Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Two consenting adults face JAIL for admitting having CONSENSUAL sex with each other

Scroll to see replies

Seeing as they were long separated and were not aware they were related it's easy to see who the morons are in this scenario.

Reply 41

milkytea

Waste of money sending them down really.

Reply 42

Pindar

Original post by jismith1989

Yes, but no form of contraception is 100% effective, so if they're having sex, they're risking having kids.

EDIT: Also, the harm principle is a nice simplistic moral rule, but no more than that, as there's virtually nothing that we do that doesn't have the potential to cause serious harm to others -- or, as Mill himself puts it, that "are not invasive of the free acts of others". And, of course, harm can't be quantified easily and neatly.

In that case, in this instance what was the harm?

The harm principle is the only principle of morality which makes rational sense.

Reply 43

alexmason14

Original post by Captain Haddock

Yeah it's pretty disgusting from my point of view as well but 'ew' isn't really a good enough reason to put someone in jail.

Maybe but I know for sure, that it shouldn't be legalised, just like anyother law, if its broken, jail time is a potential consequence. Eitherway, conselling is a definite need for any couple having incestuous relations because it is just plain wrong.

Reply 44

amison

Original post by Stefan1991

Two consenting adults having sex should never be illegal.

Even if they are father and daughter?

Reply 45

member327593

I agree with the OP. As long as they don't reproduce, they should have the freedom to do whatever else they like. I personally do find it disgusting but that's just my opinion. Jail is too harsh, we're running out of spaces in prisons and people to be imprisoned for cases like these is ridiculous.

Reply 46

LiveFastDieYoung

Original post by Stefan1991

That is the most stupidest thing I've ever heard.

ALL incest should be punished just because SOME is exploitative?
Why not just illegalise what is proved to be exploitative and legalise the rest?

not SOME, MOST and it was deemed to difficult to discern between the former and the latter so it was all illegalised.

same with drug abuse. some drug abuse is entirely harmless, good clean fun, recreational. other is horrendously abusive and damaging and its a thin line between one and the other.

same with incest.

if you dont like the answer take it up with lord mance, he might change the law so you can fiddle your sister if you want to :biggrin:

Reply 47

Psyk

Original post by LiveFastDieYoung

the gay point was demonstrably untrue. it is undeniable fact that the majority of rape cases and paedophilia cases are done within the family.

But not when they didn't meet until they are both adults.

Original post by LiveFastDieYoung

like what?

as for the incest it just make it easier to prosecute even if the the father has brainwashed the daughter to the point of denying underage/non-consensual stuff.

its basically a problem because certain family members are in such a position of trust and control over others that its similar to teachers banging students. we dont trust it to be non-exploitative, especially factoring age gaps.

This is essentially the reason why incest is illegal. Or at least it's the best reason for it being illegal. But if that's the reason, then why should it apply when that's clearly not what's going on like in this case?

Reply 48

Alison1992

erm, to be blunt, because it's grim.

Reply 49

LiveFastDieYoung

Original post by Stefan1991

In that case, in this instance what was the harm?

The harm principle is the only principle of morality which makes rational sense.

even Mills himself recognised that the harm principle must by necessity include some paternalistic points. it is not a strong foundation to base a philosphy on.

Reply 50

Pindar

Original post by alexmason14

They had sex KNOWING they were father and daughter

And.....? What's your point.

Original post by alexmason14

it's incest, 'sickens' me how perverse you must be to think that the fact they are beeing prosecuted is wrong and sick....
Its not even like they are distant cousins (which is also wrong),

How exactly is it "wrong" :lolwut:

? So much prejudice...

Original post by alexmason14

they are father and daughter. Its not 'love' if they are predisposed to have feelings for eachother because of sharing genes etc.

That's like saying "it's not love, he is attracted to her because he is genetically predisposed to like blondes, and she likes big men, but it's not love".

We are all genetically predisposed to like certain people.

Original post by alexmason14

If they had sex without knowing they were father and daughter then it would be different. Incest is illegal, if she got pregnant (contraception isn't 100% effective) and kept the baby, then thats just plain wrong and the health problems the baby could be faced with would imo be torture caused by THEM, mutated genes because of incestuos conception.
Its illegal, and wrong, GSA is bs, they may feel attracted to eachother but they shouldn't act on it..

Why shouldn't they act on it? Never heard of a thing called contraception?

Besides the risk of passing on a gene defect is the same as the risk of a woman over 40 having a child, yet that is perfectly legal.

Where in the article does it say they were trying for a baby? :lolwut; Try to read properly, they were just having a relationship.

Reply 51

LiveFastDieYoung

Original post by Psyk

But not when they didn't meet until they are both adults.

This is essentially the reason why incest is illegal. Or at least it's the best reason for it being illegal. But if that's the reason, then why should it apply when that's clearly not what's going on like in this case?

simply put it would be difficult to draw that line legally? how would you create the rule to discern between the two? based on what? close and loving relationship? long time exposure?

it would be an impossible and arbitrary line to draw so they havnt drawn it.

Reply 52

Looose

Original post by Snagprophet

Seeing as they were long separated and were not aware they were related it's easy to see who the morons are in this scenario.

Read the article? They knew they were related. They even got charged with it the first time round.

Reply 53

Pindar

Original post by kopite493

im not against it for disease reasons im against it case they share the same DNA

We all share 99% of the same DNA, so you are against sex full stop? Idiot. :rolleyes:

Reply 54

34253

Original post by sophia_

What the f*ck are you on about?

Erm, the fact that the majority of Asians in Birmingham marry a cousin? And that generation after generation of this have resulted in birth defects all over the place.

Reply 55

Liquid27

My own and anybody else's personal feelings of revulsion regarding the issue of incest is irrelevant. The truth of the matter is that the state has no business legislating against concensual relationships between two adults, whether incestual or not.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 56

alexmason14

When society has gotten to a point where incest and sex between father and daughter is legal, that is a society I wouldn't want to live in. But I do think jail is too harsh, but like anyother law, its there for a reason, if its is broken, jail is a possible consequence.

Reply 57

Picnic1

Original post by Bakmouth

They shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage anyway.

I am really dismayed at the number of thumbs down you get. Even though, even as Christian, I don't disapprove of sex outside marriage between 2 people who have loved each other for a while, I would never disapprove of anyone who adheres to the Christian view that sex should be kept within marriage.

It's not even necessarily purely to do with religion. It just makes logical sense as a 'better' way of being. Like saying 'It's best to look both ways before crossing the road'. It's also best to have sex within marriage because then you don't give yourself emotionally to people who turn out not to care about you. You also don't give your body to people who turn out not to care about you. You also show respect to whoever you end up marrying- the gift of virginity should not be underestimated as an honour to your relationship.

As I write these words I wish that I was in 19th Century America or even 21st century America which still respects moral preferences rather than 21st Century Britain. Very modern people are allowed to have conservative views- it's becoming more fashionable too with the younger generation. Why don't people see that many of the now older generation who grew up in the permissive 70s (the 60s wasn't too bad in that respect actually) are not looked up to by the younger generation?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 58

JW92

Original post by Captain Haddock

Yeah it's pretty disgusting from my point of view as well but 'ew' isn't really a good enough reason to put someone in jail.

I think this sums it up quite succinctly. Acts being subjectively gross, sickening or unnatural ought not to render them illegal in a modern society.

Reply 59

TimmonaPortella

Original post by alexmason14

When society has gotten to a point where incest and sex between father and daughter is legal, that is a society I wouldn't want to live in.

Yeah, everything you or I find unsavoury should be illegal for that reason alone.

...

What principle are you working on, exactly? Is it genuinely just as I stated it above?