ForumGarden

that is wrong....just morally wrong.

That is sick.....sick...sick.

WonderWendy3;828973 wrote: that is wrong....just morally wrong.


Except in France, of course, where Nicole and Papa face no legal barrier to their marriage or union.

Good God. I wanna retch.

Somebody better come in and snag that child or she's going to be forever screwed up.

That is just beyond repellent!!

yeah, ummm ewweee!!

That is just nasty....he looked like any other man that would be in a bar?????

ummm, yeah, except he is your FREAKIN' FATHER for pete's sake!! This just is beyond my comprehension....

spot;828977 wrote: Except in France, of course, where Nicole and Papa face no legal barrier to their marriage or union.


After I wrote that I thought that there are probably cultures that this is acceptable....I knew there was a chance of me being corrected...thanks Spot!:):-6

WonderWendy3;828981 wrote: After I wrote that I thought that there are probably cultures that this is acceptable....I knew there was a chance of me being corrected...thanks Spot!:):-6


He's referring to some silly adverts on UK television for the Renault Clio - even I would not malign the French as much as to suggest that they find father daughter incest acceptable.

Why do people always call me on the wrong issues? I never worked that out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#France

And Belgium. And, possibly though I'm not sure I trust Wikipedia on Israel, Israel.

fuzzy butt;828989 wrote: 25 years in the case of sex with one's child, stepchild or lineal descendantForgive me if I'm wrong here but doesn't "lineal descendant" conjure up in any one else's mind a future as yet unborn relative?

If I might offer an opinion, these two aren't related at all. I bet they got so many comments of wow he's old enough to be your dad that they made a joke that he was, the story got to the news program and they went to do the interview when they were asked, because going and doing the interview would be the funniest prank of all time. Aussies are like that.

I'm with JAB on this.

We had a similar discussion awhile ago about a brother and sister who carried on a relationship before they knew they were related. I said I could look the other way on that if I had to, but doing this with your parent is beyond abhorrent. I hate rules and laws probably more than the next person but even I must admit some of them exist for a reason. Forgetting man's law for a moment, how about Nature's law? This defies it. And that's not a good thing. My concern is since they want understanding (and how does a normal person "understand" this when the word "understand" means literally to "stand under"/to support) that they are going to raise that kid to think what they have is normal.

Another thing- the father says "it's illegal, so what?" So what? So if you're going to continue to do your own daughter, what's to stop you from molesting that little girl you so wrongfully created. That kid has a row to hoe that she should NEVER have been given.

It's good to think out of the box and (I think) it's even good to hang on the fringe of society in some things but to try and justify this, I think is abnormal and purely wrong. Both on a moral level and on the side of natural law which like or unlike God, exists to keep a balance whether we like it or not.

I shudder to think.

---------------- Listening to: Rachmaninov / Piano Concerto No. 2 in C minor, Op. 18 I: Moderato (Rachmaninov) via FoxyTunes

If they get married, who's gonna give away the bride?

Richard Bell;829064 wrote: If they get married, who's gonna give away the bride?
LOL

At least they have a lot in common...their DNA.

I agree with rj on this one. As they are consenting adults, why is it anyone's business what they do behind closed doors?

I can certainly see the merit in having laws in place, but it makes you wonder- if there weren't such laws, would we see a rise in incest?

I guess its how you are raised also....



I had a problem with my husband's (now ex) sister having a relationship with her step-dad within months of her Mother's death. Step-dad was in the picture for about 15 years before Mom died, and less than about 3 months of her death, daughter was shacked up with him....to me that was just wrong, and I could've done with out hearing him say "she's just like a younger model of *mothers' name*.." I just wanted to barf.....Luckily the relationship didn't last long, but still....the kids were really confused why mommy and grandpa were sleeping in nana's bed together and why they were all of a sudden living with him, when they couldn't be around nana when she was alive that much.....



I just think its not right....

spot;828984 wrote: Why do people always call me on the wrong issues? I never worked that out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#France

And Belgium. And, possibly though I'm not sure I trust Wikipedia on Israel, Israel.


I apologise - I sit corrected.

Bryn Mawr;829085 wrote: I apologise - I sit corrected.


would this be a bad time to bring up the "homie" origination?? :o

It's in the ForumGarden rulebook - posters can only be called on the accuracy of 10% of their posts or nobody would ever try.

Besides it might have been exactly like I said, you never can tell.

spot;829134 wrote: It's in the ForumGarden rulebook - posters can only be called on the accuracy of 10% of their posts or nobody would ever try.

Besides it might have been exactly like I said, you never can tell.


10%?? can I see this rulebook? Or is locked up in the safe with all the monopoly money?

I only saw it for a brief glimpse once. Tombstone keeps it under lock and key.

Okay, mark the calendar. I think I agree with RJ on this one.



The guy didn't raise the woman, and so isn't taking advantage of any abusive relationship built over the years. They met as adults.



Granted it's weird - weird as hell - but the only concern in my eyes is genetic. It's just too risky for parent and child to have offspring without checking on any recessive genes that may manifest themselves.



Morally wrong? Sure, I guess so, but lots of immoral stuff goes on today with the rest of society cheering it on.

Accountable;829177 wrote: Okay, mark the calendar. I think I agree with RJ on this one.



The guy didn't raise the woman, and so isn't taking advantage of any abusive relationship built over the years. They met as adults.



Granted it's weird - weird as hell - but the only concern in my eyes is genetic. It's just too risky for parent and child to have offspring without checking on any recessive genes that may manifest themselves.



Morally wrong? Sure, I guess so, but lots of immoral stuff goes on today with the rest of society cheering it on.


I go along with the comments you make, and rj's too

Morally wrong? Sure, I guess so, but lots of immoral stuff goes on today with the rest of society cheering it on.


Doesn't make it right.

I'm with those of you whose skin is crawling.

Is not one of you heathens going to agree with me that the two of them most likely made it up as a media stunt?

I hear what many of you are saying here about 'consenting adults', and I guess its up to them.

The father, grandfather, boyfriend whatever! states in the video that they are not hurting anyone .... what a load of crud! What about the baby! They are hurting her! Why did they have to have a child!

Pheasy, if you wait until the child can understand the question and then ask her whether she'd rather she hadn't been born I'm sure I can predict the answer.

spot: You might be wrong. I assume you think she'd say she was glad to have been born?

Oh, and while Aussie humour can be fairly robust, I don't think they'd go that far.

I'm sure she would and I'm sure it is.

spot;829205 wrote: Pheasy, if you wait until the child can understand the question and then ask her whether she'd rather she hadn't been born I'm sure I can predict the answer.


I can imagine the problems this will cause the poor thing! Unless of course banging your father and having babies with him becomes acceptable in the next few years.

rjwould;829339 wrote: It depends on who she listens to. Much of the same stuff is said about children who have same sex parents. Its too bad that the adults will cause more of a problem for her than any kids.


Yes :-6

This thread has got me thinking...

If the child never found out that his/her parents were closely related, then surely s/he wouldn't be disturbed by it. And also, if two consenting adults who were closely related had a sexual relationship, it wouldn't disturb them either if neither of them knew. So, what I'm trying to say, but very clumsily, is that it's not the actual actions that disturb but the words and interpretations that we impose. Isn't it?

rjwould;829403 wrote: I agree!

I remember when I was in junior high school, a girl came up to me while standing with some friends and told me another person who I didn't know said some derogatory stuff about me. I shrugged it off but within a few hours it had gotten around the school and people were approaching me saying that I should be outraged about what the kid said. So after a while I decided to adopt the majority outrage and had to at this point fight him.

Children have no predisposition to what is morally acceptable as right and wrong until adults program it into them.

The first time someone says to her that her family situation is weird, it most likely won't bother her, but she will wear down and a wrong will be created in her life where no wrong belongs. Morality is subjective, and adults should be wise a cautious with theirs, but they are not, they fling it around like sh!t on a stick.


And to take a step even further back, rj, if that girl, or anyone for that matter, hadn't told you that stuff, you wouldn't have known, you wouldn't have adopted the outrage and the fight incident wouldn't have happened. You would have been none the wiser, and would it have mattered?

rjwould;829051 wrote: If they had adopted a child together, would that be acceptable?

As for the laws of nature. Nature spoke and didn't disagree, the child is fine.


Not hardly acceptable but still better than what they've done.

We don't know about Nature's ruling yet. The child is a baby and has much time to show any problems. We don't know what may pop up later because of this disgusting union.

As for the consenting adult argument I just read about, it matters because we don't live in an anarchic country where we can all do whatever we want and there is reason for that. Some laws are good to have.

As for the "parents" not telling their kid who she really is, I'm sure she'll find out when she pops out a deformed or dysfunctional kid in her own life.

Yuck! I just read the first post and then started reading all the other posts.

RedGlitter;829464 wrote: As for the consenting adult argument I just read about, it matters because we don't live in an anarchic country where we can all do whatever we want and there is reason for that. Some laws are good to have.


So tell me, which legal system do you think is healthier? There's the English approach which is "you can do anything that's not against the law" and there's the continental alternative which is "if the law allows it you can do it".

Have you any sympathy for the notion that the law in some countries is so complex that a normally intelligent averagely informed adult citizen is incapable of knowing whether a proposed act is legal or not? It's easy enough to know that an action is illegal but I suggest it's impossible to act at all and be sure that one isn't breaking the law. In what sort of philosophy is that state of affairs acceptable?

I have a book where I check whether something's legal or not, it's called Blackstone's Criminal Practice and it's currently 3,488 pages long and it has very small print. And that's just Criminal law, Civil law is far more difficult to discern.

rjwould;830653 wrote: So, should we say then that any household that consists of a family made up of a father and one daughter or more where the oldest daughter is acting as the mother towards the younger is wrong?

Well it seems that anything that happens to this child will most likely be blamed on the relationship by some at this point. Perhaps we should be suspicious of all parents of any young persons with any deformity or sickness of possible incest then. But what about our freedom we are so concerned about?

It's none of our business...I wish people would keep their morality to themselves.


Now RJ, that really is pushing it a bit too far! Has it not been scientifically proven that children from two related people are more likely to suffer abnormalities. Also to say that people will automatically question the parents for every child born with a birth defect is twisting it beyond seriousness.

spot;829189 wrote: Is not one of you heathens going to agree with me that the two of them most likely made it up as a media stunt?
You have to be joking Spot! Did you look at their pictures? No use telling that fella to go 'F' himself, he's already looking himself in the eyes when he does it now (assuming the position, naturally...).

spot;830579 wrote: So tell me, which legal system do you think is healthier? There's the English approach which is "you can do anything that's not against the law" and there's the continental alternative which is "if the law allows it you can do it".

There's supposed to be a discernable difference in the two? It's semantics again.

Have you any sympathy for the notion that the law in some countries is so complex that a normally intelligent averagely informed adult citizen is incapable of knowing whether a proposed act is legal or not? It's easy enough to know that an action is illegal but I suggest it's impossible to act at all and be sure that one isn't breaking the law. In what sort of philosophy is that state of affairs acceptable?

Spot that's absurd. Sympathy for two selfish idiots who know their porking is illegal but do it anyway and produce TWO children by it? That's not complex by my standards.

I have a book where I check whether something's legal or not, it's called Blackstone's Criminal Practice and it's currently 3,488 pages long and it has very small print. And that's just Criminal law, Civil law is far more difficult to discern.


I guess I don't need a book to know that sex with a parent is wrong on all levels. I'm surprised you do.

rjwould;830653 wrote: So, should we say then that any household that consists of a family made up of a father and one daughter or more where the oldest daughter is acting as the mother towards the younger is wrong?



No, we should not. However there is a profound difference between a daughter taking care of the household and her siblings....performing wifely duties for her father. Hopefully I don't have to explain that further.

Well it seems that anything that happens to this child will most likely be blamed on the relationship by some at this point. Perhaps we should be suspicious of all parents of any young persons with any deformity or sickness of possible incest then. But what about our freedom we are so concerned about?

According to FOX News (and I know you don't find FOX creditworthy but that's not my concern) the "couple" had a child conceived from the first time they had sex. It died soon after of CONGENITAL heart disease.

What do you want to be it had something to do with its "mom" and "dad?"

Of course you'll say "prove it" but that's proof enough for me.

You confuse freedom with hedonistic irresponsibility, RJ. Even freedom comes with its own set of bylaws. Freedom doesn't mean "do anything you want;" not when other people are involved. If they couldn't stay out of each others' pants that is sick enough but to willingly produce children from a union that should never have been, knowing they may be crippled, deformed or imbecilic, is selfish, ignorant, and morally reprehensible.

Normally I keep my nose out of other people's freedoms as I hope they do with mine, but this is not something that's "just between them." They are producing kids who may be a burden to society when they should never have been created to start with.

It's none of our business...I wish people would keep their morality to themselves.

Plus they are apparently blind as any fool with a lick of sense could see they are related.

Originally Posted by spot

So tell me, which legal system do you think is healthier? There's the English approach which is "you can do anything that's not against the law" and there's the continental alternative which is "if the law allows it you can do it".

There's supposed to be a discernable difference in the two? It's semantics again.


Valid question as the two are worlds apart.

In one world the laws say "it is illegal to kill, it is illegal to steal, it is illegal to commit adultery" and then defines kill, steal and adultery.

In the other world the laws say "it is legal to own a house if ..., it is legal to work as long as you...., it is legal to marry on condition that....".

Are you allowed to drive a car? Yes in the first and no in the second.

Far more than just semantics.