Should Incest Be Illegal?

[AzureWolf]

[COLOR=blue]You are reading more than what I wrote, James. In fact, you missed the entire point of my murder analogy. In a similar misunderstanding, you are assuming that I said you agree with rape and murder. Please, do not read beyond what I have said.

I was using the murder analogy because people can immediately agree that it's something that should be illegal. That was the [B]only[/B] reason I was using it. Extreme or not, I think it worked well to illustrate the logical fallacy on your side of the argument. I was showing that if one followed that flow of logic, then one can say anything that cannot be enforced should not be illegal (and HYPOTHETICALLY used murder as an example). Hence, HYPOTHETICAL murder clearly shows why "you can't enforce it" is poor support for not making incest illegal.

If you truly are not confusing law with law enforcement, then why bring up the latter at all? How something gets enforced should be a concern [i]after[/i] something becomes illegal. Enforcement, ideally, should not be a determining factor in whether something becomes illegal. See my murder analogy for further elaboration - inability to enforce should not stop something from being illegal.

And again, illegal is illegal. You fail to explain the relevance of making a distinction between types of crimes. And this whole notion about keeping the government out of the bedroom is still trite unless you can explain how your double standard can be implemented (i.e., if it's rape, then you are allowed to know about someone's sex life, but if it's not, then you are not). [QUOTE]But if two adult cousins are having sex in their own house, am I going to go in there and prosecute them? I think that's ridiculous. You are taking two adults and you are telling them that they don't have the right to make a choice about their sex lives - you are effectively legislating sexual acts.[/QUOTE] You also fail to explain what is so wrong about legislating sexual acts. You keep talking about how it's some sacred, above-the-law situation, but at the same time, you wave a banner against rape. Whether you like it or not, rape is a sexual act, which has been forbidden by law. Sexual acts have been legislated. You can put rape in other categories as well, but again, one of the categories it falls into is a sexual act, regardless of it's "harm to another" element. [QUOTE]Nobody is saying that if a murder occurs in a bedroom that it shouldn't be prosecuted or investigated. That's just asenine. And it totally misunderstands everything I've been saying here thusfar. When I talk about "in the bedroom", I'm talking about sexual acts between two consenting adults. I am not talking about murder or rape or any other crime where one person is preying on another.[/QUOTE] This is what I'm talking about. If the government is to not interfere in sexual behaviors of people, how are things like rape going to be discovered? Do they check and then forget about things if they aren't rape?

When you answer that question, it goes back to something I said earlier about murder: [QUOTE]If you are going to bring up missing people - well, there you go: going into the bedroom by proxy and not directly invading privacy. In the same sense, things like incest can be discovered by equally indirect means.[/QUOTE] While it's certainly great incest doesn't do harm to another person (but to society as a whole), I still see no reason to NOT make it illegal.[/COLOR]

[James]

[quote=AzureWolf]You are reading more than what I wrote, James. In fact, you missed the entire point of my murder analogy. In a similar misunderstanding, you are assuming that I said you agree with rape and murder. Please, do not read beyond what I have said.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]Okay, let's take another look at what you said:[/color][/font]

[quote=Azurewolf][i]The current logic you are employing is that if a murder happens inside a bedroom, there should be nothing done about it (or there can't be anything done about it). Afterall, it's their bedroom and the privacy of their bedroom is certainly impossible to circumvent. If you are going to bring up missing people - well, there you go: going into the bedroom by proxy and not directly invading privacy. In the same sense, things like incest can be discovered by equally indirect means.
[/i][/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]By using the example of murder, you're trying to draw a comparison here.

I have gone to great lengths to explain that incest and murder are two very different things. Therefore, they shouldn't be held to the same standards. Many things are "illegal", but this is why we have different penalties for different types of crimes.

The problem is that you're using the "slippery slope" mentality. You're assuming that if private sexual relations can't be prosecuted, that other crimes also can't. That line of thinking is highly simplistic and it fails to recognize the distinctions I've been making.[/color][/font]

[quote=Azurewolf]If you truly are not confusing law with law enforcement, then why bring up the latter at all? How something gets enforced should be a concern after something becomes illegal. Enforcement, ideally, should not be a determining factor in whether something becomes illegal. See my murder analogy for further elaboration - inability to enforce should not stop something from being illegal.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]Again...we're going around in circles here, lol.

First of all, you are making blanket comparisons. Yes, murder and incest might both be illegal. Jay-walking and rape are illegal, but nobody would argue that the two are at all in the same ballpark, which is why there are noteably different penalties for both.

In regard to enforcement, yes, enforcement is a factor. I am not confusing the law with enforcement, I am saying that the two are intrinsically linked.

My argument isn't that we shouldn't make something illegal because it's difficult to enforce (read: virtually impossible to enforce, thus making the law itself somewhat redundant). My argument is that [b]you[/b] have no right to tell two consenting adults that they can't have sex. That is none of your business, nor should it be the business of the state.[/color][/font]

[quote name='Azurewolf']And again, illegal is illegal. You fail to explain the relevance of making a distinction between types of crimes. And this whole notion about keeping the government out of the bedroom is still trite unless you can explain how your double standard can be implemented (i.e., if it's rape, then you are allowed to know about someone's sex life, but if it's not, then you are not). [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]I haven't failed to explain anything; I have just gone to great lengths to point out the key differences between consentual sex among adults and a violent crime.

This is the standard through which many laws are written and applied. It's not illegal, for example, to cheat on a spouse (although many would argue that it is immoral). But it [i]is[/i] illegal to go and rape someone. What is the difference between the two? In the first case, you are talking about two consenting adults having sex. In the latter, you're talking about one person violently attacking another.

The distinctions [i]are[/i] important. The entire legal system is based on these distinctions.[/color][/font]

[quote name='Azurewolf']You also fail to explain what is so wrong about legislating sexual acts. You keep talking about how it's some sacred, above-the-law situation, but at the same time, you wave a banner against rape. Whether you like it or not, rape is a sexual act, which has been forbidden by law. Sexual acts have been legislated. You can put rape in other categories as well, but again, one of the categories it falls into is a sexual act, regardless of it's "harm to another" element. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]Hang on a moment, you're comparing rape (as a sexual act) to consentual sexual acts? Nuh-uh. You're missing the point.

Rape is a violent crime. It is a crime that contains an [b]unwilling participant[/b]. That is the key distinction that defines rape.

Incest among two consenting adults is fundamentally different. Whether we think it's morally right or wrong, it shouldn't be illegal. It involves two adults having consentual sex. It does not involve an unwilling participant or a violent crime.

So that's the key distinction that I've been repeatedly making.[/color][/font]

[quote=Azurewolf]This is what I'm talking about. If the government is to not interfere in sexual behaviors of people, how are things like rape going to be discovered? Do they check and then forget about things if they aren't rape?

When you answer that question, it goes back to something I said earlier about murder:[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]You're taking "in the bedroom" far too literally, though. lol

I am saying that sexual acts between consenting adults are not the business of the government. [i]However[/i] acts of violence, or acts perpetrated against unwilling participants (ie: rape) require legal action; in these cases we're talking about situations where people are actually being hurt and are not consenting.

When I talk about "in the bedroom", I'm speaking metaphorically. I am saying that the government doesn't have the right to get involved in people's private lives, so long as they aren't actually commiting violent crimes (of which rape is one).[/color][/font]

[quote=Azurewolf]While it's certainly great incest doesn't do harm to another person (but to society as a whole), I still see no reason to NOT make it illegal.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]The point about going in by proxy seems silly to me. So...what, the government is going to go in under different circumstances and hope that they find something related to incest? Or...people are going to spy on their neighbours and call the cops if they think incestual sex is going on? C'mon now.

As I said, in regard to incest...I am not even talking about having children and what that would entail. That's a whole other area that I haven't commented on (other than my brief comments earlier on).

What I am talking about is something that isn't hard to understand. I am saying, simply, that the government has no business getting involved in people's private and consentual sex lives (if they are adults). You, on the other hand, are saying that the government has the right to legislate the private relationships of adults.

Earlier on you mentioned the "slippery slope" argument in reference to my comments on enforcement. So, let's do the same with your argument. Where does the government stop, when it comes to legislating sexual relations? Do we start arresting same-sex couples who are doing no harm to anyone? Do we tell those with disabilities that they can't have sexual relationships? Do we stop interracial intercourse? Really, how far does it go?

I don't view the slippery slope argument as being logical in any sense. So obviously, the questions I'm asking above are only to point out that this approach can be taken with almost any argument that relates to almost any subject.

The bottom line is that you want to police the private and consenting relationships of adults. I don't. I only want to police these matters when someone is actually the subject of violence or force (that includes both rape and pedophilia). But if two cousins at a farm are having sex in the barn yard? Why is that any of my business? It isn't; it has nothing to do with me. I'm not interested in their sexual practices, lol.

Please note, though, that I'm not trying to change your opinion here. I'm just pointing out the various misinterpretations that have been made, so that my point is that much clearer.

I [b]know[/b] that I'll never convince you that it shouldn't be illegal, in the same way that I'll never convince Mnemolth that homosexuality and beastiality are totally different. We are coming from two very different angles, which I understand.[/color][/font]

[quote=Morpheus]
Though I am not a theist, I am well versed in christianity. Wouldn't the children of Adam and Eve be guilty of incest? After having children, there would be only immediate family members to all. The sons had do have sex with someone, mother or sister.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]Funny, isn't it? I haven't even touched on that particular subject; far be it for me to point out rabid hypocrisy. lol[/color][/font] :animestun

[Brasil]

[quote name='teh Jeh][font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]I am saying, simply, that the government has no business getting involved in people's private and consentual sex lives (if they are adults). You, on the other hand, are saying that the government has the right to legislate the private relationships of adults.[/color'][/font][/quote]
I think it's also worth mentioning that James' point here does have precedent. The Supreme Court struck down (pretty much backhand bitchslap) an anti-sodomy law recently, stating it was unconstitutional. In North Carolina, there's current legislation that is designed to make co-habitation illegal...and there's no doubt in many minds that if it goes up to the Supreme Court, we'll see a similar ruling.

So...yeah. It's not as if James is coming out of left field on this one.

[AzureWolf]

[COLOR=blue]You are reading more than what I wrote, James. In fact, you [B]STILL[/B] missed the entire point of my murder analogy. Please, PLEASE, [B]PLEASE[/B] do not read beyond what I have said. Worse, you are now deviating even more from the point by not only further delving into enforcement, but punishment as well. You don't even reach two sentences before misinterpretation: [quote name='James]By using the example of murder, you're trying to draw a comparison here.[/QUOTE] No, you are absolutely ignoring/misunderstanding my point. I clarified this before: [QUOTE]I was using the murder analogy because people can immediately agree that it's something that should be illegal. That was the [STRESS][B]only[/B][/STRESS'] reason I was using it. Extreme or not, I think it worked well to illustrate the logical fallacy on your side of the argument.[/quote] I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Murder is something where everyone agrees that it should be illegal. If there is a comparison, it is seeing how your "it can't be enforced" argument stands when applied to anything else. Your argument works equally well with both murder and incest - that is, not in the least. The only difference is that the silliness is clearly shown when you apply it to something as extreme as murder, but is well-masked when you talk about incest.

There is no similarity between the two (I never said there was!), except that one is illegal and another is a candidate for becoming illegal. If there is a linking thread between the two, it is merely how poorly your argument about "it can't be enforced" works.

I'm surprised at how complicated my murder analogy seems, lol. Maybe being abstract would be better so no pointless tangents can be made? How's this: an event exists that all people find horrid and unacceptable in society, and everyone agrees it should be illegal. However, it's (seemingly) impossible to enforce. This is a more simplistic hypothetical example, and we'll call the event "Event X."

That?s it, no other properties of Event X are known or defined, so there?s no ?harm to another? :rolleyes:. Afterall, there are things that are illegal but do not cause harm to another person, so I think Event X is a fine way to explain things (hopefully). Is Event X something as harmless as j-walking, or as extreme as murder? That's undefined! Only the properties that it should be illegal and is impossible to enforce are defined.

Now, use Event X in all the places I've mentioned murder before, and I think my point will be clearer.[quote name='James]My argument is that you have no right to tell two consenting adults that they can't have sex. That is none of your business, nor should it be the business of the state.[/QUOTE] I'm going to assume you mean consentual sex in this case, as (again, whether you like it or not) rape is indeed a form of (forced) sex. [QUOTE=James]... The distinctions are important. The entire legal system is based on these distinctions.[/QUOTE] Yes, the distinctions are important, but in this case, you are only using one leverage point to make something illegal or legal: consent. Everything you've stated hinges on consent (and "harm to another"), with no support as to why that should be the determining factor. Well, you use the current state of sex-related legislation as support instead of meaningful reasoning. Legal and right are not synonymous, though, so I actually look forward to bringing up STDs when you supply some foundation. [QUOTE']The point about going in by proxy seems silly to me. So...what, the government is going to go in under different circumstances and hope that they find something related to incest? Or...people are going to spy on their neighbours and call the cops if they think incestual sex is going on? C'mon now.[/quote]This is what the problem is. You keep bringing up enforcement, and even talked about degrees of punishment. I'm glad you believe they are instrinsically linked, but again, all these arguments bear their pointlessness (in this discussion) when you look at something like Event X. You are [B]saying[/B], just because it seems like people's private lives are going to be invaded by enforcement (which it doesn't have to be), that it shouldn't be illegal. On the other hand, if (as you have said) that is not what you [B]mean[/B], then drop this very moot (and poor) point already.

And people's private lives don't have to be invaded for something to become illegal! Things like Event X (which can't be enforced) should still be illegal, even if there is no way to enforce it.

You have yet to provide any reason why incest should remain legal aside from your enforcement complaint (which just doesn't work and should be as good as dead now). The only other reason you supply is that the government should not interfere in people's private consentual sex lives: [quote name='James']My argument isn't that we shouldn't make something illegal because it's difficult to enforce (read: virtually impossible to enforce, thus making the law itself somewhat redundant). My argument is that you have no right to tell two consenting adults that they can't have sex. That is none of your business, nor should it be the business of the state.[/quote] This reason is a bit more sound. If this is your claim, though, back it up with support. Why should the government have no [B]input[/B] (!!! NOT ENFORCEMENT - INPUT aka LEGISLATION !!!) on the affairs of people's sex lives? I'll reiterate it: we are not talking about enforcement, but merely acts that already should not be practiced. In my eyes, making incest illegal would just be common sense being written up. To others, I guess it's not so obvious and paranoia sets in, lol.

To emphasize, I'll say it once more: enforcement should not be a concern to make things illegal, but instead can be considered later on. In fact, people do refrain from illegal activities even if they are not enforced. If you are going to argue that 100% of the crimes won't be detected, which crime - enforced or not - has that? lol [quote name='James]I know that I'll never convince you that it shouldn't be illegal, in the same way that I'll never convince Mnemolth that homosexuality and beastiality are totally different. We are coming from two very different angles, which I understand.[/QUOTE] Not with that attitude and the arguments you supplied. Also, there are similarities between homosexuality and beastiality (and heterosexuality and rape and...), but that's going off-topic. [QUOTE=James']But if two cousins at a farm are having sex in the barn yard? Why is that any of my business? It isn't; it has nothing to do with me. I'm not interested in their sexual practices, lol.[/quote] You've said "I don't care about other people and future generations" in other threads before. How many times are you going to post "oh what a silly thing for anyone to care about? lol"? I find it both rude and hypocritical, so I would appreciate it if you didn't do it anymore. If you really don't care, you don't have to post for the sake of belittling a topic. Afterall, how many ground-breaking, revolutionary, or influential threads are there at OB? Absolutely zero, as this is a place for discussion and leisure, not for useful material and world-changing widgets.[/COLOR]

[James]

[quote=Azurewolf] don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Murder is something where everyone agrees that it should be illegal. If there is a comparison, it is seeing how your "it can't be enforced" argument stands when applied to anything else. Your argument works equally well with both murder and incest - that is, not in the least. The only difference is that the silliness is clearly shown when you apply it to something as extreme as murder, but is well-masked when you talk about incest.
[/quote]

[color=#737373]I know what you're saying, I am just pointing out that you presented it incorrectly. You drew a comparison between incest and murder. You implied that I was saying nobody should investigate murder if it occurs in the bedroom.

It's not my fault for reading it as you wrote it, lol. If you are only talking about something that "everyone can agree should be illegal", you should have said that at the very beginning.

In addition, you made an implication that is false. I specified that violent crimes that involve an unwilling participant should be illegal and should be prosecuted. You implied that I was saying murder (or insert any other crime here) happening in the bedroom shouldn't be approached by the authorities. So I am merely clarifying my point, which you misinterpreted.

You shouldn't even be using murder as a point of comparison. It doesn't work, even under your blanket idea of "illegal is illegal".

If we aren't even going to establish that incest (between consenting adults) is different to murder, then there is nothing more to say on that subject. The fact that they are different is critical - especially in regard to enforcement. [/color]

[quote=Azurewolf]There is no similarity between the two (I never said there was!), except that one is illegal and another is a candidate for becoming illegal. If there is a linking thread between the two, it is merely how poorly your argument about "it can't be enforced" works.
[/quote]

[color=#737373]No, there's no similarity between the two. But let's be clear; you made an implication about the point I was making. And that implication was wrong and misunderstood my point.[/color]

[quote=Azurewolf]I'm surprised at how complicated my murder analogy seems, lol. Maybe being abstract would be better so no pointless tangents can be made? How's this: an event exists that all people find horrid and unacceptable in society, and everyone agrees it should be illegal. However, it's (seemingly) impossible to enforce. This is a more simplistic hypothetical example, and we'll call the event "Event X."
[/quote]

[color=#737373]What on earth are you talking about? And you're telling me about pointless tangents, lol.

I understood your point. I am trying to explain that a) it's a redundant point and b) it misunderstands what I've been saying, [i]especially[/i] when it comes to taking the term "in the bedroom" literally.

Your point isn't difficult to understand; it's just that it's all-too simplistic, for a situation that isn't quite so.[/color]

[quote name='Azurewolf']I'm going to assume you mean consentual sex in this case, as (again, whether you like it or not) rape is indeed a form of (forced) sex. [/quote]

[color=#737373]Whether I like it or not? Geeze, Azure. Blood pressure...rising. lol

I am not arguing that rape isn't forced sex. I am saying that rape is forced, while consentual sex is not. Therefore, the critical and fundamental difference.[/color]

[quote name='Azurewolf']Yes, the distinctions are important, but in this case, you are only using one leverage point to make something illegal or legal: consent. Everything you've stated hinges on consent (and "harm to another"), with no support as to why that should be the determining factor. Well, you use the current state of sex-related legislation as support instead of meaningful reasoning. Legal and right are not synonymous, though, so I actually look forward to bringing up STDs when you supply some foundation. [/quote]

[color=#737373]No, legal and right are not synonymous. But [i]your[/i] version of "right" isn't necessarily someone else's. That's the first point.

In addition, consent and age are all very valid reasons for suggesting whether or not something should be illegal. What is the fundamental reason for rape being illegal? No doubt the fundamental reason is that the act hurts someone - it has a victim. It's about forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do.

The [i]only[/i] grounds where I'd be inclined to make incest illegal would be serious health grounds. But this assumes that two people are going to give birth; as I said earlier, that's a somewhat seperate debate. Although I would grant that it presents a problem.

Don't forget, Azure, earlier on in this thread you said that sex between cousins isn't as serious as sex between siblings/direct family. So you have been drawing distinctions on the subject yourself.

When it comes down to it, I basically agree with you in the sense that I think incest has several potential problems. And I [i]personally[/i] don't support it. But as I've said, if two people are having sex somewhere, it's really none of my business (again, provided that we aren't talking about something like rape).[/color]

[quote=Azurewolf]This is what the problem is. You keep bringing up enforcement, and even talked about degrees of punishment. I'm glad you believe they are instrinsically linked, but again, all these arguments bear their pointlessness (in this discussion) when you look at something like Event X. You are saying, just because it seems like people's private lives are going to be invaded by enforcement (which it doesn't have to be), that it shouldn't be illegal. On the other hand, if (as you have said) that is not what you mean, then drop this very moot (and poor) point already.
[/quote]

[color=#737373]Azure, you're the one who is turning enforcement into a debate. I'm simply responding to your points. If you want to talk about enforcement, we'll talk about it. If you don't want to, we won't.

I understand what you are saying - that if something is wrong, it should be illegal regardless of the difficulties of enforcement.

I am pointing out that a) there are problems with simply making something illegal (other than enforcement) and that b) enforcement is a relevant issue. That's all I'm saying.[/color]

[quote=Azurewolf]And people's private lives don't have to be invaded for something to become illegal! Things like Event X (which can't be enforced) should still be illegal, even if there is no way to enforce it.
[/quote]

[color=#737373]Then what's the point of making it illegal? If nobody can be punished for having sex with their cousin, why put the law on the books? Just to say "this is wrong, don't do it"?

I'm merely asking the question.[/color]

[quote name='Azurewolf']You have yet to provide any reason why incest should remain legal aside from your enforcement complaint (which just doesn't work and should be as good as dead now). The only other reason you supply is that the government should not interfere in people's private consentual sex lives: [/quote]

[color=#737373]Now, now, pay attention, Azure! :animeknow

My primary reason for saying that incest shouldn't be illegal [b]is not[/b] enforcement. lol

I am simply saying that enforcement is a relevant issue that should be considered. I am not saying that something shouldn't be illegal simply due to enforcement questions.[/color]

[quote=Azurewolf]This reason is a bit more sound. If this is your claim, though, back it up with support. Why should the government have no input (!!! NOT ENFORCEMENT - INPUT aka LEGISLATION !!!) on the affairs of people's sex lives? I'll reiterate it: we are not talking about enforcement, but merely acts that already should not be practiced. In my eyes, making incest illegal would just be common sense being written up. To others, I guess it's not so obvious and paranoia sets in, lol.
[/quote]

[color=#737373]Calm down with the enforcment thing, Azure. I'm really starting to wonder how much attention you're paying. lol

Okay, so, we're talking about putting something on the books for the sake of what? To tell people that it's wrong?

I don't know why that requires legislation. As I have said, what you are talking about is legislating sex between consenting adults. I don't know why that needs any kind of government input whatsoever. People who are going to commit incest are probably going to do it anyway.

If you're only wanting to put it there as a simple statement of "this is wrong, don't do it", there are probably better ways to handle that. The fact that it would be illegal would also mean that people could potentially be prosecuted for it.

And I view that as questionable, for the reasons I've already mentioned. Theoretically, I could call the police on two cousins who have had sex once. If it's illegal, then there must be some kind of penalty, right? Do you really think it's right for that to be the case? I mean, do you think it's acceptable for someone to be able to call the cops and have two cousins arrested because they had sex?

Again, I'm only posing the question. I personally think that it's an inappropriate use of the government's power. I think there are more important things that government should consider. I don't think that government has any business being involved in such a matter.

You do. That's the difference between us, pure and simple.[/color]

[quote name='Azurewolf']Not with that attitude and the arguments you supplied. Also, there are similarities between homosexuality and beastiality (and heterosexuality and rape and...), but that's going off-topic. [/quote]

[color=#737373]Not with what attitude? Azure, maybe you haven't noticed, but you've had a pretty rude attitude yourself throughout this discussion. Take note.

As for the second point, the fact that you're even saying that makes the whole thing null and void. For you to even go there...no. That's something I won't entertain. lol[/color]

[quote name='Azurewolf']You've said "I don't care about other people and future generations" in other threads before. How many times are you going to post "oh what a silly thing for anyone to care about? lol"? I find it both rude and hypocritical, so I would appreciate it if you didn't do it anymore. [/quote]

[color=#737373]When have I ever said that I don't care about other people and future generations? It's rude for [i]you[/i] to make such a comment.

I am simply saying that what two consenting adults do privately is none of my business. You are making it your business. Again, that's the difference between the two of us. Does this mean I somehow don't care about people or their welfare? No, of course not. Not only is that a pretty far-out statement, but once again, it totally misunderstands my perspective.[/color]

[quote name='Azurewolf']If you really don't care, you don't have to post for the sake of belittling a topic. Afterall, how many ground-breaking, revolutionary, or influential threads are there at OB? Absolutely zero, as this is a place for discussion and leisure, not for useful material and world-changing widgets, haha.[/quote]

[color=#737373]Belittling a topic? Even though you have just said that I don't care about anyone or future generations? That's quite a lot of gall right there, lol.

I'm simply having a discussion with you; there's no need to get hot under the collar because I'm challenging your position.

You frequently take topics on OB way too seriously. Just look at your comments about linking to a private thread, lol. You went on and on and had to be told to settle down.

So, chill. Quit throwing around insults and make sure that you just enjoy yourself. I do welcome discussions, but not if they're all going to go in this direction. I don't mind heated discussions either, but [i]not[/i] when people are insulted in this way. What you said about me in the previous quote is pretty nasty and spiteful. I'm not taking it personally - because it's clearly a low-blow - but I won't warn you about that type of language again. [/color]

[No-One]

Ok this is strange. I believe love is love. doesn't matter who you fall in love with it just happens. In fact I've thought about this subject alot because I read alot of Harry potter fanfiction and one of my favourite ships is Ron/Ginny. i don't know why it just is really cute in the writen word. I think it'd be wrong if I ever liked a relative, I'd never get with them for sure... it just seems gross to me but if other people choose to do it i don't think it's a big deal. I don't think they should have kids though.

[Raiyuu]

[quote name='AzureWolf][color=blue][quote=James][color=Silver][color=Gray]My argument is that you have no right to tell two [b]consenting[/b'] adults that they can't have sex. That is none of your business, nor should it be the business of the state.[/color][/quote][/color]

I'm going to assume you mean consentual sex in this case, as (again, whether you like it or not) rape is indeed a form of (forced) sex.[/quote] [color=DarkGreen][size=1]Read the text you quoted again, Azure. Especially the emboldened word. Then read what you said in response. :rolleyes:

Those last couple of posts from you and James didn't really expand on the discussion, did they, if we're honest? You're both just taking it in turns to pick apart the tiny holes in each other's arguments, and they [b]are [/b]pretty tiny.

I'm not sure if I've got much new material to add to the discussion, but here's my two pence: I personally find the idea of incest fairly distasteful, but actually making it illegal is overreacting. Valid points have been made about it not being fair on the offspring, but if you start legislating on those grounds you're straying dangerously close to eugenics.

Also, what punishment would be feasible if it were made illegal? There's somewhere new for the discussion to go, unless Azure feels that's too off-topic.


And [b]please [/b]can we start spelling [b]consensual [/b]right?
[/size][/color][/color]