Is consensual incest a crime? Should it be a crime, or not?

[SmudgyRotter]

Hey, I’ve seen too many political threads on here lately, so I want something interesting. I want answers mainly from liberals, leftists, democrats, etc. or whatever side that is considered hating other side, in this off topic; because I think that those people have very “interesting” moral concept or whatever. I wanna listen.

Anyway, what do you think?

Oh you all should check movie out. Good, educational film for entire family that is 18+.

https://youtu.be/EM4aTFO_ML0?si=ksMGAZEZpPWsX5NU

[Grumb]

GloriousZote lähetti viestin:

Grumb lähetti viestin:

Chris Chan is that you?

Couldn't be, what happened with that creature wasn't consensual.

Yeah fair point lmao

[SmudgyRotter]

crunchyfrog lähetti viestin:

SmudgyRotter lähetti viestin:

People should love and sex whoever they want to :(

Nope they should not. Because thre can be situations where people can exploit and in regard to incest, there's clear scientific reasons why ity's bad idea.

That's why the law exists.

You're simply wrong.

But why? They don’t harm you. Why do you have to oppress them?

[crunchyfrog]

GloriousZote lähetti viestin:

crunchyfrog lähetti viestin:

Then please answer my question I've asked twice now. I haven't made any sweeping assumptions. Don't just assert "no u".

Again, demonstrate how law shouldn't work this way.

The demonstration is what started this discussion, people who cannot procreate do not risk anything here, if they both consent, no harm is done. It's not "fair" to those who can procreate, but I don't think that matters.

That's not my claim.

My claim was that regarding the LAW. They asked about whether it should be inhibited if they couldn't procreate. No because that's not how law works.

Law tends to cover EVERYT eventuality as I pointed out. So yeah, you could have someone that can't procreate and you go "yeah let them at it". And then miraculously they DO conceive. That happens a LOT (the conceive part).

So you're stuck and that's what you need to avoid.

So I ask for the FOURTH time the question that people don't want to answer - which is better for society as a whole? That of cutting off the problems and potentials and loopholes by making it blanket across the board or giving these exceptions and the potential arms race of empoit, then closing the exploit, then another exploit and so on?

Because it's obvious as law work that way I've demonstrated. Take it up with laws and governments.

[GloriousZote]

crunchyfrog lähetti viestin:

GloriousZote lähetti viestin:

The demonstration is what started this discussion, people who cannot procreate do not risk anything here, if they both consent, no harm is done. It's not "fair" to those who can procreate, but I don't think that matters.

That's not my claim.

My claim was that regarding the LAW. They asked about whether it should be inhibited if they couldn't procreate. No because that's not how law works.

Law tends to cover EVERYT eventuality as I pointed out. So yeah, you could have someone that can't procreate and you go "yeah let them at it". And then miraculously they DO conceive. That happens a LOT (the conceive part).

So you're stuck and that's what you need to avoid.

So I ask for the FOURTH time the question that people don't want to answer - which is better for society as a whole? That of cutting off the problems and potentials and loopholes by making it blanket across the board or giving these exceptions and the potential arms race of empoit, then closing the exploit, then another exploit and so on?

Because it's obvious as law work that way I've demonstrated. Take it up with laws and governments.

>And then miraculously they DO conceive.
My dude, if two men manage to conceive a child, do tell me.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

you asked specifficly do I think it should be against the states law.

as a Christian I have opinions over this but the bible also sais dont lay the laws of God upon those that don't by their own testemony are Christians.


the biblical laws in play here :
-there is no biblical law against a man marring multiple wifes.
-there is a rule against a woman having multiple husbands.
-though it is implied that polygamy has ceized (in many lines)
so it can at least be determined that polygamy is highly disencouramged by God.
**
but in the rules when onr selects a partner.. one is not allowed to marry your direct offspring
like children, grandchildrem and so ob.. and that also means no parents, grandparents etc.
**
it even is extended.. if you martied a woman you are not allowed to take as another wife her sister daughter, granddaighter, etc.. nor het mother, grandmothet etx..
-
likewise you are not allowed to marry a woman that is a sister/mother/grandmother etc of your dads/granddads etc wife.
(but a daughter/grandaughter etc iis ok.
*
in reverse you are not allowed to marry a woman thats a sister/dauughter/grandaughter eyc of you son/grandsns etc wife

cousins are however biblical no proplem at all.

=======
now the state law..

*what people do in public is a matter of the state
*what people do in the bedroom is not
-
as such while immoral I see no reason why incest in itself would have to be against the law.

thats however not the entire story.

-incest children have a high chance at birth defects.
it is immoral to risk their creation.
as abortion is murder.. and never an option.

marriage is also for the state a tax discount un exchange for future taxpayers aka children.

I am of the opionin that 3d degree related and further is no risk and should be allowed to marry and have kids

2d grade and less should nor be allowed to marry or have children.
should they have sex regardless they should make sure there will be no pregnancies.
I don't see a reason to make it a crime even if that still happens.. but I would say your assets would neef to be ceised to pay for all future expenses by the state healthcare system + you must be sterilised to prevent it from happenimg again
-if you not wish to be sterilised and prefer life in jail instead that is your right to choose.

but the final argumemt ; unequal positions of power.
abuse of minors by adults is abuse of powrr and criminal.
but we also have other forms.
patients by their therapist or doctor
students by their teacher or professor
enployees by their boss
end so on..

this would be no issue if 2 siblings team up

but what if it is a parent with a child or grandparent with a grandchilld?

in all power inbalamce we do 2 steps.
1 we look if the relatiobship is desured by one and equal.. a mentally unstable patient may be afult be can still be groomed and exploited .
a boss can demand favors for promotions but does thar enployee really want it?
-if the weaker party is considered not willing/is impaired in their judgment the stronger party totally gets jailtime.

*this should than happen for this type of incent too.

if the relationdhip is in itself made equally.. than their job is terminated and they are banned from doimg that job ever again.

one cannot be terminated from being a parent/grandparents..
-but for the law it would mean that the weaker party has to forego all rights on a future inheritance.
-while the stronger party has to monitise all assets and share them over their offspring as they would had they died at this momeny
-the stronger parry also needs to be sterilised.. do they are effective fired from ever doing that job of being a parent again.

[Sir Seanicus, Esq.]

Gamers agree. Consensual incest is good. Look at Coffin of Andy and Leyley.

[crunchyfrog]

GloriousZote lähetti viestin:

crunchyfrog lähetti viestin:

That's not my claim.

My claim was that regarding the LAW. They asked about whether it should be inhibited if they couldn't procreate. No because that's not how law works.

Law tends to cover EVERYT eventuality as I pointed out. So yeah, you could have someone that can't procreate and you go "yeah let them at it". And then miraculously they DO conceive. That happens a LOT (the conceive part).

So you're stuck and that's what you need to avoid.

So I ask for the FOURTH time the question that people don't want to answer - which is better for society as a whole? That of cutting off the problems and potentials and loopholes by making it blanket across the board or giving these exceptions and the potential arms race of empoit, then closing the exploit, then another exploit and so on?

Because it's obvious as law work that way I've demonstrated. Take it up with laws and governments.

>And then miraculously they DO conceive.
My dude, if two men manage to conceive a child, do tell me.

Where did I ever claim anything about two same sex people?

That's not the claim. We're talking about the LAW which must cover all eventualities. So it doesn't and cannot distinguish by gender or sex either- that's not how it works.

What I was referring to about not conceiving or not being able to then miraculously doing so is something that happens all the time. Go and look at people who consult services at fertility clinics. There's quite a number that conceive out of the blue and remove themselves from the service.

[crunchyfrog]

De Hollandse Ezel lähetti viestin:

you asked specifficly do I think it should be against the states law.

as a Christian I have opinions over this but the bible also sais dont lay the laws of God upon those that don't by their own testemony are Christians.


the biblical laws in play here :
-there is no biblical law against a man marring multiple wifes.
-there is a rule against a woman having multiple husbands.
-though it is implied that polygamy has ceized (in many lines)
so it can at least be determined that polygamy is highly disencouramged by God.
**
but in the rules when onr selects a partner.. one is not allowed to marry your direct offspring
like children, grandchildrem and so ob.. and that also means no parents, grandparents etc.
**
it even is extended.. if you martied a woman you are not allowed to take as another wife her sister daughter, granddaighter, etc.. nor het mother, grandmothet etx..
-
likewise you are not allowed to marry a woman that is a sister/mother/grandmother etc of your dads/granddads etc wife.
(but a daughter/grandaughter etc iis ok.
*
in reverse you are not allowed to marry a woman thats a sister/dauughter/grandaughter eyc of you son/grandsns etc wife

cousins are however biblical no proplem at all.

=======
now the state law..

*what people do in public is a matter of the state
*what people do in the bedroom is not
-
as such while immoral I see no reason why incest in itself would have to be against the law.

thats however not the entire story.

-incest children have a high chance at birth defects.
it is immoral to risk their creation.
as abortion is murder.. and never an option.

marriage is also for the state a tax discount un exchange for future taxpayers aka children.

I am of the opionin that 3d degree related and further is no risk and should be allowed to marry and have kids

2d grade and less should nor be allowed to marry or have children.
should they have sex regardless they should make sure there will be no pregnancies.
I don't see a reason to make it a crime even if that still happens.. but I would say your assets would neef to be ceised to pay for all future expenses by the state healthcare system + you must be sterilised to prevent it from happenimg again
-if you not wish to be sterilised and prefer life in jail instead that is your right to choose.

but the final argumemt ; unequal positions of power.
abuse of minors by adults is abuse of powrr and criminal.
but we also have other forms.
patients by their therapist or doctor
students by their teacher or professor
enployees by their boss
end so on..

this would be no issue if 2 siblings team up

but what if it is a parent with a child or grandparent with a grandchilld?

in all power inbalamce we do 2 steps.
1 we look if the relatiobship is desured by one and equal.. a mentally unstable patient may be afult be can still be groomed and exploited .
a boss can demand favors for promotions but does thar enployee really want it?
-if the weaker party is considered not willing/is impaired in their judgment the stronger party totally gets jailtime.

*this should than happen for this type of incent too.

if the relationdhip is in itself made equally.. than their job is terminated and they are banned from doimg that job ever again.

one cannot be terminated from being a parent/grandparents..
-but for the law it would mean that the weaker party has to forego all rights on a future inheritance.
-while the stronger party has to monitise all assets and share them over their offspring as they would had they died at this momeny
-the stronger parry also needs to be sterilised.. do they are effective fired from ever doing that job of being a parent again.

Religious or chirstinan law is moot. As you CANNOT push such things on other who don't believe or don't share the same religion as you.

That's completely wrong.

[GloriousZote]

crunchyfrog lähetti viestin:

GloriousZote lähetti viestin:

>And then miraculously they DO conceive.
My dude, if two men manage to conceive a child, do tell me.

Where did I ever claim anything about two same sex people?

That's not the claim. We're talking about the LAW which must cover all eventualities. So it doesn't and cannot distinguish by gender or sex either- that's not how it works.

What I was referring to about not conceiving or not being able to then miraculously doing so is something that happens all the time. Go and look at people who consult services at fertility clinics. There's quite a number that conceive out of the blue and remove themselves from the service.

"That's not how it works"
Well maybe it should, that's sort of my point here.

[crunchyfrog]

GloriousZote lähetti viestin:

crunchyfrog lähetti viestin:

Where did I ever claim anything about two same sex people?

That's not the claim. We're talking about the LAW which must cover all eventualities. So it doesn't and cannot distinguish by gender or sex either- that's not how it works.

What I was referring to about not conceiving or not being able to then miraculously doing so is something that happens all the time. Go and look at people who consult services at fertility clinics. There's quite a number that conceive out of the blue and remove themselves from the service.

"That's not how it works"
Well maybe it should, that's sort of my point here.

Then you need to do two things.

Go and look up how laws are made, and you will either learn where you're wrong and why I pointed out you need to try and think about things you'll miss (empathy and all that).

and if you are right you can lobby your government.

[GloriousZote]

crunchyfrog lähetti viestin:

GloriousZote lähetti viestin:

"That's not how it works"
Well maybe it should, that's sort of my point here.

Then you need to do two things.

Go and look up how laws are made, and you will either learn where you're wrong and why I pointed out you need to try and think about things you'll miss (empathy and all that).

and if you are right you can lobby your government.

Yeah I don't really give enough of a ♥♥♥♥ to go on a campaign about incest.
Anyways I can see this is going nowhere.

[crunchyfrog]

GloriousZote lähetti viestin:

crunchyfrog lähetti viestin:

Then you need to do two things.

Go and look up how laws are made, and you will either learn where you're wrong and why I pointed out you need to try and think about things you'll miss (empathy and all that).

and if you are right you can lobby your government.

Yeah I don't really give enough of a ♥♥♥♥ to go on a campaign about incest.
Anyways I can see this is going nowhere.

No problem, as long as you understand what I mean.

Not saying I agree or disagree. I'm just explainng how law works. When I was working in law there were plenty of laws I disagreed with but had to follow and use or even promote.

[GloriousZote]

crunchyfrog lähetti viestin:

GloriousZote lähetti viestin:

Yeah I don't really give enough of a ♥♥♥♥ to go on a campaign about incest.
Anyways I can see this is going nowhere.

No problem, as long as you understand what I mean.

Not saying I agree or disagree. I'm just explainng how law works. When I was working in law there were plenty of laws I disagreed with but had to follow and use or even promote.

Okay but this is about how it should be, not how it is, though, so...

[crunchyfrog]

GloriousZote lähetti viestin:

crunchyfrog lähetti viestin:

No problem, as long as you understand what I mean.

Not saying I agree or disagree. I'm just explainng how law works. When I was working in law there were plenty of laws I disagreed with but had to follow and use or even promote.

Okay but this is about how it should be, not how it is, though, so...

And I still think that what YOU claim is NOT how it should be for the reasons I pointed out - you are opening up problems galore that you haven't foreseen. That's the point.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

so the short version the law shouldbe :

3d degree of relationship and further no restrictions.

2d degree of relationship and closer :

law 1

if (half)-siblings.
legal to have sex, but banned from marriage.
-your own responsibility to not cause pregnancies
-if you fail and a pregnancy follows pubisment us as follows :
*all your financial assets are ceized by the state including future income above a minimum living alowance.
*both biological parents of the incesrchild are ti be sterilised.

Law 2
in all other cases
-an investifation will be started to find out if the relationship is not exploitation

2A if exploitation.
the older partner will go to jail for 20 yeara
the okder partner will be sterilised
the older partner will need to pay a large fine to the weaker party.

2B if consentual
the older partner will be sterilised, or go to jail 20 years (their chooise)
the older partner will have to sell all assets and pay all relatives their inherintave share as us legal as if they died today
the weaker party is stripped from testament for future inheiratance