Australian judge says incest and paedophilia may no longer be a taboo
Scroll to see replies
Original post by jackdaubs
Oh the irony, given you believe that gay people aren't allowed to disagree with you on incest
And yet you keep at replying me. But if you desperately need to have the last word, that's fine by me. I am happy to indulge children in these kinds of ways
And yet you keep at replying me. But if you desperately need to have the last word, that's fine by me. I am happy to indulge children in these kinds of ways
Again, again, I said they are allowed to have any views they want. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of a certain combination of views.
Stop attaching such nonsense to my posts please. Like I said it's getting extremely annoying and boring.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by jackdaubs
The fatal flaw in the position that because gay sex involves consensual adults, and incest also does, therefore homosexuals must support incest.
Say you have Drug A and Drug B, and the government is looking at liberalising the laws and legalising these substances following a medical review.
The anti-drug lobby says that Drug A is physically addictive and causes impotence. When the medical review studies the drug's properties, they find this is absolute nonsense and that it is not physically addictive and does not cause impotence. The government duly enacts legislation legalising Drug A.
The anti-drug lobby says that Drug B is physically addictive and causes impotence. When the medical review board looks into Drug B, they find it is physically addictive and causes impotence. But the pro-drug lobby says that because the same argument was made in both cases, Drug B must be legalised and anyone who disagrees is a hypocrite.
This is the substance of what users like chickenmadness are saying
Say you have Drug A and Drug B, and the government is looking at liberalising the laws and legalising these substances following a medical review.
The anti-drug lobby says that Drug A is physically addictive and causes impotence. When the medical review studies the drug's properties, they find this is absolute nonsense and that it is not physically addictive and does not cause impotence. The government duly enacts legislation legalising Drug A.
The anti-drug lobby says that Drug B is physically addictive and causes impotence. When the medical review board looks into Drug B, they find it is physically addictive and causes impotence. But the pro-drug lobby says that because the same argument was made in both cases, Drug B must be legalised and anyone who disagrees is a hypocrite.
This is the substance of what users like chickenmadness are saying
Ye not really because this is completely different. I could just as easily say gay sex should be illegal because the anus can tear easily (health issue). Also that anal sex can lead to long term health issues (diarrhea etc). But it's not illegal.
The actual act of sex between 2 adults carry the same health issues no matter what their relation.
But for health issues concerning the children. Well 2 people with multiple sclerosis can have a kid. That kid has a very high chance of living a crap short life then dying. But there are no laws against these 2 people having children. It's the same for any carrier of a disease or disorder that can be passed onto their children. But not for incest. Why? Why can some people willingly have children and pass on their genetic disorders and diseases to the child and others can't? Why can a mother with HIV/AIDS pass that on to her child while other people can't?
Especially with incest there isn't 100% chance of the child being unhealthy. But with other things such as HIV, thats 100%. And a death sentence.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ChickenMadness
The actual act of sex between 2 adults carry the same health issues no matter what their relation.
This is not about physical health issues (though there are obviously physiological issues that can be caused by inbreeding). My argument against incest is exclusively about the damage it causes to the family unit, the tears it causes in the social fabric and in family cohesion, the confusion and hurt that clearly results from such relationships.
I don't care whether the couple is a brother and a sister, or two brothers, or father-daughter or mother-son. I don't care whether they can have children or not. My position is wholly based on the social damage, the damage to families, that results from such relationships.
Now, you might say that's life, that they should be allowed to do that as adults. And I might come to a different opinion. But whatever that opinion is, incest is clearly different from homosexuality in that there is no family dynamic involved in homosexuality.
Again, we might both look at the evidence and come to different opinions, but it is not hypocritical for me to have a different opinion to you on whether and how much damage to family units, to cohesion, can be caused by incestuous relationships, and it's not hypocritical for me to differ on whether that is a legitimate area for the state to regulate
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Octopus_Garden
1) There are no innate consent issues with homosexuality.
2) You can't commit paedophilia. Depending on whom you speak to, it is a sexuality or a perversion.
3) Any paedophile who follows his or her urges will be committing child abuse.
2) You can't commit paedophilia. Depending on whom you speak to, it is a sexuality or a perversion.
3) Any paedophile who follows his or her urges will be committing child abuse.
What if the government adopts a more relaxed system similar to the one in Thailand? What if a new clause be made to legalise peadophiles if they get consent or at least not persecute them? There are ways around everything.The law is a tricky thing, once something is passed then others can use that clause to their advantage and they will be in a good chance. Eg: homosexuals claim they cannot change and it is just the way they are and they should not be discriminated against because they have rights. Similarly peadophiles and those committing incest can claim the same thing on the bases of homosexuals been given the rights.
Original post by jackdaubs
Do you think gay people are allowed to have an opinion that incest and paedophilia are not okay?
Do you accept that there are qualitative differences between homosexuality on the one hand, and incest and paedophilia on the other?
Do you accept that there are qualitative differences between homosexuality on the one hand, and incest and paedophilia on the other?
Of course everyone is allowed to have an opinion that it is not okay, even peadophiles themselves.
Yes I do, although a minor is involved in peadophilia & it turns out to be a clash of rights but in incest, whats stopping them from being accepted as two consenting adults? I also accept the fact that there is one overall claim; the rights of having any sexual orientation on the basis that we are all different and those committing incest and peadophilia can easily campaign under that right for the same reasons homosexuals do.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by jackdaubs
This is not about physical health issues (though there are obviously physiological issues that can be caused by inbreeding). My argument against incest is exclusively about the damage it causes to the family unit, the tears it causes in the social fabric and in family cohesion, the confusion and hurt that clearly results from such relationships.
I don't care whether the couple is a brother and a sister, or two brothers, or father-daughter or mother-son. I don't care whether they can have children or not. My position is wholly based on the social damage, the damage to families, that results from such relationships.
Now, you might say that's life, that they are permitted to do that. And I might come to a different opinion. But whatever that opinion is, incest is clearly different from homosexuality in that there is no family dynamic involved in homosexuality.
Again, we might both look at the evidence and come to different opinions, but it is not hypocritical for me to have a different opinion to you on whether and how much damage to family units, to cohesion, can be caused by incestuous relationships, and it's not hypocritical for us to differ on whether it is a legitimate area for the state to regulate
I don't care whether the couple is a brother and a sister, or two brothers, or father-daughter or mother-son. I don't care whether they can have children or not. My position is wholly based on the social damage, the damage to families, that results from such relationships.
Now, you might say that's life, that they are permitted to do that. And I might come to a different opinion. But whatever that opinion is, incest is clearly different from homosexuality in that there is no family dynamic involved in homosexuality.
Again, we might both look at the evidence and come to different opinions, but it is not hypocritical for me to have a different opinion to you on whether and how much damage to family units, to cohesion, can be caused by incestuous relationships, and it's not hypocritical for us to differ on whether it is a legitimate area for the state to regulate
Same tears and family issues can happen in gay marriages. In certain countries, people are executed, or they're forced out of their homes and end up living in sewers etc.
Big 'what if' arguement there. What if my dad/mum doesn't like that I'm gay? What if my dad/mum doesn't like who I bring home? What if my dad/mum doesn't approve of me and my sister? What if we're both really immature and break up with each other and hate each other for it? what if, what if. What if my family is racist and when I bring home a person of *insert ethnicity* they disown me?
"Oh hey stranger. I'm not going to allow you two to be in a relationship. I don't know who you both are, but, it might cause family issues. Just do as I say, I know better than you
" What a strong arguement.
No, it is hypocritical. Looking at a bunch of adult couples and going "yes yes, no, yes yes"
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ChickenMadness
Same tears and family issues can happen in gay marriages
How? Your parents might not approve of it, but that is fundamentally different from if you are one of two children your parents have, and you start a relationship with your brother.
Being gay and having gay relationships, your parents might not approve (though in this day and age, that is increasingly rare). But if your parents only have two boys, and they suddenly start a gay relationship? That would be devastating to the family unit.
What if my dad/mum doesn't like that I'm gay? What if my dad/mum doesn't like who I bring home? What if my dad/mum doesn't approve of me and my sister?
The former wouldn't destroy the family unit in the way the latter would.
Not it is hypocritical. Looking at a bunch of adult couples and going "yes yes, no, yes yes"
Look, I'm very happy for us to have different opinions, for us both to look at incest and come to different conclusions about whether it is damaging, to what extent, whether it is legitimate and justifiable for the state to regulate that area of family relationships.
It is not "Yes, no, yes, yes". It is saying that in the case of incest, there are certain and particular elements that leads one to believe that it is justifiable for the state to regulate it. A gay man, as much as any straight man, could look at all those elements, and simply come to a different conclusion to you.
What is off-putting is when you say it's a matter of hypocrisy for a gay person to disagree with you on incest, when there is clearly an element (the element of family dynamic) that is simply not present in gay relationships. To say that a gay person can't look at this situation, and based on their political ideology, their life experience, their views of sexuality and family dynamics, come to a different opinion to yours without being a hypocrite, is offensive, particularly when they are saying it has nothing to do with sexuality and their view is identical whether it is a sister and a brother, or two brothers.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ChickenMadness
No, it is hypocritical.Looking at a bunch of adult couples and going "yes yes, no, yes yes"
No, it is hypocritical.Looking at a bunch of adult couples and going "yes yes, no, yes yes"
And just to underline, you are getting confused and obsessing over the particulars again. We are back to Drug A and Drug B
Say you have Drug A and Drug B, and the government is looking at liberalising the laws and legalising these substances following a medical review.
The anti-drug lobby says that Drug A is physically addictive and causes impotence. When the medical review studies the drug's properties, they find this is absolute nonsense and that it is not physically addictive and does not cause impotence. The government duly enacts legislation legalising Drug A.
The anti-drug lobby says that Drug B is physically addictive and causes impotence. When the medical review board looks into Drug B, they find it is physically addictive and causes impotence. But the pro-drug lobby says that because the same argument was made in both cases, Drug B must be legalised and anyone who disagrees is a hypocrite.
The anti-drug lobby says that Drug A is physically addictive and causes impotence. When the medical review studies the drug's properties, they find this is absolute nonsense and that it is not physically addictive and does not cause impotence. The government duly enacts legislation legalising Drug A.
The anti-drug lobby says that Drug B is physically addictive and causes impotence. When the medical review board looks into Drug B, they find it is physically addictive and causes impotence. But the pro-drug lobby says that because the same argument was made in both cases, Drug B must be legalised and anyone who disagrees is a hypocrite.
Now, you might disagree with the medical review board's conclusions, but you can't call them hypocrites for saying Drug B should remain illegal while drug A becomes legal. You could only say they were hypocrites if they came to the same conclusions about Drug A and Drug B, but nonehteless said Drug B should remain illegal. If they come to different conclusions, whether you agree or disagree with the conclusions, they are axiomatically not hypocritical
If you continue to bang on about anyone who comes to a different conclusion to you being a hypocrite, then it's clear you're not genuinely interested in differing opinions and debates, you're just obsessed with your own opinion and slating and insulting anyone who disagrees (at least, insulting them if they're gay. You're made quite clear it's okay if they're straight to disagree on this issue)
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by AlexKay99
What if the government adopts a more relaxed system similar to the one in Thailand? What if a new clause be made to legalise peadophiles if they get consent or at least not persecute them? There are ways around everything.The law is a tricky thing, once something is passed then others can use that clause to their advantage and they will be in a good chance. Eg: homosexuals claim they cannot change and it is just the way they are and they should not be discriminated against because they have rights. Similarly peadophiles and those committing incest can claim the same thing on the bases of homosexuals been given the rights.
You cannot commit homosexuality. You cannot commit heterosexuality. You cannot commit paedophilia. You are or are not homosexual. You are or are not heterosexual. You are or are not a paedophile.
You have had sex or you have not had sex. You have or you have not committed rape.
Abuse of children is abuse of children. If it is legalised, it will still be abuse of children. A more sophisticated legal framework may be developed to differentiate consensual relationships and abusive relationships; that is possible.
Paedophiles may or may not be able to change, but they can control whether they rape or otherwise abuse anyone. By not committing rape. Just like everyone else.
Gay men and women do not have the right to rape. They have the right to conduct mutually consensual sexual relationships without state interference, just like heterosexual men and women. Paedophiles will not gain the right to rape. They may gain the right to easily access psychological help and support.
Chicken, have you ever seen the fall-out from half-siblings who fell in love by mistake?
It works completely differently from you bringing home a girl to meet the parents, whom your parents hate.
It works completely differently from you bringing home a girl to meet the parents, whom your parents hate.
Original post by Octopus_Garden
I'm not sure you understood me.
You cannot commit homosexuality. You cannot commit heterosexuality. You cannot commit paedophilia. You are or are not homosexual. You are or are not heterosexual. You are or are not a paedophile.
You have had sex or you have not had sex. You have or you have not committed rape.
Abuse of children is abuse of children. If it is legalised, it will still be abuse of children. A more sophisticated legal framework may be developed to differentiate consensual relationships and abusive relationships; that is possible.
Paedophiles may or may not be able to change, but they can control whether they rape or otherwise abuse anyone. By not committing rape. Just like everyone else.
Gay men and women do not have the right to rape. They have the right to conduct mutually consensual sexual relationships without state interference, just like heterosexual men and women. Paedophiles will not gain the right to rape. They may gain the right to easily access psychological help and support.
You cannot commit homosexuality. You cannot commit heterosexuality. You cannot commit paedophilia. You are or are not homosexual. You are or are not heterosexual. You are or are not a paedophile.
You have had sex or you have not had sex. You have or you have not committed rape.
Abuse of children is abuse of children. If it is legalised, it will still be abuse of children. A more sophisticated legal framework may be developed to differentiate consensual relationships and abusive relationships; that is possible.
Paedophiles may or may not be able to change, but they can control whether they rape or otherwise abuse anyone. By not committing rape. Just like everyone else.
Gay men and women do not have the right to rape. They have the right to conduct mutually consensual sexual relationships without state interference, just like heterosexual men and women. Paedophiles will not gain the right to rape. They may gain the right to easily access psychological help and support.
No I think you misunderstood me. I'm not propagating their rights I'm merely stating that whether it is considered rape or not can easily change in the future and whether you think its rape, that will be your opinion.
Some people feel homosexuals should be persecuted but they are not. That is how they feel but this is how it is for the time being.
Also, incest may be committed between two consenting adults, how do you argue against that if homosexuals are accepted?
Original post by Octopus_Garden
Chicken, have you ever seen the fall-out from half-siblings who fell in love by mistake?
It works completely differently from you bringing home a girl to meet the parents, whom your parents hate.
It works completely differently from you bringing home a girl to meet the parents, whom your parents hate.
Excellent point. It is qualitatively different. And that is quite obvious from the fact that you can have heterosexual and homosexual incest. Another fundamental difference is that homosexuality is a sexual orientation, incest is not.
But even if there are elements that are arguable, what I find most offensive is that idea that gay people have no right to an opinion on incest unless ChickenMadness finds it acceptable.
And this is a view I've commonly heard amongst extreme right homophobes, that gay people have some kind of unique obligation to be in favour of incest.
Original post by AlexKay99
No I think you misunderstood me. I'm not propagating their rights I'm merely stating that whether it is considered rape or not can easily change in the future and whether you think its rape, that will be your opinion.
Some people feel homosexuals should be persecuted but they are not. That is how they feel but this is how it is for the time being.
Also, incest may be committed between two consenting adults, how do you argue against that if homosexuals are accepted?
Some people feel homosexuals should be persecuted but they are not. That is how they feel but this is how it is for the time being.
Also, incest may be committed between two consenting adults, how do you argue against that if homosexuals are accepted?
I have explained my views on "consenting adults" up thread. Suffice it to say, in order to not be founded on a historic power imbalance, they would have to meet each other for the first time as adults.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by AlexKay99
Some people feel homosexuals should be persecuted but they are not. That is how they feel but this is how it is for the time being
Some people feel homosexuals should be persecuted but they are not. That is how they feel but this is how it is for the time being
The fundamental difference being that a child is incapable of giving consent. Consent by itself is not sufficient, but it is necessary.
Also, incest may be committed between two consenting adults, how do you argue against that if homosexuals are accepted?
Easily. Incest and homosexuality are qualitatively different. Incest involves a family dynamic element that homosexuality does not, and therefore necessitates it being argued on its own merits. The fact it involves consent is insufficient
Again, anyone who understands the fairly elementary distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions should understand why it is entirely justifiable for a gay person to be opposed to incest.
If you want to know more about why homosexuality is fine and incest is not, read this article
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2010/12/incest_is_cancer.html
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Octopus_Garden
The legal definition of rape may be loosened, but I doubt it.
I have explained my views on "consenting adults" up thread. Suffice it to say, in order to not be founded on a historic power imbalance, they would have to meet each other for the first time as adults.
I have explained my views on "consenting adults" up thread. Suffice it to say, in order to not be founded on a historic power imbalance, they would have to meet each other for the first time as adults.
You can never know what will happen in the future, if you told the people living a ages ago that homosexuality will be legalised, they'd probably say the same thing.
Sorry I haven't read your earlier posts but as long as they had not committed incest while minors/or on a minor and waited until they are adults then that should be acceptable according to our current laws of right towards freedom of sexual orientation etc.
Original post by jackdaubs
The fundamental difference being that a child is incapable of giving consent. Consent by itself is not sufficient, but it is necessary.
Easily. Incest and homosexuality are qualitatively different. Incest involves a family dynamic element that homosexuality does not, and therefore necessitates it being argued on its own merits. The fact it involves consent is insufficient
Again, anyone who understands the fairly elementary distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions should understand why it is entirely justifiable for a gay person to be opposed to incest.
If you want to know more about why homosexuality is fine and incest is not, read this article
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2010/12/incest_is_cancer.html
Easily. Incest and homosexuality are qualitatively different. Incest involves a family dynamic element that homosexuality does not, and therefore necessitates it being argued on its own merits. The fact it involves consent is insufficient
Again, anyone who understands the fairly elementary distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions should understand why it is entirely justifiable for a gay person to be opposed to incest.
If you want to know more about why homosexuality is fine and incest is not, read this article
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2010/12/incest_is_cancer.html
That is exactly my point and the judge's point, consent may become sufficient if the laws change in the future for example; a psychological study proves a child within a certain age is capable of giving consent etc
If you infer that incest may not be committed because of the risk of genetic mutations, morality etc then that can be changed as well. Contraception and abortion, as we know is widespread. It may be legalised on the condition that they do not reproduce but adopt etc
Original post by AlexKay99
If you infer that incest may not be committed because of the risk of genetic mutations, morality etc
If you infer that incest may not be committed because of the risk of genetic mutations, morality etc
I've repeatedly said my position on incest is based on the damage to family units, the cracks in family cohesion, and so on. I don't care about genetic issues, I don't care whether it is sister and brother, or two brothers, or father-daughter or mother-son. This is about the cohesion of family units.
then that can be changed as well.
It may well. But that's an entirely different argument from saying, "Gay people must support incest because adult incest involves two consenting adults".
Again, that confuses necessary and sufficient conditions.
From my perspective and in my view, for a sexual act to be legal, it is necessary that involves consenting adults, it does not involve physical harm and it does not undermine existing family units.
That is an entirely legitimate position to take. The fact that something has been legalised before is not a serious, intellectual argument to say that everything else should be legalised in the future
Contraception and abortion, as we know is widespread
As I said, the inbred child argument is irrelevant to me. That's not why I oppose incest.
Surely "paedophilia" is just the sexual attraction to children (which someone cannot help), as opposed to acting on said attraction (which would obviously be unacceptable)?
Original post by AlexKay99
You can never know what will happen in the future, if you told the people living a ages ago that homosexuality will be legalised, they'd probably say the same thing.
It's unclear exactly what you are arguing. Are you saying it's possible that these things will be legalised in future? Sure, anything is possible theoretically.
Are you saying that because homosexuality has been legalised in the past, these other things should be legalised in the futre? That is not a serious position
Original post by jackdaubs
It's unclear exactly what you are arguing. Are you saying it's possible that these things will be legalised in future? Sure, anything is possible theoretically.
Are you saying that because homosexuality has been legalised in the past, these other things should be legalised in the futre? That is not a serious position
Are you saying that because homosexuality has been legalised in the past, these other things should be legalised in the futre? That is not a serious position
Bringing back to the topic in question. I'm merely agreeing with the judge that it is possible, not that it should!
Quick Reply
Latest
Posted 7 minutes ago
Can I do economics degree without a level maths?Last reply 10 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 22 minutes ago
Government Social Research Placement interview questionsLast reply 28 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 43 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 54 minutes ago
Standard Chartered Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 54 minutes ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 56 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 57 minutes ago
narrowly missing offer conditionsLast reply 1 hour ago
St dominics, henrietta barnett, RMS, parmiters or girls grammar??Last reply 1 hour ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Trending
Last reply 56 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 56 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
