Switzerland Considers Legalizing Concensual incest

[Bakes]

P.S. There's clearly a difference.

I'm sure you've convinced yourself that there is.

So can the argument of psychological abnormality (in regards to partaking in incestuous relationships) be juxtapose with that of homosexuality?

It can, but that argument was rejected almost 40 yrs ago, made official with the publication of DSM III.  It would be interesting to see if Asylumseeker can substantiate his claims that incest is the product of some mental disorder.  Not that I'm holding my breath.

[truetrini]

So can the argument of psychological abnormality (in regards to partaking in incestuous relationships) be juxtapose with that of homosexuality?

Where is homosexuality deeemd a psychological abnormality..except in cases where is it ego-dystonic?

[asylumseeker]

P.S. There's clearly a difference.

I'm sure you've convinced yourself that there is.

So can the argument of psychological abnormality (in regards to partaking in incestuous relationships) be juxtapose with that of homosexuality?

It can, but that argument was rejected almost 40 yrs ago, made official with the publication of DSM III.  It would be interesting to see if Asylumseeker can substantiate his claims that incest is the product of some mental disorder.  Not that I'm holding my breath.

I. WHAT THE PERSON GETS FROM THE RELATIONSHIP

Regarding your first comment, no need to deflect without responding substantively.

It's a tempting proposition. It's also esoteric. I KNOW why you've stated there's no difference (hence the P.S.). And, likely it's your training that's resulted in that conclusion. Mine almost led me down that road. In a different arena, I might contend the same thing. However, upon reflection, at the core there is a QUALITATIVE difference between bargaining for the consideration of emotional comfort or reciprocated emotion versus the bargain of an action guided by commercial incentive. For one, one is rationalized action and the other is not.

Or, positing a different definition of rationality (as you've used previously on the forum), the bargain of emotional gain is the product of a different rationality quotient. Therefore, given that the bases of the bargains are different, both 'things' are 'different'.

II. GENETICS, PSYCHOLOGY OR PSYCHIATRY?

My stance is consistent. I have not during the course of this exchange engaged a linkage of homosexual conduct and incest. Consequently, not having linked the two, I have no interest in doing so now even via a consideration of mental disorder (as would be convenient). I hold this view not solely because I'm aware of the medical profession's pronouncements, but because incest and homosexual conduct are in the main distinguishable on genetic grounds.

Therefore, while my exploration engaged incest vis-a-vis proper mental capacity, I did not pursue that line of reasoning in the context of homosexual conduct. I wouldn't be surprised if someone on the forum does, but I'm adopting the position that that is not a profitable approach.
 
[I had not gotten around to it yet, but I suppose this is as good a place as any to state that I planned to address Zandolie's mention of "homosexual incest". It was a noteworthy observation. However, I'm surprised that you (Bakes) didn't engage Zando on the concept from a legal construction because historically the law has not defined incest to include homosexual conduct ... thus, technically there was no such thing?] 

III. INCEST AS MENTAL DISORDER

Could courts posit something akin to a legal fiction to get there? It may be more useful to respond to that part of the discussion with the relevant quotes.

[Bakes]

I. WHAT THE PERSON GETS FROM THE RELATIONSHIP

Regarding your first comment, no need to deflect without responding substantively.

It's a tempting proposition. It's also esoteric. I KNOW why you've stated there's no difference (hence the P.S.). And, likely it's your training that's resulted in that conclusion. Mine almost led me down that road. In a different arena, I might contend the same thing. However, upon reflection, at the core there is a QUALITATIVE difference between bargaining for the consideration of emotional comfort or reciprocated emotion versus the bargain of an action guided by commercial incentive. For one, one is rationalized action and the other is not.

Or, positing a different definition of rationality (as you've used previously on the forum), the bargain of emotional gain is the product of a different rationality quotient. Therefore, given that the bases of the bargains are different, both 'things' are 'different'.

Quite frankly, your assumption has taken you down a road completely foreign to my train of thought.  The contract analysis might prove attractive to you but it is of little relevance to my position.  People enter into sexual relationships for a variety of reasons, often involving a quid pro quo.  For purposes of this discussion, the 'quo' may vary, both in kind and in the emotional value placed on the benefit, but nonetheless that doesn't alter the equation, the underlying fact of the exchange, without which there is no relationship.

II. GENETICS, PSYCHOLOGY OR PSYCHIATRY?

My stance is consistent. I have not during the course of this exchange engaged a linkage of homosexual conduct and incest. Consequently, not having linked the two, I have no interest in doing so now even via a consideration of mental disorder (as would be convenient). I hold this view not solely because I'm aware of the medical profession's pronouncements, but because incest and homosexual conduct are in the main distinguishable on genetic grounds.  Therefore, while my exploration engaged incest vis-a-vis proper mental capacity, I did not pursue that line of reasoning in the context of homosexual conduct. I wouldn't be surprised if someone on the forum does, but I'm adopting the position that that is not a profitable approach.
 

A very specious argument... given the paucity of scientific evidence in support of your position.

[I had not gotten around to it yet, but I suppose this is as good a place as any to state that I planned to address Zandolie's mention of "homosexual incest". It was a noteworthy observation. However, I'm surprised that you (Bakes) didn't engage Zando on the concept from a legal construction because historically the law has not defined incest to include homosexual conduct ... thus, technically there was no such thing?]

No surprise, it's not germane to the discussion... from a legal perspective incest is contemplated the same regardless as to the gender of the victim and perpetrator.

III. INCEST AS MENTAL DISORDER

Could courts posit something akin to a legal fiction to get there? It may be more useful to respond to that part of the discussion with the relevant quotes.

Honestly, you've lost me here.  It is unlikely that the court would engage in any such diversion given the need for a scientific basis (expert testimony) in support of the defense of mental illness.  "Relevant quotes"... what??

[asylumseeker]

Bakes stated:

Quite frankly, your assumption has taken you down a road completely foreign to my train of thought.  The contract analysis might prove attractive to you but it is of little relevance to my position.  People enter into sexual relationships for a variety of reasons, often involving a quid pro quo.  For purposes of this discussion, the 'quo' may vary, both in kind and in the emotional value placed on the benefit, but nonetheless that doesn't alter the equation, the underlying fact of the exchange, without which there is no relationship.

Laughable. You announce all of that and yet negate there is 'contract' woven throughout "the the underlying fact of the exchange, without which there is no relationship".

Bakes stated:

A very specious argument... given the paucity of scientific evidence in support of your position.

You want to reach for the rationality of science when the irrationality of the law has guided you to the silly position that because private homosexual conduct has achieved a quantum of protection in the courts then private incestuous conduct should similarly be rewarded? Reacquaint yourself with the definition of specious.

If the law is an ass, what does that make lawyers?

Secondarily, since you question genetics on "a paucity of scientific evidence"... Let me ask you this: how scientifically definitive is the DSM?

Bakes stated:

No surprise, it's not germane to the discussion... from a legal perspective incest is contemplated the same regardless as to the gender of the victim and perpetrator.

That is not the case universally.

Bakes stated:

Honestly, you've lost me here.  It is unlikely that the court would engage in any such diversion given the need for a scientific basis (expert testimony) in support of the defense of mental illness.  "Relevant quotes"... what??

As in ... I intend to address the above under separate cover referring to relevant parts of your contributions in thread.

[Bakes]

Laughable. You announce all of that and yet negate there is 'contract' woven throughout "the the underlying fact of the exchange, without which there is no relationship".

I did?  Where did I "negate" this belief of yours that there is a " 'contract' woven throughout"?

You want to reach for the rationality of science when the irrationality of the law has guided you to the silly position that because private homosexual conduct has achieved a quantum of protection in the courts then private incestuous conduct should similarly be rewarded? Reacquaint yourself with the definition of specious.

You might want to lay off them highgrade ass hairs you smoking before logon yuh computer and come say yuh arguing.  Or maybe football still have yuh distracted?  Quote for me where I said anything about incestous conduct should be given any sort of protection.  In fact show me where I reached for "the rationality of science" for that matter.  YOU claimed that homosexuality is genetic... implicity I challenged you then, and expressly I challenge you now to provide facts to support your conclusory statement that homosexuality is genetic.

You charge me with reacquainting myself with the definition of specious when you provide me examples on a repeated basis.  Half your arguments are constructed of straw, you then make a great show and pretense of attacking the very silly arguments constructed by none other but yourself.  How about you focus instead on what's actually written... provided you could read and understand what's written of course.

If the law is an ass, what does that make lawyers?

Secondarily, since you question genetics on "a paucity of scientific evidence"... Let me ask you this: how scientifically definitive is the DSM?

If 'military intelligence' is an oxymoron... then that would fully explain your penchant for making dotish arguments that have nothing do with anything.  Further evidence of this is yet another fictional claim that I "question genetics." I don't question genetics at all... again, if you have proof of me saying this then quote it.  I questioned your claim that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality.  Don't get mad... show proof.

As for how scientifically definitive is the DSM, definitive enough to be peer-tested and embraced by the professionals in the field of psychology/psychiatry.  The information contained was published after much scientific inquiry and analysis.  As I said, I'm no mental health professional, but if mental health professionals say that homosexuality is not a mental disease then I have no reason to not believe them.  I'm no rocket scientist either, but that doesn't mean that I'll start questioning jet propulsion theory if the professionals in the field accept it.

Bakes stated:

No surprise, it's not germane to the discussion... from a legal perspective incest is contemplated the same regardless as to the gender of the victim and perpetrator.

That is not the case universally.

Totally tangential to the discussion... a majority of jurisdictions, certainly everyone that I am familiar with has redacted any reference to gender in the statutes.

[truetrini]

Bakes is chinee high grade hairs?

[Bakes]

Bakes is chinee high grade hairs?

Lol... Castrol GTP high octane

[Toppa]

Sad to say in a couple of years ppl will accept it normal normal .........cant say i didnt expect it.

Although I thought that NAMBLA woulda get through first.
 

 

[asylumseeker]

Bakes is chinee high grade hairs?

Fascinating, wasn't it?

...

[Preacher]

Why you locking them up for?  We already on the slope. 

[truetrini]

Bakes is chinee high grade hairs?

Fascinating, wasn't it?

...

yuh come back?  Change yuh name to Lazarus.... 

[truetrini]

Why you locking them up for?  We already on the slope. 

Like yuh want to stall Armageddon and delay Jesus' return or wha?

[kicker]

This is up there with one of the most entertaining threads EVER!! Great use of vocabulary throughout too! lol

I read all the views- I'm with Bakes on this one.  From a legal perspective, consenting adults should be able to do as they please in privacy so long as they hurt no one. 

The moral argument is as subjective as it is useless.  There are people alive today whose sense of morals is unaffected by slavery, apartheid, genocide, sex with minors (ah see someone throw in NAMBLA lol) etc...how about we start arguing for legalization of those things on the grounds of moral acceptance?

The health concern argument is equally useless.  There are health risks associated with legal activities (the most blatant one that comes to mind is smoking) and even some professions...

Throughout time there has always been a huge controversy at the intersection of legislation and moral acceptance...It's a battle between subjectivity and absolute. At some point you need to separate the two...

I don't know the whole host of relevant issues that law-makers consider before they pass legislature, but if I were contemplating this bill, I'd consider the effects of creating a new recognizeable minority population of outcasts who will likely be subject to destructive abuse and harmful discrimination.  This may seem counter-intuitive but in some instances the underground taboo-ness of an activity can actually serve to protect...Legalization can have the effect of removing that taboo/protection... This argument doesn't always hold but I think it has a place in the incest controversy.... Something to ponder is that maybe some form of tolerance without legalization is the healthiest median/medium...How much influence the law makers have on that is unknown to me.

[Bakes]

This is up there with one of the most entertaining threads EVER!! Great use of vocabulary throughout too! lol

I read all the views- I'm with Bakes on this one.  From a legal perspective, consenting adults should be able to do as they please in privacy so long as they hurt no one. 

The moral argument is as subjective as it is useless.  There are people alive today whose sense of morals is unaffected by slavery, apartheid, genocide, sex with minors (ah see someone throw in NAMBLA lol) etc...how about we start arguing for legalization of those things on the grounds of moral acceptance?

The health concern argument is equally useless.  There are health risks associated with legal activities (the most blatant one that comes to mind is smoking) and even some professions...

Throughout time there has always been a huge controversy at the intersection of legislation and moral acceptance...It's a battle between subjectivity and absolute. At some point you need to separate the two...

I don't know the whole host of relevant issues that law-makers consider before they pass legislature, but if I were contemplating this bill, I'd consider the effects of creating a new recognizeable minority population of outcasts who will likely be subject to destructive abuse and harmful discrimination.  This may seem counter-intuitive but in some instances the underground taboo-ness of an activity can actually serve to protect...Legalization can have the effect of removing that taboo/protection... This argument doesn't always hold but I think it has a place in the incest controversy.... Something to ponder is that maybe some form of tolerance without legalization is the healthiest median/medium...How much influence the law makers have on that is unknown to me.

Interesting perspectives.  As for the "subjectivity vs. absolute" idea... I think that's why sometimes I tend to look at things from a legal perspective, the default approach (because we are humans) is to approach any discussion from a subjective standpoint... how we see things.  There is plenty room in the world for that approach and sometimes it can be the most entertaining if not educational approach.  Other times though I find that having a more objective, detached look at an issue provides the most clear-headed analysis.  Forget for a second how we personally feel about a thing, look beyond our own biases and try to examine it on the merits.

With respect to "a protection" being given to certain practices by its underground status... and that changing once it gains legal sanction, I think there's definite truth to that at times.  It's almost as if people can't be bothered "once it eh affecting me."  Once it becomes legal though, there's the threat of the practice spreading, hence the likelihood of the previously apathetic person being affected increases.  That "threat" then spurs them into action to negate it... or become active against the behavior they now perceive as a threat.  Of course the law doesn't have the luxury of leaving anything to chance ("maybe if we doh rule on this people might continue to just leave it alone?"), if there is merit then a response is necessary.