Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

[NYcarbineer]

Look at the weirdos step up to normalize incest.

I'm not hearing a single argument against it.

Thanks for proving my point:

Amoral people can't make moral judgments.

I'm making a moral judgment. If you cannot demonstrate any meaningful harm to society arising from allowing two people who are biologically related to marry, what is the argument to prohibit it?

Isn't that the core 'morality' of a democratic society? To allow people to live their lives as they choose so long as they are not doing any harm?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As close a the INTERNET.

so i can jump through my computer to have sex with someone?

Ever hear of cybersex?

Ever hear of ignorant demagoguery and fear-mongering?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's the argument against consensual, adult, heterosexual, incestuous sex, or marriage?

No argument? You know, in a democratic society, there needs to be valid argument against allowing such relationships in order to justify prohibiting them.

Great point, no use letting genetics decide law. Again the liberal left shuns science.

.

So you support government enforced eugenics? Why then single out incest?

Even if there is some degree of increased probability of closely related persons producing children with problems associated with genetics,

why not subject everyone to restrictions if they are more likely than others to pass on a genetic defect, or a disease?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's the argument against consensual, adult, heterosexual, incestuous sex, or marriage?

No argument? You know, in a democratic society, there needs to be valid argument against allowing such relationships in order to justify prohibiting them.

Great point, no use letting genetics decide law. Again the liberal left shuns science.

After incest do we move onto beastialogy, I mean really, if your horse doesn't care and you wear a condom why should anyone else care? Polygamy? A man mad enough to have more then one wife deserves his abuse, but does that mean the law has to intervene? How about the archaic age of consent? If a minor would get pregnant there always is abortion, all hail Satan.

If your only argument for criminalizing incest is the possibility of genetic consequences if a child results from any such unions,

then you would have to concede at the very least that if one or both of the partners were infertile,

you are left with no argument whatsoever for legally prohibiting their relationship, or for denying the right to marry as it exists for anyone else.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

...and ignorant rightwing fear-mongers and demagogues try and fail to contrive a 'controversy' where none exists.

Typical.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Note that in some jurisdictions in Australia, family relationships that are not by blood, such as by adoption, stepchildren, etc., are still considered incest for legal criminal purposes.

 

[BobPlumb]

so i can jump through my computer to have sex with someone?

Ever hear of cybersex?

Ever hear of ignorant demagoguery and fear-mongering?

Fail! That comment is an example of the fallacy of being stupid. Perhaps the comments of myself and nitrox were lame attempts at humor, but ignorant demagoguery and fear-mongering-- Hell no!

 

[Freewill]

Australia is how far from the US?

As close a the INTERNET.

so i can jump through my computer to have sex with someone?

You can jump off a cliff if you want.

We are talking ideas.

 

[BobPlumb]

As close a the INTERNET.

so i can jump through my computer to have sex with someone?

You can jump off a cliff if you want.

We are talking ideas.

Nitrox is not jumping off a cliff unless it leads to sex.

 

[billyerock1991]

Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo


Hey, a Texas Senator said that shutting down the government was a good idea.

People say crazy shit all the time.

And idiot liberals would rather see incest run rampant than see a partial government shutdown.........

and republicans would rather see rape run rampid then see your tases raised

 

[billyerock1991]

Note that in some jurisdictions in Australia, family relationships that are not by blood, such as by adoption, stepchildren, etc., are still considered incest for legal criminal purposes.

well, you know the republicans motto ... a family that lays together stays together

 

[Freewill]

No argument? You know, in a democratic society, there needs to be valid argument against allowing such relationships in order to justify prohibiting them.

Great point, no use letting genetics decide law. Again the liberal left shuns science.

After incest do we move onto beastialogy, I mean really, if your horse doesn't care and you wear a condom why should anyone else care? Polygamy? A man mad enough to have more then one wife deserves his abuse, but does that mean the law has to intervene? How about the archaic age of consent? If a minor would get pregnant there always is abortion, all hail Satan.

If your only argument for criminalizing incest is the possibility of genetic consequences if a child results from any such unions,

then you would have to concede at the very least that if one or both of the partners were infertile,

you are left with no argument whatsoever for legally prohibiting their relationship, or for denying the right to marry as it exists for anyone else.

I really didn't say either way, implied for sure. What the judge is saying is just another step down the slippery slope.

What this is an example of is the liberal lefts reducing everything to nothing. In other words marriage has always been between a man and a woman, not between Bruce and Dave. Not between two siblings. But now marriage is reduced to nothing but a legal contract.

People don't need to be taught that incest is fundamentally wrong. Those who live in close contact will go out and seek others, naturally, they will not breed with their siblings. Of course there are times when two who are closely related do "hook up" then when they realize their connection are repelled, why? Not because of a man's law, because it is against the natural law.

So abortion is the answer to the increase risk of genetic disease, hail Satan.

What is interesting is that instead of just keeping the laws as they are the suggestions are to do further testing, thus a requirement, to predict either impotency or genetic risk. Which is really interesting expansion of government interference.

 

[Sallow]

Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo


Hey, a Texas Senator said that shutting down the government was a good idea.

People say crazy shit all the time.

And idiot liberals would rather see incest run rampant than see a partial government shutdown.........

I'm sure you will see all the liberals running to this thread to support incest. What a dupe. Are there any conservatives that are not just completely bat shit stupid anymore?

Incest is mainly found among conservatives in Red States.

It's like a red neck thing.

 

[Sarah G]

Polygamy and Incest are Coercive.

Perhaps polygamous and incestuous bonds are more likely to be coercive, especially for the women involved. Polygamy is often used to bolster a misogynistic, male-dominated family structure; incest is frequently the product or symptom of abuse and subjugation. To the extent coercion is present, then polygamous and incestuous marriages do not result from the exercise of free will and genuine choice.

The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest

Interesting site and they made this topic more palatable than I would have. I am looking at it more from the female pov and also the potential for abusing children comes to mind.

 

[martybegan]

Bringing homosexuality into this discussion is being off topic. Incest and homosexuality are two completely different issues. You people are so fucked up with your religious self righteousness you can't even see the forest for the trees. And, you go on an on about anal sex being perverse. What a joke. As far as I can tell from everything I've heard and read about it, at least half of the men on the planet want to butt fuck their girlfriends/wives. Are they are on the same level as homos as far as you people are concerned? You are such hypocrites.

The issue itself isn't the debate, its the fact you can use the EXACT SAME talking points to support same sex marriage and incestuous marriage.

1. What's wrong with two people loving each other?
2. Equal protection under the law demands it
3. There is no difference between their love and other love.
4. Marriage is a right.

It has none of the counter arguments say of underage sex, or the idiotic bestiality arguments, those of non-consent.

So why, if you vehemently support same sex marriage, and you don't support incestuous marriage, can you ignore the points above?

 

[BobPlumb]

You hit the nail square on the head!

 

[jknowgood]

The left has gotten their marching orders. This one will take a little time for them to come around. I guess in a couple weeks I'll get called a pedophobe.

 

[jknowgood]

Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo


Hey, a Texas Senator said that shutting down the government was a good idea.

People say crazy shit all the time.

And idiot liberals would rather see incest run rampant than see a partial government shutdown.........

and republicans would rather see rape run rampid then see your tases raised

No, the liberals are the ones that want to disarm americans. Which take the opportunity for a woman to defend herself.

 

[daveman]

I'm not hearing a single argument against it.

Thanks for proving my point:

Amoral people can't make moral judgments.

I'm making a moral judgment. If you cannot demonstrate any meaningful harm to society arising from allowing two people who are biologically related to marry, what is the argument to prohibit it?

Isn't that the core 'morality' of a democratic society? To allow people to live their lives as they choose so long as they are not doing any harm?

So, let me make sure I understand your position:

It's bad for Southerners to inbreed, but okay for everyone else.

That about cover it?

 

[Avorysuds]

BTW, homosexuality definitely is accepted now by the courts, but it is not natural.

I reject the progressive position that of controlling peoples lives. You can claim, ignorantly so, that homosexuality is not natural but you only do so out of that ignorance and furthermore the belief that you might have the power afforded to to to control others lives by mob rule.


People that hold some belief that they should be the ones to dictate how others live their life, when living their life affects others in no way is an evil that needs to be removed.

Bigots are blind with hate and share many characteristics with their progressive liberal brothers. They all look for "moral" reasons to empower themselves with power to force others into submission.

I don't care if a bother and sister want to fuck. I find it weird and dangerous but I see no reason I should be allowed to stop them.

You might want to change your name from "Freewill," or is the name meant to be ironic?