Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Leonard James on January 22, 2016, 05:50:14 AM
-
Moderator:
Just to say that this posts of Len's is the OP in this thread, which contains posts about the civil as opposed to Christian aspects of incest from the thread in the Christian Topic.
There is nothing wrong with incest providing suitable steps are taken to ensure that :-
1) contraception is used
or
2) the resulting embryo, if damaged by the close relationship of the parents, is aborted.
-
There is nothing wrong with incest providing suitable steps are taken to ensure that :-
1) contraception is used
or
2) the resulting embryo, if damaged by the close relationship of the parents, is aborted.
I think you will find that the most common objection to incest is that one party gets coerced into it by the other.
-
:o
Given that most people find the concept unacceptable, and that homophobes often use such examples to point out how homosexuality is the slippery slope to such things, it may not be your greatest point, Len.
:o
It's not that I don't understand the point you are making, I do.
It's just it isn't one that might reflect well on increasing people's tolerance towards homosexuality.
;)
Don't get your point here, it seems to be that Leonard should not express what he thinks because since he is gay some idiots with the reasoning power of pocket lint might make a false argument out of it?
-
I think you will find that the most common objection to incest is that one party gets coerced into it by the other.
I'd agree. There was certainly once a taboo based on the question of the problem of offspring but I think it remains a difficult situation to avoid the possibility of coercion. As law is a blunt tool, this de iure means that people might be criminalised with no real intent but think on balance I remain in favour of law against it, with any action to be reasonably discretionary.
-
Some people are tolerant of two consenting adults of the same sex etc, but considerably less tolerant of incest.
My point is Leonard by making the point he is, is unintentionally supporting that false argument. ( that homosexuality is a slippery slope to other things)
At least in the eyes of people who find incest unacceptable.
But it's up to him, just sayin.
🌹
You call the people out who make the false argument then, you don't tell people not to state a position because someone might misuse it. It's also to my mind, wanting gay people to restrict their l action differently from straights because there are idiots, which is giving into homophobia.
-
:o
Given that most people find the concept unacceptable, and that homophobes often use such examples to point out how homosexuality is the slippery slope to such things, it may not be your greatest point, Len.
:o
It's not that I don't understand the point you are making, I do.
It's just it isn't one that might reflect well on increasing people's tolerance towards homosexuality.
;)
As far as I am concerned there is no connection between incest and homosexuality. If people see one, that is their mistake.
-
What on earth have incest and homosexuality in common?
There isn't one, never said there was. The post you replied to was me talking about incest. Why did you ask the question?
-
I think you will find that the most common objection to incest is that one party gets coerced into it by the other.
Obviously I am referring to consenting adults, not coersion.
-
Obviously I am referring to consenting adults, not coersion.
But the question in a family is where the structure makes it difficult to judge if consent can be freely given, such as between a father and a daughter, because of the inherent power structure of the relationship.
-
But the question in a family is where the structure makes it difficult to judge if consent can be freely given, such as between a father and a daughter, because of the inherent power structure of the relationship.
Yes, I see that, but that is no reason to outlaw incest. In all cases the individual circumstances have to be taken into consideration.
-
Yes, I see that, but that is no reason to outlaw incest. In all cases the individual circumstances have to be taken into consideration.
I think it is a reason, for the simple fact, that taken things into consideration has to happen post facto, and then the damage, if there is any, will have happened. I agree that you take individual circumstances into account but would rather in this case that there is a presumption against. Familial relationships seem to me too complex to make a supposition for sensible.
-
There isn't one, never said there was. The post you replied to was me talking about incest. Why did you ask the question?
I wasn't replying to you and had misread Rose's post. I shall delete my reply.
-
Obviously I am referring to consenting adults, not coersion.
Do you think that incestous couples should be allowed to marry?
-
I think it is a reason, for the simple fact, that taken things into consideration has to happen post facto, and then the damage, if there is any, will have happened. I agree that you take individual circumstances into account but would rather in this case that there is a presumption against. Familial relationships seem to me too complex to make a supposition for sensible.
Judging any law-breaking has to be after the damage is done.
-
Do you think that incestous couples should be allowed to marry?
If they are consenting adults, yes.
-
Judging any law-breaking has to be after the damage is done.
Well yes, but the question is really about your estimate of the risk of damage. And here I think there has to be a supposition against because I don't think that you can avoid that it puts at risk people because of how family relationships work. It will be hard for those who don't actually consent to speak out.
-
I wasn't replying to you and had misread Rose's post. I shall delete my reply.
Thanks. You had quoted me though and not Rose.
-
Well yes, but the question is really about your estimate of the risk of damage. And here I think there has to be a supposition against because I don't think that you can avoid that it puts at risk people because of how family relationships work. It will be hard for those who don't actually consent to speak out.
Sibling incest, providing no children were the result of such a union, is possibly less damaging than parent/adult child incest, which is very undesirable, imo. I think incest is best avoided.
-
Well yes, but the question is really about your estimate of the risk of damage. And here I think there has to be a supposition against because I don't think that you can avoid that it puts at risk people because of how family relationships work. It will be hard for those who don't actually consent to speak out.
Unfortunately that blankets all cases, denying loving couples where coersion doesn't come into it.
-
Unfortunately that blankets all cases, denying loving couples where coersion doesn't come into it.
yep, it does. As I said it's about a balance of risk, and given the complexity of familial relations, the damage it could cause and the real problem that people would find it difficulty to talk about coercion, or even necessarily realise it was coercion due to the circumstances, then it seems to me you keep the ban.
-
yep, it does. As I said it's about a balance of risk, and given the complexity of familial relations, the damage it could cause and the real problem that people would find it difficulty to talk about coercion, or even necessarily realise it was coercion due to the circumstances, then it seems to me you keep the ban.
Well I will have to disagree with you. :)
I don't think that keeping it illegal will prevent it happening, in most cases.
-
I think it would be perilous to permit incestuous marriage. Imagine a 40 year old man marrying his young daughter, the potential for psychological manipulation is huge. Sexual abuse in the family would become quasi-legitimate.
-
I think it would be perilous to permit incestuous marriage. Imagine a 40 year old man marrying his young daughter, the potential for psychological manipulation is huge. Sexual abuse in the family would become quasi-legitimate.
Procedures could be set up to ensure the marriage was freely accepted by the daughter.
-
Well I will have to disagree with you. :)
I don't think that keeping it illegal will prevent it happening, in most cases.
But it won't validate it and support effective abuse by someone in a position of power, making it harder to speak out if you are abused
-
But it won't validate it and support effective abuse by someone in a position of power, making it harder to speak out if you are abused
It boils down to the greater good, I suppose. The only way to find out is to try it for a period.
-
Procedures could be set up to ensure the marriage was freely accepted by the daughter.
That's cloud cuckoo land. Young girls can be manipulated by older fathers to agree to stuff, in fact, older men, who are not fathers, as we see with all the abuse cases and grooming cases. In fact, young guys are susceptible as well, as people of that age often want to please. This is one reason that sexual abuse is so hard to get to grips with, as the victim can become traumatized and mesmerized.
-
That's cloud cuckoo land. Young girls can be manipulated by older fathers to agree to stuff, in fact, older men, who are not fathers, as we see with all the abuse cases and grooming cases. In fact, young guys are susceptible as well, as people of that age often want to please. This is one reason that sexual abuse is so hard to get to grips with, as the victim can become traumatized and mesmerized.
Agreed, but that applies to all cases of abuse, not just incest.
-
Agreed, but that applies to all cases of abuse, not just incest.
But incest lends an extra degree of manipulation to it, as young people often want to please their parents. It will never happen, as too many boundaries are smashed by it, and children need boundaries.
-
But incest lends an extra degree of manipulation to it, as young people often want to please their parents. It will never happen, as too many boundaries are smashed by it, and children need boundaries.
Well, that doesn't stop me thinking otherwise! :)
-
I'm going now! You lot made me miss my siesta yesterday, and I ain't having it!
-
It boils down to the greater good, I suppose. The only way to find out is to try it for a period.
Given the numbers of people who are abused by family members, and find it difficult to speak out, and how much harder this would make it, as to oppose the numbers not getting some nookie from someone, I would really rather not.
We are only just, if we are lucky, getting to the stage where sexual abuse is being able to be talked to it. I see your suggestion as an abusers charter.
-
Agreed, but that applies to all cases of abuse, not just incest.
And as already pointed out multiple times, the complex power relationship on a family makes it different. That others are abused does not mean you should make it easier for another set of abusers.
-
I'd have to say, as the father of two daughters, that I can't imagine that the relationship between a father and daughter, beginning as it does from birth, throughout childhood and into adulthood (as in my case) would ever progress in the direction of incest - this would no longer be a father/daughter relationship: it would be a betrayal by the father and a failure on his part to both nurture and respect his female children.
I can't imagine any father of daughters (and there are several of us here) viewing the idea that incest in some circumstances might ever be acceptable: just no!
-
And yet we know that such abuse happens, Gordon, and making it easier to exploit that relationship really does not seem the way to go
As for sibling relationships while they may be more likely to be equal, again differing ages and dynamics in families can change that. How would you feel if one sibling was 15 years younger and had been effectively raised by the older sibling?
As previously said, the law is a blunt tool but in this case I think it has to err on the side of those who could be, and have been exploited and abused.
-
And yet we know that such abuse happens, Gordon, and making it easier to exploit that relationship really does not seem the way to go
As for sibling relationships while they may be more likely to be equal, again differing ages and dynamics in families can change that. How would you feel if one sibling was 15 years younger and had been effectively raised by the older sibling?
As previously said, the law is a blunt tool but in this case I think it has to err on the side of those who could be, and have been exploited and abused.
In the case of siblings, especially where there is an age difference involved and older siblings in a sense care for their younger brothers and sisters, I'd say that incest wouldn't be a feature of a sibling relationship without it no longer being a sibling relationship: incest would change the nature of the relationship where it occurs between siblings just as it does between parent and child.
So I agree: the law needs to protect the vulnerable in the first instance.
-
Moderator:
Just to say that the posts prior to this one are about the civil as opposed to Christian aspects of incest that were split from the thread in the Christian Topic and placed here.
-
Given the numbers of people who are abused by family members, and find it difficult to speak out, and how much harder this would make it, as to oppose the numbers not getting some nookie from someone, I would really rather not.
We are only just, if we are lucky, getting to the stage where sexual abuse is being able to be talked to it. I see your suggestion as an abusers charter.
Yes, it's a no-brainer. Relaxing the incest laws would set back the protection of children and young people by centuries. As you say, we are only just beginning to talk about sexual abuse, and admit that it is endemic. But in a sense, nobody has a clue as to how to deal with it, and this would make it worse. The idea of investigating a father/daughter relationship to see if the daughter was consenting, is farcical - who on earth would this? Social services need this like a hole in the head.
-
Yes, it's a no-brainer. Relaxing the incest laws would set back the protection of children and young people by centuries. As you say, we are only just beginning to talk about sexual abuse, and admit that it is endemic. But in a sense, nobody has a clue as to how to deal with it, and this would make it worse. The idea of investigating a father/daughter relationship to see if the daughter was consenting, is farcical - who on earth would this? Social services need this like a hole in the head.
Sexual abuse of all types is a nightmare from a legal viewpoint. The offence of taking someone's car without consenr, Twokking, is easy because you can see that unless there wasn't a previous relationship, you driving about on someone's car when they don't know you, is an open and shut case almost all of the time
However in the case of rape or abuse, people have sex with people they didn't know as a normal course of events. So trying to prove rape in that case such harder.
So take that into a family situation where twokking would actually be hard to prove, overlay that with statistics on sexual abuse within family and then work out quite how hard that would be to prove and then add in the taboo in even reporting this stuff that applies to victims.
Absolutely, wigginhall, this would be a nightmare for social services.
-
In theory it would be possible to commit incest but be unaware of the fact you were a sibling of the person with whom you were having sex, especially if they were the product of sperm donation. I read on an American forum that one sperm donor donated sperm 400 times. I don't think they would be permitted to be so prolific in the UK?
-
In theory it would be possible to commit incest but be unaware of the fact you were a sibling of the person with whom you were having sex, especially if they were the product of sperm donation. I read on an American forum that one sperm donor donated sperm 400 times. I don't think they would be permitted to be so prolific in the UK?
Sperm donation in this way would not be an act of incest in law.
Or indeed sex, so you wouldn't be having sex and you wouldn't even be evolving faster if you did.
-
Sperm donation in this way would not be an act of incest in law.
Or indeed sex, so you wouldn't be having sex and you wouldn't even be evolving faster if you did.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhh?
If a man and woman had been created by their mothers using sperm from the same donor they would be half brother and sister. Therefore, in theory, they would be committing incest if they had a sexual relationship.
-
Ehhhhhhhhhhhh?
Therefore, in theory, they would be committing incest if they had a sexual relationship.
But they didn't!
-
Ehhhhhhhhhhhh?
If a man and woman had been created by their mothers using sperm from the same donor they would be half brother and sister. Therefore, in theory, they would be committing incest if they had a sexual relationship.
No, incest is about a sexual act. You could argue it 'theoretically' though it isn't clear what you mean by that. But in legal terms it isn't incest. No mens rea, you see.
-
If a half brother and sister, whose father was a sperm donor, met up unknowing that they were related and had sex, wouldn't that be technically incest?
-
If a half brother and sister, whose father was a sperm donor, met up unknowing that they were related and had sex, wouldn't that be technically incest?
First of all this has nothing to do with your previous position that sperm donation could be incestb(which it wouldn't be) - do you understand that?
As for the specific, the sperm donation itself has no effect, if the siblings are siblings in this sense then technically it would be incest but it has nothing to do wit your posts about sperm donation up to now.
-
Being an oldie - and having ignored this thread almost since its inception - a nasty little memory has been nagging away at what is laughingly referred to as my brain.
May 1958 - total uproar!
Jerry Lee lewis was to do a six-week tour of Britain.
He was accompanied by a young girl - Myra, 13 years old - a reporter from the Mirror asked her who she was and she announced that she was Jerry's wife.
The excrement hit the rotary ventilation device in life-threatening clumps. Not only was she only 13 but she was his first cousin.
The tour ended abruptly after three shows, as did any chance of Jerry Lee ever returning to the UK.
From some of the posts here attitudes have not changed much since 1958.
I personally would like to see the charge of incest only ever applied if one or other party is under the age of consent or, as an adult, considered to be psychologically incapable of making an informed decision in the matter or if either of these consitions had existed at the start of the relationship.
-
In terms of family relationship and age the marriage was at that time perfectly legal in the state where JLL lived, of course. (Tennessee, perhaps?).
-
In terms of family relationship and age the marriage was at that time perfectly legal in the state where JLL lived, of course. (Tennessee, perhaps?).
Mississippi actually - but yes, it was totally acceptable and not considered abnormal. JLL himself was first married at 14.
The shit didn't hit the fan until JLL hit the UK!
(Moderator - we really do need a spellchecker on this forum! - And I do not mean a censor on my in-circle activities!)
-
I personally would like to see the charge of incest only ever applied if one or other party is under the age of consent or, as an adult, considered to be psychologically incapable of making an informed decision in the matter or if either of these conditions had existed at the start of the relationship.
That is the most sensible post I've seen on this thread.
-
That is the most sensible post I've seen on this thread.
Thank you Sir.
I have a basin of water and a towel ready for the crap that is likely to be the result of both our posts. I just thank all the powers that be that Mary Whitehouse now sits on the right hand of her God!
And you can interpret the last part of the last sentence how you will!
-
Thank you Sir.
I have a basin of water and a towel ready for the crap that is likely to be the result of both our posts.
Sod 'em! ;)
I just thank all the powers that be that Mary Whitehouse now sits on the right hand of her God!
And you can interpret the last part of the last sentence how you will!
Oooooh, you ARE awful!
Anyway, why should she get pleasures that she denied others while she was alive? :)
-
Sod 'em! ;)
Oooooh, you ARE awful!
Anyway, why should she get pleasures that she denied others while she was alive? :)
Where are the pleasures in watching a documentary on Africa and spending it counting penises and breasts? And she had teams of people doing this so they could cover every television programme.
Oh, and listeners countin swear words - including "bloody" FFS!
-
Where are the pleasures in watching a documentary on Africa and spending it counting penises and breasts? And she had teams of people doing this so they could cover every television programme.
Oh, and listeners countin swear words - including "bloody" FFS!
I was referring, somewhat coarsely, to the pleasures of sitting on the right hand of somebody. ;)
-
Being an oldie - and having ignored this thread almost since its inception - a nasty little memory has been nagging away at what is laughingly referred to as my brain.
May 1958 - total uproar!
Jerry Lee lewis was to do a six-week tour of Britain.
He was accompanied by a young girl - Myra, 13 years old - a reporter from the Mirror asked her who she was and she announced that she was Jerry's wife.
The excrement hit the rotary ventilation device in life-threatening clumps. Not only was she only 13 but she was his first cousin.
The tour ended abruptly after three shows, as did any chance of Jerry Lee ever returning to the UK.
From some of the posts here attitudes have not changed much since 1958.
I personally would like to see the charge of incest only ever applied if one or other party is under the age of consent or, as an adult, considered to be psychologically incapable of making an informed decision in the matter or if either of these consitions had existed at the start of the relationship.
And since that time, it's been abundantly clear with a number of recent convictions that as well as that uproar, a blind eye was turned to all sorts of abuse and that sexual abuse within families has been more widespread than was conceived of then. The point about the laws against incest is, as already pointed out numerous times on this thread, it is very difficult to avoid situations where due to the complexities of family relationships that there is not a strong potential difficulty in being able to give clear consent, or to take action once one is able to refuse the sexual contact. It's hard enough for people to stand up and prove sexual abuse outside of the family and it is abundantly clear if you have ever read many statements on abuse by those in a position of power, how that power is used to manipulate the abused into giving consent and not talking about the abuse. To hand that sort of tool over to those who might use it in a familial situation seems to me to show ignorance of precisely what we have learned about sexual abuse in the last fifty or so years.
-
I was referring, somewhat coarsely, to the pleasures of sitting on the right hand of somebody. ;)
I guessed - It was what I was thinking when I typed it! - Right hand but which finger?
I thoink that I had better end this train of thought before it hits the buffers of the over-sensitive sensitivities of some of the more pious here.
Good joib BA is not here - he would have a fit!
-
It's not just about underage. It's about power and the ability to use it. There are plenty of people past the age of consent who are manipulated and sexuality abused by those who have power over them, and who find it difficult to come forward even when they think they have been abused because they see it that they are doing the betrayal. And again this is clear in many witness testimonies of such abuse.
Ignoring the power relationships that are there by default in a family is hugely dangerous. This isn't about denying people the right to sex because of any type of a religious view, it's about what is patently clear in the cases of abuse after the age of consent that we have seen on the last fifty years.
-
It's not just about underage. It's about power and the ability to use it. There are plenty of people past the age of consent who are manipulated and sexuality abused by those who have power over them, and who find it difficult to come forward even when they think they have been abused because they see it that they are doing the betrayal. And again this is clear in many witness testimonies of such abuse.
Ignoring the power relationships that are there by default in a family is hugely dangerous. This isn't about denying people the right to sex because of any type of a religious view, it's about what is patently clear in the cases of abuse after the age of consent that we have seen on the last fifty years.
Your problem is that you are trying to perfect something that is inherently imperfect, man, humanity, and will prove yet again the aphorism that "what man can invent man can circumvent".
You can make all the laws you like to ban whatever you like and someone somewhere will find a way to get around said laws.
You post ideas which I have no doubt make you feel good for having posted them; unfortunately, these kinds of measures have to be imposed from above, no not by god, and there are two diametrically opposed things which float to the top - cream and scum!
You only have to look at the recent spate of historic sex offenses to see the truth of this statement.
-
I have no idea what you are trying to say in that last post, Owlswing. I'm not trying to perfect anything, I'm looking at the blunt tools we have to try and protect people who are being abused. Your post seems to imply that we shouldn't have laws at all which I dom't think you mean.
I am sure people will get round laws but surely we have a duty to try and make that as difficult as possible rather than throwing up our hands and walking away?
-
I have no idea what you are trying to say in that last post, Owlswing. I'm not trying to perfect anything, I'm looking at the blunt tools we have to try and protect people who are being abused. Your post seems to imply that we shouldn't have laws at all which I dom't think you mean.
I am sure people will get round laws but surely we have a duty to try and make that as difficult as possible rather than throwing up our hands and walking away?
Of course, but not at the price of taking liberty away from those involved in incestuous relationships that are NOT abusive.
Two wrongs do not, even in this situation, make a right.
You keep trying to protect the abused and I will keep trying to protect the not abused.
-
Of course, but not at the price of taking liberty away from those involved in incestuous relationships that are NOT abusive.
Two wrongs do not, even in this situation, make a right.
The ideal is that there is never any abuse, obviously, but we're not capable of doing that - you yourself pointed out that people are 'imperfect'.
Given that, we have to implement a system that is feasible to manage, yet doesn't unduly impact on people. Prohibiting personal relationships of that nature within family groups where the potential for long-term pernicious influence is high does come with a cost, yes, but how else do you attempt to ensure people's freedom to choose for themselves? We have enough trouble discouraging forced marriages as it is, when the involve two families.
O.
-
Of course, but not at the price of taking liberty away from those involved in incestuous relationships that are NOT abusive.
Two wrongs do not, even in this situation, make a right.
You keep trying to protect the abused and I will keep trying to protect the not abused.
Who is arguing about two wrongs making a right? This is about the blunt tools we have and what we do with them. I have already covered on the thread that there might be a cost to freedom, and while that is a cost it seems to me something worth paying to protect people from abuse.
I expect a teacher not to have sex with a pupil even if they are above the age of consent, because of the power relationship, same thing in a family. I am not willing to give an extra manipulation tool to those who would abuse and that is what Leonard's position would do.
-
Owlswing wrote:
I personally would like to see the charge of incest only ever applied if one or other party is under the age of consent or, as an adult, considered to be psychologically incapable of making an informed decision in the matter or if either of these consitions had existed at the start of the relationship.
I am curious as to who you think would do this investigation? I mean, into whether someone in an incestous relationship was 'psychologically incapable of making an informed decision'. I think that this would be a very complex and sophisticated issue, not just a question of intellectual development, but also the degree of emotional manipulation or abuse wielded by the parent or brother, or whoever. It could not be done via a quick visit, or filling in forms, but might take months to make an assessment. Who is going to do this?
The question is: how do we work out which relationships are abusive? This is not an easy matter at all, as family members often obfuscate and lie or are silenced.
-
And this just in.
http://www.stv.tv/scotland/1340426-msps-reject-bid-to-legalise-incest-between-consenting-adults/
-
Owlswing wrote:
I am curious as to who you think would do this investigation? I mean, into whether someone in an incestous relationship was 'psychologically incapable of making an informed decision'. I think that this would be a very complex and sophisticated issue, not just a question of intellectual development, but also the degree of emotional manipulation or abuse wielded by the parent or brother, or whoever. It could not be done via a quick visit, or filling in forms, but might take months to make an assessment. Who is going to do this?
The question is: how do we work out which relationships are abusive? This is not an easy matter at all, as family members often obfuscate and lie or are silenced.
Nowhere did I say it would be easy!
-
And this just in.
http://www.stv.tv/scotland/1340426-msps-reject-bid-to-legalise-incest-between-consenting-adults/
So now the entire world must follow what Scotland says! So we must follow India's legal stance and punish women who get raped by raping them again!
Welcome to the 21st century!
-
So now the entire world must follow what Scotland says! So we must follow India's legal stance and punish women who get raped by raping them again!
Welcome to the 21st century!
No, and I didn't say anything like that.
I just thought given that it happened today it was worth reporting.
I'm getting a bit bored by you reacting to things people aren't saying.
Perhaps you might want to retract the implication that I think women who are raped should be raped again?
-
No, and I didn't say anything like that.
I just thought given that it happened today it was worth reporting.
I'm getting a bit bored by you reacting to things people aren't saying.
Perhaps you might want to retract the implication that I think women who are raped should be raped again?
OK - point taken.
However I do wonder if you would have been so keen to post this if the decision had gone the other way!
-
OK - point taken.
However I do wonder if you would have been so keen to post this if the decision had gone the other way!
Yes, I would absolutely, can you stop randomly casting aspersions like this. It happened today hence the 'this just in'. I doubt you would find any post on here that I 've ever done that would even hint at me thinking because a legislative body says something then that makes it true.
You really need to stop personalising discussion.
-
Yes, I would absolutely, can you stop randomly casting aspersions like this. It happened today hence the 'this just in'. I doubt you would find any post on here that I 've ever done that would even hint at me thinking because a legislative body says something then that makes it true.
You really need to stop personalising discussion.
Point taken, but are you not doing exactly the same?
PAX!
-
Point taken, but are you not doing exactly the same?
PAX!
No, I am dealing with personal attacks you are making, not assuming that because we are disagreeing you are being disingenuous.
I disagree with you here, not because you aren't in the 21st century, I don't think it reasonable to imply you support raping rape victims or any other such. I think it is reasonable to argue that what you propose is bad because of the consequences, not that you support the consequences, just that your estimation of the problems is wrong.
But other than that PAX (or indeed 'keys' which would be the closest equivalent I had when growing up) which also necessitates me raising both thumbs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truce_term
-
Ar, the Free Church
http://www.thenational.scot/news/legal-incest-is-a-logical-result-of-secularism-says-free-church-of-scotland.12873