By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Swiss government is considering legalizing sex between family members

hatmoza said:

My thoughts? Only absolute weirdos would have sex with family members.





3DS Friend Code:   4596-9822-6909

Around the Network
Doobie_wop said:
Chairman-Mao said:
Doobie_wop said:

I sometimes wish I had a really hot sister.


That's the grossest thing I've ever read

Is it? I don't know, I think it'd be pretty damn cool if my life turned into one big hentai fiasco. My talking dog would try and talk me out of my insecurities, I'd get to drive a mech to work every day, I'd randomly unleash powers I never knew I had, I'd always be stuck at the innocent age of 15 and I'd have a super model older sister to sex me up orally. That sounds like a pretty cool life, don't be jealous.


you forgot tenticles......and catching your mom and best friend doing it in your room before you join them.



 

Kasz216 said:

Also, that stuff totally should matter, because your life would of took a completely different career path if the person you married didn't turn out to be such a deceptive douche.

I mean take for example the very common example of people changing or leaving a job because their mate lives in another country.  Direct earning potential completely destroyed there... if you didn't move due to their direct deception and false advertising of themselves you'd be way higher up career wise rather then having to start over.

If it was a buisenss they'd be fined by the government like hell for that.

Well considering what you said in the pst above this one, it makes sense that you gave up having a big career in order for your GF to have one. You didn't really give up something you wanted (which esentially doesn't make it a sacrifice). However a person who would give up something they wanted very much (like a career), so that their SO could have one is simply an idiot!

Also it shouldn't matter. It's too subjective to have any place in a court of law. People should be responsable for their own decisions, and your business analogy is wrong, as people and corporations are fundementally different. You Americans need to stop being so sue-happy and start taking responsability for your bad decisions.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Kasz216 said:
rocketpig said:

If it involves two consenting adults, who am I to say they can't have sex?


Yep.  Though it gets iffy if it's say a 16-18 year old child and a parent as you could claim their parents itentionally socialized them to act that way.


Sick parents exist. By decriminalizing it, they, the sick parents, can secretly abuse  and teach their kids to act that way and it won't be a choice anymore. Am I crazy to think like that?



I am conflicted on this subject for the same reasons that someone else in this thread brought up. I have some libertarian-esque leanings on the social side of things. If consenting adults are committing incestual relations with each other, I really don't care. It's none of my business. That said, we don't like in a purely free market economy so if god forbid two relatives have a baby and it turns out to have down's syndrome, us taxpayers have to foot the bill for the product of their incestuous pleasures.

But when you go down that line of thinking, you could very well justify eugenics. And that is a line that I'd rather us not go down. It's tough to say where you draw the line between liberty and having to conform to societal norms. Even if we lived in a libertarian society, the actions of people still do affect others at least on an indirect level. As humans we are social animals and interconnected and interdependent on another. Think about it. Even in a so-called "perfect" libertarian world where there's no income tax and small government, every single time a person chooses to be an underachiever and not live up to their productive potential, the GDP of the country suffers (since they won't be contributing to the economy all that much). We are all interconnected no matter what. We do not live in a vacuum.



Around the Network
loves2splooge said:

I am conflicted on this subject for the same reasons that someone else in this thread brought up. I have some libertarian-esque leanings on the social side of things. If consenting adults are committing incestual relations with each other, I really don't care. It's none of my business. That said, we don't like in a purely free market economy so if god forbid two relatives have a baby and it turns out to have down's syndrome, us taxpayers have to foot the bill for the product of their incestuous pleasures.

But when you go down that line of thinking, you could very well justify eugenics. And that is a line that I'd rather us not go down. It's tough to say where you draw the line between liberty and having to conform to societal norms. Even if we lived in a libertarian society, the actions of people still do affect others at least on an indirect level. As humans we are social animals and interconnected and interdependent on another. Think about it. Even in a so-called "perfect" libertarian world where there's no income tax and small government, every single time a person chooses to be an underachiever and not live up to their productive potential, the GDP of the country suffers (since they won't be contributing to the economy all that much). We are all interconnected no matter what. We do not live in a vacuum.

That's an overexaggeration. We humans form groups that are more like packs of wolves, rather than ant farms. If we were more like true social animals such as ants, things like communism would work quite well, however we're not.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

DonFerrari said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Reasonable said:
Kasz216 said:
Reasonable said:

Morally I couldn't care less - genetically it's bad news so I'd actually object on those grounds: bad for the species.


Doesn't it take like... dozens of generations of inbreeding to show effects?

The only real issue is genetic diseases becuase your basically guranteeing it will strike

Yeah but so what?  It's still going to happen.  It's not like people will say "well, we'll just have a couple of generations of incest then stop'.  The risk will be there.  Also, a lot of evolution theory indicates that changes can be pretty quick.  Certainly if we're talking people with genetic diseases you're going to see very quick effects, as you say.

Note I'm not talking about sex that's protected but reproduction.  You're basically increasing the odds per generation of weaker, more disease prone children.  I know I wouldn't feel too happy if I was a tenth generation incest child with a lot of physical issues.

It's just not a good idea from any genetic perspective.

Why not, if your extended family or whatever has *good* genes, lacking any particular recessive traits, though that veers dangerously close to the old arguments for eugenics (which then bound into racism, state racism, holocaust, etc etc)

Does it veer anymore near eugentics then banning incest because of fear of inferior genes? 

Plus it's a lopsided law since it ignores the fact that there are a lot of people with negative recessive genes who marry each other that doesn't qualify as incest.

The real "logical" version of a law that prevents incest on genetic means would be...

"Before reporoducing (or I guess having sex in general) you must be tested for genetic diseases, and if you have these you can not have sex with anyone else who has one of those recessive genes."


Would such a law be benefical to the human race?  I could see it being so, but it's awfully damn restrictive.

You see it happen all the time with non-related families, people who keep having kids they know are gentically likely to have mental disorders.  You can't just tell them to NOT have kids.  Then again, you may be for such a thing, what with the afore mentioned authortarian liberal stance and in such a thing does cost the state. (Much like the healthcare arguement for the personal mandate.)


This kind of law wouldn't pass in any democratic country because of violation of your rights.... altough you would have the option to do it yourself if you are smart enough to care.


Which is my point.  When you expand the denial of rights from a subgroup, into the majority, it illustrates the problem.

Like gay addoption being illegal extended to all adoption being illegal.



sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

Also, that stuff totally should matter, because your life would of took a completely different career path if the person you married didn't turn out to be such a deceptive douche.

I mean take for example the very common example of people changing or leaving a job because their mate lives in another country.  Direct earning potential completely destroyed there... if you didn't move due to their direct deception and false advertising of themselves you'd be way higher up career wise rather then having to start over.

If it was a buisenss they'd be fined by the government like hell for that.

Well considering what you said in the pst above this one, it makes sense that you gave up having a big career in order for your GF to have one. You didn't really give up something you wanted (which esentially doesn't make it a sacrifice). However a person who would give up something they wanted very much (like a career), so that their SO could have one is simply an idiot!

Also it shouldn't matter. It's too subjective to have any place in a court of law. People should be responsable for their own decisions, and your business analogy is wrong, as people and corporations are fundementally different. You Americans need to stop being so sue-happy and start taking responsability for your bad decisions.


Eh, i'd of enjoyed it more then working temporary jobs and minimium wage jobs.   However she'd be happier doing her job then i'd be doing that job, and I'm happier doing the crappy jobs in the short term then she'd be.

If I were single i'd of definitly went that way.  As a career it was the most fun option I had at that point, and like I said, being rich is better then being poor.   At that point I was pretty much boxed in to a high paying job I liked, a high paying job I didn't like, or no advantage to having gone to college.



sad.man.loves.vgc said:
Kasz216 said:
rocketpig said:

If it involves two consenting adults, who am I to say they can't have sex?


Yep.  Though it gets iffy if it's say a 16-18 year old child and a parent as you could claim their parents itentionally socialized them to act that way.


Sick parents exist. By decriminalizing it, they, the sick parents, can secretly abuse  and teach their kids to act that way and it won't be a choice anymore. Am I crazy to think like that?


No, it's a real issue.  I did some research after reading this, apparently it's fairly common even for brother's to rape their daughters or other brothers.

Seems like their could be issues abound.



The fact that the majority of the posts in this thread say "Who cares", "Sure why not", and "Yeah! About time" are disturbing to me... It just shows the downfall of society nowadays and it makes me very sad...

Many of the replies here compare us to animals... Really? Are you trying to erase the line between humans and animals? What the fuck is wrong with you? Yeah, let's make murder and rape and pedophilia (I've seen threads on this site CONDONING pedophilia) and everything else legal... I mean shit, debate professors tend to argue about the slippery slope argument, but this thread is a prime example of what mainstream liberalism has done to society...

And YES IT IS BAD FOR THE SPECIES. I mean, did no-one here take any biology courses? (College-level I mean). The benefit we have as a species by having sexual reproduction is that we CREATE DIFFERENTIATION WITHIN THE GENE POOL. The more varied our species is, the more prepared the human race is to evolve...

OH, and protection is NOT 100% effective. Geez people.

The ignorance within this thread is ridiculous...