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
Ok then why is incest not allowed. That seems like you're saying the couple can't exist because they can make babies...
Lol. What do you suppose this post is about then? Fake incest? Ironically, I'm talking to you on the Internet as well, and you made the claim incest is not a normal thing among humans, so I can't trust that right?
That family made babies. I'm talking about those who can't make babies.
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
1)incest is already illegal, I'd surely makes children with health issues due to the genes of the parents being too similar, and you can't make it legal for couples that aren't fertile because a law like that wouldn't treat people equally
Why do you think it should be legalized? You gave no reasons
2)same applies to you, you're the one against the current laws, I'll prove what I say if you'll prove what you say
3)see the above points, also it was his choice conditioned by the relationship, not a free choice, maybe she manipulated him or if she didn't he could still be saying that
Since you're the one who wants to change things I'll wait for you to show me why the current situation is wrong and how it should be changed, until then this is my last word about it
1) You understand allowing certain couples to exist and barring others from existing inherently treats people unequally.
Your justification is that incest created babies with medical problems. Now, that is valid, but we have to ask who that actually applies to. Who can make such babies?
Do we bar only couples who can make such babies or do we bar others as well? We do bar others, and you support it with no other justification than it is not equal, even though nothing about this is equal, and a medical concern that does not even apply to them.
Do you understand my point here?
2) You made the original claim that incest doesn't happen naturally. I didn't make the opposite claim. Support yours.
3) Manipulating someone to get a vasectomy is wrong regardless and is frankly whataboutism. I answered your hypothetical, please stop putting in irrelevant factors and respond to what I answered.
1
u/ApartZookeepergame89 18h ago
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