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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Because we all end up having to pick up the tab for their retarded babies?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    By that logic, you're against relationships between all people who have an increased risk of producing a child with a disability, even if they never have their own biological children. Don't you see how silly that sounds?

    Tbh, I don't know why I even entertained because you know full well that you would still be against incest even if the couple don't have kids. Not everyone wants children ya know
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    If homosexuality is something you are born with, how do you know incest is not something people are born with? And given that you feel that immoral acts should be prohibited under the law, I wrote a bill to prohibit buggery, as it is an immoral act. Would you support it when it is up for debate in House?
    Incest isn’t a sexuality. It is usually caused by manipulation, and it is a voluntary act, whereas criminalising buggery specifically targets the gay community.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    So what if you're not born with it. Wtf does two consenting adults being in a committed relationship have to do with you for you to say you disagree? Why do they need the permission of you or anyone else?
    Because it’s nearly always caused by manipulation. Should we let everyone do heroin because nobody needs our permission? No. We must try and prevent society from crumbling wherever possible, and legalising acts of people under 18 and their parents is paedophilia.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry for not replying.

    I have been out all night, but am on my way home now. I've had very slightly more than absolutely no sleep so I need to have a bucket of coffee and chill for a bit. Then, in a few hours I'll be responding to every comment that warrants it.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    According to Wikipedia, 'Consensual incest between adults is legal in the Netherlands. Parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, and brothers and sisters are not anymore forbidden to marry in the Netherlands, although a dispensation may be granted if the partners are adopted siblings.'

    Given that these are the first people who legalised same-sex marriage, I suppose legalising incest and incestuous marriage is what's next on the liberal agenda, right PetrosAC? Soon, you lot are going to be calling those opposed to incest incestophobes or some other bs term like that, and these 'incestophobes' are shunned by the liberal elite, just as those who are called 'homophobes' are.
    Don't know why you're tagging me - this isn't my bill


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, tbh. Connor has summed it up pretty well. However, we have to ensure that there are services in place so if people feel as if they are being abused by a person in a position of power they can report it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    Incest isn’t a sexuality. It is usually caused by manipulation, and it is a voluntary act, whereas criminalising buggery specifically targets the gay community.
    How do you know gayness isn't caused by manipulation and isn't just a symptom of a mental disorder?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    Because it’s nearly always caused by manipulation. Should we let everyone do heroin because nobody needs our permission? No. We must try and prevent society from crumbling wherever possible, and legalising acts of people under 18 and their parents is paedophilia.
    So if the age was raised to 18 or even 21, would you still be opposed? Of course you would. Stop trying to make it about something else. You're uncomfortable with it because it's uncommon and far from the 'norm'
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    So if the age was raised to 18 or even 21, would you still be opposed? Of course you would. Stop trying to make it about something else. You're uncomfortable with it because it's uncommon and far from the 'norm'
    In fairness I would feel more comfortable if the age was raised. The point frankielogue has raised has gotten me concerned about the unique opportunity for grooming and emotional manipulation that would exist within such relationships.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    In fairness I would feel more comfortable if the age was raised. The point frankielogue has raised has gotten me concerned about the unique opportunity for grooming and emotional manipulation that would exist within such relationships.
    But the same can be said for any relationship. If a girl was 16 and her boyfriend was 35, wouldn't you agree that it's more than possible that he manipulated her in some way? Since he is the adult and is in a position of trust, she is made more vulnerable by her age and lack of experience so may be easy to take advantage of.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    But the same can be said for any relationship. If a girl was 16 and her boyfriend was 35, wouldn't you agree that it's more than possible that he manipulated her in some way? Since he is the adult and is in a position of trust, she is made more vulnerable by her age and lack of experience so may be easy to take advantage of.
    Yes but he wouldn't have known her from the moment she was born and have been in constant contact with her for her entire life - or have some familial emotional connection to take advantage of. And I have never believed that the existence of an unideal situation in one area justifies creating more unideal situations elsewhere.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Just got in so am going to sort my life out for a bit and when then go through the thread. Just going to quickly reply to stuff on this page because it is right in front of me:

    (Original post by frankielogue)
    Because it’s nearly always caused by manipulation. Should we let everyone do heroin because nobody needs our permission? No. We must try and prevent society from crumbling wherever possible, and legalising acts of people under 18 and their parents is paedophilia.
    Paedophilia is a sexual predilection for pre-pubescent children (Note: not 17 year olds. Hebephilia would be possible if they were very underdeveloped, but you'd still be wrong). It isn't an offence, nor can it ever be. The massive majority of paedophiles go their whole lives without sexually abusing anyone. Paedophiles cannot help what they are attracted to, nor should they be demonised for their urges. They can, however, control their actions. This is what society must judge them on. Your argument has no relevance to this bill at all, but I thought I would address your egregious misunderstanding of the subject you introduced.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    In fairness I would feel more comfortable if the age was raised. The point frankielogue has raised has gotten me concerned about the unique opportunity for grooming and emotional manipulation that would exist within such relationships.
    I understand the position of trust argument. I don't think it matters. The notion that we can hold somebody criminally liable for their actions, but not consider them capable of making their own sexual decisions seems ridiculous to me - even given this context.

    This said, I am a pragmatist. I would rather we make some progress here than none, so I'm happy to make concessions to that end. What kind of age would you want it to be? 18? 21? If it is sensible, I will definitely consider it for a second reading.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Yes but he wouldn't have known her from the moment she was born and have been in constant contact with her for her entire life - or have some familial emotional connection to take advantage of.
    Being in an incestuous relationship doesn't necessarily mean that you knew the person from birth. If the child was adopted and found his long lost mother some 18 years later and they fell in love, would that be okay for you? same could be said for a long lost sibling/half sibling.

    Also, going back to my previous hypothetical scenario about the 16yr old and 35y/o...what's to say that they didn't meet through her father when she was very young? Because of that, he could've been in her life since she was born, or he could be the ex husband of her mother and acted as a step father to her for x number of years.

    The point is that he doesn't have to be related to her to have been in her life from when she was born. In contrast, he could've been related to her without ever playing an active or constant role in her life prior to starting a romantic relationship.


    And I have never believed that the existence of an unideal situation in one area justifies creating more unideal situations elsewhere.
    Ok, so you must believe that if she age of consent should be raised in the case of incest, it should also be raised for non-incest relationships too? Since manipulation can occur in any relationship be it heterosexual or homosexual where there is a significant age gap
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    I understand the position of trust argument. I don't think it matters. The notion that we can hold somebody criminally liable for their actions, but not consider them capable of making their own sexual decisions seems ridiculous to me - even given this context.

    This said, I am a pragmatist. I would rather we make some progress here than none, so I'm happy to make concessions to that end. What kind of age would you want it to be? 18? 21? If it is sensible, I will definitely consider it for a second reading.
    Based on how I feel right now, if it were 18 I'd probably vote for this and if it were 21 I would.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    This is mad lmao. I'm not arguing from any moral grounds because I'm fairly meh about whoever has sex with who, but from a biological perspective this is a disaster. You do realise that if you end up with a situation where one family just keep mating only within their own family it's going to turn that entire future family line into a horrible genetic mess?

    I mean I'd support this only if people who had incest were forced to have an abortion if they fell pregnant - the risk of a child getting disability is much greater and to bring that child into a world (moreover a world where it's going to be tormented because its parents were too lazy to go and find another partner to ****) knowingly is sickening.

    And before people give off the same "er ma gud but normil peeple cun hav disabled childrenz to!" yeah i) no ****, ii) the risk is far greater through incest and that risk should be eliminated at all costs (why do you think we tell people not to drink alcohol nor smoke?) and iii) I myself support people being forced to abort a knowingly disabled child anyway as it's basically cruelty to force them into the world.

    I suppose we should put Thalidomide back on sale as well? I mean people should be allowed to take it if they want (it is their choice) and who cares if the child is disabled? Let's just take a care-free attitude to the future of the human race as this moron has done in their bill.

    Also I am genuinely shocked and disappointed to see members of the Liberals supporting such an extreme bill.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    This is mad lmao. I'm not arguing from any moral grounds because I'm fairly meh about whoever has sex with who, but from a biological perspective this is a disaster. You do realise that if you end up with a situation where one family just keep mating only within their own family it's going to turn that entire future family line into a horrible genetic mess?

    I mean I'd support this only if people who had incest were forced to have an abortion if they fell pregnant - the risk of a child getting disability is much greater and to bring that child into a world (moreover a world where it's going to be tormented because its parents were too lazy to go and find another partner to ****) knowingly is sickening.

    And before people give off the same "er ma gud but normil peeple cun hav disabled childrenz to!" yeah i) no ****, ii) the risk is far greater through incest and that risk should be eliminated at all costs (why do you think we tell people not to drink alcohol nor smoke?) and iii) I myself support people being forced to abort a knowingly disabled child anyway as it's basically cruelty to force them into the world.

    I suppose we should put Thalidomide back on sale as well? I mean people should be allowed to take it if they want (it is their choice) and who cares if the child is disabled? Let's just take a care-free attitude to the future of the human race as this moron has done in their bill.

    Also I am genuinely shocked and disappointed to see members of the Liberals supporting such an extreme bill.
    There's no guarantee that they will have a disabled child just because they're in an incestuous relationship. If the anatomy scan proved that the developing child was healthy, there would be no need for an abortion right?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    There's no guarantee that they will have a disabled child just because they're in an incestuous relationship. If the anatomy scan proved that the developing child was healthy, there would be no need for an abortion right?
    If the scan was 100% effective and guaranteed no risk of disability, I would not be as opposed to it.

    But even the slightest chance of disability is a no.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Based on how I feel right now, if it were 18 I'd probably vote for this and if it were 21 I would.
    Okay, thanks.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Aye , If you want to f%&k your family , then feel free to , i know i might be showing my liberal side a bit too much here, but if you want to do it , do it , if you sexually identify as a postbox , then just be a postboox , if you want to f%&k your family , do it . If you are both 16 or over , why should you be stopped by the state doing what you want to do?
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    If they have children, those children could suffer

    The fact is they don't have to have children and the fact that sex can lead to pregnancy and that the baby could be at a very slight higher risk of being born with complications is no argument against legalization. The same logic would make it illegal for anyone with hereditary illnesses to have a child. It is an unfortunate consequence, but is entirely insufficient to curtail a person's freedoms in this way
    But it is a "very slight risk"? I've never heard that before. Is there any evidence to support that statement? I just did a quick google and found this:

    A study of Czechoslovakian children whose fathers were first degree relatives [found that] fewer than half of the children who were the product of incestuous unions were completely healthy. Forty-two percent of them were born with severe birth defects or suffered early death and another 11 percent were mildly mentally impaired. This study is particularly instructive as it included a unique control group — the offspring of the same mothers but whose fathers were not the mothers’ relatives. When the same women were impregnated by a non-relative, only 7 percent of their children were born with a birth defect.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 16, 2017
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.