Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 10 Jul '14 18:27
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10958728/Australian-judge-says-incest-may-no-longer-be-a-taboo.html

    If the judge is correct and you can simply abort children if they have genetic problems, why not open up incest and make them socially acceptable?

    If you support gay marriage and think that it is wrong to for close family members to marry, then why?
  2. 10 Jul '14 18:57
    Originally posted by Eladar
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10958728/Australian-judge-says-incest-may-no-longer-be-a-taboo.html

    If the judge is correct and you can simply abort children if they have genetic problems, why not open up incest and make them socially acceptable?

    If you support gay marriage and think that it is wrong to for close family members to marry, then why?
    just take a look at what incest has done to the southern american states. do we want the whole world to become creationist, rightwing, gun-totting, couisn'lovin, hill-billies???
  3. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Jul '14 19:03
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    just take a look at what incest has done to the southern american states. do we want the whole world to become creationist, rightwing, gun-totting, couisn'lovin, hill-billies???
    You say it like it's a bad thing.
  4. 10 Jul '14 19:06
    Originally posted by Eladar
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10958728/Australian-judge-says-incest-may-no-longer-be-a-taboo.html

    If the judge is correct and you can simply abort children if they have genetic problems, why not open up incest and make them socially acceptable?

    If you support gay marriage and think that it is wrong to for close family members to marry, then why?
    We can make abortion and gay marriage are made legal, without abandoning all laws entirely. In fact it makes a lot of sense to me to not force people to have genetically damaged children when they could easily have non-genetically damaged children. It is cheaper and better for society to have healthy children and children that the parents wish to care for. This is perfectly consistent with a ban on incest. As the offspring of incest makes are more likely to have genetic problems. Furthermore, participants of incest and other coercive relationships (such as having sexual relations with your five year old child) are more likely to have emotional problems.
  5. 10 Jul '14 19:17
    Originally posted by quackquack
    We can make abortion and gay marriage are made legal, without abandoning all laws entirely. In fact it makes a lot of sense to me to not force people to have genetically damaged children when they could easily have non-genetically damaged children. It is cheaper and better for society to have healthy children and children that the parents wish to care ...[text shortened]... ving sexual relations with your five year old child) are more likely to have emotional problems.
    You are just a bigot.

    If there are genetic problems, then simply abort the unborn baby.
  6. 10 Jul '14 19:25
    Originally posted by Eladar
    You are just a bigot.

    If there are genetic problems, then simply abort the unborn baby.
    I'm not sure why you think I am bigot. Why would anyone want a non-healthy fetus when they could have a healthy child?
  7. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Jul '14 19:30
    Originally posted by Eladar
    You are just a bigot.

    If there are genetic problems, then simply abort the unborn baby.
    Are you being facetious? I honestly can't tell.
  8. Standard member vivify
    rain
    10 Jul '14 19:39
    It's not wrong, so long as they refrain from having children.
  9. 10 Jul '14 19:51
    Charles Darwin married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood.
    In a Victorian era when parents expected some of their children to die,
    three of the Darwins' ten children died before adulthood. Most of the
    surviving children achieved distinction in their careers. Three sons
    (George, Francis, and Horace) became Fellows of the Royal Society.
    Another son, Leonard, became a president of the Royal Geographical Society.
  10. 10 Jul '14 19:52
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Are you being facetious? I honestly can't tell.
    If homosexual marriage is ok, then I see nothing wrong with incest. I can't argue that one is wrong if the other is ok. Why is it that they can't have kids? It isn't a guarantee there will be problems. If there is, just abort it.
  11. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Jul '14 20:04
    Originally posted by Eladar
    If homosexual marriage is ok, then I see nothing wrong with incest. I can't argue that one is wrong if the other is ok. Why is it that they can't have kids? It isn't a guarantee there will be problems. If there is, just abort it.
    OK, thanks. That's enough of this thread for me.
  12. 10 Jul '14 20:39
    Originally posted by Eladar
    If homosexual marriage is ok, then I see nothing wrong with incest. I can't argue that one is wrong if the other is ok. Why is it that they can't have kids? It isn't a guarantee there will be problems. If there is, just abort it.
    Your argument is poorly constructed, unless you are speaking totally to the religious/cultural reasons for keeping marriage as it is, and similarly prohibition of incest.

    For information's sake, can all genetic abnormalities be detected?

    The two unions are totally different. One can't produce offspring, and the other can but with problems.
  13. 10 Jul '14 20:42
    Originally posted by Eladar
    If homosexual marriage is ok, then I see nothing wrong with incest. I can't argue that one is wrong if the other is ok. Why is it that they can't have kids? It isn't a guarantee there will be problems. If there is, just abort it.
    Here is one reason why they are treated differently: No one is harmed by homosexual marriage and society benefits from people having the option to have an abortion. People are harmed by incest.
  14. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    10 Jul '14 20:50
    Originally posted by Eladar
    You are just a bigot.

    If there are genetic problems, then simply abort the unborn baby.
    You have honed the quality of being a moron to a keen blade the like of which will never again be witnessed on the field of battle in a debate forum.
  15. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    10 Jul '14 20:50
    Originally posted by Eladar
    If homosexual marriage is ok, then I see nothing wrong with incest. I can't argue that one is wrong if the other is ok. Why is it that they can't have kids? It isn't a guarantee there will be problems. If there is, just abort it.
    I am curious now. You "see nothing wrong" because you have a way to judge right from wrong which, presumably, applies to both incest and gay marriage and asserts that both are wrong, possibly for the same reason or possibly for two related reasons. Once gay marriage is allowed, it seems to you that your way of judging right from wrong is rendered defunct and defective. For that reason you are unable to determine that incest is wrong. You can see nothing wrong with incest it seems.

    Now I accept that your method of determining what is wrong is very likely defective, because it leads you to believe that gay marriage is wrong. I am not at all upset, then, that your defective criterion has been demolished.

    I would suggest that what you require now is a new way to make such judgements, one which is capable of accommodating the social change in allowing gay marriage without suggesting that incest is tolerable.

    There are many objective considerations that might lead you to believe that incest ought to be wrong. They include the risk of oppressive and abusive behaviour by adults towards children within their family and the prospect of promoting genetic defects. Obviously, if there were no grounds for concern, then your post would fail to excite interest.

    As you work on this interesting conundrum, you will be replicating the path taken for example by the renowned Anglican bishop Holloway, who demonstrated that it is not reasonable to base moral and ethical choices on religious criteria, especially not sectarian religious criteria (which are only going to be relevant to members of the same sect). For a multi faith society, to which the alternative is tyranny since it would lack freedom of belief, the best and indeed necessary (i.e. only) way to proceed is to base ethics and morality on secular grounds that have sufficiently wide acceptance. As far as possible one would look for criteria that are coherent and test the results by considering what types of judgement arise.

    For example, an argument favouring gay marriage is that gay and lesbian couples already live as life partners and require the various legal and social protections that arise through marriage, such as rights to live in the shared home when one partner dies. One would seek to prevent the many types of painful hardship arising from the lack of such protection. In any event, one would have to ask why it is not desirable to endorse a profession of love and a long term, stable relationship between consenting adults who are, as a result, causing neither harm nor reasonable, justified offence to anyone other than bigots and socially backward hill billies like yourself. After all, in the name of religion you are promoting hatred and intolerance, which seems irrational and socially harmful.