Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party
412 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49885794]there's also mentioning that the majority of incestous relationships take the form of sibling abuse or child abuse by an older family member. they exist primarily because a family member in a position of power takes advantage of another who lacks such power (and may appear to consent, when in actual fact it is a form of rape).[/QUOTE]
Well, rape is illegal, regardless of who perpetrates on whom. No one's arguing for non-consensual relationships.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49885762]In a society without contraceptives and abortions incest should be wrong but give me a reason for why it should be banned in this modern age.
You wanting it banned because you think its gross is just as silly as conservatives wanting interracial marriage and gay marriage banned for thinking those are gross.[/QUOTE]
forcing people to get abortions if they get pregnant is pretty fucked tbh
[QUOTE=Svinnik;49885810]forcing people to get abortions if they get pregnant is pretty fucked tbh[/QUOTE]
A silly strawman. I'm saying that it can be practiced safely without the risk of having a child with disabilities.
[QUOTE=Lium;49885807]Well, rape is illegal, regardless of who perpetrates on whom. No one's arguing for non-consensual relationships.[/QUOTE]
And what benefit is there to society and individuals by legalising incest? Almost all incest is of the child/sibling abuse kind. Homosexual relationships are generally pretty healthy ones because they don't involve child rape.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49885840]And what benefit is there to society and individuals by legalising incest?[/QUOTE]
Is that relevant? In democracy we should look at society through the lens of individual rights and only work against that when real harms come to society as a whole.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49885840]And what benefit is there to society and individuals by legalising incest? Almost all incest is of the child/sibling abuse kind. Homosexual relationships are generally pretty healthy ones because they don't involve child rape.[/QUOTE]
Cite your sources on that child abuse claim
Not that it really matters though, because child rape will still be illegal even if this is legalized.
I'd also like to point out that people initially went "homosexuality = pedophilia" in response to gay folks
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49885823]A silly strawman.[/QUOTE]
Epic logical fallacy shit bro! But you still think brother and sister having a deformed kid is fine.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49885840]Homosexual relationships are generally pretty healthy ones because they don't involve child rape.[/QUOTE]
The priest meme alone should tell you enough how wrong that statement is.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49885849]Is that relevant? In democracy we should look at society through the lens of individual rights and only work against that when real harms come to society as a whole.[/QUOTE]
Except legalizing incest harms both individuals and society as a whole, especially in the longer term.
[QUOTE=Amazing79;49885870]Epic logical fallacy shit bro! But you still think brother and sister having a deformed kid is fine.[/QUOTE]
He doesn't.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49885912]Except legalizing incest harms both individuals and society as a whole, especially in the longer term.[/QUOTE]
This isn't like the medieval nobility or modern Pakistan. We're not going to be seeing widespread incest or successive generations of inbred people.
We live in a modern western democracy with contraceptives and abortion that is fully aware of the affects of having little gene variety.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49885659]If the justification for incest being illegal is that it could produce children with birth defects, why are we allowing women over the age of 40 to have sex? There is a much higher risk of them producing a baby with health problems.[/QUOTE]
That's not really comparable to inbreeding, you are fucking up your kids DNA on a fundamental level. I do think inbreeding is a bad argument for incest to be illegal though because we have contraceptives.
I still think incest should be illegal because the parents or older siblings of a person have a unique position of power over them. I don't think consent is as black and white in that kind of relationship as a normal relationship.
[QUOTE=phygon;49885869]Cite your sources on that child abuse claim
Not that it really matters though, because child rape will still be illegal even if this is legalized.
I'd also like to point out that people initially went "homosexuality = pedophilia" in response to gay folks[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/VS75.pdf[/url]
[quote]Most sexual abuse is committed by men (90%) and by persons known to the child (70% to 90%)[/quote]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49885840]And what benefit is there to society and individuals by legalising incest?[/QUOTE]
To society? What benefit was there to legalising homosexuality?
For individuals? Not being arrested is a pretty big benefit.
[QUOTE=maeZtro;49885940]
I still think incest should be illegal because the parents or older siblings of a person have a unique position of power over them. I don't think consent is as black and white in that kind of relationship as a normal relationship.[/QUOTE]
And what about twins, then?
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49885930]This isn't like the medieval nobility or modern Pakistan. We're not going to be seeing widespread incest or successive generations of inbred people.
We live in a modern western democracy with contraceptives and abortion that is fully aware of the affects of having little gene variety.[/QUOTE]
"modern western democracy with contraceptives and abortion" isn't an excuse to go back to 7th century sex laws
one of the reasons we have modern western democracies with contraceptives and abortion is due to the fact that incest is illegal.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49885954]"modern western democracy with contraceptives and abortion" isn't an excuse to go back to 7th century sex laws
one of the reasons we have modern western democracies with contraceptives and abortion is due to the fact that incest is illegal.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't make any sense.
Fuckin' Liberals
[QUOTE=maxumym;49885771]If you just make it a point of allowing incestuous relationships but forbidding them to have children they're not really any different from homosexual relationships in terms of how they affect the gene pool.
How you're going to enforce that is a different question though.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49885930]This isn't like the medieval nobility or modern Pakistan. We're not going to be seeing widespread incest or successive generations of inbred people.
We live in a modern western democracy with contraceptives and abortion that is fully aware of the affects of having little gene variety.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, I find it impossible to take you weirdos seriously just by judging by your anime avatars.
[QUOTE=FetusFondler;49885969]That doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE]
societies which ban incest have families marrying outside of their closed social groups and with others on an increased basis. the longterm result is a steady increase in societal trust and increased intermarriage between families (i.e outbreeding).
the societies which have been doing this the longest are the europeans of northwest europe and the north italians - which is one of the reasons they have a particularly strong civil society in contrast to those where familial/clannish relations define the political makeup of the country
[QUOTE=Lium;49885447]And of course, this assumes that every incestual relationship will result in offspring, which it won't. And if it's the inbreeding you're really worried about, then ou would think [B]homosexuals be could be incestous anway[/B]. But that's still illegal.[/QUOTE]
This could be argued to actually be legal in sweden already.
[QUOTE=comment next to Chapt. 6 - § 7]Here is sexual intercourse with a descendant or between biological siblings which do not fall under §§ 4-5. Both the victim and the perpetrator must be over 18 years and [B]the section is in other words a ban on incest for adults provided it can result in a breach of the genetic aspects. This means that only heterosexual intercourse is hit by the prohibition.[/B] In addition to the genetic aspect requires further elements for it to be considerated a crime, namely the relationship itself. The purpose of the ban on kinship is an expression of society's interest in maintaining a healthy and natural cohabitation between members of a family, see the [I]Svea Court of Appeal[/I] on 28 February 2012 in Case No. B 6495-11.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K6P7S1"]https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K6P7S1[/URL]
I like how Sobotnik's train of thought basically seems to come down to 'but if we legalize incest, EVERYBODY will bone their relatives and ONLY them'.
Newsflash: legalizing it will not unleash this tidal wave of family-fucking. Ever hear of the Westermarck effect?
[QUOTE=Lium;49885953]And what about twins, then?[/QUOTE]
:v: the one that came out first should not be allowed to instigate sexual relations with the second one.
Seriously though, they are still family and it's not the same. Then again there are other people in positions of power over people who are legally allowed to have sex with them. I'm not sure anymore, it just feels wrong and gross to me but on the other hand so does homosexuality.
If it doesn't hurt anyone and it's between two consenting adults it's fine I guess. Inbreeding should definitely be against the law though.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;49886103]I like how Sobotnik's train of thought basically seems to come down to 'but if we legalize incest, EVERYBODY will bone their relatives and ONLY them'.
Newsflash: legalizing it will not unleash this tidal wave of family-fucking. Ever hear of the Westermarck effect?[/QUOTE]
don't be ridiculous by claiming that. the point is that this is a process that will unfold over time and will steadily make things worse for our descendants - something we shouldn't really be doing.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49886129]don't be ridiculous by claiming that. the point is that this is a process that will unfold over time and will steadily make things worse for our descendants - something we shouldn't really be doing.[/QUOTE]
How am I being ridiculous when you keep bringing up the effects of 'long-term inbreeding' and 'societies that promote incest'?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49885946][url]http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/VS75.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]
Okay, so most pedophilia is incest.
But you were arguing that most incest is pedophilia.
I don't care if incest is legal or not I still think it's a bad idea to practice it if you want to maintain a stable family connections. I'll leave all my incest desires to be filled in with porn or roleplaying like the next average joe. Low risk mediocre reward
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;49886103]I like how Sobotnik's train of thought basically seems to come down to 'but if we legalize incest, EVERYBODY will bone their relatives and ONLY them'.
Newsflash: legalizing it will not unleash this tidal wave of family-fucking. Ever hear of the Westermarck effect?[/QUOTE]
[IMG]https://facepunch.com/image.php?u=323098&dateline=1406590639[/IMG]
From my point of view laws should exist to protect individuals and their goods, and as far as I know a consenting relationship with a brother or sister of similar age is not abuse and thus prohibiting it would not protect anybody.
Same goes for necrophilia cases where the other person consents before dying.
Laws should not go by morals, laws involving two or more people in any situation, wether it's sexual or not should go by this two points:
-Do all the individuals consent?
-Is there an abuse? (For example, a substantially older sister having sex with a substantially younger brother.).
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49885912]Except legalizing incest harms both individuals and society as a whole, especially in the longer term.[/QUOTE]
Except A.) I don't think Incest will be widely practiced and B.) Using animal populations as a model, it takes generations before widespread inbreeding becomes a problem and this only ever happens in populations with low numbers anyway.
The number of people who will be having kids out of incest will be so low, even if a significant portion did, relevant to a countries population that the effect would be negligible to non-existent.
So your "MUH FABRIC OF SOCIETY" argument holds no water. It might've... oh.. 150 years ago? When Human population worldwide wasn't billions strong and contraception didn't really exist and so every sexual encounter had a high risk of producing children.
And as people have said, if you want to stop siblings (consensually) fucking on the chance they'll produce offspring with defects, should we stop women over 40 having kids? Should we stop people with downs syndrome from having kids? Where does your quest for genetic purity start and stop? Because compared to those groups having children, one generation of siblings having a kid has a near-zero chance of producing a kid with detrimental genetic burden unless the family just happens to be recessive carriers for some kind of genetic disease.
Incest might be ok as long as no babies get produced, but then you consider all the social consequences of people marrying with family and it gets weird.
Necrophilia is ok if you want your genitalia to smell like rotten flesh. That shit isn't taboo because of morality reasons, it's incredibly dangerous to yourself as well as any living sexual partners you may have.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.