Swedish Liberals want to legalise necrophilia and incest

[Aelex]

Since there is no good reason for it to remain illegal. Your idea of gross should not dictate law. Many people find sex with a female gross. Others find sex with a male gross. Sex with obese people? Many find that gross. Sex with elderly people? Pretty gross. Sex with Donald Trump....do you even want to think about that?

There is no reasons for it to be illegal but there is no reason for it to be legal neither. Such things should stay in the limbs where society had put them.

[Hyggemata]

Do you realize what are the differences between a consent to sex and a contractual obligation? Please go find out before coming back to me. A dead person is no longer an "adult capable of giving consent", unless you somehow make it speak. Consent cannot be delivered by testament.

Consent can be made before death. That's already a legal reality. Otherwise you would have no legal say in how your remains are handled/disposed.

I have been telling you that consent cannot be given when unconscious. LET IT BE KNOWN THAT CONSENT CANNOT BE GIVEN WHILE UNCONSCIOUS. If you have counterproof under Swedish law, let's see it. If you can legally construe a dead person to be conscious, let's also see it.

That directly contradicts your own statements about it.



That is not the same as saying that I oppose it. I thought it should not be legalized because at this point all they are proposing is decriminalization, which is not the same as legalization. The decriminalized law still opposes it, not I.

That is, in fact, a statement of opposition to it. You quite clearly stated that you think it should NOT be legalized.

Hortative should/would does not necessarily convey personal opinion. You're clearly no grammarian.

I'm not confused about what I mean. My point has been one and the same throughout, and it was you who insisted on splitting hairs with my posts.

You're the one contradicting yourself. That's not my fault

Nor is it mine. I never said I opposed it, only that there is something in the criminal code of Sweden that opposes it. Even if that bit was struct out, which is what they are now proposing, it would still be illegal. See how "would" does not convey personal opinion? "Should" is merely the 1st person form of "would".

There is no reason, and I don't dispute that. I am saying that necrophilia, even if decriminalized, may remain illegal if regarded as sex, and I justified my argument on legal grounds. It's not an argument about right or wrong, it's about legal and illegal. I hope you will be able to see the difference between these two notions.

So what you're saying is that you fully intend to avoid the question rather than answer it. The fact is that you stated support for keeping it illegal. I'm just asking you why

I refuse to answer a question that I have already answered. I define what the facts are when they pertain to what I have said. Unless you propose that you can read my mind, I alone have power, and of right ought have power, to clarify what I said.

[Genivaria]

You never answered my questions.

What questions? "Now what?" and "Is society still doomed?"?

Because that's easy:
"Now what?" Now, tell me: What is wrong with bestiality?

"Is society still doomed?" Society will always be doomed, but that's not the point.

If we ever genetically engineer furries or some shit then bestiality might become more okay, right now they can't consent.

[Allanea]

Disgusting and disgraceful. But Sweden is heading towards cultural suicide for a long time so no surprise

People have been predicting Swedish Cultural Suicide for literally as long as I can remember doing political debate on the Internet.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Obviously it's cruel to animals. But why are you asking?

So, animals are held more sacred than the body of a human being? Okay.

Your assertion that people will support bestiality has been shown wrong. Indeed, as far as I can recall only one poster has ever supported legalising bestiality, and he was fucking his cat and isn't welcome here any more, in no small part, I imagine, because he kept going on about how he was fucking his cat.

I never said I expected people to support bestiality. Read that again.

"Is society still doomed?" Society will always be doomed, but that's not the point.

It certainly seems like the point. What is the point meant to be, if not that?

The point is that one's opinion regarding what is done with the human body is just that: opinion. And law should not be influenced by opinions.[/quote]
Living animals can very much dislike what Its being done to them. A corpse can't really feel anything. A corpse isn't a person, it's an object.

[Ifreann]

Obviously it's cruel to animals. But why are you asking?

So, animals are held more sacred than the body of a human being? Okay.

Sacredness or lack thereof doesn't enter into it. Animals experience suffering. Corpses don't experience anything.

Your assertion that people will support bestiality has been shown wrong. Indeed, as far as I can recall only one poster has ever supported legalising bestiality, and he was fucking his cat and isn't welcome here any more, in no small part, I imagine, because he kept going on about how he was fucking his cat.

I never said I expected people to support bestiality. Read that again.

You very clearly do expect people to support it, though.

It certainly seems like the point. What is the point meant to be, if not that?

The point is that one's opinion regarding what is done with the human body is just that: opinion. And law should not be influenced by opinions.

That's possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

---

Since there is no good reason for it to remain illegal. Your idea of gross should not dictate law. Many people find sex with a female gross. Others find sex with a male gross. Sex with obese people? Many find that gross. Sex with elderly people? Pretty gross. Sex with Donald Trump....do you even want to think about that?

There is no reasons for it to be illegal but there is no reason for it to be legal neither. Such things should stay in the limbs where society had put them.

Stay in the what?

---

What questions? "Now what?" and "Is society still doomed?"?

Because that's easy:
"Now what?" Now, tell me: What is wrong with bestiality?

"Is society still doomed?" Society will always be doomed, but that's not the point.

If we ever genetically engineer furries or some shit then bestiality might become more okay, right now they can't consent.

I'm told that the very hirsute are indeed permitted to sex it up.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

As usual,

Who gives a flying fuck what people want to do privately?

As usual: quite a few people. Apparently their business is boring, because they want to be in everyone else's

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Since there is no good reason for it to remain illegal. Your idea of gross should not dictate law. Many people find sex with a female gross. Others find sex with a male gross. Sex with obese people? Many find that gross. Sex with elderly people? Pretty gross. Sex with Donald Trump....do you even want to think about that?

There is no reasons for it to be illegal but there is no reason for it to be legal neither. Such things should stay in the limbs where society had put them.

So, lacking a reason to be illegal, they should go ahead and get rid of laws against it....which would mean it would be legal

[Bartina]

disgusting freaks.

[Zenatias]

It's obvious to me that incest is only a legal issue when one or both parties are minors. If a 35 year old man has sexual relations with his 12 year old daughter, that is an issue. Otherwise, that is their choice. A disturbing and rather ignorant one, but their decision nonetheless. Necrophilia? That is both disrespectful to the corpse as well as the deceased's family. Similar to US law, it is my opinion that Sweden prosecute necrophilia cases as minor offenses.

[Allanea]

It's obvious to me that incest is only a legal issue when one or both parties are minors. If a 35 year old man has sexual relations with his 12 year old daughter, that is an issue. Otherwise, that is their choice. A disturbing and rather ignorant one, but their decision nonetheless. Necrophilia? That is both disrespectful to the corpse as well as the deceased's family. Similar to US law, it is my opinion that Sweden prosecute necrophilia cases as minor offenses.

Why are we ignoring the deceased's opinion on the issue?

[Val Halla]

disgusting freaks.

... Care to elaborate?

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Consent can be made before death. That's already a legal reality. Otherwise you would have no legal say in how your remains are handled/disposed.

I have been telling you that consent cannot be given when unconscious. LET IT BE KNOWN THAT CONSENT CANNOT BE GIVEN WHILE UNCONSCIOUS. If you have counterproof under Swedish law, let's see it. If you can legally construe a dead person to be conscious, let's also see it.

Which, if you had bothered to pay attention, has nothing to do with my statement. Giving consent while unconscious has exactly nothing to do with any of the arguments. You seem steadfastly intend on diverting towards irrelevancies.

That is, in fact, a statement of opposition to it. You quite clearly stated that you think it should NOT be legalized.

Hortative should/would does not necessarily convey personal opinion. You're clearly no grammarian.

You're clearly still a bit new to the language. My daughter learned about the meaning of an opinion in second grade. If you haven't made it to that stage yet, then you're certainly in no place to be criticizing someone else for their knowledge of the concept. There is no honestly denying that you conveyed a personal opinion.

You're the one contradicting yourself. That's not my fault

Nor is it mine. I never said I opposed it, only that there is something in the criminal code of Sweden that opposes it. Even if that bit was struct out, which is what they are now proposing, it would still be illegal. See how "would" does not convey personal opinion? "Should" is merely the 1st person form of "would".

That is one usage of should, but not the one at hand. The question to which you responded was about your opinion of what they should do. The question was not about the likelihood of it. You later confirmed your opposition in our further discussion, though with the implication that you think civil law rather than criminal law is more appropriate.

So what you're saying is that you fully intend to avoid the question rather than answer it. The fact is that you stated support for keeping it illegal. I'm just asking you why

I refuse to answer a question that I have already answered. I define what the facts are when they pertain to what I have said. Unless you propose that you can read my mind, I alone have power, and of right ought have power, to clarify what I said.

Unfortunately, you also refuse to answer a question that you have yet to answer. Reading your mind has nothing to do with it. I only read your posts. If you don't post what you mean.....well that is firmly on you.

Allow me to ask you an even easier question: do you want such sex acts to be illegal or legal?

[Kauthar]

What insanity is this? Legalize Necrophilia and incest? Are these people out of their Vulcan minds? It would never get passed by any parliament nor do i see any court ruling in favor of it.

I could easily see incest being legalized.

they made sodomy legal so it can't be far behind

[Latlandia]

I just saw the title, it almost make me choke daamn. This is a point where the liberals have gone too far. Or maybe it is so because those liberals are themselves necrophiles who also practice incest.
What`s next, legalising pedophilia?

[Aelex]

So, lacking a reason to be illegal, they should go ahead and get rid of laws against it....which would mean it would be legal

If there is no law stopping you from marrying your cat, it's thus not illegal.
But if there is no law letting you do it neither, it's thus not legal.
Incest should stay in this middle-state, in this "limbo", where it's kind of a loophole and neither expressively accepted nor forbidden.

[Western Socialist Union]

As long as you are not telling everyone, sure!

[Des-Bal]

If there is no law stopping you from marrying your cat, it's thus not illegal.
But if there is no law letting you do it neither, it's thus not legal.
Incest should stay in this middle-state, in this "limbo", where it's kind of a loophole and neither expressively accepted nor forbidden.

That's not how laws work. The middle state you're describing is "legal."

[The Texan Union]

So, animals are held more sacred than the body of a human being? Okay.

Sacredness or lack thereof doesn't enter into it. Animals experience suffering. Corpses don't experience anything.

I never said I expected people to support bestiality. Read that again.

You very clearly do expect people to support it, though.

The point is that one's opinion regarding what is done with the human body is just that: opinion. And law should not be influenced by opinions.

That's possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

---

There is no reasons for it to be illegal but there is no reason for it to be legal neither. Such things should stay in the limbs where society had put them.

Stay in the what?

---

If we ever genetically engineer furries or some shit then bestiality might become more okay, right now they can't consent.

I'm told that the very hirsute are indeed permitted to sex it up.

Did I do something piss you off? Because you're being a bit of a bitch.

[Ostroeuropa]

I just saw the title, it almost make me choke daamn. This is a point where the liberals have gone too far. Or maybe it is so because those liberals are themselves necrophiles who also practice incest.
What`s next, legalising pedophilia?

The difference is that both necrophilia and incest can happen while respecting the consent of everyone involved, but children cannot consent.
On what basis do you regulate these behaviors?

[Des-Bal]

I just saw the title, it almost make me choke daamn. This is a point where the liberals have gone too far. Or maybe it is so because those liberals are themselves necrophiles who also practice incest.
What`s next, legalising pedophilia?

I'm a libertarian (it means I don't hate freedom) and my default standpoint is "fuck off government." Can you give me a single reason why the government shouldn't fuck off while keeping in mind that I don't think the government should start picking things off somebody else's plate because you don't like it?

[Latlandia]

I just saw the title, it almost make me choke daamn. This is a point where the liberals have gone too far. Or maybe it is so because those liberals are themselves necrophiles who also practice incest.
What`s next, legalising pedophilia?

I'm a libertarian (it means I don't hate freedom) and my default standpoint is "fuck off government." Can you give me a single reason why the government shouldn't fuck off while keeping in mind that I don't think the government should start picking things off somebody else's plate because you don't like it?

Where did I mentioned all libetals in general?? I was talking about THOSE Swedish liberals what is this thread about. Of course, someone is always pissed off.
About the govenment fucking off, I suggest anarchy. Anyone can use heavy drugs, steal, kill people and basically do everything that`s illegal. Government is needed to keep things normal.

[Hjallaland]

I don't really see a problem with this, if both parties agree to it then who are we to stop it?

Can't this spread disease?

If the dead person has no desease that survives long enough then no. It can cause worms though...

[Allanea]

You don't think there's some problem with saying "oh, these persons want to legalize incest and necrophilia, they must be secret incest necrophiles"?

I mean, aside from the logical problem.

[Syrixia]

Bang whoever you wanna bang. Your rights, your dong, and your inbreeding consequences.