Incest rears its ugly head

[nakinate]

When it comes to incest, you can't simply say they are two consenting adults. A father and daughter situation is different than 2 cousins. A father has a certain amount of influence throughout the life of their child. It would not be difficult to groom a child for a incestuous relationship once they are of age. It is disgusting and a line must be drawn because there IS a victim.

 

[KLB]

Do we ban breeding of those with Hunting's Disease in their families?

What about older women, who have a higher rate of Down Syndrome children?

Which is the greater health concern? How comfortable with Eugenics are you?

I don't waste my time with blatant ignorance. Feel free to wallow in your lack of understanding. I won't have to see it from now on.

Please explain how this is ignorance. I have a niece who had a child with Cartilage-Hair Hypoplasia. That means that there is a 25% chance that any other child could also have it. Should she not be allowed to have any more children?

 

[hornadylnl]

Well, if that's your "morality" so be it. I have worked with victims of incest, some under 10 years of age. I'm thinking that's an experience many of them will never get past. As for adultery, hey, the liberty crowd should have no problem (hint: two consenting adults).

We don't have adultery pride parades or celebrate adultery as just another expression of love. But that wouldn't surprise me in this day and age.

Again for the umpteenth time, I haven't said anywhere 'there oughta be a law'.

As for your statement that adultery is more damaging than incest, that has to be the least sensible thing I have ever read on INGO. But I guess proving my point. We're on the slope, and it's slippery.



Changing the subject again?

Individual morality, based on one's own appetites and preferences, is not morality or ethics in any sense of the word.

Even a pedophile thinks he is a moral man.

There is a false premise in most of the con posts here. I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about social norms.

How do you enforce your social norms?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't waste my time with blatant ignorance. Feel free to wallow in your lack of understanding. I won't have to see it from now on.

Gosh, oh no. You're ignoring me? The silent treatment? Well, thanks for letting me know.

Just as a heads up, you don't have to tell us your ignoring us. It just makes it seem dramatic.

Anywho, for those who can still read my posts:

INGO Political Forum -
A place where a Daddy can **** his Daughter and be cheered for it.

Believing something isn't our business to wield government against isn't cheering it. There are many behaviors and activities I personally find morally repugnant, but that doesn't mean I should get to wield government against it unless I can show some harm to someone who isn't a voluntary participant.

That's my point, it WILL progress to a point one day that even you will believe somebody is being harmed.

More strawman, just like with gay marriage threads. You can't come up with a reason why THIS is worthy of government intervention, so you have to paint some menace looming down the road. Can we not consider each step individually and decide each issue on its own merits? Of course we can, and we do. Laws and societal norms are certainly not all or nothing. Once someone is being harmed, we can draw the line. Easy enough.

What about when the age of consent is lowered to 12 years old or done away with entirely for example?
So then if there was no age of consent and parents had no say in whether their 9 year old daughter (or son) married a 40 year old man, that would be OK since it's "legal"?

Like Colonial America? It's all been downhill morally since then, I guess. Oh, wait. That's a separate issue and we've successively raised the age of consent and the age of marriage over the years from none to 10 to 12 to 14 to 16 or 18 in most states. To be clear, the people we are talking about in this thread are not 12. They are both of the age that society has deemed them capable of making their own coupling decisions. That's the whole point. They are free to choose, even if they choose poorly.

All these pages, and not one person has come up with who the victim is that needs our protection. Except the person who's ignoring me because apparently believing in hereditary diseases or remembering our country had a eugenics program is wallowing in ignorance.

 

[oldpink]

Stop the tyranny of marriage only between unrelated individuals now!

[video=youtube;myhnAZFR1po]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myhnAZFR1po[/video]

 

[edporch]

What if this what if that. You can "what if" an infinite number of situations. Now, none of us can predict the future, but the number of people wanting to lower the age of consent is so infinitesimally small that the argument is laughable. If that time comes I guess you will see 10yr olds working McDonalds, driving, voting, drinking, signing contracts, because those are FAR more likely to occur and are closely lnked.

I was going on the basis of answering to "nobody being hurt".
Though we can't predict the exact future and time frame of things, now that the courts have thrown out the "one man one woman" marriage formula, the the envelope will continue to be pushed.

It will involve the basic traditional taboos that still stand.
Polygamy, age of consent/parental consent................even animals?

It's not logical to think these limits won't gradually be pushed as time goes by.

 

[steveh_131]

The thought of two individuals voluntarily paying the government for a piece of paper does not keep me up at night.

Their relationship is certainly disturbing, but that piece of paper won't change it.

 

[edporch]

Originally Posted by edporch That's my point, it WILL progress to a point one day that even you will believe somebody is being harmed.

-snip-
More strawman, just like with gay marriage threads. You can't come up with a reason why THIS is worthy of government intervention, so you have to paint some menace looming down the road. Can we not consider each step individually and decide each issue on its own merits? Of course we can, and we do. Laws and societal norms are certainly not all or nothing. Once someone is being harmed, we can draw the line. Easy enough.
-snip-

WHERE have I ever challenged the constitutionality of gay state marriage licenses?

My only point is now that the "one man, one woman" barrier has been thrown out in the courts, to think it will end there is just not logical.
The other taboos of polygamy, age of consent and even animals WILL one day also be challenged in court.
There's nothing to prevent this.

Each of us will have to decide where we weigh in on these things.

 

[rw496]

"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind...Three generations of imbeciles are enough. " Justice Holmes

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Each of us will have to decide where we weigh in on these things.

Sure we will, and none of them have anything to do with the case under discussion.

As for where you weighed in on gay marriage, I wasn't saying you specifically and I apologize if that wasn't clear. Just go look in the threads on the forum here (or a few snippets here) and you'll see the same arguments. The slippery slope. The sinfulness. The moral decline. Yet...no victims.

Since it keeps coming up, bestiality laws were enacted in Indiana in 2007. I'm not sure what affect this has had on the number of man/sheep relationships in the state, but did you notice any difference in pre-2007 Indiana vs post-2007 Indiana? Polygamy is so taboo its on national television and is the norm in some cultures and communities. Again, who's the victim?

 

[Denny347]

I was going on the basis of answering to "nobody being hurt".
Though we can't predict the exact future and time frame of things, now that the courts have thrown out the "one man one woman" marriage formula, the the envelope will continue to be pushed.

It will involve the basic traditional taboos that still stand.
Polygamy, age of consent/parental consent................even animals?

It's not logical to think these limits won't gradually be pushed as time goes by.

They have always been pushed and they will continue to be pushed. Societal norms have changed over the decades and centuries. It is an unstoppable process.

 

[hornadylnl]

They have always been pushed and they will continue to be pushed. Societal norms have changed over the decades and centuries. It is an unstoppable process.

I'm currently reading an ebook called Slave Narratives: A Folk History of Slavery in the United States from Interviews with Former Slaves, Arkansas Narratives, Part 4.

The interviews are shown as being conducted in the late 1930's and those interviewed were either born right before, during or after the civil war. The questions aren't in the book but it's pretty obvious the same basic questions were asked of all those interviewed. One of them was what did they think of the youth today (i.e., late 1930's). Almost all of them have said that the young move too fast today and a good part of them said that the youth are wild. That seems kind of strange because all of those who complain about today's youth harken back to the 50's or before and lament the respect that they youth had back then.

I bet if you could find a book of interviews from older people from any cross section of society from any time period that commented on the current youth, the majority would think they're heathens. I'd bet a cold one that the same attitude would be shared regarding morality.

 

[Dead Duck]

Keep it simple -

Good vs Evil have never changed.

Only the amount of each and time has.









"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

 

[cobber]

How do you enforce your social norms?

I am not a society, so I don't enforce 'social norms'. Society sets a consensus and operates within those parameters. Sometimes norms are codified into law, and sometimes not.

But now we're seeing more and more that norms are bad, because, well, liberty. Freedom is great until it starts creeping someone out based on their 'personal morality' (and more than one poster here has alluded to that).

I am not suing a bakery for not baking my same-sex cake. You might ask the plaintiffs in that case for starters.

 

[hornadylnl]

I am not a society, so I don't enforce 'social norms'. Society sets a consensus and operates within those parameters. Sometimes norms are codified into law, and sometimes not.

But now we're seeing more and more that norms are bad, because, well, liberty. Freedom is great until it starts creeping someone out based on their 'personal morality' (and more than one poster here has alluded to that).

I am not suing a bakery for not baking my same-sex cake. You might ask the plaintiffs in that case for starters.

I'm asking YOU how YOU want to enforce social norms you see fit? It's quite obvious you want to. So the majority gets to codify into law what the majority thinks should be the norm? So the minority is always at the mercy of the majority?

 

[rambone]

Well, if that's your "morality" so be it.

No, I stated clearly that the two actions are morally equivalent sins. I didn't make it up myself.

My comment was that adultery is far more impactful on society.

As for your statement that adultery is more damaging than incest, that has to be the least sensible thing I have ever read on INGO. But I guess proving my point. We're on the slope, and it's slippery.

The simplest reason it is more damaging to society is because adultery happens a million times more often than incest. Adultery impacts an appalling number of families. (A lot more than incestuous lovebirds fleeing to New Jersey -- so rare that it makes headlines.)

As for adultery, hey, the liberty crowd should have no problem (hint: two consenting adults).

The question was directed at you, not the liberty crowd. No problem, forget I asked.

so you do oppose the laws against incest?

Yes, I oppose the ridiculous laws. I have no desire to pay for government to play this role.

Again for the umpteenth time, I haven't said anywhere 'there oughta be a law'.

Your original post was all about the legality of incest. You explicitly said, "Remember, you can't outlaw something based on your 'morality'..." and "why should this not be legal..."

"Can you smell the freedom?"

Why are you prodding the "freedom crowd" if you AGREE that there oughtta NOT be a law?

Individual morality, based on one's own appetites and preferences, is not morality or ethics in any sense of the word.

Even a pedophile thinks he is a moral man.

There is a false premise in most of the con posts here. I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about social norms.

You're right that every man's way is right in his own eyes.

However, social norms have been defined by complete depravity since Day One. Recall that this stuff was explicitly addressed in the Old Testament. There is truly nothing new going on here.

 

[hornadylnl]

I wonder how many witch burners were part of the Hellfire clubs.

 

[chezuki]

Wow.

Will someone provide Cliffs Notes, or even just a list of the the pro-incest INGO whackjobs so I can go ahead and file them under "people I want nothing to do with". I really don't feel like sifting through this entire thread.

 

[printcraft]

Wow.

Will someone provide Cliff's Notes, or even just a list of the the pro-incest INGO whackjobs so I can go ahead and file them under "people I want nothing to do with". I really don't feel like sifting through this entire thread.

Awwww come on, what are you some kind of zealot? Get with the times man!

 

[hornadylnl]

Wow.

Will someone provide Cliffs Notes, or even just a list of the the pro-incest INGO whackjobs so I can go ahead and file them under "people I want nothing to do with". I really don't feel like sifting through this entire thread.

List of pro incest INGOers as follows:

1.