Swedishguy
Deity
I actually can't see the point against it. And if there really is an overlapping space in age, set a limit. Easy.
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.
Taboo Topic: Should Incest Be Legal
- Thread starter Eukaryote
- Start date
Only between two consenting adults or two minors of consenting age.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Imagine European history without incest?
Xanikk999
History junkie
It shouldnt be outlawed actually. But its just perverted to want to regardless.
Why would you have sex with your mom or dad? Or sister or brother?
Makes me cringe to think about it.
Why would you have sex with your mom or dad? Or sister or brother?
Makes me cringe to think about it.
Gr3yL3gion
Voice of Madness
All I can say is Ewwwww
But people should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they took full responsibilities resulting of their action.
But people should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they took full responsibilities resulting of their action.
Comraddict
C.IV
Again this topic on CFC. Promoting incest should be illegal.
Swedishguy
Deity
Are you afraid they will create an army of Radioactive Monkeys? And tobacco and chocolate should be outlawed! I don't like morons to play around with their bodies.Atlas14 said:
Arachnaphobia
Man alive!
Comraddict said:
Too right. Its just wrong, and people that do it.. well ewww.
Swedishguy said:
Encouraging genetic disorders is a
They have the freedom to pick mates from over 3 billion other people in this world, they don't need to be having sex with their own family and promoting genetic defects.
Swedishguy
Deity
Care for an elaboration?Babbler said:
JonnyB
Workaholic
It shouldn't be a crime IMO. Consenting adults have the right to be disgusting.
As long as no one gets hurt.
If there is a greater possibility of passing along genetic abnormalities it should still be legal because AFAIK it's still legal for anyone with proven genetic disorders to reproduce.
As long as no one gets hurt.
If there is a greater possibility of passing along genetic abnormalities it should still be legal because AFAIK it's still legal for anyone with proven genetic disorders to reproduce.
So what about same-sex incest (between adults)? Or non-vaginal sex? Or where contraception is used?
I'm not sure what the law on these matters are, but I presume those saying it should be illegal due to genetics are referring to for the purpose of having children.
Also remember that many people may oppose it, but still believe it should be legal - the poll options are a bit misleading in this regard.
I'm not sure what the law on these matters are, but I presume those saying it should be illegal due to genetics are referring to for the purpose of having children.
Also remember that many people may oppose it, but still believe it should be legal - the poll options are a bit misleading in this regard.
So how do you know which one raped which?Atlas14 said:
Even if you say it's the parent in a parent/son-or-daughter case (similar to the way it's the minor who can't consent in an adult/minor case), what about two brothers or sisters?
Presumably the law would say that both adults are guilty of a crime, which doesn't make sense if we are comparing it to underage sex (imagine sending the child to prison too!)
What if both people stand up in court and say "We consented to this" - they should still both be guilty?
ArneHD
Just a little bit mad
In the case of sibelings of a similar age, no objections, but in the case of adult/child relations I am a bit unsure. I still voted sure though.
I've already covered that in this post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4722483&postcount=34Atlas14 said:
So which is it - about children, or consent?
No for logical genetic reasons, and it's a legal and moral minefield for the reasons already given, so I'd say a more empahtic no when taking that into account too. I also think there'd be way too much prejudice directed at the couple in question, making the relationship very awkward.
In this country you can marry a brother or sister only with consent from the Queen and there have to be serious extenuatiing circumstances, such as the couple not being aware of they were siblings before they wed. I'd say that's good enough for me.
In this country you can marry a brother or sister only with consent from the Queen and there have to be serious extenuatiing circumstances, such as the couple not being aware of they were siblings before they wed. I'd say that's good enough for me.
Similar threads
