Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Australian judge says incest and paedophilia may no longer be a taboo Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    To call it hypocrisy is blatant homophobia. Are you saying that gay people have some obligation to agree with incest, when homosexuality and incest are completely different (given you can have incest that is hetero or homo in nature)?

    Are you seriously saying that gay people who believe that it shouldn't be an issue for two consenting, adults to have sex behind closed doors, have an obligation to agree with any sexual practices, no matter how different from homosexuality?
    yep. Hypocrisy. That certain people can have sex and others can't. Outlined it pretty well in your own post.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    yep. Hypocrisy. That certain people can have sex and others can't. Outlined it pretty well in your own post.
    That's absolute nonsense.

    There is an obvious and clear difference between homosexuality and paedophilia.

    Homosexualit involves consenting adults having sex. Paedophilia involves raping a young child.

    If you seriously believe that homosexuality and paedophilia are analogous, then one has to question why you have such a relaxed view about men raping children? Why do you think that is okay?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    That's absolute nonsense.

    There is an obvious and clear difference between homosexuality and paedophilia.

    Homosexualit involves consenting adults having sex. Paedophilia involves raping a young child.

    If you seriously believe that homosexuality and paedophilia are analogous, then one has to question why you have such a relaxed view about men raping children? Why do you think that is okay?
    mate. I said incest. Read.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    If you seriously believe that homosexuality and paedophilia are analogous, then one has to question why you have such a relaxed view about men raping children? Why do you think that is okay?

    Keep it gender neutral please... women have been convicted of paedophilia as well.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    mate. I said incest. Read.
    Do you accept that homosexuality and incest are not the same thing? That homosexual and heterosexual incest can exist, and therefore it is obviously qualitatively different?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewJoeCarr)
    Keep it gender neutral please... women have been convicted of paedophilia as well.
    Indeed, I take your point. Apologies
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    There have seemed to me that many judges are out of touch with the world. This Australian one is yet another example.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    Do you accept that homosexuality and incest are not the same thing? That homosexual and heterosexual incest can exist, and therefore it is obviously qualitatively different?
    Yes they're different.

    Homosex was different from the norm and people argued for it. And some of the same people argue against incest, which is different from the norm. You're one of them aren't you?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    Yes they're different.

    Homosex was different from the norm and people argued for it. And some of the same people argue against incest, which is different from the norm. You're one of them aren't you?
    The fact that the arguments proffered against them are the same doesn't mean that because the argument was accepted in one case, it has to be accepted in the other. That is a logical fallacy which even someone with an average intellectual mind should be able to spot.

    The fundamental issue here is that you seem to be saying that gay people are not allowed to disagree with incest, even though they may well have perfectly logical arguments about why incest is damaging to family units. The fact that you believe that it's okay for heterosexuals to have this opinion, but not okay for gay people, when there are substantive arguments related to the damage caused by incest which gay and straight people can legitimately hold, is discriminatory.

    Let me give you another example. Are you saying that a gay person is obligated to agree with consensual cannibalism? If two people get together, and one consents to the other murdering and eating them, do you believe that gay people must accept and agree with it?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewJoeCarr)
    Maybe banning procreation, steps being taken to avoid any chance of children through removal of ovaries or testicles (Just tying the tubes is not 100% safe, conception has occurred before after tying the tubes and an egg or sperm has slipped out) having the Doctors notes to say it is safe then ok. I mean in the future when the genome is unlocked fully brothers and sisters should be safely able to have babies if the child's genome is artificially 'mixed' to avoid deformities.
    Well, this is the problem. You will never get to the point of being able to regulate incest relations because it's far more morally problematic to enforce the use of contraception/abortion than to legalise incest. And you sure as hell are never going to be able to forcefully remove ovaries or testicles.But I guess you can equally say: 'should we allow those with genetic disorders themselves to procreate when the chance of offspring with deformities is also increased?'

    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    Yes they're different.

    Homosex was different from the norm and people argued for it. And some of the same people argue against incest, which is different from the norm. You're one of them aren't you?
    So your argument is that if you argue for something outside the norm, you should argue for everything else outside the norm? You don't realise how ridiculous that sounds? :lol:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    The fact that the arguments proffered against them are the same doesn't mean that because the argument was accepted in one case, it has to be accepted in the other. That is a logical fallacy which even someone with an average intellectual mind should be able to spot.

    The fundamental issue here is that you seem to be saying that gay people are not allowed to disagree with incest, even though they may well have perfectly logical arguments about why incest is damaging to family units. The fact that you believe that it's okay for heterosexuals to have this opinion, but not okay for gay people, when there are substantive arguments related to the damage caused by incest which gay and straight people can legitimately hold, is discriminatory.

    Let me give you another example. Are you saying that a gay person is obligated to agree with consensual cannibalism? If two people get together, and one consents to the other murdering and eating them, do you believe that gay people must accept and agree with it?
    Being gay, transgender, whatever, rejected from society. You should be able to put yourself in the shoes of a person who practices incest. And if you still want to discriminate against them then you're just a hypocrite tbh.

    (Original post by Xotol)
    Well, this is the problem. You will never get to the point of being able to regulate incest relations because it's far more morally problematic to enforce the use of contraception/abortion than to legalise incest. And you sure as hell are never going to be able to forcefully remove ovaries or testicles.But I guess you can equally say: 'should we allow those with genetic disorders themselves to procreate when the chance of offspring with deformities is also increased?'



    So your argument is that if you argue for something outside the norm, you should argue for everything else outside the norm? You don't realise how ridiculous that sounds?
    :lol:
    nah. But with incest ye.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    Being gay, transgender, whatever, rejected from society. You should be able to put yourself in the shoes of a person who practices incest. And if you still want to discriminate against them then you're just a hypocrite tbh.
    I'm sorry, the only discrimination here is you saying that gay people are not allowed to have a certain opinion, simply because you agree with this practice, but straight people can. That's bull****

    If it's okay for straight people to have this opinion, why not gay people? There are strong arguments against incest that have nothing to do with sexuality, and I think it's the height of arrogance and ignorance for you to say that gay people are somehow obligated to be in favour of any sexual practices with which general society may disagree, simply because you agree with it. That's homophobic crap

    This article lays out very clearly why incest and homosexuality are different

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health...is_cancer.html
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xotol)
    Well, this is the problem. You will never get to the point of being able to regulate incest relations because it's far more morally problematic to enforce the use of contraception/abortion than to legalise incest. And you sure as hell are never going to be able to forcefully remove ovaries or testicles.But I guess you can equally say: 'should we allow those with genetic disorders themselves to procreate when the chance of offspring with deformities is also increased?'
    You'd be able to regulate them easily as those who have taken the precautions would have a license to say it's ok. I don't see how that's a hard concept to grasp... It's not like it has to be enforced... if they're on the register as being ok to F then there shouldn't be any issue.

    There'd be no 'forcing' anyone to do anything... it'd have to be done voluntarily... otherwise they'd be breaking the law... and get arrested...

    As for those with genetic deformities, that's a different issue... what is it with people combining separate things like they're the same...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xotol)
    So your argument is that if you argue for something outside the norm, you should argue for everything else outside the norm? You don't realise how ridiculous that sounds? :lol:
    Well said, dude. You got to the nub of the issue.

    It's homophobic bullcrap to say that gay people must be in favour of all sexual practices outside the norm, but it's okay for straight people to be against them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    I'm sorry, the only discrimination here is you saying that gay people are not allowed to have a certain opinion, simply because you agree with this practice, but straight people can. That's bull****

    If it's okay for straight people to have this opinion, why not gay people? There are strong arguments against incest that have nothing to do with sexuality, and I think it's the height of arrogance and ignorance for you to say that gay people are somehow obligated to be in favour of any sexual practices with which general society may disagree, simply because you agree with it. That's homophobic crap

    This article lays out very clearly why incest and homosexuality are different

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health...is_cancer.html
    I didn't say ANYONE isn't allowed to have a certain opinion.

    What I actually said is that people who defend gay sex but attack incest = hypocrites.

    It's a lack of empathy issue. But gay people are in the best position to know what being attacked for their sexual orientation is like.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    What I actually said is that people who defend gay sex but attack incest = hypocrites.

    It's a lack of empathy issue.
    That's bull****, for the reasons Xotol clearly pointed out.

    There are substantive reasons why incest is different from homosexuality, why incest isn't simply a case of consenting adults.

    And yet, your position is that because you agree with incest, gay people have to agree with it or they're hypocrites. Only gay people are hypocrites when they take the position that it is a legitimate object of state policy to regulate the damage caused by sexual relationships between family members.

    To be honest, I think you're the hypocrite, you're the only who lacks empathy and seems to believe that whatever sexual practices you agree with that are outside the norm, gay people have to believe in them too. That's bull****, and anyone with even slightly above average intellect would be able to spot the logical fallacy
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    I didn't say ANYONE isn't allowed to have a certain opinion.

    What I actually said is that people who defend gay sex but attack incest = hypocrites.

    It's a lack of empathy issue. But gay people are in the best position to know what being attacked for their sexual orientation is like.
    Homosexuality and incest are different. Your argument only works if they are identical, which they are simply not.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    That's bull****, for the reasons Xotol clearly pointed out.

    There are substantive reasons why incest is different from homosexuality, why incest isn't simply a case of consenting adults.

    And yet, your position is that because you agree with incest, gay people have to agree with it or they're hypocrites. Only gay people are hypocrites when they take the position that it is a legitimate object of state policy to regulate the damage caused by sexual relationships between family members.

    To be honest, I think you're the hypocrite, you're the only who lacks empathy and seems to believe that whatever sexual practices you agree with that are outside the norm, gay people have to believe in them too. That's bull****, and anyone with even slightly above average intellect would be able to spot the logical fallacy
    I think if 2 people love each other. You're a bit of a **** to tell them, "actually no. Not happening." lmao.

    It's pretty much a case of 2 consenting adults being told no.

    Again. Didn't say you have to believe in them. Just said it's hypocritical.

    The health risk thing is silly since there are health risks involved for everyone. Lesbians are probably the least at risk from anything.
    It's not against the law for multiple sclerosis carriers to have children. If they have kids theres a high chance the child is going to have a very bad life. Nobody is telling them no. No?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    yep. Hypocrisy. That certain people can have sex and others can't. Outlined it pretty well in your own post.
    There is no reason to assume that two unrelated gay men (or women) have a sexual relationship that was, from the start, built on an imbalance of power and abuse.

    With two family members, there is. If we look at the very article linked to in this thread, the adult encounters came years after the brother had raped his sister as a child. They may have seemed consensual on the surface, but the background places doubt on that!

    I don't support relationships between schoolteachers and school pupils, or anyone in a position of authority having a relationship with a junior. incest has all those issues, and more.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Octopus_Garden)
    There is no reason to assume that two unrelated gay men (or women) have a sexual relationship that was, from the start, built on an imbalance of power and abuse.

    With two family members, there is. If we look at the very article linked to in this thread, the adult encounters came years after the brother had raped his sister as a child. They may have seemed consensual on the surface, but the background places doubt on that!
    Thats a different issue. The one I'm talking about is 2 consenting adults being told no.

    Anyone can be raped or be in an abusive relationship. It's not exclusive to family members.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.