Switzerland my allow incest between siblings, and parent and adult children

[zenzero]

Friend PA,

there was no actual adam or eve.

My, My then what to believe and what not to. Bible history is all cooked up?

Love & rgds

 

[Magic Man]

Please tell me the two subjects have nothing in common. :ignore:

If I did not know your positions on these subjects, I could see a slippery slope argument here.

Incest and homosexuality are two seperate issues. Actually, sibling incest and parent child incest should be two seperate issues as well.

Matt, my question to you is, what would it matter what someone though about a completely different issue anyway? Where are you going with this?

My point was that many opponents of same-sex marriage use the argument that it should be banned because it's disgusting. Primordial was using that same argument to oppose incest being legal. Also, many people use that along with "it's morally reprehensible" as their only arguments against same-sex marriage, and Primordial is using them as his only arguments against incest.

 

[Magic Man]

Also I find it morally reprehensible that parent/child incestuous relationships occur...the damaging psychological effects this must have on the child and wider family in particular I find especially worrying...not to mention the scope for abuse and grooming.

As for the other kind of incestuous relationship...sibling...I do not approve at all for similar reasons in the above answer...but I am willing to accept that as long as they are not reproducing there is little I can objectively object to...unless clearly some kind of abuse is going on.

See, now this would have been a much better response. This I'll accept, and mostly agree with.

Basically incest in my little world is a perversion that society should NOT have to tolerate...not if we don't want a nation of inbred village idiots...royalty does the inbreeding...thats their gig.

But then you have to go into this. This is where you go off-track. You might see it as a perversion, but that doesn't mean it should be banned. If society banned everything the majority saw as perversion, you'd be in prison for being a Luciferian; I'd be in prison for being an atheist; and Donald Trump would be in prison for his hair D).

And the terms like "inbred village idiots" doesn't help a serious discussion of this issue.

 

[Father Heathen]

Disturbing, yes, but in my opinion as long as all involved are consenting adults then the law shouldn't be involved.
If they get knocked up, however, then they should have the inbred mutant aborted.

 

[Magic Man]

If they get knocked up, however, then they should have the inbred mutant aborted.

But then how would you have made it into the world?

 

[Father Heathen]

But then how would you have made it into the world?

:slap:

 

[Comicaze247]

Yes it would be slightly irresponsible but it depends on level of risk involved...interbreeding substantially increases the risk of the inheritence of recessive genes.

Thats the genetic health side of my distaste for interbreeding.

If you'd read again, it's clear that incest itself doesn't cause it. Yes, it would be irresponsible for siblings to have a child if they were to have family history of a genetic defect. But wouldn't it be just as irresponsible for them to have a child with someone else with family history of a genetic defect?

The only way it would "substantially" increase the risk is if there was a risk in the first place; that risk being having a genetic defect in the first place.

Also, I again raise the case of people who have no family history of genetic defects. Where would the risk be there? Would it be wrong for them?

And you should probably stop using the term "recessive genes," unless you view blue eyes and blond hair as a defect.

Also I find it morally reprehensible that parent/child incestuous relationships occur...the damaging psychological effects this must have on the child and wider family in particular I find especially worrying...not to mention the scope for abuse and grooming.

Yeah, on that, I agree with you.

As for the other kind of incestuous relationship...sibling...I do not approve at all for similar reasons in the above answer...but I am willing to accept that as long as they are not reproducing there is little I can objectively object to...unless clearly some kind of abuse is going on.

Why would you assume there are damaging psychological effects? Is this a close-age sibling relationship you're considering, or a large age gap?
Abuse would have nothing to do with sibling incest unless one was forcing themselves upon the other, which would be a different case entirely.

Basically incest in my little world is a perversion that society should NOT have to tolerate...not if we don't want a nation of inbred village idiots...

Refer to the scenario of the 'perfect' genes again.

royalty does the inbreeding...thats their gig.

So . . . are you saying that it's okay for royalty to do so?

As for your last comment about irony...what is so morally degenerate about Luciferianism...what do you think we get up to?
Blood sacrifice and sex magik?

lol

Why did you assume I was targetting your beliefs? And why would you assume that's something I was thinking?
I was referring to your statement about not telling you what to think. Yet you insist that people should not tolerate something.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Perhaps Zurich will become the incest holiday destination, for the world Bankers.
And why not? they have stuffed every one else.

 

[McBell]

"Will Switzerland allow incest?
A Swiss law proposes decriminalizing consensual sexual relationships between parents and their adult children.

Switzerland is now considering a controversial new bill to decriminalize incest. A Justice Department spokesperson explains, "Incest continues to be a taboo in our society, but it's not up to criminal law to stop every morally reprehensible aspect of behavior. Rather, the law should be for punishing behavior that's particularly socially damaging."

Marriage between second-degree relatives (aunt/uncle, niece/nephew) is already legal in Switzerland, but the new measure would overturn the ban on consensual sexual relationships between siblings, and between parents and their adult children. (Sexual relationships with underage children would, of course, remain illegal.)"
source
​

Ah, the signs are aborning. Can Armageddon be far behind? :run:

Hells bells!!
Someone better get in there and set them damn Swiss right!
I mean if they allow this, what is next?
Same sex marriage?

 

[Mancunian_Philosophy]

Seems like a no-brainer to me. The genetic union of siblings significantly increases the likelihood of offspring posessing homozygous lethal recessives. These are the potential victims to the crime. There is a very good reason why even chimpanzees have a mechanism (females leaving the natal group prior to breeding) to prevent such unions.

 

[Skwim]

Seems like a no-brainer to me. The genetic union of siblings significantly increases the likelihood of offspring posessing homozygous lethal recessives. These are the potential victims to the crime. There is a very good reason why even chimpanzees have a mechanism (females leaving the natal group prior to breeding) to prevent such unions.

Yes, and it doesn't appear to be in effort to avoid producing offspring with genetics defects.

"In a community of chimpanzees in Gombe National Park, females' associations with their previous closest male associates (usually maternal siblings) dropped abruptly when they commenced full oestrous cycles, in some cases because the females changed their range within their natal community. Sexual activity was very infrequent between maternal siblings and between mothers and sons. Whereas males remained in their natal community all their lives, most or all females transferred to other communities during adolescence either permanently or temporarily. Inter-community transfer by females apparently resulted from attraction to unfamiliar males. Thus inbreeding appears to be avoided in this species as a consequence of reduced sexual attraction between individuals who were familiar with each other in immaturity."
source

​

In other words, familiarity tends to breed repulsion. Simple as that.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Also, many people use that along with "it's morally reprehensible" as their only arguments against same-sex marriage, and Primordial is using them as his only arguments against incest.

Nonsense...I mention interbreeding at least a dozen times.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Again, it really doesn't matter what you think. The point is most people view Luciferianism as weird, many times disgusting and morally degenerate, the same way you view incest. So, it stands to reason that you, more than many others, would understand the need for not banning something simply because it's disgusting or you find it morally degenerate.

Really.

I see.

I would like to know what is so morally outrageous about Luciferianism...as yet you havent said why... you have just repeated yourself.
Insisting it is degenerate weird and many times disgusting.

Why?

Back up your mouth please if you have any honour.

I understand the difference between what is real and what is pure fantasy...do you?

I think not.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

If you'd read again, it's clear that incest itself doesn't cause it. Yes, it would be irresponsible for siblings to have a child if they were to have family history of a genetic defect. But wouldn't it be just as irresponsible for them to have a child with someone else with family history of a genetic defect?

I didnt say incest causes 'it' I said it increases the risks.
And yes I have already answered the secon part repeatedly...I do think it irresponsible for people with hereditary illnesses to reproduce with each other without medical assistance and screening.

The only way it would "substantially" increase the risk is if there was a risk in the first place; that risk being having a genetic defect in the first place.

Yes?

Also, I again raise the case of people who have no family history of genetic defects. Where would the risk be there? Would it be wrong for them?

No KNOWN/ family history of genetic defects..either way I don't think such a trend is healthy to encourage pal.

And you should probably stop using the term "recessive genes," unless you view blue eyes and blond hair as a defect.

Its recessive genes that carry genetic disorders undetected and unexpressed...the word recessive does not mean defected.

Yeah, on that, I agree with you.

Capital

Why would you assume there are damaging psychological effects? Is this a close-age sibling relationship you're considering, or a large age gap?
Abuse would have nothing to do with sibling incest unless one was forcing themselves upon the other, which would be a different case entirely.

I know there would be psychological effects...

''A study of victims of father–daughter incest in the 1970s showed that there were "common features" within families before the occurrence of incest: estrangement between the mother and the daughter, extreme paternal dominance, the mother's inability to fulfill her traditional parental role, and reassignment of some of the mother's major family responsibility to the daughter. Oldest and only daughters were more likely to be the victims of incest. It was also stated that the incest experience was psychologically harmful to the woman in later life, frequently leading to feelings of low self-esteem, unhealthy sexual activity, contempt for other women, and other emotional problems.[34][clarification needed (needs a better source)]
Adults who as children were incestuously victimized by adults often suffer from low self-esteem, difficulties in interpersonal relationships, and sexual dysfunction, and are at an extremely high risk of many mental disorders, including depression, anxiety, phobic avoidance reactions, somatoform disorder, substance abuse, borderline personality disorder, and complex post-traumatic stress disorder''

But of course you will pretend all incest is entirely mutually reciprocated.

Refer to the scenario of the 'perfect' genes again.

Dont know what you are talking about...no one has perfect genes.

So . . . are you saying that it's okay for royalty to do so?

I don't CARE what Royalty do

Why did you assume I was targetting your beliefs? And why would you assume that's something I was thinking?
I was referring to your statement about not telling you what to think. Yet you insist that people should not tolerate something.

Do not presume to know what my faith or belief leads me to believe...you are very unlikely to be anywhere close...nor should they tolerate pedophilia..although I am certain some here might disagree with that too...

 

[Valjean]

Seems like a no-brainer to me. The genetic union of siblings significantly increases the likelihood of offspring posessing homozygous lethal recessives. These are the potential victims to the crime. There is a very good reason why even chimpanzees have a mechanism (females leaving the natal group prior to breeding) to prevent such unions.

The progeny of siblings do have a higher risk of significant genetic defects, but as I said before, this is much rarer than people think. Usually such unions produce normal, healthy children. The risk is more statistical -- when extrapolated through time -- than practical.

Eg: In animal husbandry these unions happen accidentally all the time, but resultant genetic problems are rare.
Eg: Almost every golden hamster in the world is descended from a single litter discovered in the wild in 1930. This is a gene pool of zero. The siblings have been interbreeding for tens of thousands of generations.
Now go down to your local petstore -- no freakshow -- just cute, healthy little furballs running on wheels.

I think the tabu is largely ick factor generated. If we were really being practical, as we pretend, we'd be railing against Arlo Guthrie, who married and fathered four children despite the fact his father Woody had died of Huntington's disease.
He did not know, at the time he married, weather he was a carrier or not.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I think the tabu is largely ick factor generated. If we were really being practical, as we pretend, we'd be railing against Arlo Guthrie, who married and fathered four children despite the fact his father Woody had died of Huntington's disease.
He did not know, at the time he married, weather he was a carrier or not.

There is far more to it than that...there are wide ranging psychological factors to take into consideration.

If even chimps avoid mating with each other then I think that is a clue...

 

[Mancunian_Philosophy]

Eg: Almost every golden hamster in the world is descended from a single litter discovered in the wild in 1930. This is a gene pool of zero. The siblings have been interbreeding for tens of thousands of generations.
Now go down to your local petstore -- no freakshow -- just cute, healthy little furballs running on wheels.

This is because over time all those homozygous to a lethal recessive did not reproduce, or reproduced less. There tend to be very few lethal recessives in such breeds.

It's true though, people often assume that you cannot develop a species from a few individuals. This is not true, it just requires the removal of lethal recessives.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

It's true though, people often assume that you cannot develop a species from a few individuals. This is not true, it just requires the removal of lethal recessives.

But unless that new species diversifies and does not become genetically isolated, mutations will build up and then the problems start,

 

[Father Heathen]

Having incest decriminalized wouldn't exactly result in family orgies on a mass scale resulting in an inbred baby boom, so worrying about potential damage to the gene pool is a bit silly.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Having incest decriminalized wouldn't exactly result in family orgies on a mass scale resulting in an inbred baby boom, so worrying about potential damage to the gene pool is a bit silly.

Really?

You dont think small communities might have issues?

Eventually...