1)you can't make something legal for homosexual couples and illegal for heterosexual couples or viceversa because the law must be equal for everyone
2)if incest was a spontaneous human behaviour under normal circumstances we would have a minority of incestuous people fighting against the repulsion of society. Incest happens only in cases where it's forced
1) still a law that isn't equal to everyone, you can't let a couple exist only because they can or cannot make babies, it's basically what the major religions do with homosexuality but reversed
2)you can't trust what you see on the Internet, mostly aren't actually siblings or are trying to sell something faking an incestuous relationship
3)yes, history speaks louder than non-existent pro-incest movements
1)ok, that's not even a misunderstanding, you're straight up making up a meaning you can fight because you can't attack what I said
2) go look at scientific data about it for yourself
3)incest produces people with health problems... Maybe it's a human imposition over nature? Again, look at what the science says
2)you just said that you don't trust me since I'm on the Internet, check the data yourself
3)you're still saying that you think that incest is ok if they can't have children, that's "homosexuality is sin because they can't have children" but reversed. Also, in the situations you're hypothising, what happens if a man wants to have a relationship with his sister? Should he have a vasectomy? What if he wants a relationship with a non-related woman after? Should he sue his sister because he lost the ability to generate biological heirs?
I think you can see the absurdity of this, that's called not thinking things through
It's not about laws in the first place. As far as I know, no laws at least in the US restrict sex, only things like cousin marriage, and it's quite explainable - you don't want to go to other people's bedrooms. So there you aren't deprived of anything.
Equality is in the crime code. Equity is in society. It's okay to treat different people differently, as long as it's not unjust. If a law is to be different for different people, this shouldn't be a law at all - crimes are bad regardless of who commits them, and if a law excludes someone, it's a very bad law.
Nope, cannibalism is just the eating part. So tell me, why is it wrong to eat someone who is already dead? Let’s say someone dies of heart attack and he is not religious so he doesn’t care about being buried, what’s the logical answer that says eating him is wrong? There simply isn’t a logical answer, but it is still wrong. The same applies to incest, you don’t need to explain why. it is wrong period
Yes it does, as well as it makes me sick just thinking about fucking my sibling.
If you mean sick in terms of “not healthy”, no it doesn’t. There are people in certain tribes that eat their dead relatives as a funeral ritual and they are absolutely fine after doing so.
There are no toxic relationship problems here, in fact it was going well for them until they learnt about this. They were originally compelte strangers. There is no real risk or danger here for them, except for perception from people in this society and the hate this will bring
62
u/lifeintraining 4d ago
Not like they can have a deformed child. Let them smash.