If two twin sisters who are both 18 years old and they both want to marry eachother I think legally they should be allowed to do it because what they’re doing isn’t hurting anybody.
If a brother and a sister who are both consenting adults and they both want to marry eachother I think legally they should be allow to do it as long as the brother gets a vasectomy so that they do not have any kids together. Because what they’re doing isn’t hurting anybody.
I agree that incest is weird and gross which is why I personally would never do that but I don’t think that it’s morally wrong as long its between siblings that are both consenting adults and they do not have any kids together because what they’re doing is completely harmless and isn’t hurting anybody. So they deserve to have the right the right to marry eachother if they want to just like everyone else that isn’t related to their spouse.
“I disregard any thoughts of morality until I’m confronted with such”
Yeah I can see that.
Is it though?
Because it’s rather well documented that abuse of substances affects others as well. No-one lives in a void. We all interact.
Homosexuality is incredibly common and there’s no harm in it, and there’s actually several observed benefits for social species (that’s not to say either of those always happens, but in certain situations and certain species it can be beneficial to the species).
You should be tipped off that there might be something harmful if you need to take extensive care to avoid a danger inherent in the activity. (incest babies.)
Yes it is, because it is very directly harmful to the species unless you make certain there is no chance of conception. And to make that sure just wearing a condom or even wearing a condom and the sister being on the pill wouldn’t be enough. Even a vasectomy wouldn’t be enough, as it’s not 100% effective. It’s more than 99.99% effective, but not 100%. Even adding a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) wouldn’t make it 100%, as ectopic pregnancies are a thing, and there exists medical cases of ectopic pregnancies having survived. Maybe only one or two, but documentedly it has happened.
So complete sterilisation would be necessary.
To compare incest to homosexuality is like trying to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. They’re not even close.
Some pedophiles understand that they have a problem. No-one blames them for it, unless they pretend it isn’t a problem, because then it becomes a problem.
So admit you have one and go visit a psychiatrist, for your own health.
But it’s still possible for a brother and a sister to be in an incestuous relationship with each other without having a child together if the brother gets a vasectomy and the sister get her tubes tied.
Also what about two twin sisters who are both 18 years old who are in an incestuous relationship with each other what is your argument against them from doing so. They have no chance of having children together.
It’s totally fine if think incest between siblings who are both consenting adults is gross and weird but it is not morally wrong because what they’re doing isn’t morally wrong as long as they do not have any kids together. Because what they’re doing is hurting anybody.
Someone using herion is not a morally bad person as long as they’re not going out of their to harm other people. If all they’re doing is harming themselves then I think it’s morally okay for them to use heroin.
Pedophiles are only morally bad person if they go out of their way to molest pre pubescent children or watch actual CP.
Hypothetically speaking if a pedophile is just having fantasies about pre pubescent children and are not going out of their way to molest them or watch actual CP then in my opinion I don’t think they’re morally a bad person because what they’re doing isn’t hurting anybody.
Oh only if they “go out of their way” to molest kids? So casual “on-the-way” molesting is fine?
You keep having to willfully ignore things and delude yourself.
You really should see a psychiatrist. If there’s nothing wrong, ofc you’ll get healthy papers. If there is something wrong, you should take care of it, obviously.
I never said that its morally okay for pedophiles to causal molest pre pubescent because pre pubescent children can not consent to sex. They do not know the long term social ramifications of sex.
What I said was hypothetically speaking if a pedophile is just having fantasies in his head about molest pre pubescent children but never actually molest or watching actual CP then I don’t think that they’re a morally bad person. Because having fantasies in your head isn’t hurting anybody as long as you don’t actually follow through with.
If someone has fantasies in their head of killing someone but never actually kills anyone then they’re morally not a bad person because the fantasies that they have in their head isn’t hurting anybody.
You literally wrote “if they go out of their way”. You may not have realised the implication, but that’s different from just “having thoughts”.
And no, if one doesn’t act on one’s impulses, it’s not wrong. However, if one was constantly fantasising pedophilia/violence and didn’t seek care, that would make it immoral, as humans we must realise all of us are imperfect, and we occasionally act on our impulses.
If you have violent impulses and don’t act on them and seek help, you’re a moral person, because some of the one’s who didn’t seek help ended up being serial killers, and often the secrecy and taboo of the acts add to the excitement.
There’s a reason we put people on psychiatric holds even when they might have not yet done anything wrong.
I don’t think Dan Harmon is immoral. but if I didn’t know he was a creative genius who had a therapist and because he realises these are fantasies he has, not something he’d do in real life. He talks about it under his own name, openly. I don’t think you’d be ready to do the same.
But forcing someone to go get help when they haven’t even done anything morally wrong. Is immoral in my opinion. It should always be up to person if they want to get help or not.
But it isn’t, because sometimes people are a credible danger to others before they do anything, if they’re not in possession of their faculties, ie suffering from a psychiatric condition.
If you happen to do a crime while under a psychiatric condition, you can use that as a criminal defense, because your judgment was impaired.
Therefore it’s up to society to try and take people to a hold if we deem their judgement to be compromised.
Yes, it’s been used for political means as well, and having an incest fetish isn’t enough to warrant such action. But for say a pedophile who has had trouble controlling themselves before…? Well, they’re usually banned from going to places like near schools and whatnot.
But for someone say with a violent history and a bipolar disorder? If they start exhibiting signs of mania and perhaps aggression, it’d be well within reason to put them on a forced psychiatric hold — for the safety of others — even if they hadn’t “done anything wrong”.
I agree with you that if a pedophile is constantly hanging out with pre pubescent children. They should immediately go get therapy so that they don’t molest them.
But if a pedophile is just having fantasies in his head of molesting pre pubescent children but never actually molest them. Then I think it should just be up to them if they want to go get therapy for it or not.