Legalization of incest?

Depends on if it is based off of Age. If the age of Consent is til 18 then why not. I don't care what you have sex with as long as nobody is being harmed or having rights violated.

Just realized that Dagoth put:

Quote:

The simple solution is to have no laws on sexual activity. We should excise all of these sex laws. And things like sexual abuse should become more an issue of abuse, that is abuse of a sexual nature rather than sexual abuse.

QFT

I do not agree with punishing people who have incest activities but still I do not agree with incest itself. It is unhealthy plus other obvous reasons.

So I voted no.

Wheelchairmaniacal wrote:

The Bolshevik government redefined marriage to include more than just the man/woman variety. In a surprising number of ways they were a progressive moral force, as opposed to some crazy 'lets make everyone the same' mentality you are supporting.

Really its that kind of strict moral conservatism that makes communists look like anti-progressives.

I'd say a lot of people don't really understand the point of communism. Maybe it's the pervasive stereotype of "Stalinism" that leads kids to this misunderstanding. Maybe they see "communism" as a way to finally take revenge on our permissive, sexually deviant society full of homosexuals and "loose women", and also to force people into general submission to the caricatured all-powerful Orwellian totalitarian state. I would chalk this down to misinformation on communism in general and to the personal frustrations of these people in equal measure. Others might be attracted to fascism or religious fundamentalism. These people are most likely to become third-positionist types of some sort, too.

I can't blame these people for their own frustrations in life, but I'd appreciate it if they didn't drag the rest of us communists down with them. At least, I'm pretty sure that this was not what Marx was thinking of while he was screwing his maid, or Lenin when, almost a 100 years ago, he legalised stuff that is still forbidden or at least frowned upon in many western societies in 2010.

As for incest, it's certainly not wincest, but it doesn't necessarily have to include procreation either. It would be incredibly difficult to implement laws against it in practice, and it would be quite oppressive to people who may be doing things that I personally disapprove of, but which aren't necessarily "wrong" otherwise. Problems of abuse and inbreeding should be treated as what they are, rather than used as an excuse for oppressing people with "deviant" sexual behaviour.

My Answer: frag NO!

Enough with the one-liners. Read the forum rules. Next time you write one line without an argument behind it, you'll get carded. - Che B.

And please refrain from necroposting. You've been reviving some topics which are rather old, and this is not looked upon well unless you're contributing something major. Otherwise it just clutters things up. - Red Daughter

Incest in its true meaning of the word, commonly used in very negative way - should be banned as same as rape, abuse of any kind family or not family, violation of any human right.

This is very clear to me and all revolutionaries worldwide.

blasroca wrote:

Incest in its true meaning of the word, commonly used in very negative way - should be banned as same as rape, abuse of any kind family or not family, violation of any human right.

This is very clear to me and all revolutionaries worldwide.

What is this "true meaning"? It must be something completely different from my definition as I don't see how incest can be compared to rape.


As for whether incest should be legal, I'd say it should. As long as they don't have children, who cares?

I've heard that there's a 2-3 percent chance of mutations occurring in a baby and that this only raises to 4-6 percent in babies produced from intercourse with your first cousin. Can anyone confirm or disprove this? If this is true, I don't think there would be anything morally wrong with starting a family with your first cousin. I know some people consider incest to only include siblings, parents and grandparents but I consider cousins to still be part of the discussion.

Let's be real about something here. Incest harms nobody as long as it is consentual. the act of two individuals having sex who are blood relatives harms nobody as long as it is consentual. If it's not consentual then it's Rape and that's wrong regardless of whether they are blood relatives or not.

Inbreeding could harm people as it may result in genetic disabilities. Keep in mind there is a difference between successive generations of inbreeding as with the Royal Families and a single generation of inbreeding. We don't take away people's right to have consentual sex with whoever they choose regardless of what effect it might have on children that are a product of inbreeding. That smells of 20th century eugenics.

Also, inbreeding is a completely different topic from Incest. Incest is having sex with a blood relative. With contraception, condoms, the pill ect the possibility of a child conceiving from this dops to a tiny percentage. Also what about Gay Incest? What about the forms of sex that couldn't result in children? What about a sterile couple.

I find alot of sexual things disgusting. But I don't discriminate or want to ban them. As long as they are over the age of consent it's fine.

Yes but no reproduction; that can have massive effects on the child's health.