Why not? Both are related to sex, love, relationships, and considered "reproving behaviour" by many, if not most. Neon-TigerUhm, there are drawbacks in incestuous sex that affect those other than the two consenting individuals. Are there any contraceptives that work 100% of the time? Besides, why can't people distinguish between familial love and erotic/romantic love?
Anyone for G@y Marriage but against Incest?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"]Why not? Both are related to sex, love, relationships, and considered "reproving behaviour" by many, if not most. super_mario_128Uhm, there are drawbacks in incestuous sex that affect those other than the two consenting individuals. Are there any contraceptives that work 100% of the time? Besides, why can't people distinguish between familial love and erotic/romantic love? As I said before, incest doesn't require penile-vaginal sex... As to your second question, I have them well distinguished in my mind. You want to ask the "people", not me.
Anyway, I know, I am influenced by what people think about incest and although I dont share their views 100% (I mean I am weirded out by it but I dont go all "yikes, teh abomination" or whatever), I am annoyed when people use incest merely as the next step in a slippery slope fallacy in order to "paint" homosexuality with the worst "colours" of their ethical palette. And they achieve that by comparing to homosexuality with other "deviant" sexualities, which I know they see as despicable and utterly disgusting, repulsive and appaling.
Had I known that people dont think so strongly against incest then I wouldnt be so ticked off by seeing such a comparison.
Why not? Both are related to sex, love, relationships, and considered "reproving behaviour" by many, if not most. But in totally different situations.[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Well even very remote and different things are connected one way or another but that doesnt mean they are equatable or implied to be compatibly comparable like the TC implied.
Teenaged
One is "problematic" in terms of what sexes "should" do with each other and the other is "problematic" in terms of the relationships in a nuclear family or extended from that. I dont necessarily try to point out that incest is objectively "worse" based on the above but no one bothers to point out differences when they want to make a convenient point.
I fail to see how hiding or revealing the differences could be beneficial or nefarious to the points being made. I think that (perhaps foolishly) everyone here who is discussing the issues at hand are perfectly aware of what homosexuality and incest are, and by extension, on what they are different.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]But in totally different situations.[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"] Why not? Both are related to sex, love, relationships, and considered "reproving behaviour" by many, if not most. Neon-Tiger
One is "problematic" in terms of what sexes "should" do with each other and the other is "problematic" in terms of the relationships in a nuclear family or extended from that. I dont necessarily try to point out that incest is objectively "worse" based on the above but no one bothers to point out differences when they want to make a convenient point.
I fail to see how hiding or revealing the differences could be beneficial or nefarious to the points being made. I think that (perhaps foolishly) everyone here who is discussing the issues at hand are perfectly aware of what homosexuality and incest are, and by extension, on what they are different.The problem in a debate is that whatever isnt mentioned and benefits the argument of a person then they will wish it stays unmentioned.Common perception or "simple logic" doesnt apply in debates or generally when people try to make a point.
I understand your viewpoint, as I once felt the same way. Incest irks me too, but I have no place telling other people how to live their lives as long as they don't interfere with anyone's.Anyway, I know, I am influenced by what people think about incest and although I dont share their views 100% (I mean I am weirded out by it but I dont go all "yikes, teh abomination" or whatever), I am annoyed when people use incest merely as the next step in a slippery slope fallacy in order to "paint" homosexuality with the worst "colours" of their ethical palette. And they achieve that by comparing to homosexuality with other "deviant" sexualities, which I know they see as despicable and utterly disgusting, repulsive and appaling.
Had I known that people dont think so strongly against incest then I wouldnt be so ticked off by seeing such a comparison.
Teenaged
Incestial relationships often start as a form of abuse in parent-child relationships and other such things.. Homosexuality isn't even in the same catagory...sSubZerOoNo one is defending that kind of abusive, pedophile"incest", but the right for consenting adults to do whatever they want as long as they don't negatively interfere in other people's lives.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Incestial relationships often start as a form of abuse in parent-child relationships and other such things.. Homosexuality isn't even in the same catagory...Neon-TigerNo one is defending that kind of abusive, pedophile"incest", but the right for consenting adults to do whatever they want as long as they don't negatively interfere in other people's lives. Don't you understand that those kind of relationships begin when the child is underage in a form of abuse? Incest is not like homosexuality, no matter how good a parents they are or how stable the house hold is gays will still be gay The problem with Incest is the fact that its usually brought on by abuse, rarely is it the actual "choice" you try to say it is.
[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Incestial relationships often start as a form of abuse in parent-child relationships and other such things.. Homosexuality isn't even in the same catagory...sSubZerOoNo one is defending that kind of abusive, pedophile"incest", but the right for consenting adults to do whatever they want as long as they don't negatively interfere in other people's lives. Don't you understand that those kind of relationships begin when the child is underage in a form of abuse? Not necessarily. Sure it happens, and I condemn those situations, but there are many incestuous relationships between consenting adults, relations that were never based on abuse nor pedophilia. People must separate these two "types" of incest.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"] No one is defending that kind of abusive, pedophile"incest", but the right for consenting adults to do whatever they want as long as they don't negatively interfere in other people's lives.Neon-TigerDon't you understand that those kind of relationships begin when the child is underage in a form of abuse? Not necessarily. Sure it happens, and I condemn those situations, but there are many incestuous relationships between consenting adults, relations that were never based on abuse nor pedophilia. People must separate these two "types" of incest. What I am trying to tell you is they often ARE based on a long history of abuse.. This isn't like homosexuality in the least..
[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Don't you understand that those kind of relationships begin when the child is underage in a form of abuse? sSubZerOoNot necessarily. Sure it happens, and I condemn those situations, but there are many incestuous relationships between consenting adults, relations that were never based on abuse nor pedophilia. People must separate these two "types" of incest. What I am trying to tell you is they often ARE based on a long history of abuse.. This isn't like homosexuality in the least.. "Often" does not mean "all", now does it? Stop putting abusive pedophiles and consenting adults, that never abused one another, in the same bag. And incest is similar to homosexuality in the way that it is taboo for many people.
[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="Tropicalshower"]Whats one got to do with the other :? Neon-TigerExactly. Both homosexuality and incest have been frowned upon until recent times... Actually, incest still is, while homosexuality is winning its space. So? Both incest and burglary are illegal, and both are frowned upon, but they're completely different. The social stigma of the two is the only similarity.
This has come up before in some gay marriage topics. Is anyone okay with same sex marriage but against incest? If so, please explain your reasoning. I personally have found nothing wrong with incest. I do not particpate in it, nor homosexuality, but I feel consenting adults should be able to be with whoever they want.
Don't believe what you see in the movies with all the deformed babies, Movieland loves to exagerrate things. An Incestuous couple has a 50% higher chance of having defects. Thats 50% higher not 50% more. That means if normal couples have a 2% chance, than an incest couple has a 3% chance. I really Do not see the big deal, there are plenty of straight couples who have 25% chance of giving defects such as Cystic fibrosis, colourblindness, sickle cell anemia, etc.
I think all consentual forms of marriage should be legal, gay lesbian, poly. (Please remember i am referring to consentual relationships, not some father taking advantage of his 12 year old daughter)
STAR_Admiral
I've actually never thought about this at all, but it's quite a good argument. Logically there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two. They are both traditionally morally "deviant" positions, and until recently both were prohibited in the law.
Incest is a social taboo, and widely considered to be wrong. Homosexuality used to be exactly the same, but people now quote the argument that "consenting adults should be allowed to do what they wish behind closed doors". Indeed, this idea that the law must respect people's autonomy and right to do pretty much what they like, so long as nobody is harmed, and everyone involved consents, has taken hold in most modern legal systems.
So why is incest different to homosexuality? The default position is that incestuously produced children possess genetic defects that others do not. This is something of an exaggeration, since there is merely a higher risk, and the inbreeding must be systemic over sustained periods of time for noticeable issues to arise. For example, most royal families have engaged in a degree of interbreeding within a very small gene pool, and as a result many developed health problems and minor deformities. But the risk is still low.
Regardless, even if this argument is taken at face value, it does not prove that homosexuality is somehow BETTER than incest. To posit a theoretical deformed incestuous child ignores the possibility of homosexual couples having children, and the deep psychological issues, as well as social stigma. that may arise in that child as a direct result of having two same-sex parents. Again, I do not argue that this is likely, but the possibility is comparable to the possibility of an incestuous couple having a physically handicapped child. To argue they are not the same is to argue that risks of physical disability are somehow worse than risks of psychological disability, which is plainly wrong.
The other argument that seems to be used is that incest is "just wrong". But this suggests an objective moral standard, and it is impossible to create a universally acceptable objective moral standard. As such, it is merely a subjective moral judgement, which does not mean it should be binding on anyone else. Personal feelings as to the situation do not constitute sound argument. I can say that "I think everyone should be vegetarian", but this does not mean anyone else is bound to agree with me. To suggest that legality or illegality of action should be based on subjective opinion is extremely troubling, and must surely be false. The legal framework in this area must be based upon objective, non-moral concerns, since there are too many conflicting standpoints.
What then is the solution? I feel that I must say that there is no logical distinction to be made between homosexuality and incest in terms of their legality, and so if one is to be legalised, so must the other. I base this on the two main strands of argument to counter this position, and their seemingly untenable claims. However, I would be interested to see how people respond...
Thank you for listening. And apologies if my tone has gotten a bit too formal for an internet forum
[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"][QUOTE="Bourbons3"] Exactly.Bourbons3Both homosexuality and incest have been frowned upon until recent times... Actually, incest still is, while homosexuality is winning its space. So? Both incest and burglary are illegal, and both are frowned upon, but they're completely different. The social stigma of the two is the only similarity.
Burglary is closely related to consenting interpersonal relationships. :roll:
[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"]Burglary is closely related to consenting interpersonal relationships. :roll:BiancaDKif they are, rough neighbourhood. :lol: *clap clap*
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"] Not necessarily. Sure it happens, and I condemn those situations, but there are many incestuous relationships between consenting adults, relations that were never based on abuse nor pedophilia. People must separate these two "types" of incest.Neon-TigerWhat I am trying to tell you is they often ARE based on a long history of abuse.. This isn't like homosexuality in the least.. "Often" does not mean "all", now does it? Stop putting abusive pedophiles and consenting adults, that never abused one another, in the same bag. And incest is similar to homosexuality in the way that it is taboo for many people. Don't you understand that most times where there is consenting adults of a child and parent, its usually the conclusion to a long history of abuse?
[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] What I am trying to tell you is they often ARE based on a long history of abuse.. This isn't like homosexuality in the least.. sSubZerOo"Often" does not mean "all", now does it? Stop putting abusive pedophiles and consenting adults, that never abused one another, in the same bag. And incest is similar to homosexuality in the way that it is taboo for many people. Don't you understand that most times where there is consenting adults of a child and parent, its usually the conclusion to a long history of abuse? most=/=all... And incest can be between siblings, cousins, etc...
So? Both incest and burglary are illegal, and both are frowned upon, but they're completely different. The social stigma of the two is the only similarity.[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"] Both homosexuality and incest have been frowned upon until recent times... Actually, incest still is, while homosexuality is winning its space.Neon-Tiger
Burglary is closely related to consenting interpersonal relationships. :roll:
I don't consider homosexuality related to incest, beyond the fact that its about sex, in which case you can throw heterosexuality in to the mix as well, along with sex positions people don't like, and almost all sex toys in general. They're not the same, and I agree that its simply someone trying to go down a slippery slope fallacy, which never works.Don't you understand that most times where there is consenting adults of a child and parent, its usually the conclusion to a long history of abuse?sSubZerOo
Do you have statistics to back that up? As I've understood it, most of the time it happens is when the child was never raised by the parents and only met them late in life.
Which is, as I understand it, the same as the situation with siblings raised apart.
Correlation Fail.Engrish_MajorDon't see how. TC made some good points and Shaunk89 made those points clearer.
[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] What I am trying to tell you is they often ARE based on a long history of abuse.. This isn't like homosexuality in the least.. sSubZerOo"Often" does not mean "all", now does it? Stop putting abusive pedophiles and consenting adults, that never abused one another, in the same bag. And incest is similar to homosexuality in the way that it is taboo for many people. Don't you understand that most times where there is consenting adults of a child and parent, its usually the conclusion to a long history of abuse?
You've said the exact same thing so many times :S
The fact that parent-child relationships are often a product of abuse does not preclude the possibility of relationships between other family members, eg. siblings, cousins, etc not being the product of abuse.
Even if we accept your point as prima facie 100% true, and say ALL parent-child sexual relationships have a basis in a history of abuse, Neon-Tiger's point is no less sound. One can still imagine two consenting adult cousins being in a sexual relationship, and this would have nothing whatsoever to do with abuse. Neon-Tiger is asking what would be wrong with the latter form of incest, not the former...nobody is defending the former at all.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Correlation Fail.Neon-TigerDon't see how. TC made some good points and Shaunk89 made those points clearer.
yay, im glad someone actually read my post!
I'm somewhat disappointed that nobody has actually even attempted to refute what i said though...,
I don't care who others have sex with, as long as it's consensual. I don't see how it concerns me.
Yes, I am for same-sex marriage but against incest
why?
there is a practical reason for incest being banned. Deformed babies, etc.
there is zero practical reason for same-sex marriage being banned. Can anyone list one practical, real-world, rational reason why we should not have same-sex marriage? Didnt think so.
Deformed babies can also result from non-incestuous sex. And even regarding incest, I'll say for the third time, it doesn't require penile-vaginal sex. Sex can be much more than that...Yes, I am for same-sex marriage but against incest
why?
there is a practical reason for incest being banned. Deformed babies, etc.
there is zero practical reason for same-sex marriage being banned. Can anyone list one practical, real-world, rational reason why we should not have same-sex marriage? Didnt think so.
mrbojangles25
But the thing is, no one on this forum has presented conclusive evidence to establish causality between incest (In humans) and deformities. (Recent research) Even if there is correlation, that by far and away doesn't establish it as fact, because there are plenty of mitigating variables.Yes, I am for same-sex marriage but against incest
why?
there is a practical reason for incest being banned. Deformed babies, etc.
there is zero practical reason for same-sex marriage being banned. Can anyone list one practical, real-world, rational reason why we should not have same-sex marriage? Didnt think so.
mrbojangles25
I think incest is illegal beccause if it wasn't there would be a whole lot of manipulative fathers and older brothers taking advantage of their younger siblings. There s a reason why there is an age of consent. It is the same reason why incest is illegal as well.
And there are older men who manipulate younger woman as it is already.I think incest is illegal beccause if it wasn't there would be a whole lot of manipulative fathers and older brothers taking advantage of their younger siblings. There s a reason why there is an age of consent. It is the same reason why incest is illegal as well.
BumFluff122
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]And there are older men who manipulate younger woman as it is already. That's great. How exactly does that argue against what I'm saying? The reason that incest is illegal is because it is far easier to manipulate someone when they live with you and they are under the age of consent. IT is far easier to manipulate a child than an adult. Read this page (skipping the link from catholiccity of course as it's complete rubbish) http://www.lycos.com/info/incest.htmlI think incest is illegal beccause if it wasn't there would be a whole lot of manipulative fathers and older brothers taking advantage of their younger siblings. There s a reason why there is an age of consent. It is the same reason why incest is illegal as well.
Vandalvideo
And there are older men who manipulate younger woman as it is already. That's great. How exactly does that argue against what I'm saying? The reason that incest is illegal is because it is far easier to manipulate someone when they live with you and they are under the age of consent. IT is far easier to manipulate a child than an adult. Read this page (skipping the link from catholiccity of course as it's complete rubbish) http://www.lycos.com/info/incest.htmlBecause you're punishing a large portion of the population for what some of that population do. It is like us limiting heterosexuality becuse some people rape. Besides, the incest in this topic is concerned with adult incest.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]
I think incest is illegal beccause if it wasn't there would be a whole lot of manipulative fathers and older brothers taking advantage of their younger siblings. There s a reason why there is an age of consent. It is the same reason why incest is illegal as well.
BumFluff122
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]That's great. How exactly does that argue against what I'm saying? The reason that incest is illegal is because it is far easier to manipulate someone when they live with you and they are under the age of consent. IT is far easier to manipulate a child than an adult. Read this page (skipping the link from catholiccity of course as it's complete rubbish) http://www.lycos.com/info/incest.htmlBecause you're punishing a large portion of the population for what some of that population do. It is like us limiting heterosexuality becuse some people rape. Besides, the incest in this topic is concerned with adult incest.You are trying to win an argument by taking away the true explanation of why it is illegal. I'm curious as to your statement though. where exactly is your evidence that more incestuous relationships aren't a result of a screwed up childhood? As for your statements regarding physical deformities, if you have a subscription to pubmned (it was the first link on the list) you can read about a study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2077135 and if you don't you can still look at the short version and see the results.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] And there are older men who manipulate younger woman as it is already. Vandalvideo
I think incest is illegal beccause if it wasn't there would be a whole lot of manipulative fathers and older brothers taking advantage of their younger siblings. There s a reason why there is an age of consent. It is the same reason why incest is illegal as well.
BumFluff122
Not all incest relationships are illegal. I haven't researched it fully, but some states do allow uncle and niece marriages (my state being one of them :P)
]You are trying to win an argument by taking away the true explanation of why it is illegal. I'm curious as to your statement though. where exactly is your evidence that more incestuous relationships aren't a result of a screwed up childhood? As for your statements regarding physical deformities, if you have a subscription to pubmned (it was the first link on the list) you can read about a study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2077135 and if you don't you can still look at the short version and see the results.BumFluff122I tried to save you from me blowing your legal reasoning out of the water by showing the logical inconsistencies of the argument itself, but if you insist. In order for something to have valid legal reasoning you need to establish something called a brightline rule. A brightline rule is basically the core legal reasoning which would allow it to be applied in all other cases. In your particular case, you said that; The reason why it is illegal is because it is clearly easier to manipulate someone that you live with. This is basically all that is left of your argument, because if we apply your other test; age, then it would also apply to not only incest, but to regular relationships as well. It would place people like Hugh Hefner in jail. Given a huge disparity in age, it makes people easier to manipulate. Clearly this test fails the standard. Let us look at your other test though; living together. The brightilne rule here would be; proximity. Because people live within close proximity, they are easier to manipulate. Well, this may also apply outside of incestual relationships. Two roomates who live in close promixity may allow for easier manipulation. We then would have to apply the brightline rule of proximity to these people as well, thus disallowing relationships between roomates who aren't related. Your two pronged test; age and proximity, fail the brightline test. They cannot be applied without bringing into questions other forms of outside relationships. If you want to explain why incest itself is illegal, you need to establish a brightline rule which couldn't be applied to other classes of people outside of the class you're referring to. Your age and proximity tests make it to where we may as well make heterosexual relations altogether illegal, using the same logic you've applied to incestual relationships.
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]]You are trying to win an argument by taking away the true explanation of why it is illegal. I'm curious as to your statement though. where exactly is your evidence that more incestuous relationships aren't a result of a screwed up childhood? As for your statements regarding physical deformities, if you have a subscription to pubmned (it was the first link on the list) you can read about a study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2077135 and if you don't you can still look at the short version and see the results.VandalvideoI tried to save you from me blowing your legal reasoning out of the water by showing the logical inconsistencies of the argument itself, but if you insist. In order for something to have valid legal reasoning you need to establish something called a brightline rule. A brightline rule is basically the core legal reasoning which would allow it to be applied in all other cases. In your particular case, you said that; The reason why it is illegal is because it is clearly easier to manipulate someone that you live with. This is basically all that is left of your argument, because if we apply your other test; age, then it would also apply to not only incest, but to regular relationships as well. It would place people like Hugh Hefner in jail. Given a huge disparity in age, it makes people easier to manipulate. Clearly this test fails the standard. Let us look at your other test though; living together. The brightilne rule here would be; proximity. Because people live within close proximity, they are easier to manipulate. Well, this may also apply outside of incestual relationships. Two roomates who live in close promixity may allow for easier manipulation. We then would have to apply the brightline rule of proximity to these people as well, thus disallowing relationships between roomates who aren't related. Your two pronged test; age and proximity, fail the brightline test. They cannot be applied without bringing into questions out forms of outside relationships. If you want to explain why incest itself is illegal, you need to establish a brightline rule which couldn't be applied to other classes of people outside of the class you're referring to. Your age and proximity tests make it to where we may as well make heterosexual relations altogether illegal, using the same logic you've applied to incestual relationships.I was not talkign about adult incest. I was referring to childhood incest and the easier manipulation that someone who lives with that child would have over that child. As that child grew up the manipulation would continue. You are taking my statements and changing them to meet your needs. Again, there is a reason why there is an age of consent and it is the same reason why there is a law against incest.
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]]You are trying to win an argument by taking away the true explanation of why it is illegal. I'm curious as to your statement though. where exactly is your evidence that more incestuous relationships aren't a result of a screwed up childhood? As for your statements regarding physical deformities, if you have a subscription to pubmned (it was the first link on the list) you can read about a study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2077135 and if you don't you can still look at the short version and see the results.VandalvideoI tried to save you from me blowing your legal reasoning out of the water by showing the logical inconsistencies of the argument itself, but if you insist. In order for something to have valid legal reasoning you need to establish something called a brightline rule. A brightline rule is basically the core legal reasoning which would allow it to be applied in all other cases. In your particular case, you said that; The reason why it is illegal is because it is clearly easier to manipulate someone that you live with. This is basically all that is left of your argument, because if we apply your other test; age, then it would also apply to not only incest, but to regular relationships as well. It would place people like Hugh Hefner in jail. Given a huge disparity in age, it makes people easier to manipulate. Clearly this test fails the standard. Let us look at your other test though; living together. The brightilne rule here would be; proximity. Because people live within close proximity, they are easier to manipulate. Well, this may also apply outside of incestual relationships. Two roomates who live in close promixity may allow for easier manipulation. We then would have to apply the brightline rule of proximity to these people as well, thus disallowing relationships between roomates who aren't related. Your two pronged test; age and proximity, fail the brightline test. They cannot be applied without bringing into questions other forms of outside relationships. If you want to explain why incest itself is illegal, you need to establish a brightline rule which couldn't be applied to other classes of people outside of the class you're referring to. Your age and proximity tests make it to where we may as well make heterosexual relations altogether illegal, using the same logic you've applied to incestual relationships.So let me get this right:
You either:
a) have just spoken ill of the law *gasp*
or
b) you implied that the brightline rule is applied in every law
The b) is false as you very well know.
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]
I think incest is illegal beccause if it wasn't there would be a whole lot of manipulative fathers and older brothers taking advantage of their younger siblings. There s a reason why there is an age of consent. It is the same reason why incest is illegal as well.
dog64
Not all incest relationships are illegal. I haven't researched it fully, but some states do allow uncle and niece marriages (my state being one of them :P)
Canada has a law that states it is illegal for an adult over the age of consent and within a certain age bracket to be in a relationship with someone if that person they are in a relationship with is the same person that they are acting as a fatherly figure towards. The reason is the same as I've been stating.]I was not talkign about adult incest. I was referring to childhood incest and the easier manipulation that someone who lives with that child would have over that child. As that child grew up the manipulation would continue. You are taking my statements and changing them to meet your needs. Again, there is a reason why there is an age of consent and it is the same reason why there is a law against incest.BumFluff122Again, if you want to talk to me about legal reasoning, you have to be able to overcome the brightline test. If you apply your standard; proximity, then that would apply to other clases BESIDES incestual relationships. Your tests are age and proximity, which are most assuredly not exclusive to incestual relationships. If we use your legal reasoning, it would by mere relation, make regular heterosexual relationships illegal as well.
So let me get this right:You either:) have just spoken ill of the law *gasp*b) you implied that the brightline rule is applied in every lawThe b) is false as you very well know.TeenagedI did not speak ill of the law, I spoke ill of the supposed legal reasoning that bumfluff said is behind the law. If that is the case, it fails the brightline test, which yes is indeed applicable to every law. That is not, however, saying the law in place lacks sufficient legal reasoning, but the one bumfluff presented is not sufficient.
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]So let me get this right:You either:) have just spoken ill of the law *gasp*b) you implied that the brightline rule is applied in every lawThe b) is false as you very well know.VandalvideoI did not speak ill of the law, I spoke ill of the supposed legal reasoning that bumfluff said is behind the law. If that is the case, it fails the brightline test, which yes is indeed applicable to every law. That is not, however, saying the law in place lacks sufficient legal reasoning, but the one bumfluff presented is not sufficient.But then we dont have a reasoning behind the law now do we? You dismissed that and consequently dismissed someone's claim that the law is reasonable. Thus you agree the law is not reasonable.
No, care to explain how the brightline rule is applied in the law against incest or the law against homosexual marriage?
I am waiting.
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]]I was not talkign about adult incest. I was referring to childhood incest and the easier manipulation that someone who lives with that child would have over that child. As that child grew up the manipulation would continue. You are taking my statements and changing them to meet your needs. Again, there is a reason why there is an age of consent and it is the same reason why there is a law against incest.VandalvideoAgain, if you want to talk to me about legal reasoning, you have to be able to overcome the brightline test. If you apply your standard; proximity, then that would apply to other clases BESIDES incestual relationships. Your tests are age and proximity, which are most assuredly not exclusive to incestual relationships. If we use your legal reasoning, it would by mere relation, make regular heterosexual relationships illegal as well.I take it you expect me to write an entire report about all the ins and outs of the illegality of incest then? And I'm using psychological reasoning. Not legal reasoning. I've posted reports and tests concerning the problems that a person in an insensual relationship has later in life earlier in this thread. And I'm waiting for your proof of your earlier statement that most incestual relationships are consensual relationships between adults.
[QUOTE="dog64"]
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]
I think incest is illegal beccause if it wasn't there would be a whole lot of manipulative fathers and older brothers taking advantage of their younger siblings. There s a reason why there is an age of consent. It is the same reason why incest is illegal as well.
BumFluff122
Not all incest relationships are illegal. I haven't researched it fully, but some states do allow uncle and niece marriages (my state being one of them :P)
Canada has a law that states it is illegal for an adult over the age of consent and within a certain age bracket to be in a relationship with someone if that person they are in a relationship with is the same person that they are acting as a fatherly figure towards. The reason is the same as I've been stating.And I agree with that law. But my point is that not all types of incest are illegal, at least in the U.S. It seems some types of incest are more acceptable that other types, it depends on who's involved.
I'm not too familiar with Canada law, but I read that the age of consent there can be as low as 14. Is that correct?
But then we dont have a reasoning behind the law now do we? You dismissed that and consequently dismissed someone's claim that the law is reasonable. Thus you agree the law is not reasonable.TeenagedMy dismissing one legal reasoning is not in itself a statement that there is no legal reasoning sufficient behind the law itself. Merely because Bumfluff's explanation fails does not mean that the law itself lacks sufficient reasoning. For all you know, I could be aware of the true legal reasoning behind it, but I'm merely engaging in an effort to show just how presumptuous many people are towards the law. Once again, My mere dismissal of some legal reasonings is not sufficient ground to claim the law lacks all legal reasoning. As far as my dismissal of anothe person's claim the law was reasonable, that was entirely reliant on the reasoning that they gave in that particular post. In both of these instances, I am not saying the law is unreasonable, I'm saying these individuals, with their interpretations of the law are unreasonable.
I would not, because it would take me a good 30 pages to explain the legal reasoning, if there were one, behind incest and homosexual marriage laws. It is not prudent to do so in these forums. Then again, my arguments don't call for me to give such legal reasoning. I'm merely arguing the ones given in this thread fail the test.No, care to explain how the brightline rule is applied in the law against incest or the law against homosexual marriage?
Canada has a law that states it is illegal for an adult over the age of consent and within a certain age bracket to be in a relationship with someone if that person they are in a relationship with is the same person that they are acting as a fatherly figure towards. The reason is the same as I've been stating.[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]
[QUOTE="dog64"]
Not all incest relationships are illegal. I haven't researched it fully, but some states do allow uncle and niece marriages (my state being one of them :P)
dog64
And I agree with that law. But my point is that not all types of incest are illegal, at least in the U.S. It seems some types of incest are more acceptable that other types, it depends on who's involved.
I'm not too familiar with Canada law, but I read that the age of consent there can be as low as 14. Is that correct?
yes it is. In most states in the US it is 16 however one or two have it at 14 and a couple have it at 18 I believe. At least that's what it was way back last time I looked.I take it you expect me to write an entire report about all the ins and outs of the illegality of incest then? And I'm using psychological reasoning. Not legal reasoning. I've posted reports and tests concerning the problems that a person in an insensual relationship has later in life earlier in this thread.BumFluff122You said, and I quote, these are the reasons why it is illega. That is legal reasoning.
I never explicitly said that, I merely said that others in this thread are discussing adult incestual relationships.And I'm waiting for your proof of your earlier statement that most incestual relationships are consensual relationships between adults.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment