Consensual sex with a Teen = Morally depraved | Gay on Gay = Not morally depraved??

[niko]

How about stealing? Because if so, can I get my 7 dollars?

[Nanners]

Why don't you just say it? You find incest morally wrong and disgusting and you don't completely disagree with laws against incest. If you really stuck to your philosophy then you would be calling that law a travesty and realizing its the same subjective morality that the religious have against gay sex. You're tiptoeing around the issue trying to stay within your "bounds."

get the fvck out with your amateur psychology nonsense and stop putting words in my mouth. i have said multiple times that as long as we are talking about consenting adults, and as long as nobody is reproducing, i would not try to stop incest.

do i really need to spell it out for you? incest laws vary state by state, some places its not currently illegal. do i think that in general, incest laws should reflect my views? yes. do i disagree with the laws that dont reflect my views? yes.

am i going to go on a crusade because i think only certain aspects of incest should be allowed to be legislated? nope. within the spectrum of government legislation of morality, there are other issues that i personally think are more important to society than incest laws.

The truth is, in terms of affecting other people's rights, consensual gay sex and incest should not be under moral government legislation.

this is what i have been trying to say all along.

[CelticBaller]

Inside Hoops

Where Pedophilia, Necrophilia and Incest = Homosexuality

[RidonKs]

not all incest relationships are equal to one another

f*cking your cousins or even your siblings... should not be a problem. that i can certainly equate to homosexuality. it essentially falls under the category of 'two consenting adults' and genetic probabilities are not enough grounds for illegality. and especially in an age where, in the west anyway, kin matters less and less with regard to how we distribute ourselves in groups and communities, it's just not as relevant as it once was in past ages of societal organization.



but parent-child incest is a whole different ballgame and failing to acknowledge it as such is just another case of false equivalency, a fallacy that pretty much permeate every contentious issue anybody ever argues about... and it usually takes what might be a productive debate way off course. the difference of course is the natural paternalistic relationship that governs the interaction between a child and its parent... it's an ultra authoritative relationship that in some cases can be broken but in many cases persists straight into adulthood, thus rendering the "two consenting adults" concept as far less descriptive of the situation.

it's far too easy for the parent to use their position of dominance as a way of exploiting their child, regardless of age or psych development. and it's a rather universal phenomenon, at least as close as you can get with this shit.

[LJJ]

but parent-child incest is a whole different ballgame and failing to acknowledge it as such is just another case of false equivalency, a fallacy that pretty much permeate every contentious issue anybody ever argues about... and it usually takes what might be a productive debate way off course. the difference of course is the natural paternalistic relationship that governs the interaction between a child and its parent... it's an ultra authoritative relationship that in some cases can be broken but in many cases persists straight into adulthood, thus rendering the "two consenting adults" concept as far less descriptive of the situation.

it's far too easy for the parent to use their position of dominance as a way of exploiting their child, regardless of age or psych development. and it's a rather universal phenomenon, at least as close as you can get with this shit.

If you are forcing somebody into sexual acts by using the strong authority you have over them, that is sexual abuse regardless of whether it is incest or not.

Can't really call it consent if it involves authoritarian coercion.

[Nanners]

If you are forcing somebody into sexual acts by using the strong authority you have over them, that is sexual abuse regardless of whether it is incest or not.

Can't really call it consent if it involves authoritarian coercion.

no shit sherlock, its called INFORMED consent. If you are coerced in to something, then it is not truly consentual, because you were not able to make an informed decision.

[LJJ]

no shit sherlock, its called INFORMED consent. If you are coerced in to something, then it is not truly consentual, because you were not able to make an informed decision.

I wasn't responding to you.

[Nanners]

I wasn't responding to you.

i could have sworn that you had quoted my post. i apologize for calling you sherlock. regardless, my point stands.

[RidonKs]

If you are forcing somebody into sexual acts by using the strong authority you have over them, that is sexual abuse regardless of whether it is incest or not.

Can't really call it consent if it involves authoritarian coercion.

but obviously psychological coercion is much more difficult to prove, and in certain cases, the victim can legitimately be said to have consented... when the consent, in truth, is meaningless due to the nature of the relationship.

i think my point was that there are numerous degrees of authoritative relationships, and the vast majority of the spectrum cannot be used as grounds for illegality. in cases such as a boss and his secretary or just any employer/employee situation, or a professor and his grad student, or even an older sibling and a younger sibling... i'm not sure there is enough universality in terms of straight up psychological dominance to actually legislate. certainly not for the former two, and i would argue not even in the case of the last example... all in cases where 'consent' of both parties appears obvious.

parent-child is essentially an orange and everything else is an apple, because it's so consistently bred into us to feel the way we do towards our parent. and of course specific examples of teacher-student or older-younger siblings can rival the authoritarian nature of parent-child, just not enough to legislate.


this is all in specific response to jello's pondering/semi-baiting about government actually legislating sexual morality.

[El Kabong]

dont worry about gay people getting married, we going to MARS bitches thats right i said it .... MARS

There won't be any Mars if they let those gays get married. It'll be anarchy and chaos. You know why China is the new superpower? No gays allowed.

[Kblaze8855]

Why hateful people get all upset and try to make reasonable people see things their way is beyond me. The world gets more and more tolerant and the idiots get more and more upset as their opinions matter less and less.

This is not Iran. Given long enough....Iran wont stay iran. The world wont allow it forever.

You can believe what you want. But thats about it.

And if you dont see why children who are easily manipulated due to a natural lack of maturity need to be protected from adults who take advantage...you are an idiot. A child is not grown mentally. At some point a child mentally becomes an adult but since that would require individual evaluation of each kid we just put ages on it that should be....pretty close.

No reason to compare it to two adults making decisions.

[Jello]

get the fvck out with your amateur psychology nonsense and stop putting words in my mouth. i have said multiple times that as long as we are talking about consenting adults, and as long as nobody is reproducing, i would not try to stop incest.

do i really need to spell it out for you? incest laws vary state by state, some places its not currently illegal. do i think that in general, incest laws should reflect my views? yes. do i disagree with the laws that dont reflect my views? yes.

am i going to go on a crusade because i think only certain aspects of incest should be allowed to be legislated? nope. within the spectrum of government legislation of morality, there are other issues that i personally think are more important to society than incest lawss.



this is what i have been trying to say all along.

lol I was typing a response to this trying to explain what I was trying to accomplish with those questions but it ended up to be a bunch of nonsense and over argumentative. I'm just going to say that both our philosophies are similar and we both agree that our moral aversions are completely subjective and should not be forced on others. My main point was consistency through all issues even with your own moral aversion.

[Nanners]

we both agree that our moral aversions are completely subjective and should not be forced on others.

no doubt about that

[Jello]

but obviously psychological coercion is much more difficult to prove, and in certain cases, the victim can legitimately be said to have consented... when the consent, in truth, is meaningless due to the nature of the relationship.

i think my point was that there are numerous degrees of authoritative relationships, and the vast majority of the spectrum cannot be used as grounds for illegality. in cases such as a boss and his secretary or just any employer/employee situation, or a professor and his grad student, or even an older sibling and a younger sibling... i'm not sure there is enough universality in terms of straight up psychological dominance to actually legislate. certainly not for the former two, and i would argue not even in the case of the last example... all in cases where 'consent' of both parties appears obvious.

parent-child is essentially an orange and everything else is an apple, because it's so consistently bred into us to feel the way we do towards our parent. and of course specific examples of teacher-student or older-younger siblings can rival the authoritarian nature of parent-child, just not enough to legislate.


this is all in specific response to jello's pondering/semi-baiting about government actually legislating sexual morality.

Yes I agree that a truly consensual act between a parent and child cannot exist.

[RidonKs]

Yes I agree that a truly consensual act between a parent and child cannot exist.

so even under your criteria of 'consistency', this would be a particular situational nuance for which you would have to deviate from your general stance... no?