Sibling/Parental Marriage and Moral Progress/Evolution

[TA1LGUNN3R]

The Deeper In--DBT

[mrswdk]

One day governments will take their fingers out of people's brains and stop trying to regulate morality. Continental Europe is slowly leading us into the future in this respect.

Until then, we will just have to suffer the dusty thinking of people who say things like 'There may be that there are good moral reasons for banning X or allowing Y.'

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty: regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of incestuous relationships, do you believe it is the role of the State to interfere in the romantic and sexual activities of consenting adults?

You know the answer to that better than anyone, as I have always stated 'no government permission slips for marriage' and that 'marriage is an ecclesiastic institution'

I know your position on marriage. But despite the title of your poll, the actual article you were referring to discussed criminalization of sexual activities. This is far different from positive legalization of marriage. There is a huge difference between saying that it's legal to have sex with someone, and giving them the right to marry, as you should well know. Your comment about how legal sex between siblings necessarily means marriage between two siblings is completely off the mark. That is like saying that if we legalize marijuana, we might as well pay people to get high.

So why are you trying to conflate the two things? Would you have supported the continued existence of anti-sodomy laws because their removal somehow triggered the legalization of gay marriage?

Wait a second, how could 2 consenting adults be legally able to have sex, legally able to have children, yet not be allowed to legally marry??? And if what you say is correct, then how could marriage be a human right?

[Phatscotty]

A question PS

Suppose someone carries an underlying genetic defect that if passed to their children would leave them disabled (there's plenty of these out there). Should that person be banned from having sex with anyone, by law, that they may end up producing offspring with?

Not in a free country, no. Sounds like 'discriminating' against disabled people

It's a morally equivalent case. If the taboo or the reason for the sex being banned is primarily or solely that the offspring of the coupling may be in some way harmed by the nature of the genetic combination, then it's not just brothers and sisters that you have to bring the banhammer down on, and there's a significant minority who you would probably have to ban from ever having sex at all if there is the possibility of children resulting.

If the reason for the ban is something else, then I've missed the point and I'd appreciate you explaining it to me.

Like I have been reminding people, and like was repeated over and over again in the same-sex marriage debate, marriage is not only about children and very well may be not about children at all, and of course there is adoption.

[crispybits]

OK, so you agree (or seem to) that the government should not ban sex between individuals based on the increased possibility of genetic abnormalities in the offspring. Unless there is anther argument why siblings should not have sex I don't understand your problem with the ending of legal prohibitions on sibling sex.

If you want to take it that step further and say that the next logical step is that siblings will be allowed to marry, then having granted that the government should not place prohibitions on their sex lives, what changes when it comes to granting that relationship the same rights in terms of legal protections as other relationships? Why should the government be dictating to anyone of any persuasion that their consensual and loving relationship with another person is not as valid as any other consensual and loving relationship with another person?

[betiko]

What happens if some dude is a huge sperm donor with 500+ donations, and that later in life a couple meets, and after having babies and such they realize they are the offspring of the same genitor?

[danfrank666]

interesting you mention that germany is leading the way.WE OCCUPY GERMANY

The U S has intentionally altered the thought pattern of germany. need i say more

[notyou2]

interesting you mention that germany is leading the way.WE OCCUPY GERMANY

The U S has intentionally altered the thought pattern of germany. need i say more

So you're saying the people of the USA or their culture are cancerous?

[BoganGod]

What happens if some dude is a huge sperm donor with 500+ donations, and that later in life a couple meets, and after having babies and such they realize they are the offspring of the same genitor?

How come my youtube clips are not showing?

[Metsfanmax]

Phatscotty: regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of incestuous relationships, do you believe it is the role of the State to interfere in the romantic and sexual activities of consenting adults?

You know the answer to that better than anyone, as I have always stated 'no government permission slips for marriage' and that 'marriage is an ecclesiastic institution'

I know your position on marriage. But despite the title of your poll, the actual article you were referring to discussed criminalization of sexual activities. This is far different from positive legalization of marriage. There is a huge difference between saying that it's legal to have sex with someone, and giving them the right to marry, as you should well know. Your comment about how legal sex between siblings necessarily means marriage between two siblings is completely off the mark. That is like saying that if we legalize marijuana, we might as well pay people to get high.

So why are you trying to conflate the two things? Would you have supported the continued existence of anti-sodomy laws because their removal somehow triggered the legalization of gay marriage?

Wait a second, how could 2 consenting adults be legally able to have sex, legally able to have children, yet not be allowed to legally marry???

Since you don't believe in government-sanctioned marriage, I think the answer to this one is easy.

And if what you say is correct, then how could marriage be a human right?

I didn't comment on whether or not people should be allowed to marry in this case. Only that you are conflating two discussions.

[danfrank666]

Let`s just explore the sibling escapade. At what age do these manifestations become socially acceptable ? If morality plays no role
then who or what is going to draw the line? Does incest lead to pedophilia or molestation ? And you fuckers are concerned with the marriage aspect
Since germany is leading the way , are there still discussions of a Master Race that need to be refuted.

[mrswdk]

None of it matters. People should be allowed to f*ck whomever they so please.

[crispybits]

None of it matters. People should be allowed to f*ck whomever they so please.

Unfortunately the courts don't agree, and now I'm not allowed within 500 yards of Cameron Diaz....

[mrswdk]

Not entirely sure I was including rape when I said that, but whatever floats your boat!

[BigBallinStalin]

What happens if some dude is a huge sperm donor with 500+ donations, and that later in life a couple meets, and after having babies and such they realize they are the offspring of the same genitor?

Make a film about it:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0345061/

[BoganGod]

So in a polygamous situation a man marries two sisters. Has children with both women. So his children by woman A are siblings and cousins to his children by woman B. I'm not fucking my sister, she is my cousin.......

[Phatscotty]

OK, so you agree (or seem to) that the government should not ban sex between individuals based on the increased possibility of genetic abnormalities in the offspring. Unless there is anther argument why siblings should not have sex I don't understand your problem with the ending of legal prohibitions on sibling sex.

If you want to take it that step further and say that the next logical step is that siblings will be allowed to marry, then having granted that the government should not place prohibitions on their sex lives, what changes when it comes to granting that relationship the same rights in terms of legal protections as other relationships? Why should the government be dictating to anyone of any persuasion that their consensual and loving relationship with another person is not as valid as any other consensual and loving relationship with another person?

Well, I've long held that the government shouldn't have a say, no government permission slips for love (that was my = sign). So we see eye to eye there, not that it matters, but we do. So I would be curious to ask you then, why were incestuous relationships ever illegal in the first place? But that is only partly what this is about, since it's also about what it means that so many before guaranteed this wouldn't happen, wrote it off as 'slippery slope'. Why couldn't they even accept the thought of this coming? got an opinion there?

btw, the 'next logical step' is already here
there's an interesting discussion on the video if you click on the link too

Responding to a German ethics panel's suggestion of de-criminalizing sex between adult siblings, a group of psychologists and experts joined HuffPost Live this week to discuss whether or not it was appropriate for criminal laws to ban sexual taboos such as incestuous relationships.

"I suppose I take an unpopular view that it's actually moral progress," Jesse Bering, who is the author of Perv: The Sexual Deviant In All Of Us, told HuffPost Live's Josh Zepps. "There are certain caveats that we need to include with our analysis of whether incest is wrong or right, but for me, the biggest point is a matter of harm."

After Zepps pointed to Elijah and Milo Peters, two Czech-born brothers who have performed in gay adult scenes with each other, Bering noted, "The fact that they're violating this... taboo notion of your brother or your sister being completely off-limits from a sexual perspective, I think, attracts... a large contingency of the viewing public."

He added, "It's a carnival-esque affair, but it's actual sexual arousing to us because it probably taps into something, whether we want to admit it or not, deeply unconscious about the possible patterns of attraction to... our relatives."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/0 ... 59494.html

[Metsfanmax]

But that is only partly what this is about, since it's also about what it means that so many before guaranteed this wouldn't happen, wrote it off as 'slippery slope'. Why couldn't they even accept the thought of this coming? got an opinion there?

You were misinterpreting that argument at the time, and you're still misinterpreting it now. The argument was never that this would not happen. It was that it had nothing to do with, and would not be caused by, the legalization of gay marriage. The reasons that people had (have) for disagreeing with gay and incestuous relationships was generally different, so one has nothing to do with the other.

[crispybits]

Also, if I remember correctly, the two that were being trotted out most often as the consequences of the slippery slope were bestiality and peadophilia. The consistent line throughout the gay marriage debate was that people should be able to decide on whatever form of relationship they choose to have with other consenting people. The key point being that kids and animals have certain rights not to be violated but are not able to give legal consent. There is nothing inconsistent with that principle and the end of prohibitions on any form of consensual adult relationship, indeed it's the whole point....

The slippery slope from this principle, if it exists, would only lead to incest and polygamy that are currently illegal in the US (as far as I'm aware they are the only 2 laws still on the books about who you can or cannot bork and/or marry in terms of other adult humans).

I'd also say there should remain safeguards where if you are the legal guardian of anyone during their childhood (up to either 16 or 18 years old) you should be banned from either sex or marriage with them even after they become an adult, mostly because of the reality that some small amount of freakazoids may "groom" their own children to become sexual or marriage partners later, and this is a violation of the trust we put in parents to raise their children in such a way as to promote and protect the interests and future freedoms of the child.

Edit - also a point made in that video you linked is that if siblings are raised within the same familial unit they develop a natural sexual aversion to each other and also children develop a natural aversion to sex with their parents. The incidences of incestual sex are, in the vast majority of cases, between relatives who have been living separately. That's probably where the taboo comes from - people think "ewww I really don't like the thought of having incestual sex - therefore nobody else should" and it's a flawed argument. It's the same flawed argument as someone saying "ewww I really don't like the thought of having homosexual sex - therefore nobody else should", and is exposed because we know there are people out there who can truthfully say "ewww I really don't like the thought of having heterosexual sex".

[notyou2]

Scotty your sister must be a good f*ck if you want to marry her.

[owenshooter]

http://news.yahoo.com/womans-marriage-h ... 53106.html

boom... read that...-Jésus noir

[nietzsche]

you're in the wrong subforum

[notyou2]

http://news.yahoo.com/womans-marriage-half-uncle-legal-n-y-top-170153106.html

boom... read that...-Jésus noir

Null and void. Re: Eric Holder represents the state.

Did I get it right PS?

[Lootifer]

Decriminalising something doesn't give you the right to do it btw.

I generally support the parent-child relationship remaining banned simply because typically in those relationships there is a distinct lack of consent (or a distinct amount of "grooming" involved"), and while you can say "but rape still applies!" in a relationship such as the parent-child one you can often distort it to the point where consent is ambiguous. (or in BBS speak, no fully informed rational player (the child) is going to decide to take that course of action, but the player can be manipulated to believe they are fully informed and rational).

Siblings one is weird. I'm ok with decriminalizing it, I guess.

[BigBallinStalin]

Prohibiting sexual relations between or among siblings is a form of eugenics.

Is Phatscotty supporting eugenics ITT?