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

Announcements
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    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.



    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



    As I said, the inbred child argument is irrelevant to me. That's not why I oppose incest.
    I'm sorry I haven't been following your earlier arguments so I may not fully comprehend but family units may be undermined by other issues as well such as normal relationships.

    And I am not arguing "Gay people must support incest because adult incest involves two consenting adults". What gay people support is irrelevant to me.
    I'm guessing you are not very familiar with the ways of law. Once a certain clause is passed/agreed upon (Eg: Homosexual rights to freely mainstreaming in society) then everybody else who has some association with that law being passed (Eg: the right to freedom of sexual orientation) can campaign under it on the basis that one case was approved.

    In my view, particularly in relation to incest, we are discriminating against them when gay people are allowed to their freedom of sexual orientation.
    Technically, to be totally fair, we must either accept everyone under that right or no one.

    Think of it this way; a student gets in trouble with the teacher for not doing homework, that student says sorry and is excused. You also get in trouble for the same reason and say sorry but you are not excused and are punished. How is this fair?

    And NO I do not support peadophiles or those committing incest. I'm not a homophobe but I'm neither am I a supporter because I prefer to remain neutral.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Well this is scarcely surprising in a country like Australia, with some very unusual habits in both the major communities.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexKay99)
    I'm guessing you are not very familiar with the ways of law.
    That's a bit ironic, given I have a law degree.

    Once a certain clause is passed/agreed upon
    You mean when legislation is enacted?

    then everybody else who has some association with that law being passed (Eg: the right to freedom of sexual orientation) can campaign under it on the basis that one case was approved.
    What does that even mean? I'm not being mean, but it's quite clear that you don't really have a clue when it comes to law. Express yourself in legal terms so I can understand what you're trying to say. Or perhaps accept that your understanding of the lawmaking process and statutory interpretation is rather flawed.

    In my view, particularly in relation to incest, we are discriminating against them when gay people are allowed to their freedom of sexual orientation. Technically, to be totally fair, we must either accept everyone under that right or no one.
    That's nonsensical. Such issues are assessed on a case-by-base basis, in fact issues like abortion and homosexuality are almost always initiated as single-issue private members bills in the commons on precisely the basis that such enactments should be incremental, not sweeping. The fact that homosexuality was decriminalised, and homosexuality is a sexual issue, does not therefore mean that any form of sex that is currently banned must be legalised.

    How is this fair?
    It's completely fair and consistent in that incest and homosexuality are completely different issues.

    If homosexuality and incest were identical, then of course there would be an argument. But given they're not identical, that argument is fatuous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexKay99)
    Think of it this way; a student gets in trouble with the teacher for not doing homework, that student says sorry and is excused. You also get in trouble for the same reason and say sorry but you are not excused and are punished. How is this fair?
    A more analogical example would be if another student gets in trouble for not doing their homework and is excused, and then you don't do your homework, but draw a **** and balls on the paper and give it to your teacher, and then complain that you are being punished while the other boy is not.

    They are completely different situations.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    A more analogical example would be if another student gets in trouble for not doing their homework and is excused, and then you don't do your homework, but draw a **** and balls on the paper and give it to your teacher, and then complain that you are being punished while the other boy is not.

    They are completely different situations.
    Nope. I'm talking about the teacher excusing one student and not the other at the same time. The teacher is being biased.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    That's a bit ironic, given I have a law degree.



    You mean when legislation is enacted?



    What does that even mean? I'm not being mean, but it's quite clear that you don't really have a clue when it comes to law. Express yourself in legal terms so I can understand what you're trying to say. Or perhaps accept that your understanding of the lawmaking process and statutory interpretation is rather flawed.



    That's nonsensical. Such issues are assessed on a case-by-base basis, in fact issues like abortion and homosexuality are almost always initiated as single-issue private members bills in the commons on precisely the basis that such enactments should be incremental, not sweeping. The fact that homosexuality was decriminalised, and homosexuality is a sexual issue, does not therefore mean that any form of sex that is currently banned must be legalised.



    It's completely fair and consistent in that incest and homosexuality are completely different issues.

    If homosexuality and incest were identical, then of course there would be an argument. But given they're not identical, that argument is fatuous.
    Wow, you have a law degree and your arguing against me? An A Level student? I love the way you think your right because a piece of paper says you have a degree in law. However, don't mind me, since I never claimed I'm experienced, only that I enjoy reading it sometimes, I'm obviously an idiot because I have no degree.
    But my mistake, the reason why I simplified my language was to help you understand seen as I thought your arguments incredibly weak and the fact you misread me a few times didn't work in your favour but if you'd like me to be more judicial then fine.

    Once a court rules in favour of a new legislation then that legislation is to be applied to all parties in concern, not purely homosexuals, especially when it concerns human rights. In this case, not every case should be assessed individually because the 'right to sexual orientation' must be applied to ALL orientations.

    They DO NOT have to be identical cases to be considered under ONE human right if they have that key issue in common.

    Yes paedophilia involves a clash of rights but we see this everyday because the system is flawed. In the case of abortion, some are pro-choice while others state that the right to life is more important than that of choice. But if all rights a equal, then we are in a pickle! What about the right of sexual orientation VS a child's right to be protected?
    * I do hope the majority of solicitors are not like you because in that case, if I ever need legal aid, I'm representing myself!
    I'm sure the judge will agree with me and as far as I'm concerned, he is more experienced than you.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    That's a bit ironic, given I have a law degree.



    You mean when legislation is enacted?



    What does that even mean? I'm not being mean, but it's quite clear that you don't really have a clue when it comes to law. Express yourself in legal terms so I can understand what you're trying to say. Or perhaps accept that your understanding of the lawmaking process and statutory interpretation is rather flawed.



    That's nonsensical. Such issues are assessed on a case-by-base basis, in fact issues like abortion and homosexuality are almost always initiated as single-issue private members bills in the commons on precisely the basis that such enactments should be incremental, not sweeping. The fact that homosexuality was decriminalised, and homosexuality is a sexual issue, does not therefore mean that any form of sex that is currently banned must be legalised.



    It's completely fair and consistent in that incest and homosexuality are completely different issues.

    If homosexuality and incest were identical, then of course there would be an argument. But given they're not identical, that argument is fatuous.
    Might I add that so far from what I have understood, you are trying to tell me that incest, homosexuality and peadophilia should not be considered the same.
    And theoretically, yes they are not as they are all various sexual orientations but they are SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS.
    And for that reason, one right and consideration must be applied to all because it would be biased not to. As well as together with other observances such as the harming of children. All sides must be pleased to the furthest extent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexKay99)
    Wow, you have a law degree and your arguing against me? An A Level student? I love the way you think your right because a piece of paper says you have a degree in law.
    I don't think I'm right, I am right. And the reason I know I am right is because I spent three years studying law, at a level of depth and complexity that an A-level student can't even imagine. You, on the other hand, make basic errors about how legislation works.

    And you wonder why I trust my legal knowledge over yours?

    Once a court rules in favour of a new legislation then that legislation is to be applied to all parties in concern, not purely homosexuals, especially when it concerns human rights
    :lol: Once a court "rules in favour of new legislation"? Legislation is passed by parliament, not by courts.

    And no, legislation doesn't "apply to all parties in concern", whatever that means. Legislation applies to whoever parliament has explicitly said it applies to.

    In this case, not every case should be assessed individually because the 'right to sexual orientation' must be applied to ALL orientations.
    What is this "right to sexual orientation"? What act is it contained in?

    And why must it be applied to all orientations?

    They DO NOT have to be identical cases to be considered under ONE human right if they have that key issue in common.
    And what human right does raping your 8 year old son come under?

    But if all rights a equal, then we are in a pickle! What about the right of sexual orientation VS a child's right to be protected?
    I'm sorry but I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I wonder if you even know what you're arguing? Before you were saying this "right to sexual orientation" trumps everything, and now you're saying this "right to sexual orientation" is trumped by a child's right to be protected?

    And apparently, a child's right to be protected trumps the "right to sexual orientation" even when the sex act doesn't involve a child?

    * I do hope the majority of solicitors are not like you because in that case, if I ever need legal aid, I'm representing myself!
    If you ever need someone to represent then, then you'd want someone who actually understands the law. Not, for example, someone who believes that the courts "rule in favour of new legislation"

    If you believe that homosexuality must be banned because paedophilia and incest are, then you are deeply homophobic and obviously confused by even basic category distinctions

    I'm sure the judge will agree with me and as far as I'm concerned, he is more experienced than you.
    It's quite obvious you don't even understand what the court case was about, let alone whether the judge would agree with you. And it was in an Australian court, not an English one
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexKay99)
    And theoretically, yes they are not as they are all various sexual orientations but they are SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS.
    No they're not. Incest is not a sexual orientation, it's an act.

    And for that reason, one right and consideration must be applied to all because it would be biased not to.
    Why is it wrong to treat different things differently, and like things alike?

    As well as together with other observances such as the harming of children.
    How does a homosexual act between two consenting adults harm children?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    No they're not. Incest is not a sexual orientation, it's an act.



    Why is it wrong to treat different things differently, and like things alike?



    How does a homosexual act between two consenting adults harm children?
    1) Incest is a sexual act. That's your opinion and it is very much arguable. Those committing incest won't describe themselves as sexual perverts but will say they cannot help their feelings. Just as homosexuals do.

    2) Yet again you misunderstood me, I was not refering to homosexuals harming children but peadophiles.

    3) I did not say its wrong I merely said its wrong to treat every case extremely differently like it has no similarities effectively leading to potential bias.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexKay99)
    1) Incest is a sexual act
    Yes, that's exactly what I said. You said it's a sexual orientation. Wake up

    2) Yet again you misunderstood me, I was not refering to homosexuals harming children but peadophiles.
    So you concede that homosexuals don't harm children, but you say homosexuality should be banned on the same basis as paedophilia? You're not explaining yourself very clearly, though I suspect that is a function of your ideas not being particularly clear in your own head.

    3) I did not say its wrong I merely said its wrong to treat every case extremely differently like it has no similarities effectively leading to potential bias
    You keep mentioning bias. Whose bias are you talking about? Parliament? The courts? Whose bias are you criticising?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    He's right. Incest should be perfectly legal between two consenting adults.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    Yes, that's exactly what I said. You said it's a sexual orientation. Wake up
    I was quoting you there, not agreeing with you. Stop misreading my posts. And yes, I'm just an A Level student who doesn't even study law for A level and I may make mistakes in the way I phrase things but the fact that you know lots of technical law terms does not strengthen your arguments.


    So you concede that homosexuals don't harm children, but you say homosexuality should be banned on the same basis as paedophilia? You're not explaining yourself very clearly, though I suspect that is a function of your ideas not being particularly clear in your own head.

    Again misread. I really wonder what your grades were because you probably often misread your questions in exams. I said under the law, everybody should be treated equality so if homosexuals are allowed to mainstream and those committing incest (who are also two consenting adults) are not, (also we must no forget peadophiles too have rights which they are capable of arguing) in my opinion, if society wants to make it totally fair, either all should be banned or all should be accepted. BUT homosexuals have now been accepted and as the judge said, there is more chance for the rest to be accepted in the future.



    You keep mentioning bias. Whose bias are you talking about? Parliament? The courts? Whose bias are you criticising?
    Remember the analogical 'teacher situation' I described to you? THAT bias. The bias that if one case is recognised under a human right, why shouldn't a similar case be recognised under it as well? (Eg: Incest- if its between consenting adults and its not 'technically' harming anybody vulnerable like children?) For now, peadophilia is considered a mental illness (just like homosexuality was once) but whats going to happen in time when it might be considered a sexual orientation? That is the issue of concern which the judge had highlighted.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This is not surprising at all, it is only part of the cultural war between those who support spiritual and traditional values and those who loathe all that is inherently higher and greater resulting in the complete inversion of true values and ideals. In other words, the raising of the victory flag of depravity and ignorance and the banner of degeneracy by those in power, catering almost exclusively to the lowest and most debased standards of taste and intelligence, apotheosis of the pathetic and hoarding of material objects and possessions with social corruption and immorality becoming so prevalent it becoming an integral component of all political institutions, as we have all seen with the child abuse that has been going on in Westminster, and still does. Atheist civil servants, who have an agenda are implementing these change, and they run the show.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    I don't think I'm right, I am right. And the reason I know I am right is because I spent three years studying law, at a level of depth and complexity that an A-level student can't even imagine. You, on the other hand, make basic errors about how legislation works.

    So your saying that the judge is wrong and your right? Because I'm merely agreeing with what the judge claimed and he said that in a few years incest and peadophilia may be legalised just like homosexuality was.

    And you wonder why I trust my legal knowledge over yours?



    :lol: Once a court "rules in favour of new legislation"? Legislation is passed by parliament, not by courts.

    And no, legislation doesn't "apply to all parties in concern", whatever that means. Legislation applies to whoever parliament has explicitly said it applies to.

    Ok, you got me, I'm not a know it all like you and I will make mistakes but these technical terms don't aid your argument and my underlying point is clear.
    Also, when a case is brought to court, say in the 70s a gay couple campaigned for their rights for the first time and they won the case. That instantly means a new legislation must be made and/or changed as a result of that win by parliament, as you state. Am I correct?




    What is this "right to sexual orientation"? What act is it contained in?

    And why must it be applied to all orientations?

    Peadophilia and incest in YOUR view is a sexual act of predatory nature (and actually, a few years ago many thought the same about homosexuals). But in THEIR view, its their sexual orientation and they can argue this just like homosexuals did.



    And what human right does raping your 8 year old son come under?



    I'm sorry but I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I wonder if you even know what you're arguing? Before you were saying this "right to sexual orientation" trumps everything, and now you're saying this "right to sexual orientation" is trumped by a child's right to be protected?

    Again misunderstood. Have you ever heard of a thing called the Clash of Rights? Its when human rights conflict with one another. And that is exactly what I'm arguing, there is no in-between. Like in the issue of abortion. I trust you know the pro-life/choice dilemma with abortion? I take no position in this peadophile vs child rights, I'm highlighting the fact that they both have rights which clash but it would technically be unfair to undermine either.

    And apparently, a child's right to be protected trumps the "right to sexual orientation" even when the sex act doesn't involve a child?
    NO. I think I'm being clear, your just reading it wrong like you keep doing.


    If you ever need someone to represent then, then you'd want someone who actually understands the law. Not, for example, someone who believes that the courts "rule in favour of new legislation"

    If you believe that homosexuality must be banned because paedophilia and incest are, then you are deeply homophobic and obviously confused by even basic category distinctions

    Like I explained in my other post, you misunderstood me AGAIN (I'm getting tired of this) I'm neutral on the subject, I stated that to be fair we must either totally reject all sexual orientations OR totally accept all. The only thing that is making your argument hold on is that you believe incest & peadophilia is not a sexual orientation but studies are undergoing to refute this so in the future, it may be considered as a sexual orientation and when it is, they will have the same rights as homosexuals. *I'm speaking in terms of the future, everything I'm stating is in those terms because it is what the judge has stated*

    These are just some of the studies suggesting so:
    http://magazine.good.is/articles/is-...jerry-sandusky


    It's quite obvious you don't even understand what the court case was about, let alone whether the judge would agree with you. And it was in an Australian court, not an English one
    It may be an Australian court but it concerns international law. Or do you think English peadophiles are different to Australian ones?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexKay99)
    the fact that you know lots of technical law terms does not strengthen your arguments
    Of course it does. If you want to make a legal argument, and don't understand basic legal principles, then where does that leave you?

    Remember the analogical 'teacher situation' I described to you?
    Yes, that teacher analogy you described was fundamentally flawed because homosexuality and paedophilia re not identical. If they were identical, you might have an argument, but they're not, so you don't.

    THAT bias.
    Whose bias!? You keep banging on about bias but don't say whose bias it is that you are complaining about.

    The bias that if one case is recognised under a human right, why shouldn't a similar case be recognised under it as well?
    Because in this case they're not similar.

    For example, sea water and fresh water are "similar", but you don't say it's "bias" to say that you want to drink fresh water but not sea water.

    The fact that paedophilia is a sexuality-related doesn't mean it has to be treated like another sexuality-related phenomenon, given paedophilia involves harming children and homosexuality does not.

    The idea that we have to ban homosexuality "to be fair to the paedophiles" is hare-brained and not very clever, and betrays a fundamentally confused understanding of how the law works (not to mention a deeply strange idea of "fairness")
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexKay99)
    So your saying that the judge is wrong and your right? Because I'm merely agreeing with what the judge claimed and he said that in a few years incest and peadophilia may be legalised just like homosexuality was.
    Do you realise that this judge has been suspended for these commentsm and referred to the judicial commission?

    The craziest judge in New South Wales makes a comment that will see him removed from office, and you want to take that as your guide to the law?


    Ok, you got me, I'm not a know it all like you and I will make mistakes but these technical terms don't aid your argument and my underlying point is clear.
    This isn't a minor technical mistake, it demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the law. If you didn't even realise legislation is enacted by parliament, then you have serious misunderstandings about even the most basic elements of the English legal system.


    Also, when a case is brought to court, say in the 70s a gay couple campaigned for their rights for the first time and they won the case. That instantly means a new legislation must be made and/or changed as a result of that win by parliament, as you state. Am I correct?
    You're not correct. A gay couple didn't "campaign for their rights for the first time in the 70s" resulting in a court case that forced parliament to enact legislation. Parliament passed the Sexual Offences Act 1967 based on the earlier recommendations of the Wolfenden Report

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

    Absolutely nothing to do with the courts. And parliament is never obligated to pass legislation, on any basis, whatsoever. We have parliamentary sovereignty


    Peadophilia and incest in YOUR view is a sexual act of predatory nature (and actually, a few years ago many thought the same about homosexuals). But in THEIR view, its their sexual orientation and they can argue this just like homosexuals did.
    The fact they can argue it doesn't mean we have to accept it. Otherwise, if you're saying all sexual orientations must be banned, then heterosexuality would have to be banned as well, so we're not showing any "bias", right :rolleyes:


    Again misunderstood. Have you ever heard of a thing called the Clash of Rights? Its when human rights conflict with one another
    There is no such term in English law. Please explain how homosexuality involves a "clash of rights"


    I take no position in this peadophile vs child rights, I'm highlighting the fact that they both have rights which clash but it would technically be unfair to undermine either.
    And what does this have to do with homosexuality?


    Like I explained in my other post, you misunderstood me AGAIN (I'm getting tired of this)
    No, I'm afraid not. What's happening is that I'm repeating your ideas back to you in more eloquent, articulate and precise language, and you're getting frustrated and angry when you see that and realise that what you're saying simply doesn't make much sense and/or isn't very clever.

    I'm neutral on the subject, I stated that to be fair we must either totally reject all sexual orientations OR totally accept all.
    You still seem totally incapable of articulating why you say it would be unfair to treat paedophilia differently. Say we accept you're right and paedophilia is a sexual orientation, why must we treat them all the same

    On this argument, you'd be saying we also have to treat heterosexuality the same (it is a sexual orientation, or do you deny that?) and therefore ban it or it would be "unfair to the paedophiles" if we allow straight people to have sex.

    The only thing that is making your argument hold on is that you believe incest & peadophilia is not a sexual orientation
    I never said paedophilia isn't a sexual orientation. Even if it is a sexual orientation, that doesn't really save it. You still haven't adequately explained why it is unfair to treat different sexualities differently, where one involves harm to children and the other does not.

    You still haven't explained why it would be "unfair to the paedophiles" not to ban homosexuality and heterosexuality, when paedophilia harms children, and homosexuality and heterosexuality do not. If anything, that is so obviously unfair to homosexuality and heterosexuality that I'm honestly pretty dumbfounded that it isn't obvious to you.

    To be honest, if you offer these types of ill-thought through and illogical arguments at university, you will really struggle. By the way, you asked what grade I got. I attained a 2:1 and I did my degree at Balliol College, Oxford.


    I'm speaking in terms of the future, everything I'm stating is in those terms because it is what the judge has stated*
    You mean the comments of the judge who might be suffering from dementia, and is now probably going to be removed from the bench?

    It may be an Australian court but it concerns international law. Or do you think English peadophiles are different to Australian ones?
    What on earth are you talking about? It has nothing to do with international law, this was a criminal case in the NSW District Court, absolutely nothing to do with international law. As far from international law as you can possibly imagine.

    Why do you keep making up bizarre things, and then when I correct you, you get all butt-hurt and say it's a technicality?

    By the way, if you want me to respond to your next comment, don't reply in bold.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    Do you realise that this judge has been suspended for these commentsm and referred to the judicial commission?

    The craziest judge in New South Wales makes a comment that will see him removed from office, and you want to take that as your guide to the law?

    This isn't a minor technical mistake, it demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the law. If you didn't even realise legislation is enacted by parliament, then you have serious misunderstandings about even the most basic elements of the English legal system.

    You're not correct. A gay couple didn't "campaign for their rights for the first time in the 70s" resulting in a court case that forced parliament to enact legislation. Parliament passed the Sexual Offences Act 1967 based on the earlier recommendations of the Wolfenden Report

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

    Absolutely nothing to do with the courts. And parliament is never obligated to pass legislation, on any basis, whatsoever. We have parliamentary sovereignty

    The fact they can argue it doesn't mean we have to accept it. Otherwise, if you're saying all sexual orientations must be banned, then heterosexuality would have to be banned as well, so we're not showing any "bias", right :rolleyes:

    There is no such term in English law. Please explain how homosexuality involves a "clash of rights"

    And what does this have to do with homosexuality?

    No, I'm afraid not. What's happening is that I'm repeating your ideas back to you in more eloquent, articulate and precise language, and you're getting frustrated and angry when you see that and realise that what you're saying simply doesn't make much sense and/or isn't very clever.You still seem totally incapable of articulating why you say it would be unfair to treat paedophilia differently. Say we accept you're right and paedophilia is a sexual orientation, why must we treat them all the same

    On this argument, you'd be saying we also have to treat heterosexuality the same (it is a sexual orientation, or do you deny that?) and therefore ban it or it would be "unfair to the paedophiles" if we allow straight people to have sex.I never said paedophilia isn't a sexual orientation. Even if it is a sexual orientation, that doesn't really save it. You still haven't adequately explained why it is unfair to treat different sexualities differently, where one involves harm to children and the other does not.

    You still haven't explained why it would be "unfair to the paedophiles" not to ban homosexuality and heterosexuality, when paedophilia harms children, and homosexuality and heterosexuality do not. If anything, that is so obviously unfair to homosexuality and heterosexuality that I'm honestly pretty dumbfounded that it isn't obvious to you.

    To be honest, if you offer these types of ill-thought through and illogical arguments at university, you will really struggle. By the way, you asked what grade I got. I attained a 2:1 and I did my degree at Balliol College, Oxford.



    You mean the comments of the judge who might be suffering from dementia, and is now probably going to be removed from the bench?



    What on earth are you talking about? It has nothing to do with international law, this was a criminal case in the NSW District Court, absolutely nothing to do with international law. As far from international law as you can possibly imagine.

    Why do you keep making up bizarre things, and then when I correct you, you get all butt-hurt and say it's a technicality?

    By the way, if you want me to respond to your next comment, don't reply in bold.

    OK I'm going to ignore half of these statements. Whether the judge is suffering from demetia, I don't know, those are your claims. Even if he was removed you have to agree that he is still was a judge and therefore knows the 'general' legal system better than you. (When it comes to peadophilia, its pretty much a crime in every civilised country so there is not much of a difference there) Plus, isn't Australia in the Commonwealth?
    And the 'bias' that I'm talking about is more-so selectivity. I like to point out again that I have no position in this, as you keep unprofessionally thinking. I'm not campaigning for peadophiles to be legalised, I think they are wrong. I'm just stating that they may be legalised in the future.
    On the other hand, because you think peadophiles are wrong that probably forms the basis of your arguments & that is very unprofessional because your allowing your personal views to dictate. Accept the truth that there is a possibility they may be legalised.

    Secondly, the statement, "gay couple didn't "campaign for their rights for the first time in the 70s"
    I don't know the background of how homosexuality was legalised (but thank you for giving me the link) and it is irrelevant in what I was trying to explain.
    I said as an example of a case being won in the court, causing the parliament to make a new law on the basis of that outcome and I'm correct. (Effectively I was trying to prove that some laws are made from the basis of a court ruling of a case) It is the creation of a legal predecent.
    And you may have an English law system but it also has to comply with the European Court of Human Rights (and you lost your sovereignty when you joined you EU) so the 'sovereignty' you speak of has to comply with these rights. They cannot, after a case is won accept it but not accept another similar case after that. I will draw on my earlier example once again, FOR EXAMPLE; if a gay couple won their right to freedom of sexual orientation for the first time, then why shouldn't a law be passed to legalise ALL homosexuals, not just selectively THAT couple. Because if they don't, they would be going against human rights. However YES, a parliament may also pass a law without it going to court.
    Can you see how you constantly misinterpret things?

    So what do you want to effectively prove? Do you consider peadophilia and incest will always be taboo?
    That fact that you said "Even if (peadophilia & incest) it is a sexual orientation, that doesn't really save it." is nonsence because it will give it a very strong argument. Once it is recognised as a sexual orientation, then whats to stop them campaigning for their rights under the 'right to the freedom of sexual orientation' as homosexuals did? For now they cannot campaign because they are recognised as mentally ill.

    Do you recognise that peadophiles also have rights? If you do then you have to consider their rights, at least as mentally ill people to fairly treat them (Eg; not automatically lock them up but provide them with psychological help) Some peadophiles were themselves victims of child abuse and are probably traumatised, they may be helped through therapy or are at least entitled to it. You have to be somewhat sympathetic towards them, they are not (sane) murderers.

    So you don't agree that rights can clash and contradict with one another?
    For example; IF peadophilia becomes recognised as a sexual orientation then they can campaign for their rights, at the same time a child has the right to be protected. Both rights then clash.

    The judge stated his claim in terms of what might happen in the world in the future.

    I wonder how you would characterise bisexuality since it consists of two sexual orientations? Your claim on heterosexuality is nonsensical. It may be a sexual orientation but it has been accepted as the 'norm' by society for centuries, it is almost out of the question. However I did mention that banning all forms of sexuality was impossible, although you could reproduce through IVF.
    But yes heterosexuality, like homosexuality is a sexual orientation and if peadophilia and incest are accepted as sexual orientations then they too will be added to the list along with bestiality (given that it is not recognised as animal cruelty in the future) and other such things.Then under democratic terms,that would be considered 'fair', given that the law changes Eg: sexual consent by minors is lowered (which could happen seen as minors can already testify in court).

    You say that homosexuals and heterosexuals are different. Yes they are in terms of their personal sexual preferences but may I remind you that like heterosexuals, homosexuals have a right and freedom to exist as they are, therefore they are not different in terms of their 'Freedom to sexual orientation' whatever that may be. The key word here is 'freedom' and this unites ALL sexualities.
    (as well as peadophiles IF they are recognised as a sexual orientation)
    Do you understand my theoretical definition of 'fair' now? (NB: which I personally don't agree with but see as a possibility of the future)

    I never denied that I'm wrong in how I phrase things. So congratulations, I hope the fact that you proved you know more than an A level student will make you feel great however, for that exact reason I seriously consider whether you have a life.
    If you say I'm so clueless, why do you demand I respond to you in legal terminology? How can I when I'm clueless?

    I pray that you have understood at least 80% of my views and not claim 'because you can't express yourself in legal terminology and I can, therefore I'm right and your wrong' (a very mature argument by the way)

    And I honestly still doubt you have a law degree because of the most obvious mistakes you made in your claims which even I had noted and I never claimed I was an expert.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewJoeCarr)
    Incest between consenting adults... tough one... Incest is a taboo to avoid muddying the gene pool with 3 headed babies. As seen in Australia I believe a year ago when the valley people were discovered who'd been committing incest for several generations and the children were coming out deformed.

    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.

    Obviously there is a huge societal issue though... similar but not the same to interracial or homosexual relations.
    So you are saying people with hereditary diseases/genes should also be banned from procreation/marriage/intercourse because they too have a high chance (if not higher than people committing incest) of having offsprings with deformities?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    Do you understand the difference between ratio decidendi and an obiter dicta? What the judge said about incest and paedophilia were not points of law, they were expressions of opinion, sociological even. Not legal.

    And again, you seem to be confused as this judge is in Australia. Your argument that because this judge in Australia said that incest and paedophilia may be accepted one day (which could only come about by primary legislation in Australia, which doesn't have entrenched human rights legislation), then it will be here on the basis of human rights principles is totally bogus.

    You realise that Australia is a completely different jurisdiction?



    Paedophilia is wrong. An 8 year old cannot consent to sex, and I simply do not agree with the judge that there is any possibility it will be legalised in the English-speaking world to **** a 5 year old boy. Ever.

    There is an obvious distinction between homosexuality/heterosexuality on one hand (as when a woman and a man, or a man and a man, consensually sleep together there is no victim... when a paedophile has sex with a child, there is a victim).

    The fact you're unable to see that obvious distinction between heterosexuality/homosexuality on the one hand, and paedophilia on the other, is pretty damning for you



    It's not irrelevant, it was the basis of your argument. You said that parliament would have to otherwise that would be unfair to the paedophiles, and they would surely win a court case that would force parliament to act.



    Actually, it doesn't. Have you heard the prisoner voting issue? Parliament will often change legislation to comply with the ECHR, but when it doesn't want to, it doesn't have to. And that's exactly what's happened with giving prisoners the vote.



    There's an obvious distinction between passing a law that legalises consensual homosexual activity, and your claim that because a law has been passed legalising homosexual activity where two adult males sleep together, it would be "biased against the paedophiles" not to allow them to rape 5 year old boys. That is exactly what you said, and you should stop and think what an asinine position that is.



    What human rights are being breached by making it illegal to rape a 5 year old boy?

    And whose human rights are being breached by permitting adult, consenting gay couples to have sex with one another?



    What do you mean "parliament may also pass a law without it going to court"? Again, you are fundamentally confused about how the legal system works and how legislation is enacted. We have parliamentary sovereignty in this country, there is no judicial review of primary legislation.



    Because granting homosexuals their rights harms no one.

    Granting paedophiles the right to rape 5 year old boys is profoundly harmful to children.

    I'm sorry, are you a bit dim? How is that not obvious to you?



    Treating them fairly doesn't include the right to rape a 5 year old boy. It's highly suspicious that you believe it is "biased against the paedophiles" not to allow them to do that.



    Whose rights to homosexuals clash with?



    You keep saying "campaign for their rights". Paedophiles already have *exactly* the same rights as everyone else. There is no such thing as "gay rights" or "paedophile rights". All the rights we have under the law are identical. Haven't you ever heard of the Human Rights Act?



    You seem to be confusing an Australian judge's prediction about what could happen in terms of social attitudes (he said nothing about the law, he only mentioned social attitudes) with the possibility that paedophiles might "gain their rights", whatever that means.

    That's asinine because an Australian judge made no comment whatsoever on European or English human rights law. And again, you keep whining about "campaigning for their rights", when there is no such thing as "the right to sexual orientation", simply different interpretations about how certain articles of the charter apply.



    Thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of internal consistency. If you are going to be consistent, then you said that all sexual orientations are treated the same. If homosexuality is to be banned, then heterosexuality must be too. It's extraordinary that you were whining about how it's unfair for gay sex to have been legalised and paedophilia not be, on the basis that "all sexual orientations should be treated the same"

    The fact that it has been accepted as the norm has absolutely no bearing on human rights. Basically, you've completely lost the argument and I'm getting really tired of you saying, "But what about this, but what about this, and then this, and then this" each time I shoot down one of your brainless assertions.



    I entirely understand your views, I'm saying they're confused and nonsensical, and this is probably because at A-level you can get away with writing crap and you don't really have your ideas tested in the kind of robust and challenging way you would at university, and particularly in the tutorial system at Oxford or Cambridge.

    Your ideas lack substance and clarity, and you're profoundly confused about the meaning of words like fairness, bias, and so on. And you lack the ability to see when you're clearly arguing a losing point, your points are all over the place, you really lack the ability to focus on two or three key points. And you seem incapable of knowing when your argument has been shot to pieces and it's time to concede or take a different tack.

    I'm not going to keep going around in circles answering you making the same confused points over and over again, I think we have to stop here.
    Excuse me? What kind of an accusation is that? "It's highly suspicious that you believe it is "biased against the paedophiles" not to allow them to do that." Are you suggesting I'm a paedophile or a supporter? This is highly disrespectful of you and I'm shocked that you, after going to Oxford as you say, are capable of making such outrageous claims without noting that I specifically said I am against that and I'm merely providing another argument to yours. Possibly from what a paedophile might argue. Have you not understood that?
    I will report you for making such as claim if you even think of defending yourself on this one.

    It also confirms that you are allowing your personal opinions to dictate your argument when you must be impartial and agree to consider all both sides of it which I am demonstrating to you; From the perspective what what a paedophile may argue. Or are you totally incompetent of comprehending that?

    I will say again; paedophiles have no rights now (which is good) but it may be a possibility, if long term scientific studies prove so and other evidence is gathered, will may be accepted as a sexual orientation based on that evidence and only THEN will they be able to campaign to be accepted just as homosexuals were thereby undermining/contradicting the rights of a child.

    DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?


    "All the rights we have under the law are identical." So you don't acknowledge that rights can contradict each other when all rights are identical and therefore equal to each other?
    The what do you make of the pro-life/choice debate concerning abortion? It is the epitome of what I am trying to get into your head that rights can clash.
    You may be right about the sovereignty but It is unlawful for any public authority to act incompatibly with human rights even if the parliament holds that power, they cannot abuse when ever they like.

    I'm sorry but you keep saying I'm unclear. May be you should consider the fact that your reading it completely wrong as you usually do? You are totally unprofessional and indifferent to other points of view because they do not satisfy your opinions and frankly any one would agree that that is totally wrong.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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.