Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

[roo_ster]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10958728/Australian-judge-says-incest-may-no-longer-be-a-taboo.html

A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.

Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.

He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.

"If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you'd invariably have, they would say it's unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone."

Judge Neilson made the comments during the trial of a brother charged with raping his younger sister....

"The complainant has been sexually awoken, shall we say, by having two relationships with men and she had become 'free' when the second relationship broke down. The only thing that might change that is the fact that they were a brother and sister but we've come a long way from the 1950s – when the position of the English Common Law was that sex outside marriage was not lawful."

The libertines are going to put The Onion out of business.

At first blush, I thought someone was making sport of and pulling a parody on the libertines.  But, nope, just the natural outgrowth of social trends in the West these last few decades.

Shows up the fallacy of declaring "This far and no farther!" with regard to the breakdown of sexual mores.  There will always be someone to push the line a bit farther, who yesterday was beyond the pale but today must be celebrated and subsidized.  Any moral qualms you might have had about the following steps will paint you a bigot once the line has shifted, so be quick to change your tune when it does!

The only safe place to be is on right on the line, to genuflect to today's libertine orthodoxy.  Admit to qualms about what the line passed over(1): bigot.  Admit to fears of where the line may go(2): bigot.  Get used to balancing on the tightrope as it is shaken by the narcissistic sociopaths.



(1)  Did no-fault divorce and decriminalizing homosexual relations between adults have deleterious consequences?

(2) Are we headed to decriminalizing incest, pedophilia, and bigamy?

[RoadKingLarry]

(2) Are we headed to decriminalizing incest, pedophilia, and bigamy?

Between 2 or more consenting adults it's no ones business but theirs. That leaves out pedophiles.

[Jamisjockey]

Between 2 or more consenting adults it's no ones business but theirs. That leaves out pedophiles.

QFT.

[Monkeyleg]

How do you know if a sheep is giving consent?

[MillCreek]

It is so terrible to be a persecuted white Christian male these days.

[MechAg94]

How do you know if a sheep is giving consent?

I have no idea.  Please enlighten us?   

Next you will ask me what songs I sing in the shower or something. 

[lee n. field]

Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

sloppy with the language?   There's always an incest taboo.  Always.  

(Which is not to say that the details don't differ, from society to society.   Or that the taboo is not always broken in private.)

[fifth_column]

Before you know it masturbation may be accepted.  Or fellatio. 

[Balog]

Before you know it masturbation may be accepted.  Or fellatio. 

So, just to be clear, you're in favor of abolishing laws against incest?

[Ron]

So, just to be clear, you're in favor of abolishing laws against incest?

and incest is no different than self pleasuring? 

[onions!]

Broken marriage.
Re-marriage.
Two un-related by blood "kids".
Incest?
They're step-kids to each other.
Shouldn't be a taboo on them.
Funny if they lasted longer than their parents.
Might be the cause of the parents break up though.
Lots of permutations.
Between blood siblings and/or parents?There's a reason it's not done.
Abortion as an easy way out from calving(potentially) defective offspring?Abhorrent.

[Ron]

Unrelated by blood?

Not really incest in my view.

[Balog]

Unrelated by blood?

Not really incest in my view.

I believe the laws are consistent with that, though obviously it varies by location.

[fifth_column]

So, just to be clear, you're in favor of abolishing laws against incest?

I had no idea there were laws against incest.  What kind of sicko would make laws about something like that!?!?!?!?

Wait . . . are there laws against masturbation too?    What's the statute of limitations again?

For the record, I'm in favor of abolishing many laws.  Like most traffic laws for instance. 

[KD5NRH]

and incest is no different than self pleasuring? 

There is no closer relative than the self.

[KD5NRH]

How do you know if a sheep is giving consent?

How do you know if it's old enough?  Can you imagine the hassle of trying to come up with an age for each individual species that somebody might potentially want to poke or be poked by?

[RevDisk]

Between 2 or more consenting adults it's no ones business but theirs. That leaves out pedophiles.

This.

And the originating article is on regards to a criminal trial on rape and sexual assault. While I am firmly a member of the "Ewwww" folks, I believe the incest aspect is besides the damn point. He was 18 or 19 when he started raping his 10-11 year old sister. That's squarely in pedophile territory.

Apparently the judge was navel gazing about add-on charges.

[Balog]

I had no idea there were laws against incest.  What kind of sicko would make laws about something like that!?!?!?!?

Wait . . . are there laws against masturbation too?    What's the statute of limitations again?

For the record, I'm in favor of abolishing many laws.  Like most traffic laws for instance. 

That's not really an answer.

Pretty simple yes no question.

Are you in favor of abolishing laws against incest? What about necrophilia? Beastiality? Yes or no would be fine, thanks.

[onions!]

I never knew how much of a kill joy Michigan was.

MICH. COMP. LAWS SERV. § 551.3 (2013). INCAPACITY; PERSONS MAN PROHIBITED FROM MARRYING
A man shall not marry his mother, sister, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or cousin of the first degree, or another man.

[fifth_column]

That's not really an answer.

Pretty simple yes no question.

Are you in favor of abolishing laws against incest? What about necrophilia? Beastiality? Yes or no would be fine, thanks.

I'm not actually required to answer, regardless how simple a question, or how many times you ask, or how much you want an answer.  What difference does it make if you know my stance on this subject?  What difference does it make if I have no stance on this topic?

I never thought about the legality of incest before this thread.  I couldn't care less whether it's legal or illegal.  If the law made it illegal to procreate when the couple knew that it was extremely likely any issuance of said procreation would result in significant birth defects, I'd take the time to form an opinion, and look for alternative methods to achieve the goal of limiting birth defects.  If incest is illegal because it's "icky," or "just wrong, everyone knows that," or because some particular religious text says it's wrong than I'm going to question it's validity, just out of habit.

Plus, laws and taboos are two different things, not necessarily related.

[onions!]

Beastiality? Yes or no would be fine, thanks.

Isn't that still legal in WA?

-----------------------------
Nevermind,I see that was illegalized a few years ago.
 

[Jamisjockey]

So, just to be clear, you're in favor of abolishing laws against incest?

I favor abolishing all laws regulating activities amongst consenting adults.

[Matthew Carberry]

I favor abolishing all laws regulating activities amongst consenting adults.

As long as what the (consenting human adult) freaks want to do to each other doesn't physically endanger me or mine, or cost me money, I can't really be bothered to care. Now, for courtesy and decency's sake I would hope all consenting human adults, of *any* predilection, would keep their private lives more-or-less private and not go beyond minimal PDA's, but that goes to Rule 1: "Don't be a dick."

Necrophilia and bestiality and pedophilia are not intellectually valid, nor serious, "slippery slope" arguments as long as the underlying premise is *consenting human adults*.

[Balog]

I'm not actually required to answer, regardless how simple a question, or how many times you ask, or how much you want an answer. 

Of course you're not required to do anything, but it's a discussion forum and if you refuse to do anything other than make smart ass comments then it's not much of a discussion.

What difference does it make if you know my stance on this subject?  What difference does it make if I have no stance on this topic?

See above.

I never thought about the legality of incest before this thread.  I couldn't care less whether it's legal or illegal.  If the law made it illegal to procreate when the couple knew that it was extremely likely any issuance of said procreation would result in significant birth defects, I'd take the time to form an opinion, and look for alternative methods to achieve the goal of limiting birth defects.  If incest is illegal because it's "icky," or "just wrong, everyone knows that," or because some particular religious text says it's wrong than I'm going to question it's validity, just out of habit.

Plus, laws and taboos are two different things, not necessarily related.

That's the basis of all laws, everywhere, in all time periods. And whatever your personal moral basis for viewing laws as legitimate, they have no more validity than anything you listed.

[Balog]

As long as what the (consenting human adult) freaks want to do to each other doesn't physically endanger me or mine, or cost me money, I can't really be bothered to care. Now, for courtesy and decency's sake I would hope all consenting human adults, of *any* predilection, would keep their private lives more-or-less private and not go beyond minimal PDA's, but that goes to Rule 1: "Don't be a dick."

Necrophilia and bestiality and pedophilia are not intellectually valid, nor serious, "slippery slope" arguments as long as the underlying premise is *consenting human adults*.

Why are those the lines you have drawn, and how are they more valid or less arbitrary than any other? Why are animals property in all senses except that of sexual intercourse? I can kill my animal, or have a doctor mutilate it for aesthetic reasons, or even allow it to be damaged for animal testing: and yet you're ok with banning a person from having sex with it?

Why are you such a freedom hating statist?