65 posts in this topic

Posted

Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

 

Judge in Australia says incest may no longer be a taboo and the only reason it is criminal is potential birth abnormalities, which can be solved by abortion

 

A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.

 

Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.

 

He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.

 

"A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner," the judge said.

"If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you'd invariably have, they would say it's unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone."

Judge Neilson made the comments during the trial of a brother charged with raping his younger sister. The man has pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting his sister when she was 10 or 11 years old in 1973 or 1974 but has pleaded not guilty to charges relating to sex they had in 1981, when she was 18 and he was 26.

 

"By that stage they are both mature adults," the judge said.

 

"The complainant has been sexually awoken, shall we say, by having two relationships with men and she had become 'free' when the second relationship broke down. The only thing that might change that is the fact that they were a brother and sister but we've come a long way from the 1950s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

:huh:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But having sex between siblings is disgusting. It is like having sex with your own mother or father if you are female. It should stay criminal under the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Entitled to your opinion, but why should you be able to impose your beliefs on others?

 

Consenting adults are consenting >.<

 

Also, would love to read the actual ruling, seems unlikely it would be positioned like this..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

:huh:

:x

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

so wait, if they do not want to do the abortion because both parent want to raise the fruit of their love

and turn out their children having genetics defects, its became a criminal?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Gross. Time to retire.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Entitled to your opinion, but why should you be able to impose your beliefs on others?

 

Consenting adults are consenting >.<

 

Also, would love to read the actual ruling, seems unlikely it would be positioned like this..

 

I can kinda see where you are coming from, years and years ago the same would have been said about gay relationships or interacical relationships. I don't want to "discriminate" but if you suddenly say its ok for this, as Torolol says, what happens when a couple do become pregnant and suddenly start the whole its against my rights to demand my baby is killed? 

 

I don't know the science behind it but I suspect its more an increased chance of genetic defects rather than a certainty? so you're now condeming a baby because it "may" be genetically not quite right. 

 

I'm not in anyway supporting this view, I do think its wrong but I can understand the view point, especially when you take into account other things that were probably once considered "not natural".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Incest and same-sex relationships are not comparable. Incest is in fact unnatural and will result in genetic problems either immediately or effect the next generations. So, then it may become a matter of not giving proper opportunity to potential newborns down the line. It's screwed up no matter how you look at it. Incest is counter-productive to the entire species; it's about more than your supposed intimate love for an immediate family member.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Incest and same-sex relationships are not comparable. Incest is in fact unnatural and will result in genetic problems either immediately or effect the next generations. So, then it may become a matter of not giving proper opportunity to potential newborns down the line. It's screwed up no matter how you look at it. Incest is counter-productive to the entire species; it's about more than your supposed intimate love for an immediate family member.

 

So you only ever have sex for the purpose of producing a child?

 

You aren't wrong in what you say, I get it. I'm just playing Devils advocate I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Incest and same-sex relationships are not comparable. Incest is in fact unnatural and will result in genetic problems either immediately or effect the next generations. So, then it may become a matter of not giving proper opportunity to potential newborns down the line. It's screwed up no matter how you look at it. Incest is counter-productive to the entire species; it's about more than your supposed intimate love for an immediate family member.

 

Incest is awesome:   It results in genetic issues that lead to the eventuality of those gene's being removed from the gene pool.   i.e.  someone that is willing to "keep it in the family" will ensure the family doesn't continue.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Again, if you read the article the Judge is not talking about producing same family children. This is purely about Sex... I understand its disgusting but everyone seems to be focusing on the one thing the Judge would agree with you on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So you only ever have sex for the purpose of producing a child?

 

You aren't wrong in what you say, I get it. I'm just playing Devils advocate I guess.

Point taken, I didn't see that part. I do have one counter argument to that as well. There have been studies done that show pheromones within the same family actually inhibit the feelings of love and desire to mate.

 

So, I would then go on to say that there would probably be other, likely abusive, reasons why this behavior would be occurring. Of course, if the people committing the incest were consenting adults, then I guess it's just sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What about 2 female twins going at it in porn ... lol

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I can kinda see where you are coming from, years and years ago the same would have been said about gay relationships or interacical relationships. I don't want to "discriminate" but if you suddenly say its ok for this, as Torolol says, what happens when a couple do become pregnant and suddenly start the whole its against my rights to demand my baby is killed?

I do not believe the state should have any right to demand that a woman has an abortion, even in the case of children with genetic defects. Personally I don't have any problem with incest, though people should be made aware of the risks and if they intend to have children then they should be provided the appropriate advice and support. For instance, IVF can allow defective genes to be weeded out. Incest with a cousin doubles the rate of birth defects but the rate is still very low, at just 4%.

 

Like with marriage I don't believe the state should be determining what relationships are or are not acceptable. That means I support same-sex marriage, polygamy and incest, even though I do not partake in those lifestyles. The only time the state should intervene is when coercion occurs, particularly when a large age gap is present.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Incest and same-sex relationships are not comparable. Incest is in fact unnatural and will result in genetic problems either immediately or effect the next generations. So, then it may become a matter of not giving proper opportunity to potential newborns down the line. It's screwed up no matter how you look at it. Incest is counter-productive to the entire species; it's about more than your supposed intimate love for an immediate family member.

 

So does the procreation of people with things like huntingdons, downs, and so on, how many of you holy evangelist types kick up a righteous stink about that? As things that matter Incest is pretty low on the list. Time for people to move on and direct their righteous anger at solving bigger problems, and leave whatever people do in the privacy of their bedrooms alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But having sex between siblings is disgusting. It is like having sex with your own mother or father if you are female. It should stay criminal under the law.

 

So because you, or even most people, find it disgusting it should be criminal? I mean we're not talking about a public show here.

 

To me having sex with an extremely overwieght woman is disgusting. Should that be criminalized too?

 

Some couples like to drink each others urine. That's also pretty disgusting to me. Should that also be criminalized?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So does the procreation of people with things like huntingdons, downs, and so on, how many of you holy evangelist types kick up a righteous stink about that? As things that matter Incest is pretty low on the list. Time for people to move on and direct their righteous anger at solving bigger problems, and leave whatever people do in the privacy of their bedrooms alone.

Religious? Are you in the right thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So because you, or even most people, find it disgusting it should be criminal? I mean we're not talking about a public show here.

 

To me having sex with an extremely overwieght woman is disgusting. Should that be criminalized too?

 

Some couples like to drink each others urine. That's also pretty disgusting to me. Should that also be criminalized?

Completely agree. Just because people find something disgusting does not mean it should be illegal. Sure put measures in place to prevent genetic defects of children as much as possible, but there comes a limit to how much control a governing body should have....and IMHO telling people who they are and aren't allowed to have sex with (that is, consenting, legal age and all) crosses that limit.

 

Now, when it comes down to marriage and having children then yes, criminalize incest....but from a pure lust standpoint, what right do they have to criminalize two consenting adults for their choices?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm too old for this judge's crap and the acceptance and tolerance of incest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What about 2 female twins going at it in porn ... lol

 

There's an exception to every rules ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Incest and same-sex relationships are not comparable. Incest is in fact unnatural and will result in genetic problems either immediately or effect the next generations. So, then it may become a matter of not giving proper opportunity to potential newborns down the line. It's screwed up no matter how you look at it. Incest is counter-productive to the entire species; it's about more than your supposed intimate love for an immediate family member.

Unnatural? What's your gauge of that? Animals do it all the time.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The specifics of this particular case are especially troubling, because obviously the brother raped his sister when she was still young. It is interesting that the judge considers it pertinent that she was in some other sexual relationship before returning to a relationship with her brother. I'm not sure why that mattered so much to the judge. Would his opinion be different if she was continuously involved with her brother and only her brother from a very young age?

I'm not sure about this. The concept makes me uneasy, and uncomfortable (as it seems to with a lot of other folks) and that by definition is what makes it a taboo (regardless of what this individual judge thinks). I tend to agree with the notion that incest is bad for the species, but in reality it has been happening since the beginning of mankind. Arguably, relations with someone of your own race is counter that of ensuring a healthy, diverse, gene-pool for the species. So how far should we go in making up and enforcing laws having to do with who can sleep with whom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well anybody and everybody who believes in Abrahamic religions, must believe in incest. Since Adam and Eve were the only humans god created, there kids must have mingled for the spices to grow.

 

I find incest disgusting, but I agree that consensual sex between any consulting adults should be fine, it's their right, and their life. Though they should be educated about the problems incest creates if they want to reproduce.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So does the procreation of people with things like huntingdons, downs, and so on, how many of you holy evangelist types kick up a righteous stink about that? As things that matter Incest is pretty low on the list. Time for people to move on and direct their righteous anger at solving bigger problems, and leave whatever people do in the privacy of their bedrooms alone.

What if Down's Syndrome was the next step in our evolutionary "change". Look at the changes with just one extra chromosome.What if we had 2 or 3 extra?  Most Down's Syndrome people are often very intelligent. Just because most view them "different" by society standards doesn't mean they are not viable to society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.