Australian Judge: "Incest, paedophilia 'like being gay'"

[seer]

Of course you shouldn't, although I don't think what could or couldn't sexually happen should be a criterion. The point of marriage is to form new family units; obviously two direct relatives can't do this, since they're in the same family.

Who get to decide what the point of marriage is? After all it is all up for grabs now. What if the brother and sister want the legal benefits and protection of marriage? Who are you to deny them equal rights?

[fm93]

Who get to decide what the point of marriage is? After all it is all up for grabs now. What if the brother and sister want the legal benefits and protection of marriage? Who are you to deny them equal rights?

The *point* of marriage was never up for grabs. The debate involves who it applies to, not its purpose.

[seer]

The *point* of marriage was never up for grabs. The debate involves who it applies to, not its purpose.

Nonsense, where does the law say that the sole purpose of marriage is to create a new family unit? It doesn't. So again, why do you want to deny the brother and sister equal rights?

[tabibito]

Of course you shouldn't, although I don't think what could or couldn't sexually happen should be a criterion. The point of marriage is to form new family units; obviously two direct relatives can't do this, since they're in the same family.

And if testing were to show that consanguinity was not a problem? Where would your argument go in those circumstances? There is a reasonable possibility of the child of a brother and sister not being at any higher risk of genetic defects than the child of two unrelated people. Of course, without genetic testing, it would be something akin to Russian roulette.

[Bill the Cat]

Of course you shouldn't, although I don't think what could or couldn't sexually happen should be a criterion. The point of marriage is to form new family units; obviously two direct relatives can't do this, since they're in the same family.

The royals of the 17 and 18th century were all related by blood. They were allowed to marry. Many societies allowed marriage between close relatives.. The main point of marriage has always been to raise children in a home with their mother and father.

[Zymologist]

Of course you shouldn't, although I don't think what could or couldn't sexually happen should be a criterion. The point of marriage is to form new family units; obviously two direct relatives can't do this, since they're in the same family.

Out of curiosity, what are you basing the "point" of marriage on?

[tabibito]

The point of marriage is to form new family units; obviously two direct relatives can't do this, since they're in the same family.

Hmm. Biblically, the point of marriage is that the two become one flesh. Not make or produce, but become.

[seasanctuary]

There is no "slippery slope," there's just a plateau where free consent of those involved means sex is okay and lack of it means it isn't.

Anti-LGB sentiment comes from a culture of men owning and raping women, so I can see how things might seem confusing or alarming to that alternate ethos.

[Darth Executor]

There is no "slippery slope," there's just a plateau where free consent of those involved means sex is okay and lack of it means it isn't.

There's nothing stopping liberals from deciding a 4 year old can consent to sex. In fact it's more consistent with egalitarian theology than the current, temporary belief that having sex with children is wrong (unless you're a lesbian). If we're all equal then why can't a 4 year old consent?

Anti-LGB sentiment comes from a culture of men owning and raping women, so I can see how things might seem confusing or alarming to that alternate ethos.

Actually you have it entirely backwards, sodomy friendly cultures (Ancient, Greeks, Romans, modern day Afghanis) are generally very misogynistic.

[Zymologist]

There is no "slippery slope," there's just a plateau where free consent of those involved means sex is okay and lack of it means it isn't.

Anti-LGB sentiment comes from a culture of men owning and raping women, so I can see how things might seem confusing or alarming to that alternate ethos.

Seriously?

[Bill the Cat]

There is no "slippery slope," there's just a plateau where free consent of those involved means sex is okay and lack of it means it isn't.

Should a 14 year old be able to give consent?

[tabibito]

Should a 14 year old be able to give consent?

Is there any scientific evidence that suggests a 14 year old shouldn't have the right to decide?
It's only two generations since 16 year olds were commonly getting married, and (I think) four or five generations since 14 year olds were getting married. No idea who decided that such actions were unseemly, but it seems to have arisen pretty much concurrently with "free love" advocacy in the mid 20th century.

[Teallaura]

A 14 year old understands infertility issues? Really? They 'get' that they are risking both life and fertility by becoming sexually active? Funny, because NONE of the kids I've interviewed knew what sterility even meant, let alone that GC and CT could both cause it! Heck, most can't accurately tell me what HIV is - you can forget them knowing what HPV is - and this is the level of informed consent you get with a kid who isn't legal to drive for a reason!

Some things are just stupid...

[tabibito]

Do these people you speak of exhibit any difficulty in understanding such things when you have explained them?

The lack of knowledge would reflect more the standard of education than the capacity of the person to understand.

I'd further say that not informing them is pretty much a death sentence for some of them. They're being deprived of the opportunity to make informed decisions.

GC, CT, HPV. Unknown terms.
But then, when I was 14, the term was VD, and STD was what you did to make a long distance phone call without having to go through an operator.

[Jesse]

It seems that whenever homosexuality is mentioned among conservative groups, they invariably wind up commenting on "the destructiveness of sodomy" and how it may be easy to spread disease and cause physical harm. But I've never seen anyone comment on lesbian relations. Has it ever occurred to you that that also counts as homosexuality, and that disease/physical harm isn't more likely to occur through that manner? Seriously, it's like the first and only thing that pops into the conservative mind upon hearing the word "homosexuality" is men having sex with men, and only one form of it. People seem to completely forget about homosexual females or other forms of male-on-male relations.



If I may be blunt, that's a demonstrably false belief.


Well, first of all, neither homosexuality nor pedophilia are choices. As for why it's sometimes acceptable for people to act on the former but never on the latter? Because engaging in pedophilic relations always involves highly questionable power differentials and raises consent issues, whereas homosexual relations don't face those issues if they're practiced between two consenting adults.

Also, incest isn't an orientation or paraphilia. It's simply an act. It doesn't seem that anyone is attracted solely to one's own family members, unlike the case with homosexuality or some people with pedophilia.

Demonstrably false belief? Would you like to show me any scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic? And no I don't mean propaganda studies churned out by the gay community. I mean actual peer reviewed papers showing a homosexual or pedophilia discovered gene. You won't find any because there are none.