German government’s Ethics Council - Sex between brothers and sisters should be legal

[z1ggy]

Don't you mean hire some hookers to tie you up in your basement and flog you daily for your extreme enjoyment? Why the government should stop you, I have no idea.

Well, maybe. I was kind of making fun of TH and his post in another thread about gay marriage, where he said he should be allowed to do what he wants with out gov't intervention. He used the analogy that if gays are allowed to marry, he should be able to go have sex with hookers he finds on Craigslist. Something along those lines, I don't remember exactly because I was too busy getting back up from my chair when I fell off it laughing.

 

[Texashiker]

You're conflating issues that are unrelated, which seems to be a common problem with you, but even worse, you're completely misrepresenting the arguments of your so called "liberal pro-abortion pro-gay people."

It is possible to believe that something should be legal while simultaneously having no desire to personally engage in the behavior.

It boils down to this nation being morally bankrupt.

Mothers can kill their unborn child, but when Adam Lanza kills a bunch of school kids there is national outrage?

Gays can have sex with whoever they want, but brothers and sisters can not have sex?

Young girls can get plan B over the counter, but states set age limits on sex?

Someone steals an item from walmart the police are called. Walmart steals overtime pay and nothing happens.

Part of the liberal agenda is the removal of morals and values from society.

 

[soulcougher73]

Im ok with this. It shouldnt be "illegal" as in your going to prison illegal. But it should definatly be frowned upon by society.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It boils down to this nation being morally bankrupt.

Mothers can kill their unborn child, but when Adam Lanza kills a bunch of school kids there is national outrage?

An early abortion to me isn't really any different than pulling out or using birth control. You're stopping something before it really began.

Gays can have sex with whoever they want, but brothers and sisters can not have sex?

Brothers and sisters probably shouldn't have sex, at least not with the intention of reproducing. But if that's what turns them on and they're not creating inbred children, why do you or I care?

Young girls can get plan B over the counter, but states set age limits on sex?

The fact is people have had sex in their early teens for a long time, that isn't anything new in this day and age. Again, to me plan B is really nothing more than birth control. I would prefer 14 year old girls that are sexually active practiced safe sex, or even waited until they were older and more ready mentally for something like sex, but really don't see why plan B shouldn't be available to them.

Someone steals an item from walmart the police are called. Walmart steals overtime pay and nothing happens.

Not familiar with this story. But, it sounds like if Walmart was indeed doing that it should be illegal, no?

Part of the liberal agenda is the removal of morals and values from society.

Fear mongering fud.

 

[momeNt]

Mothers can kill their unborn child, but when Adam Lanza kills a bunch of school kids there is national outrage?

It's a parent choice to exercise the free will to abandon their child, born or unborn. Evacuating a fetus from the womb is the same thing as leaving a newborn wrapped up on a hospital doorstep. The only difference is the fetus isn't viable outside the womb, that isn't the mother's problem.

A child shouldn't be an 18-year sentence placed on you by society, it is unnatural. We are, after all, a product of nature.

 

[Cozarkian]

Brothers and sisters probably shouldn't have sex, at least not with the intention of reproducing. But if that's what turns them on and they're not creating inbred children, why do you or I care?

As nice as it may be to think everybody's decisions are independent of others, the reality is people's decisions are influenced by societal norms. The more siblings that have sex, the more likely it is other siblings will find it acceptable to have sex, which increases the risks of inbred children, which will place a burden on society to care for them. Since inbred chidren will likely place a burden on society, there is a much stronger argument for regulating incest compared to regulating other types of "non-normal" sexual behavior.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

What I dislike about progressives is their holier than thou attitude.

More blathering by toothless hiker

 

[MixMasterTang]

I am beginning to think T.H. doesn't even really know the difference between the typical liberal agenda and the typical conservative agenda. Here's my challenge to T.H.:

Name as many liberal talking points as you can and name as many conservative talking points as you can. This is to be done without correlating anything to abortion.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Young girls can get plan B over the counter, but states set age limits on sex?

Someone steals an item from walmart the police are called. Walmart steals overtime pay and nothing happens.

Part of the liberal agenda is the removal of morals and values from society.

Part of the liberal agenda is being anti-sex and pro-corporation? I think you've got your political ideologies mixed up there. The most rabidly anti-Walmart people in this country are lunatic leftists, not the conservatives who proudly celebrate the capitalist success story the Waltons represent. And where on Earth are liberals trying to set age limits on sex? If you want to misrepresent the liberal ideology towards children having sex, it's that liberals think children should get sex-ed in Kindergarten so they can be prepared to start boning by third grade (with Plan-B being provided in place of milk in the school lunches). You can't even get your stereotypes correct.

 

[werepossum]

As nice as it may be to think everybody's decisions are independent of others, the reality is people's decisions are influenced by societal norms. The more siblings that have sex, the more likely it is other siblings will find it acceptable to have sex, which increases the risks of inbred children, which will place a burden on society to care for them. Since inbred children will likely place a burden on society, there is a much stronger argument for regulating incest compared to regulating other types of "non-normal" sexual behavior.

That is an articulate, practical, principled objection to incest. While this doesn't conclusively mean incest should be banned, this does clearly delineate the differences between gay marriage and incestuous marriage.

Part of the liberal agenda is being anti-sex and pro-corporation? I think you've got your political ideologies mixed up there. The most rabidly anti-Walmart people in this country are lunatic leftists, not the conservatives who proudly celebrate the capitalist success story the Waltons represent. And where on Earth are liberals trying to set age limits on sex? If you want to misrepresent the liberal ideology towards children having sex, it's that liberals think children should get sex-ed in Kindergarten so they can be prepared to start boning by third grade (with Plan-B being provided in place of milk in the school lunches). You can't even get your stereotypes correct.

Darned slippery stereotypes, always confusing people.

 

[SlowSpyder]

As nice as it may be to think everybody's decisions are independent of others, the reality is people's decisions are influenced by societal norms. The more siblings that have sex, the more likely it is other siblings will find it acceptable to have sex, which increases the risks of inbred children, which will place a burden on society to care for them. Since inbred chidren will likely place a burden on society, there is a much stronger argument for regulating incest compared to regulating other types of "non-normal" sexual behavior.

I agree with what you're saying. I mentioned that if they're not having kids, even if it is odd (or even gross) to me, I don't think it should be something that is outlawed. I understand that things don't happen in a vacuum. But the question is where do we draw the line? As an example, the more high calorie unhealthy foods we have, the more unhealthy members of society we have, and of course a corresponding burden on society. Should we outlaw foods that are bad? I'm not sure where the correct answer lies, picking between what is good for society and individual liberties can be tricky at times. I know TH is trying to draw parallels between incest and gay marriage, but I just don't see them the way he does.

 

[Darwin333]

As much as you have a right to do with your body, the government has a right to protect future generations.

You gotta pick one or the other bud. I can think of all sorts of shit the government can do to "protect future generations" that are insanely invasive. I bet a ton of people here think that preventing you from breeding would be a form of "protecting future generations", you want to give the .gov that kind of power or is this just different because its "eww"?

If you are batshit enough to bang your sister, especially on an ongoing and public nature, they are probably going to do it anyway. I don't see the point in throwing them in jail.

 

[zephyrprime]

As nice as it may be to think everybody's decisions are independent of others, the reality is people's decisions are influenced by societal norms. The more siblings that have sex, the more likely it is other siblings will find it acceptable to have sex, which increases the risks of inbred children, which will place a burden on society to care for them. Since inbred chidren will likely place a burden on society, there is a much stronger argument for regulating incest compared to regulating other types of "non-normal" sexual behavior.

But I think that homosexuality could also be vilified if you argue about it's burden upon society. Homosexuals don't have as high of a reproductive rate and since many countries in the West have a below replacement rate of reproduction, you could argue homosexuals do not contribute enough children to society. (in before someone claims overpopulation to counter my argument!)

 

[werepossum]

But I think that homosexuality could also be vilified if you argue about it's burden upon society. Homosexuals don't have as high of a reproductive rate and since many countries in the West have a below replacement rate of reproduction, you could argue homosexuals do not contribute enough children to society. (in before someone claims overpopulation to counter my argument!)

Well, you could argue that if we weren't importing people like crazy. You could also argue that by forgoing children whose place is later taken by productive adults, homosexuals are actually contributing more to society than are heterosexuals, as our children are pure consumers for the first decade or two. You could argue any number of things, but in the end, if the individuals or couples are pulling their own weight then society can just suck it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

As nice as it may be to think everybody's decisions are independent of others, the reality is people's decisions are influenced by societal norms. The more siblings that have sex, the more likely it is other siblings will find it acceptable to have sex, which increases the risks of inbred children, which will place a burden on society to care for them. Since inbred chidren will likely place a burden on society, there is a much stronger argument for regulating incest compared to regulating other types of "non-normal" sexual behavior.

While your argument that the reduction of the legal ramifications will lead to more incest is certainly correct, it will not lead to a lot more. First off the social taboo will not be so easily broken down, and then you have to factor in that we are biologically programed to not be sexually attracted to people we have a sibling bond to. There are societies today with out legal restrictions on incestuous relationships and we don't see a lot of it even in those societies. So from that we can infer that we would not see a large increase in it here either.

But, we will see some increase. Is that a strong enough argument to justify it being outlawed? I don't think so. The odds of birth defects from incest is actually quite low. It does not really become a problem until, as someone else pointed out, you have several generations of incestuous relationships building up on each other that you start to see any significant increase in birth defects. We should also remember that these birth defects are caused by a concentration of bad alleles, not the generation of new alleles. That means that most of the birth defects would still be occurring, just in a more spread out population. So, it does not create a greater burden on society, only a more compact one.

 

[Smoblikat]

If you have any libertarian tendencies at all, why are you against letting consenting adults do whatever they want?

Bingo!

I dont care who fucks what/who. As long as its not me, without my consent.

 

[Pulsar]

I wonder how it feels to start a thread like this and have almost every single post tell you just how wrong you are.

Not quite epic enough for a pwnage of the year, but definitely honorable mention!

 

[MrPickins]

I wonder how it feels to start a thread like this and have almost every single post tell you just how wrong you are.

Not quite epic enough for a pwnage of the year, but definitely honorable mention!

This is par for TexasHiker's course.