German incest couple lose European Court case

CCIP · 04-12-12, 02:17 PM

I think my point here is purely one of fairness. Yes, the biological problem is still there. But the economic motivation is not really relevant anymore. My whole point is that incest, as such, is really not terribly damaging to other people and the society as a whole. What did the German state achieve here? They broke up a family that, as difficult and dysfunctional as they might have been, are probably more functional than millions of other families out there who are probably even less qualified to raise children, and yet not only do but even get all sorts of government and tax incentives for it. Then why is this guy going to jail, while other "normal" families with unhealthy kids and poor living practices out there encouraged? Why is consensual sexual behaviour between adults, and the risks to the genetics of their children, the business of government and courts, anyway?

Consider this: eating high-fat processed foods, smoking tobacco, or driving SUVs is SUBSTANTIALLY more damaging to the health of people and their children and to the economy (including cost to the taxpayer) than incest will ever be. Not to mention even more unnatural, and the result of (in the big scope of things) far more recent inventions than tolerance of incest. Then why are those things protected as rights of conscious, consenting adults while the provably lower-risk incestuous relationships aren't? Something's fishy here. Which is exactly what I'm getting at here - except in a warped "the sky is falling!" world that social conservatives seem to live in when it comes to changing social rules to reflect material reality, this sort of thing really makes no sense.

MH · 04-12-12, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

Consider this: eating high-fat processed foods, smoking tobacco, or driving SUVs is SUBSTANTIALLY more damaging to the health of people and their children and to the economy (including cost to the taxpayer) than incest will ever be. Not to mention even more unnatural, and the result of (in the big scope of things) far more recent inventions than tolerance of incest. Then why are those things protected as rights of conscious, consenting adults while the provably lower-risk incestuous relationships aren't? Something's fishy here. Which is exactly what I'm getting at here - except in a warped "the sky is falling!" world that social conservatives seem to live in when it comes to changing social rules to reflect material reality, this sort of thing really makes no sense.

Now...what this has to do with the issue?
Oh... i see you look at this from the conservative vs uhh...progressive point.
....in that case i probably would have to be a TEA party voter because one must be against it all for it all.

The German court avoided setting an unhealthy precedent which would add to all the fat food and SUV issues....products of modern lifestyle?

04-12-12, 02:17 PM	#1
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	I think my point here is purely one of fairness. Yes, the biological problem is still there. But the economic motivation is not really relevant anymore. My whole point is that incest, as such, is really not terribly damaging to other people and the society as a whole. What did the German state achieve here? They broke up a family that, as difficult and dysfunctional as they might have been, are probably more functional than millions of other families out there who are probably even less qualified to raise children, and yet not only do but even get all sorts of government and tax incentives for it. Then why is this guy going to jail, while other "normal" families with unhealthy kids and poor living practices out there encouraged? Why is consensual sexual behaviour between adults, and the risks to the genetics of their children, the business of government and courts, anyway? Consider this: eating high-fat processed foods, smoking tobacco, or driving SUVs is SUBSTANTIALLY more damaging to the health of people and their children and to the economy (including cost to the taxpayer) than incest will ever be. Not to mention even more unnatural, and the result of (in the big scope of things) far more recent inventions than tolerance of incest. Then why are those things protected as rights of conscious, consenting adults while the provably lower-risk incestuous relationships aren't? Something's fishy here. Which is exactly what I'm getting at here - except in a warped "the sky is falling!" world that social conservatives seem to live in when it comes to changing social rules to reflect material reality, this sort of thing really makes no sense. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)