Mother and son arrested for having incestuous relationship

[Koreku 2,387]

1 hour ago, RAMROD said:

 

No. Love is love but there are limits such as incest, necrophilia and pedophilia.

You cannot compare necrophelia and pedophelia to a relationship involving two living, consenting people at legal age. 

[RAMROD 117,125]

1 minute ago, Koreku said:

You cannot compare necrophelia and pedophelia to a relationship involving two living, consenting people at legal age. 

 

Whatever bruh, that is beyond limits to me.

[Bebe 17,289]

22 hours ago, RAMROD said:

Mess at everyone supporting this, and comparing them with homosexuality.

Your noodles certainly work to the other ways.

Incestuous relationship is not right and never be right.

You do not have sex with your own parents or siblings, you just don't, there are limits, regardless they are consenting adults, they are still related by blood!

The minds is a dangerous thing, when you let it run too far and free, it will end you in a pit you'll never know exist!

Have a common sense.

 

22 hours ago, MarcusBones said:

Smh at the people to who say "don't let moral convictions or society tell you this is wrong!" 

We are obligated to have some moral compass in life, it's what makes us human.

and no, we are not animals. 

But can either of you provide any reasons as to why society's moral compass is right in this case? Or why, regardless of them consenting, the fact that they are related still makes it wrong?

Because, I get it, stuff like this makes me feel super uncomfortable. I don't like the idea of incest, the story provokes a strong visceral reaction against the couple, but I cannot find any intellectual reason to deem it morally wrong if nobody is getting hurt  We can't think rationally if we are just being guided purely by our emotions. 

I get that you don't want to compare it to homosexuality, but i'll compare your reactions to the reactions of homophobes:

"Mess at everyone supporting this, and comparing them with hetrosexuality.

Your noodles certainly work to the other ways.

homosexual relationship is not right and never be right.

You do not have sex with your own gender, you just don't, there are limits, regardless they are consenting adults, they still have two penises!

The minds is a dangerous thing, when you let it run too far and free, it will end you in a pit you'll never know exist!

Have a common sense."

Or, as a response to someone saying homosexuality is not unnatural as it is found in the animal kingdom:

 "Smh at the people to who say "don't let moral convictions or society tell you this is wrong!" 

We are obligated to have some moral compass in life, it's what makes us human.

and no, we are not animals."

Do you see the problem? You are expressing an emotional aversion to an expression of sexuality that you personally feel uncomfortable with. What you are not doing is explaining how this hurts anybody, you are not explaining why it is wrong.

This isn't just directed at you two, but a lot of the arguments I have seen against this couple are extremely similar to some of the arguments I've seen against homosexual couples.

You can keep asserting things like "No, it's just wrong!" and "There are limits!" and the rest, but if you can't explain why a consensual relationship between two relatives is wrong other than "It's gross and it makes me feel icky" then you don't have much ground to stand on.

I know it's an uncomfortable topic, I know it might very well push you out of your comfort zone, but if you are really going to engage with the topic you have to try and avoid making emotional arguments and explain why it's wrong.

[Lucifer 1,997]

As long it's not me falling in love with my own mom, I don't care what others want to do tbh. Good luck to them.

[Chic 20,830]

9 minutes ago, Lucifer said:

As long it's not me falling in love with my own mom, I don't care what others want to do tbh. Good luck to them.

OT but I added you on Facebook

Nvm you got it hooray

[LilVenusian 579]

Somebody steralise this woman before she conceives her next love interest And oop at this guy ****ing the same *** that gave birth to him, what kind of reverse warholian expedition. His incest could mean anything 

[LilVenusian 579]

2 hours ago, Koreku said:

You cannot compare necrophelia and pedophelia to a relationship involving two living, consenting people at legal age. 

is it really consensual tho? Someone who is your mother has considerable influence over your life. For all we know she could of groomed him. He was only 18 has probably barely had a real relationship yet and here comes this mother figure (that he probably didnt have his whole life) offering love and affection. He is in a very easy position to be manipulated. I think its more excusable with siblings or cousins of similar age but a mother/son/father/daughter relationship is very imbalanced and wrong on so many levels. It is very unhealthy psychologically cause mother/father is obviously gonna have the power in the relationship. 

[TylerrGaga 62]

I don't support it & don't think I ever will, but I have to say that I don't think they should be punished unless it was a rape situation since nobody is getting hurt. I also want to say that I wouldn't beat people because of it or not be friends with them. But something about it doesn't make me feel well.

[RAMROD 117,125]

3 hours ago, Bebe said:

 

But can either of you provide any reasons as to why society's moral compass is right in this case? Or why, regardless of them consenting, the fact that they are related still makes it wrong?

Because, I get it, stuff like this makes me feel super uncomfortable. I don't like the idea of incest, the story provokes a strong visceral reaction against the couple, but I cannot find any intellectual reason to deem it morally wrong if nobody is getting hurt  We can't think rationally if we are just being guided purely by our emotions. 

I get that you don't want to compare it to homosexuality, but i'll compare your reactions to the reactions of homophobes:

"Mess at everyone supporting this, and comparing them with hetrosexuality.

Your noodles certainly work to the other ways.

homosexual relationship is not right and never be right.

You do not have sex with your own gender, you just don't, there are limits, regardless they are consenting adults, they still have two penises!

The minds is a dangerous thing, when you let it run too far and free, it will end you in a pit you'll never know exist!

Have a common sense."

Or, as a response to someone saying homosexuality is not unnatural as it is found in the animal kingdom:

 "Smh at the people to who say "don't let moral convictions or society tell you this is wrong!" 

We are obligated to have some moral compass in life, it's what makes us human.

and no, we are not animals."

Do you see the problem? You are expressing an emotional aversion to an expression of sexuality that you personally feel uncomfortable with. What you are not doing is explaining how this hurts anybody, you are not explaining why it is wrong.

This isn't just directed at you two, but a lot of the arguments I have seen against this couple are extremely similar to some of the arguments I've seen against homosexual couples.

You can keep asserting things like "No, it's just wrong!" and "There are limits!" and the rest, but if you can't explain why a consensual relationship between two relatives is wrong other than "It's gross and it makes me feel icky" then you don't have much ground to stand on.

I know it's an uncomfortable topic, I know it might very well push you out of your comfort zone, but if you are really going to engage with the topic you have to try and avoid making emotional arguments and explain why it's wrong.

Homosexuality is an orientation. Incest isn't. If the law bans gay sex, a gay couple can't have a sex life. But if you're hot for your parents or siblings and the law says you can't sleep with then, you have billions of other options. You'll find somebody to love without incinerating your family. And don't tell me you're just adding a second kind of love to your relationship. That's like adding a second kind of life to your body. When a second kind of life grows in your body, we call it cancer. That's what incest is: cancer.

Incestuous connections lead to an overlap of family relationships and social roles and thus to a disturbance of a family bereft of clear assignments.

Children of an incestuous relationship have great difficulty finding their place in the family structure and building relationships of trust with their next caregivers. The vital function of the family for the human community is crucially disturbed if its ordered structure is shaken by incestuous relations.

Liberals tend to recoil from such arguments. They fear that a movement to preserve the "family unit" would roll back equal rights for homosexuals. But that doesn't follow. Morally, the family-structure argument captures our central intuition about incest: It confuses relationships. Constitutionally, this argument provides a rational basis for laws against incest. But it doesn't provide a rational basis for laws against homosexuality. In fact, it supports the case for same-sex marriage.

It offers no benefit in terms of family formation. On the contrary, it injects a notoriously incendiary dynamic sexual tension into the mix. Think of all the opposite-sex friendships you and your friends have cumulatively destroyed by "crossing the line." Now imagine doing that to your family. That's what incest does. Read The Kiss. Or the sad threads on pro-incest message boards. Or what Woody Allen's son says about his dad: "He's my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father …"

Some of you can act so free thinking, liberal and progressive, by being too permissive of most things, but the things you do actually gonna do more harm than good in the long run. There are some things that are not meant to be, and for good reasons if you really think about it, and have half the brains you think you have. Not even Harry Potter books portraits incestuous relationship in a good light, and that is the children book that are as progressive as it can be and favored by many people of this generations.

[President Trump 3,508]

Adorbs!

[Bebe 17,289]

10 minutes ago, RAMROD said:

Homosexuality is an orientation. Incest isn't. If the law bans gay sex, a gay couple can't have a sex life. But if you're hot for your parents or siblings and the law says you can't sleep with then, you have billions of other options. You'll find somebody to love without incinerating your family. And don't tell me you're just adding a second kind of love to your relationship. That's like adding a second kind of life to your body. When a second kind of life grows in your body, we call it cancer. That's what incest is: cancer.

Incestuous connections lead to an overlap of family relationships and social roles and thus to a disturbance of a family bereft of clear assignments.

Children of an incestuous relationship have great difficulty finding their place in the family structure and building relationships of trust with their next caregivers. The vital function of the family for the human community is crucially disturbed if its ordered structure is shaken by incestuous relations.

Liberals tend to recoil from such arguments. They fear that a movement to preserve the "family unit" would roll back equal rights for homosexuals. But that doesn't follow. Morally, the family-structure argument captures our central intuition about incest: It confuses relationships. Constitutionally, this argument provides a rational basis for laws against incest. But it doesn't provide a rational basis for laws against homosexuality. In fact, it supports the case for same-sex marriage.

 it offers no benefit in terms of family formation. On the contrary, it injects a notoriously incendiary dynamic—sexual tension into the mix. Think of all the opposite-sex friendships you and your friends have cumulatively destroyed by "crossing the line." Now imagine doing that to your family. That's what incest does. Read The Kiss. Or the sad threads on pro-incest message boards. Or what Woody Allen's son says about his dad: "He's my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father …"

Some of you can act so free thinking, liberal and progressive, by being too permissive of most things, but the things you do actually gonna do more harm than good in the long run. There are some things that are not meant to be, and for good reasons if you really think about it, and have half the brains you think you have. Not even Harry Potter books portraits incestuous relationship in a good light, and that is the children book that are as progressive as it can be and favored by many people of this generations.

"Homosexuality is an orientation. Incest isn't" Well sure, but I'm not sure that makes a difference morally

You can't police who people fall in love with and you can't stop people from entering relationships. I don't see how criminalising it or placing a huge cultural taboo on incest helps anything. I also don't see anyone hurt in this situation, it's consensual. There are always going to be fringe couples, like this one, and there is nothing that will be able to stop it. I think it's naive to think any law is stopping incest. I don't engage in incest because I don't want to, because I find the idea of getting with my relatives repulsive. This couple doesn't see it that way. I don't see this couple and straight away think "Hmm... Suddenly my family looks super interesting... I might give that a shot". Nobody does. We know right now there are places where homosexuality is prohibited. The effect isn't gay people not entering relationships or having sex - it just means gay couples having to do these things in secrecy. The effect of criminalising this does more harm than good imo.


Children of incest are another matter. It has nothing to do with this case whatsoever. 

"They fear that a movement to preserve the "family unit" would roll back equal rights for homosexuals" I don't at all fear that.

"It offers no benefit in terms of family formation." Neither does the childless relationship I will most likely be a part of in the future

"Not even Harry Potter books portraits incestuous relationship in a good light, and that is the children book that are as progressive as it can be and favored by many people of this generations."  completely irrelevant. We are all aware that incest is a huge cultural taboo anyway

[RAMROD 117,125]

Just now, Bebe said:

"Homosexuality is an orientation. Incest isn't" Well sure, but I'm not sure that makes a difference morally

You can't police who people fall in love with and you can't stop people from entering relationships. I don't see how criminalising it or placing a huge cultural taboo on incest helps anything. There are always going to be fringe couples, like this one, and there is nothing that will be able to stop it. I think it's naive to think any law is stopping incest. I don't engage in incest because I don't want to, because I find the idea of getting with my relatives repulsive. This couple doesn't see it that way. I don't see this couple and straight away think "Hmm... Suddenly my family looks super interesting... I might give that a shot". Nobody does. The effect of criminalising this does more harm than good imo.

Children of incest are another matter. It has nothing to do with this case whatsoever. 

"They fear that a movement to preserve the "family unit" would roll back equal rights for homosexuals" I don't at all fear that.

"It offers no benefit in terms of family formation." Neither does the childless relationship I will most likely be a part of in the future

"Not even Harry Potter books portraits incestuous relationship in a good light, and that is the children book that are as progressive as it can be and favored by many people of this generations."  completely irrelevant. We are all aware that incest is a huge cultural taboo anyway

 

Good for you then.

[Bebe 17,289]

7 minutes ago, RAMROD said:

 

Good for you then.

Okay  I still haven't seen you provide any reason as to why this incestuous relationship should be seen as morally wrong other than Harry Potter books portray them as bad and hypothetical children who don't actually exist might find it hard to figure out their family structure.

Also: "Think of all the opposite-sex friendships you and your friends have cumulatively destroyed by "crossing the line." Now imagine doing that to your family"

Surely that's not an argument you are making... You're asking me to think about all the homophobic opposite-sex friends I have lost for 'crossing the line' with my homosexuality, trying to get me to imagine what it would be like for an incestuous couple to face the same sort of criticism from their family and then saying because of how they feel it's wrong? Do you see a problem with that? You could make the same argument against homosexuality if your family was against that.

[RAMROD 117,125]

2 minutes ago, Bebe said:

Okay  I still haven't seen you provide any reason as to why this incestuous relationship should be seen as morally wrong other than Harry Potter books portray them as bad and hypothetical children who don't actually exist might find it hard to figure out their family structure.

Also: "Think of all the opposite-sex friendships you and your friends have cumulatively destroyed by "crossing the line." Now imagine doing that to your family"

Surely that's not an argument you are making... You're asking me to think about all the homophobic opposite-sex friends I have lost for 'crossing the line' with my homosexuality, trying to get me to imagine what it would be like for an incestuous couple to face the same sort of criticism from their family and then saying because of how they feel it's wrong? Do you see a problem with that? You could make the same argument against homosexuality if your family was against that.

 

I have said it, the matter you want to accept that is your own decision.

 

[Shaney 5,515]

5 hours ago, RAMROD said:

Homosexuality is an orientation. Incest isn't. If the law bans gay sex, a gay couple can't have a sex life. But if you're hot for your parents or siblings and the law says you can't sleep with then, you have billions of other options. You'll find somebody to love without incinerating your family. And don't tell me you're just adding a second kind of love to your relationship. That's like adding a second kind of life to your body. When a second kind of life grows in your body, we call it cancer. That's what incest is: cancer.

Incestuous connections lead to an overlap of family relationships and social roles and thus to a disturbance of a family bereft of clear assignments.

Children of an incestuous relationship have great difficulty finding their place in the family structure and building relationships of trust with their next caregivers. The vital function of the family for the human community is crucially disturbed if its ordered structure is shaken by incestuous relations.

Liberals tend to recoil from such arguments. They fear that a movement to preserve the "family unit" would roll back equal rights for homosexuals. But that doesn't follow. Morally, the family-structure argument captures our central intuition about incest: It confuses relationships. Constitutionally, this argument provides a rational basis for laws against incest. But it doesn't provide a rational basis for laws against homosexuality. In fact, it supports the case for same-sex marriage.

It offers no benefit in terms of family formation. On the contrary, it injects a notoriously incendiary dynamic sexual tension into the mix. Think of all the opposite-sex friendships you and your friends have cumulatively destroyed by "crossing the line." Now imagine doing that to your family. That's what incest does. Read The Kiss. Or the sad threads on pro-incest message boards. Or what Woody Allen's son says about his dad: "He's my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father …"

Some of you can act so free thinking, liberal and progressive, by being too permissive of most things, but the things you do actually gonna do more harm than good in the long run. There are some things that are not meant to be, and for good reasons if you really think about it, and have half the brains you think you have. Not even Harry Potter books portraits incestuous relationship in a good light, and that is the children book that are as progressive as it can be and favored by many people of this generations.

Did you copy and paste a report from school? Lol.

I enjoyed reading your post though.