Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Mr Speaker,

    Have you asked the CT approval to submit this bill? If not, why can this bill be put up for debate without their approval and will you please just put the Sexual Offences Bill 2017 up for debate? After all, why on earth does it need CT approval?
    I think frankielogue's comment to you reflects my thought process as regards compliance with the rules.

    (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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    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:



    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.



    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.
    i would support this were the age to be 18.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paracosm)
    Definitely a no from me........
    On what grounds may I ask? Please don't trot out the "it's weird" or "kids get disabilities" lines again, they've already been disproved...
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Again, it's a matter of social conditioning, decriminalise it now and in 20 years it will no longer be taboo and a point of ridicule, as has happened with homosexuality. It's all a matter of discourse.
    Napoleon decriminalised incest in France over 200 years ago, it is still taboo. :dontknow:
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Again, it's a matter of social conditioning, decriminalise it now and in 20 years it will no longer be taboo and a point of ridicule, as has happened with homosexuality. It's all a matter of discourse.
    I disagree - I think it'll be a lot longer than 20 years when it's not so taboo, and like, how do you not just think that wanting to **** your mother or sister is not incredibly weird...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)










    Hi,

    The first thing to say is this bill was intended to test the modern generation of MP's ability to assess legislation independent of their own biases, and to show that the Libertarian Party can and will produce legislation that ignites debate. The latter has certainly been achieved.

    This is a very polarising issue, and one that is very emotive for people because the vast majority find the concept of incest personally abhorrent. I personally find it disgusting as well, and certainly wouldn't ever take part in it. I do not, however, feel that my personal view of an action should determine whether or not that action should be illegal.

    We shouldn't legislate based on taboos and non-sequitur assumptions. We should legislate to protect freedoms for people wherever those freedoms do not impinge on anyone else's right to the same.

    I won't go over some of the arguments I addressed in the body of the bill, nor those that have been able handled by Conor and other members in my absence.

    I have tried to catch everything but I am very tired and hungry, so if I missed anything as I went through the thread please don't hesitate to quote me. Unlike many MPs here, I will actually respond to your comments.



    Precisely



    I think I succeeded :awesome:



    The various DSMs have a long history of suggesting that all manner of behaviours are deviant. The most common example of course is the DSM III which considered homosexual sex to be a deviant behaviour. Saying that something is symptomatic of mental illness doesn't tell us anything useful at all, and certainly should predicate legislation. Being socially withdrawn is symptomatic of mental illness - shall we criminalise it? Or should we instead attempt to address the underlying causes of dysfunctional behaviour? Unfortunately I think your first argument falls at the first hurdle.

    A position of trust does bring up ethical issues, but many relationships begin from such dynamics. Someone ****ing their boss is the classic example. There comes a point where a person must be deemed capable of making their own decisions. Ray has suggested making the age limit either 18 or 21 - would this be something you'd agree with?



    Morality is fluid, variable and irrelevant here. Your personal concept of morality may be consistent with criminalising this behaviour, mine may not. Bob, who lives around the corner, thinks allowing women to drive is immoral. It just doesn't matter what you consider immoral.





    Good, sensible people :borat:



    You are mistaken, and it couldn't be - which is rather the point. It seems likely that I will be altering the age limit to at least 18 for the second reading so hopefully you can support it then.



    Precisely.



    It's part of a considered plan.



    It isn't a priority. It is a fringe argument made precisely because it will demonstrate that the party can occupy an entirely different political space than the rest of the parties here. You hit the nail on the head. Also, the idea that every bill has to be of great significance is nonsense. A large amount of those submitted do little more than shuffle the status quo around a little bit.



    :lol: A consequence I hadn't considered.



    It is undoubtedly an unpleasant thing to consider for the vast majority of people, myself included. Like you say, though, there is no compelling philosophical basis for not allowing it.



    Why is it inappropriate? Given the responses myself and others have made in this thread. Are you not simply taking your own personal desire not to do something and using that as a basis for deciding that nobody can? Which argument(s) do you find yourself unconvinced by and why?



    +1



    Good man.

    If I did, I certainly wouldn't admit it under these deeply suggestive circumstances :facepalm2:




    The Liberal leader proving his credentials right here. A man we can believe in :moon:



    Indeed. Also, do you wish to join the party? I know you were interested in the previous attempt.



    Come at me, gopnik.
    you have a point. my issue is simply allowing those under 18 to take part in such acts.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I support this;

    I personally think that it's a degenerate act and don't condone it at all (it's distgusting in fact), but two consenting adults having sex shoudn't be illegal, that's draconian.
    It would be if it didn't include the prospect of having a child that's most likely going to have huge problems.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    I disagree - I think it'll be a lot longer than 20 years when it's not so taboo, and like, how do you not just think that wanting to **** your mother or sister is not incredibly weird...
    I did say that the act makes me feel uncomfortable, but I don't think sex between two consenting adults should be illegal.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    On what grounds may I ask? Please don't trot out the "it's weird" or "kids get disabilities" lines again, they've already been disproved...
    Personal and moral objections... I've nothing real to offer to you except what you don't want to hear, nor will you be able to change my mind. Sorry.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    It would be if it didn't include the prospect of having a child that's most likely going to have huge problems.
    Does that mean that you support eugenics then? Should Down's Syndrome people be banned from procreation? Stop justifying eugenics.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Does that mean that you support eugenics then? Should Down's Syndrome people be banned from procreation? Stop justifying eugenics.
    Slow down.

    I'm only proposing that it's not simply a matter of consensual adults having sex.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I did say that the act makes me feel uncomfortable, but I don't think sex between two consenting adults should be illegal.
    Fair enough
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    Napoleon decriminalised incest in France over 200 years ago, it is still taboo. :dontknow:
    Discourse works both ways; as you say it's 200 years ago, it has been illegal for the lifetime of all of our generation's lifetimes as well as our parent's generations.

    Also, French historical law is irrelant to the United Kingdom wouldn't you agree? In France, for example, straight couples get civil partnerships en masse, that would be seen as incredibly odd in Britain, you can't make a point on Social acceptability using an example of a country with a very different culture to our own.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    Napoleon decriminalised incest in France over 200 years ago, it is still taboo. :dontknow:
    It is a subject of some top-notch art films though.



    I like the way they think.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paracosm)
    Personal and moral objections... I've nothing real to offer to you except what you don't want to hear, nor will you be able to change my mind. Sorry.
    No worries, there's no need to apologise either
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    I disagree - I think it'll be a lot longer than 20 years when it's not so taboo, and like, how do you not just think that wanting to **** your mother or sister is not incredibly weird...
    You bringing out a third tier whip for this one🙂


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Discourse works both ways; as you say it's 200 years ago, it has been illegal for the lifetime of all of our generation's lifetimes as well as our parent's generations.

    Also, French historical law is irrelant to the United Kingdom wouldn't you agree? In France, for example, straight couples get civil partnerships en masse, that would be seen as incredibly odd in Britain, you can't make a point on Social acceptability using an example of a country with a very different culture to our own.
    You argued the taboo which surrounds incest would fade in time once it was decriminalised, France proves that isn't the case. I don't see what cultural differences there are between the UK and France (and there really aren't many) have to do with this? The French do not have different brains to the British, if they never learned to accept it, why would we?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    You bringing out a third tier whip for this one🙂


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No haha, but I have confidence that our Party's MPs will see sense in any case!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Discourse works both ways; as you say it's 200 years ago, it has been illegal for the lifetime of all of our generation's lifetimes as well as our parent's generations.

    Also, French historical law is irrelant to the United Kingdom wouldn't you agree? In France, for example, straight couples get civil partnerships en masse, that would be seen as incredibly odd in Britain, you can't make a point on Social acceptability using an example of a country with a very different culture to our own.
    Civil partnerships aren't available to straight couples in the uk
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    No haha, but I have confidence that our Party's MPs will see sense in any case!
    This just had to be one the first bills I had to consider as soon I as I took office
 
 
 
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
    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.