Mum had sex with son

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Rape isn't. It clearly refers to person A (the rapist) as "he"

From the Interpretation Acts 1978:

1. This Act, which came into force on 1 January 1979, consolidates the Interpretation Act 1889 and certain other enactments relating to the construction and operation of Acts of Parliament and other instruments.

2. Section 6 provides that words importing the masculine gender include the feminine (and vice versa).

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Are they charged with incest? Are they no longer allowed to have a relationship? What if they've had kids?

All interesting questions

AIUI from a previous discussion 1) No, I believe there is a specific exception allowed if consanguinity was not known. 2) Not a sexual one because they would then knowingly be committing an offence. 3) I believe they can still bring up the kids.

Originally Posted by Bifta

Nice *cop out*

Why do you consider it a "cop out"? What business is someone's private life to anyone else if nobody is hurt (*unconsentingly*!)?

However to try to answer your question on a strictly impartial basis in a discussion of the simple issues, I do not consider *any* sexual relationship between consenting adults to be "wrong".

Absolutely none, sorry.

I admit that my knowledge of the situation in (Northern) Ireland is, of course, entirely based on "hearsay" and what has been shown on TV (which may not completely accurately represent the actual situation), but I have to say that I consider this rather surprising, although pleasing.

But, on a general level, would you not agree that there are some who *would* consider such a relationship to be, at the least, "unacceptable"?

Or what if I was white and wanted to go out with a black girl? Or what if I wanted to go out with another man?

Yet, again, would you not agree that there are some who would?

however, if I were to ask everyone one I meet if they thought it was ok for someone to give their own mum a stuffing, I'm willing to bet that nearly if not all of them would answer no.

I'm sure that's the case. But I am also sure that that would be an "automatic" reaction based on a "knee-jerk" response. I don't think many of them would (or could) even consider such a question in an objective or rational manner.

Oh I see, if we don't find incest acceptable then we're immature, I don't want to get over my reaction to it, I'm sorry if I'm not as mature as you because I find such an act depraved.

Yet again, however, I have to point out that inter-religious, inter-racial or same gender relationships have equally been considered to be equally as "depraved".

There was no rational or logical reason for such opinions, merely that they were "unacceptable" or "against gods law" or "revolting". In the same way I have yet to see any rational or logical reason for an objection to "incestuous" relationships that do not involve procreation.

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by Graham

In the same way I have yet to see any rational or logical reason for an objection to "incestuous" relationships that do not involve procreation.

Because they can do .... ??

[Ramrod]

I hate to say it but broadly speaking, I agree with Graham
Our (that includes me) aversion to events under discussion is mostly down to taboos/tradition/religion or 'morals' (whatever the hell they are).
Objectively, this boils down to two consenting adults, no matter how sick/twisted/depraved we find it.
.............and thats all I'm going to say about this

(probably said enough already)

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Bifta

Oh I see, if we don't find incest acceptable then we're immature, I don't want to get over my reaction to it, I'm sorry if I'm not as mature as you because I find such an act depraved.

You're confused. I don't, and neither do Graham I'm sure, find incest acceptable. BUT, it is none of my, his, or your business if someone were to engage in such activities. Just because YOU don't find it acceptable and because the majority of other people don't does not warrant legislating against it. Unless you support Hitler and the holocaust perhaps, because he was elected by a majority and the majority did support what he was doing...

No. It does not work that way.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

You're confused. I don't, and neither do Graham I'm sure, find incest acceptable. BUT, it is none of my, his, or your business if someone were to engage in such activities.

Wrong - I'd make it my business if I discovered two members of my immediate family were engaged in such activities. Why would I make it my business? because its NOT acceptable for close relations to be involved in such an activity.

On a second note and moving aside this topic for a moment, I am becoming increasingly irritated by the people who are NOT using the reputation as it was intended, any further silly or unwarranted red repping, those members responsible will have their reputation giving/taking abilities removed.

[dilli-theclaw]

I find the idea of this happening disgusting. Um - I can't add any more than that really.

I'm NOT surprised that it goes on - although I AM surprised that it has been picked up in this case - because I'm SURE it goes on a lot more than is being let on.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Which is why there exist stupid laws in the United States and Canada. Laws that make sex toys illegal, for example. Laws that make gay sex illegal.

This is unwarranted. The government has no authority in the bedroom and no authority on morality.

So you support gay marriage now?

This has provoked a very passionate response probably based on gut reaction. I've seen two reasons for illegality as to prevent genetic disturbances and to prevent sex grooming, which seem like very good reasons to me. Anyone know the length of the jail sentence possible for this offence?

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Unless you support Hitler and the holocaust perhaps, because he was elected by a majority and the majority did support what he was doing...

Fantastic post, you amaze me more and more every day. Remember, when you speak out against incest, you're in league with Hitler!

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Graham

However to try to answer your question on a strictly impartial basis in a discussion of the simple issues, I do not consider *any* sexual relationship between consenting adults to be "wrong".

That's where we differ then, I have at least some morals it appears, and yes, that's surprised me too.

I admit that my knowledge of the situation in (Northern) Ireland is, of course, entirely based on "hearsay" and what has been shown on TV (which may not completely accurately represent the actual situation), but I have to say that I consider this rather surprising, although pleasing.

Bit of a poor example from an even more poorly researched subject then.

But, on a general level, would you not agree that there are some who *would* consider such a relationship to be, at the least, "unacceptable"?

Yes there are, and they also turn my stomach, I can only assume that the people who are speaking out for instead of against incest do not have children and I personally I hope they never do.

[Julian]

An interesting article on this subject can be found HERE

Jerrek, after reading your replys here, it makes me seem like your trying to be the smarta*se of us all, and to think you know it all.

Well I wouldn't think this is right, did the son want it? I wouldn't count on it, so it would really be illegal, because she did it without his consent.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by orangebird

It is suitable - who wants to risk sick, socially retarded people like them spawning inbred deformed children?

Maybe they should issue them to chavs with their Monday books then!

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Paul

Incest, wrong... even in Canada

taken from interpol:

children:

s. 7(4.1) Sexual offences against children

The 1997 Criminal Code amendments make it possible for Canadian prosecution of Canadian citizens or permanent residents who sexually abuse children, including engaging in prostitution, while outside Canada. It is important to note that the amendments allow not only for the prosecution of offences related to child sex tourism, such as child prostitution, but also of child sexual exploitation offences, such as sexual exploitation, indecent acts, child pornography and incest.

in general:

Criminal proceeding may only be instituted with the consent of the provincial Attorney General. Such a decision will be taken following considerations of matter such as the extra-territorial element of the offence and the possible impact on relations between states.

*The offences listed in subsection 7(4.1) are:

s. 151 sexual interference;

s. 152 invitation to sexual touching;

s. 153 sexual exploitation;

s. 155 incest

http://www.interpol.int/Public/Child.../csaCanada.asp

Originally Posted by Jerrek

What about brother/brother? Sister/sister?

it IS wrong. even if the law was changed that has no bearing to what i think.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

For all purposes then, consider a homosexual relationship where there is no chance of a baby. Your argument falls flat on its face then.

what has this got to do with the debate ?

a homosexual relationship has no relavence to this topic.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

And, something that is sick to YOU may not be sick to someone else. I know of plenty of things YOU may find sick but I don't, and I'm positive that there are things YOU may find cool and I find sick.

we are not all robots.

its about what you think is right and wrong, and to me having sex with your own flesh and blood is categorically undeniably wrong.