vigorous” public campaign to deter the practice, which is prevalent in Muslim and immigrant communities and on the rise. She will reignite a debate started five years ago when Ann Cryer, MP for Keighley, drew attention to the number of disabled babies being born in the town and called for cousin marriage to be stopped.
Fifty-five per cent of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins and in Bradford the figure is 75 per cent. British Pakistanis represent 3 per cent of all births in Britain but one third of children with recessive disorders.
Lady Deech will also warn that marriage between first cousins can be a barrier to the integration of minority communities. In a lecture she will call for testing for genetic defects where such marriages are arranged and the keeping of a register of people who carry genetic diseases, so that two carriers are not introduced. “Some variant of this could be possible in cities such as Bradford with a high density of immigrant population,” she will say.
Times Archive
Lady Deech, who chaired the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for eight years, will also suggest that married first cousins use invitro fertilisation so that embryos can be tested for recessive diseases.
“Human rights and religious and cultural practices are respected by not banning cousin marriage,” she will argue. “But those involved must be made aware of the consequences.” Her comments will be made at the Museum of London in the last of a series of family law lectures that she has given under the auspices of Gresham College. Other topics have included marriage, divorce law, cohabitation and gay partnerships; last week she argued that children do better in two-parent families of different genders.
“The local estimate was that 75 per cent of Bradford disabled children had cousin parents and the rate of cousin marriage in the UK Pakistani community is increasing,” Lady Deech will say.''
The Sunday Times article 7069255
Last edited:
Then I would prefer that you not have any position of responsibility in government.
This could mean one of two things:
- a person catching them in the act. I mentioned this before when I pointed out that it's exceedingly unlikely that this would ever happen.
- rumours and innuendo. These aren't probable cause.
But nobody's talking about legalizing parental sexual abuse of children. This whole debate is about what the legal status of incest between adults should be. I've got concerns, definitely, but I also recognize that child abuse is impossible when there are no children (i.e. minors, not just "offspring") involved.
Your comment does bring up an interesting question, though: if your concern is about parent-child incest, does this mean you'd be willing to grant some legal latitude to incest between siblings?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You are going to have to do better than that.
You have already demonstrated that your passion is overruling your reason.
Now you are merely attempting a scare tactic.
If any adult abuses a child it is illegal.
The topic is about adults having sex with their parents or other adult siblings.
Again, this merely shows your passion over riding your reason.
You are going to have to start giving something more than super generic responses if you want to be taken seriously.
So you think it is better for children to grow up with out parents?
I wonder what the legalities of such an invasion of privacy would be...
I also wonder what doors such an invasion of privacy would open...
Really?
So any old "report" of 'suspected incest' would be grounds for a DNA test?
What does your "common sense" tell you will happen if that is all it takes?
Can we say witch hunt?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Thats my last post on the subject..before I get too angry and delete my account here on RF.
Incest covers many different types of cases. Whatever rationale you use to justify it has to validly cover all the forms of it you're trying to outlaw.
It creeps me out too, but it's legal in many places.
So... despite the risk of genetic defects in first cousin marriages, they're legal.
Doesn't this tell us that the risk of genetic defects isn't generally used as a justification for laws on who you can and can't marry? Why should the law have a different standard for other types of marriage/relationship?
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Depends on the parents...obviously.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I would be insane to find a 130+ year old article on incest to be a reliable source.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
So in your mind it is just fine to punish the children for the actions of the parent?
You sound like YHWH now.
I think that was just a computer-generated "related link"-type thing that didn't really have anything to do with the article quoted.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Then I would prefer that you not have any position of responsibility in government.
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
They are enough to warrant investigation.
It doesnt matter...legalising incest will make it more difficult to prosecute child abusers.
Not really...it just doesnt worry me as much.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Indeed.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
By removing a filthy incestuous parent you are doing the child a favour.
YHWH? well he encourages incest...he encouraged Lot to have sex with his daughters...after all.
Baloney. When you have a government that's happy to violate the freedom of the people for no good reason, everyone has plenty to fear.
If you think so, then I'm glad you're not a cop.
Or at least, I hope you're not a cop.
You've repeated this a few times, and it doesn't get any clearer when you do. Can you explain your thought process here?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
bull ****.
anything you happen to find disgusting or other wise dislike will suddenly be banned.
How?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Says who?
you?
Sorry, but I will need more than your passion ruled reasons.
Yes.
You really need to read the Bible.
That is NOT what I am talking about.
I am talking about his (YHWH) punishing the children for the sins of the parents.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Your freedom is an illusion anyway...you can only do so much before you are imprisoned...basically you are allowed to do a certain number of things.
A good cop should investigate every complaint.
Well imagine being in court trying to prove a man raped his 16 year old daughter when he alleges it was mutual incest...rape is hard enough to prove as it is.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
You would like to live with the father who rapes you eh?
Weird...
Why, you dont believe the story of Lot exists in the Bible?
It is not punishment to remove an abuser...LOL