Lately I’ve been involved in some curious discussions with various people over incest laws. I feel such laws are not necessary if we’re talking about sex between consenting adults. What happens in a private bedroom has nothing to do with the government. In fact, it’s one of those examples of the law getting in over its head – simply out of their jurisdiction. Like making suicide illegal. Adults who want to have sex with each other will damn well have it regardless of the law. These are instances where the famous saying from Oliver Twist “The law is an ass” are applicable.
One line of argument goes that without such laws against incest, everyone will start having sex with their parents and siblings. Such reasoning is also used for homosexuality where people believe that legalizing gay marriage will be the end of traditional marriage and that we’re all secretly longing to boink someone of our own gender. And of course that will be the end of the human race as we know it!
The truth is that the overwhelming majority of us dislike the idea of sexual relations with our close family members. And it’s not because of the law. We’re not even aware of laws against incest till much later. Either due to the Westermarck effect or social taboos or whatever, we generally don’t feel like making out with our brothers or sisters with or without the law. Proponents of incest laws claim that children born out of incest have a higher risk of genetic defects. This is true. But there are two objections to this line of reasoning.
First, incest by itself merely refers to the sexual act. Most acts of sex don’t lead to kids. It’s more reasonable to have a law saying that all sexual relations between siblings etc need to utilize a contraceptive. Sure, it won’t be 100% effective but given the low rate of incest in the first place, this probability becomes vanishingly small. Not worth having a broad law for.
Second, the problem of prohibiting sex just because there’s a chance of genetically problematic kids is dangerous. There are any number of genetic abnormalities like Down’s syndrome for example that are passed down from parent to child. Do we ban all people with Down’s syndrome from having sex? Or having kids? Hell, there’s evidence that having kids when you’re over 40 significantly increases the chances of genetic abnormalities in children. So we ban sex for everyone aged over 40? Or outlaw having children? How about we issue breeding licenses?
Bottom line – Incest laws need to go. By itself which adult has sex with whom is none of the government’s business. Sex harms no one. There’s a stronger case to be made for having children, but these are problematic also. Most people simply dislike incest because of tradition or whatever and this is perfectly fine. No one is forcing them to have sex with anyone they don’t want. The problem comes when they try and dictate to other people what they should do.
supreme court:
Decisions of the United States Supreme Court ―establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation‘s history and tradition.‖ (Michael H. V. Gerald D. (1989) 491 U.S. 110, 123-124.) ―The major policy to be effected by a law of incest is the protection of the integrity of the family unit.‖ (Explanatory Note for Model Penal Code § 230.2.)
In reply to Western Point of View
Depends on how you define “sanctity of the family” and how can incest harm it. Besides, it’ll come down to a conflict between two directions. Rights to privacy and individual freedom are inviolate and much more fundamental than the “sanctity of the family”. If the Supreme Court were to ever weigh these two in the balance, there’s no doubt in my mind which one will prevail.
Also, we’re talking about individuals over 18. Once kids pass 18, they’re not part of the family anymore. So it’s a moot point anyway.
And the fact that there are states in the US that allow incest without any negative or ill effects whatsoever pretty much seals the deal. Same goes for India.
i don’t mean to go off topic, but the messy house thing:
The county of Los Angeles has 11 nuisance-abatement teams that look for code violations and substandard housing. They can order the owners to clean up or pay up.
“Broken-down vehicles in the front yard, to trash and garbage around the place,” said Spencer. “We could have structures that have been illegally built, structures that are falling down.”
LA County:
Whenever substandard or unsightly conditions exist on private property that constitutes a public nuisance, Building and Safety Division may issue abatement orders to the property owner(s). The abatement orders first allow for voluntary compliance. If voluntary compliance is not obtained, Building and Safety, adhering to the property owners’ rights to due process, would abate the nuisance conditions with County forces. The cost of the work would then be billed to the property owner(s).
Common Rehab Violations
Abandoned or partially destroyed buildings
Buildings with broken window or doors constituting potentially hazardous conditions and inviting trespassers and malicious mischief
Attractive nuisances dangerous to children, such as abandoned or broken equipment or neglected machinery
Broken or discarded household furniture visible from the street
Trash, junk or debris in yard areas
Inoperable or abandoned motor vehicles stored for unreasonable periods in yard areas
Again, if you live in a nice suburban neigborhood like mine and someone’s house looks messy, I can easily call LA public works by the above by-laws and they can take action.
In reply to Western Point of View
I’ll be curious to see how any of that stands up to a Constitutional challenge if anyone bothers to take it to the Supreme Court. In any case, as you said it’s off topic.
The reason i brought that up is governing bodies have a duty to serve the people in that they need to provide harmony among the governed.
In any case, from another case:
while children of siblings or a parent-child coupling have a risk between thirty-one and forty-four percent.‖ (Chan, Accidental Incest: Drawling the Line—or the Curtain? —for Reproductive Technology, 32 Harv. J.L. & Gender 59, 85 [fns. omitted].)6 This increased risk is surely sufficient to provide a legitimate basis for criminalizing incest, at least for the core relationships covered by section 285.
BTW, the quote above IS from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court emphasized that its conclusion that ―the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships.
Family is defined as “one or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all members are related by blood or marriage, no such family shall contain over five persons, but further provided that domestic servants employed on the premises may be housed on the premises without being counted as a family or families.” Greene County v. N. Shore Resort, 238 Ga. App. 236, 237 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)
Fla. Stat. § 39.01
(30) “Family” means a collective body of persons, consisting of a child and a parent, legal custodian, or adult relative, in which:
(a) The persons reside in the same house or living unit; or
(b) The parent, legal custodian, or adult relative has a legal responsibility by blood, marriage, or court order to support or care for the child.
Fla. Stat. § 414.0252 [TITLE 30. SOCIAL WELFARE,CHAPTER 414. FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY] defines family as follows:
(5) “Family” means the assistance group or the individuals whose needs, resources, and income are considered when determining eligibility for temporary assistance. The family for purposes of temporary assistance includes the minor child, a parent, or caretaker relative who resides in the same house or living unit. The family may also include individuals whose income and resources are considered in whole or in part in determining eligibility for temporary assistance but whose needs, due to federal or state restrictions, are not considered. These individuals include, but are not limited to, ineligible noncitizens or sanctioned individuals.
(6) “Family or household member” means spouses, former spouses, noncohabitating partners, persons related by blood or marriage, persons who are presently residing together as if a family or who have resided together in the past as if a family, and persons who have a child in common regardless of whether they have been married or have resided together at any time.
Title 7, Chapter 90 Evidence code defines Family as follows:
Fla. Stat. § 90.4026
(c) “Family” means the spouse, parent, grandparent, stepmother, stepfather, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, adopted child of parent, or spouse’s parent of an injured party
So a family member can live OUTSIDE of the household and still be considered a “family member” based on income. Also, the state still recognizes a child as being the child of a particular parent even if the child moves out of the house.
Family harmony: a family unit that can provide the children nourishment, sustenance and shelter without emotionally or physically harming the child as the state fits. Incest trangresses such a definition since it violates a child’s emotional sanctity.
In reply to Western Point of View
Two things:
1. Sex between AIDS patients has a very high risk of producing a kid with AIDS. So you support the crimininalization of sex between AIDS patients? And Down’s syndrome? And any genetic defect in fact?
2. What about incest with infertile couples? Or couples after childbearing age? Or with sterilized people? Or incest with a step sibling or step parent? No genetic problems there right?
If you’re throwing legal definitions of “family” at me, then let me point out that no law says that sex between family members destroys the family. Nowhere does it say that inter family sex ruins the concept of family. So incest is just fine.
“Incest trangresses such a definition since it violates a child’s emotional sanctity.”
Irrelevant since we’re only talking about adults. This has nothing to do with children. Sex with minors is anyway illegal.
o and back to the aesthetics thing and harmony.
Life liberty and property, right?
If you have a messy house, it affects the property value of my hosue. Therefore, you are violating my right to property, as you diminish the value of my house.
Nuisance is a limit. Free speech has limits. You can’t wake up at 5AM and start yelling on the street. That is called a disturbance.
Just wanted to bring that up btw.
In any case, i’ve done that, the neighbor was pissed, but hey, his house looked horrible at he had no right to have a crap house like that next to mine. Thank goodness for Suburban Zoning and municipality regulations.
In reply to Western Point of View
If you live under a Homeowner’s Association (HOA), then the rules are different anyway since you knew what you were getting into when you signed up for it.
Otherwise honestly I have no obligation to maintain the value of your house. Maintaining your house market value is not your constitutional right.
This guy here is on the Internet complaining that his neighbor is putting stuff on the lawn like chairs etc that are reducing the property values of his house. Check out the way respondents tell him exactly where to shove it!
Tomorrow if your neighbors paint their house blue, green, and purple, and “spoil” the real estate value of your neighborhood, try calling the cops. I’m sure they’ll enlighten you about just how much say you have over other people’s property.
Also, this is completely irrelevant to the topic. So I’m closing this line of discussion right here.
FYI,incest is not legal in India..there is just no law against it,and thats because when IPC was drafted,no one could foresee a socirty where blood relatives are cohabiting with one another..otherwise it would have been made punishable.
Well social taboo works great for India and some other countries but what about the countries where social and scientific reasons are not enough?? Obviously they have to be stopped only by legal obligations then…law and society have a reciprocal relationship..laws are not created or applied in vacuum,law is a social science of characterization and moderation of the society…so if tomorrow society wont consider incest as a taboo or something forbidden or morally correct,law will also moderate..who knows it will be legal like homosexual marriages!! but until then incest laws are not out govt. jurisdiction.
If you really wish to live your life like animals why not follow the species which are closer to human beings;the primates..they avoid incest…and I there are no relationships in dogs world…like they might think oh thats my grandmother…oh thats my father…that s my sister…when they are in heat everything that becomes important for them is to find a mate….thats not how humans are supposed to be,so please dont bring human and dogs on equal footing.
In reply to Anjali
Who are you to speak for the motives of those who framed the laws? There is no law against incest in India – therefore it is by default legal! I don’t see how you can claim otherwise.
Law and society are not the same. Example is how the Delhi HC decriminalized homosexuality even though 80% of Indians are against it. It doesn’t matter what people think. Right is right. And wrong is wrong. Your “society” can be against something, but that doesn’t mean the law has to be stupid as well no?
I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again – just because there is no law against drinking urine doesn’t mean that everyone starts drinking urine.
regarding urine–actually there are some cases where topical application of urine is perfectly OK. You can’t discuss this simply because that is apples and oranges.
Again, we are discussing adults, so I will bring up People versus Scott and the harms of incest:
This aptly describes adult daughters, who are typically in positions of vulnerability vis-à-vis their older, and thus more authoritative fathers, vis a vis in matters pertaining to sex.‘ ‖ (Scott, at p. 193.). By this definition, even an adult person can be abused by their parent, thereby imbalancing the family harmony.
You can’t criminalize AIds or Down’s syndrome patients from sex. Only 10-15% of the population suffers from such cases. however, 100% of the population does have a mother and a father.
So let me ask you this: Why would individual US states be so interested in protecting the family unit? If you didn’t protect the family unit (emotional or physical abuse), there would be incredible cases of homelessness, drug/alcohol use, crime etc.
Wouldn’t the state have an interest in preventing from happening in the first place? you answer will be “there are laws against that.” Sure but sadly enough, how do enforce the law 100% of the time? Obviously, the state isn’t stupid and wants her interests to be upheld rather than simply “enforcing the law.”
Going back to the real estate argument, the EASIEST way to allow people to the right to property, like me, is to allow a complaint system like LA county.
BTW, I don’t live in an HOA. no fees. Remember, and I know you hate suburbia, but in the US, if your hosue looks ugly in LA county, I can complain. Guess what? I did. That link above, sure people didn’t like the guy from complaining, but it doesn’t mean the County or City can come in and clean the other person’s lot.
More info on Incest: In the case of incest, as opposed to a consensual homosexual relationship, there is injury to persons. Appellant is an example of this. Appellant claims that the incest committed by his parents and relatives affected him so severely that he needed to hire an expert on incest and its long-term effects and should have pled not guilty by reason of insanity because he could not understand the wrongfulness of his actions. Additionally, the state has a legitimate interest in preventing incest: protecting the family unit. The same cannot be said for homosexual relationships.
BTW, in the case above, the appelant said the sex was consensual. The victim said it wasn’t. THe fact that it was incest automatically told the court without even seeking evidence that incest, which is a crime in itself, was enough to charge the appellant.
Read this again in terms of California’s interest:
Like other states, California has a legitimate interest in maintaining the integrity of the family unit, in protecting persons who may not be in a position to freely consent to sexual relationships with family members, and in guarding against inbreeding. (State v. Freeman (2003)
Remember, PROTECTING persons who MAY NOT BE in a position to freely consent in sexual relationships.
All cases recognize that “The case was distinguished because parties were not similarly situated since there is in the latter case an enhanced possibility of genetic mutation of a possible offspring” and it is in the state’s best interest to ensure this from happening.
Again, 10-15% of the population has AIDS and Down’s. But 100% of the population has a Mom and Dad.
In reply to Western Point of View
It’s a valid comparison because it goes to show that just because something is legal doesn’t mean people will do it.
So while only 10-15% of the population may suffer from genetic diseases, less than 1% of the population will want to boink their parents and siblings!
Please give me an actual example of sex between adult siblings “destroying the family”. Remember, no children involved here.
Your case is not incest – it’s about valid consent. If the consent was valid it would never have come to the court in the first place. And this is how it is most of the time. So again – you don’t need incest laws.
Regarding “consent” that is where the fine line is. Due to the vulnerability of any child, whether over or under 18, consent cannot be clearly defined and, therefore, it is in the state’s best interst to prevent such cases from occurring in the first place.
Consent and non-consent at this point is difficult to determine since a child or even a younger sibling who happens to be an adult may be vulnerable to an authoritative family figure such as a father, mother or older sibling.
BTW, the genetic mutation issue is all you need for destroying a family: sibling and parent inbreeding raises mutational affects in NORMAL siblings up to 50-60%. These are disease free inbred couples, btw. Imagine if, in the rare case, a diseased sibling couple inbred.
This in itself is reason enough why California bans incest. You argued about the “disease” issue, however people with diseases cannot help the fact that they have a disease and should not be restricted by law for something they are not responsible for. Sibligns, however, are in a position where they can easily abstain from having sex with one another and, therefore, the law does in fact have a say in such cases of sex. Does all sex lead to kids? No. Can sex lead to kids? Absolutely.
The 1% could change. Remember, perhaps at one time, people felt that only 1% of people would have homosexual sex, right? THings change as you mention, so why not have a concrete law?
Also, the Westernmark effect? Only applies to people within the vicinity of you growing up.
“The idea that boys want to sleep with their mothers strikes most men as the silliest thing they have ever heard. Obviously, it did not seem so to Freud, who wrote that as a boy he once had an erotic reaction to watching his mother dressing. But Freud had a wet-nurse, and may not have experienced the early intimacy that would have tipped off his perceptual system that Mrs. Freud was his mother. The Westermarck theory has out-Freuded Freud.”
So Freud was attracted to his mother, since he didn’t grow up with her, but NOT his wet nurse. That is how the Westernmark effect would be applied.
But then again, the Westernmark effect doesn’t really work in the first place: For example, a 2009 study by Eran Shor and Dalit Simchai demonstrated that although most peers who grew up closely together in the Israeli kibbutzim did not marry one another, they did report substantial attraction to co-reared peers. The authors conclude that the case of the kibbutzim actually provides little support for the Westermarck Effect and that childhood proximity cannot in itself produce sexual avoidance without the existence of social pressures and norms.
Open the gates and the floods can occur, right?
Lets go to your question about “if something is illegal, doesn’t mean people will necessarily do it.” If we were to repeal Civil Rights, it would be legal to discriminate against blacks. Would people still do it? Its illegak, but under your argument, it “doesn’t mean people will do it, right?” Or does it? That is the problem. The fact that the question lingers is why the state feels it has the right in its interest to maintain such harmony, even among adults who are believed to be consenting sex.
Back to the home analogy. If it were legal to make your house look like trash, would people do it in LA county? Absolutely. The fact that we have such laws is WHY houses don’t look like trash in the first place. Once you open the flood gates, you have suburbs that no longer look nicely uniformed etc.
Now because it IS legal, people probably WILL do it.
In reply to Western point of view
But in spite of that Freud didn’t sleep with his mother did he? I wonder why…
Someone over 18 cannot be classified as a “child”. Hundreds of daughter have accused their fathers of rape. One example doesn’t mean anything. Like it or not, the law treats those above 18 as adults.
If you’re concerned about inbreeding, then make abortion compulsory. You never answered any of the points about infertile couples and those over child bearing age. What about them?
Homosexuality hasn’t gone up. It’s remained the same both before and after. Incest is the same. Maybe one in a thousand siblings grow up away from each other. Maybe one in a million chance of them meeting in falling in love. I can’t be bothered with creating laws for such a ridiculously low chance. Not to mention that sex is not the problem.
There are fare more kids who get AIDS from their parents than genetically inferior kids from sibling sex. It’s absurd to criminalize one and not the other.
“Open the gates and the floods can occur, right?”
That’s called a slippery slope argument. You have to give evidence of a slippery slope before you can claim one. There’s no evidence that laws are the only things holding people back from sleeping with their parents or siblings.
I’m sorry but I’m repeating myself over here. Here are the facts which you have to agree with. I’m saying this for the last time:
1. People in general don’t like to sleep with their siblings or parents. Laws or no laws.
2. Just because it’s legal, there’s no evidence to think people will suddenly start having sex with their parents
3. Genetic issues – mandate abortion. Don’t ban sex. And also mandate abortion for all AIDS patients as well.
4. We’re only talking about adults, not children. Sex with minors is in any case illegal.
5. Incest is legal in India and in many other countries and two states in the US. Do you see them having a higher rate of incest than in other states?
I’d appreciate it if you contest only these points specifically in the future.
1: People in general also don’t like to not drive under 55 mph, laws or no laws. That’s arbitrary.
2: Just because it’s legal: we discussed thsi with civil rights and clean houses. What would happen in say LA county, the US’s largest county in terms of population if they ended such mandates? See point 5.
3: AIDS patients can’t help that they get AIDS. Siblinsg/Parents CAN help not to have sex with their sibling or child or parent. Blacks can’t help that they are black. AIDS patients didn’t intentionally get AIDS. Down’s syndrome patients didn’t intentionally gets Down’s syndrome. How can you punish someone that acquired a condition that they did not intentionally go out of the way to acquire?
4: We are talking about adults, but as People v Scott indicated, adult children are also vulnerable to their authoritative fathers. Just like workplace sexual harassment. Authoritative figures cannot legally have such relationships (unless in the workplace it is already established) simply because the subordinates are in a vulnerable position. It is in the State’s best interst to avoid such situations all together.
5: Can’t be determined. I don’t have the facts. India also has no housing regulations like we do in teh US. As you can tell, people in India build things with 2 stories or with 5 stories or with 10 stories making the neighborhood look far less uniform and clean. It is legal, so people do it. People also generally like to live in clean environments according to American standards, which is why people want to end many of these regulations, but India’s suburbs themselves are example of what happens if it becomes legal.
incest are just like other laws–they’ve got reasons. I showed some analogies above.
Freud didn’t sleep with his mother, btw, because it was illegal at the time for such people to do so (royalty was different).
“Someone over 18 cannot be classified as a “child”. Hundreds of daughter have accused their fathers of rape. One example doesn’t mean anything. Like it or not, the law treats those above 18 as adults.” Does that mean if you are 19, you are no longer your parents child? Remember, the law recognizes parents as mother and father, even after you become an adult. Its on your birth certificate who your parents are.
BTW, homosexuality has gone up. Did gays ever marry before? Nope, it wasn’t recognized. Same with fornication. People fornicated much more after the ’60s than before.
In reply to Western Point of View
1. Driving fast poses a danger. Two people quietly having sex harms no one. False analogy.
2. There’s reason to believe that there would be racial discrimination without civil rights laws. We have no reason to believe that incest would increase because of no laws. Do you have data backing your claim?
3. Not answering the question. Don’t ban sex. Ban abortions. And siblings can’t help the fact that they’re related. What will you tell them? Go love someone else?
4. Once the person is over 18, legal authority ends. Many daughters have complained about their fathers. So this is a false statement.
5. Comparing housing regulations to incest laws – false analogy. The fact that you don’t have data means it’s not a glaring problem. This is another slippery slope argument. Refer to point 1.
It’s amusing that you claim that Freud didn’t sleep with his mother because it was illegal. Do you have evidence to back up this claim? I know you don’t, so this line is ended. Stick to the five points for ease of discussion.
While your parents are always your parents, their legal authority over you ends when you’re 18. No provision in law for emotional authority. I don’t think we need to debate this. Refer point 4.
You haven’t shown that homosexuality has increased. Marriage takes place because it’s legal to do so. Nothing to do with actual homosexual activity. Do you have data to back up your claim that fornication increased after 1960? I don’t see how you can. Refer point 2.
1: Who says driving fast poses a danger? A child can become severely deformed if someone makes a mistake on the road, right? Well if siblings make a mistake, the same deal goes, right?
2: No discrimination without civil laws? In the South, before the Civil Rights act, there were separate restrooms for “white” and “colored” people. Isn’t that data enough?
3: Sure, they should love someone else. The law tells a lot of things in that regards. Like I said, an AIDS patient could not help that h/she has AIDS. He didn’t do it intentinoally. Sibligns having sex IS intentional, even in the heat of the moment. Therefore, the actual act of sex can be EASILY criminalized, since it is in itself intentional.
4: You are correct on this one in terms of authority, however People vs Scott did elaborate the authority of a father over a daugher even after 18. It is in the pastes from the case above.
5: I do have data. Have you been to the suburbs in the US? All the houses have lawns, all the houses are uniformly storied (either 1 or 2) and the front of all the houses line up with each other. Why is this in place? In Indian villages, there are no “x and y” direction streets, the houses can be either 1 story and a few hundred square feet neighboring a 10 story 10,000 square foot house. No uniformity, it doesn’t look pretty. Like I said, if it is legal, people will most likely do it. Obviously, in India it is a problem. There are big fat houses next to small skinny houses. Some have front yards. Others do not. The streets are not in an “x and y” direction, but run everywhere. There is no uniformity, unlike say American suburbs.
You are right, it isn’t the 60s:
Rates of premarital sex and single motherhood rose much more dramatically between the 1940s and 1960, when the oral contraceptive was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, than during the “free love” era of the 1960s, said Alan Petigny, a UF history professor.
So it had more to do with birth control than it did with “free love” so that is a mistake on my part.
Since that time, those rates have not changed.
In reply to Western Point of View
1. Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death in the country. No comparison. False analogy. We’re not arguing this anymore.
2. Read what I wrote again.
3. You can’t choose who you love.
4. One example doesn’t make it law. Legally a parent has no authority over their 18 year old kid.
5. You don’t have data about incest being a problem in India and in Ohio.
btw let me clarify, you are correct, i didn’t provide the gay data. Obviously, gays didn’t marry at all (ie before the 80s) since it was not legal. So therefore, in that sense, gay MARRIAGE has increased.
•Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27).
•Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex.
•78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20).
•Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.
•Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html
who knows truly about homosexuality befoer the 1960s, however the above is pretty compelling evidence that homosexuality is obviously unhealthy. The “slippery slope” argument is not really applied here. HOmosexuality is unhealthy and damaging, so how is incest any less damaging?
In reply to Western Point of View
Homosexuality is not unhealthy or damaging. That’s a fact agreed upon by scientists and psychologists worldwide. None of these “facts” have any relevance.
I’m not arguing this point. It’s a fact, and we’re proceeding on that basis.