Swedish Liberals want to legalise necrophilia and incest

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

That is incorrect. If something is not prohibited by law, then it is legal.

You're just describing legal, but then portraying it as somehow between legal and illegal

No. It's a state called "vide juridique" (the only translation of which I find is "loophole" but this term isn't really accurate) where the said action is never accepted nor forbidden by the law. It isn't legal. It isn't illegal neither. It is a grey area.

That is obviously incorrect.

If something is not prohibited by law, then it is legal.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Well, I am talking about the laws as it stands now and as it will stand when the article prohibiting necrophilia becomes repealed.

You are as free to do that as I am free to point out its irrelevancy to the earlier discussion.

And what are you going to do to me for that? I didn't force you to address my arguments.

Yours? So now you cannot even decide whether you are presenting someone else's ideas or your own

Yes, I intend to avoid that question. Nowhere in the OP am I restricted to taking either a supportive or opposite position to legalization. I'm only arguing about the state of the law now and as it shall be when it is amended, that's all.

That's not all you've been discussing.

I never said you were obligated to answer any questions. You are not obligated to do so. I find it odd that you came to a discussion about opinions on the issue without being willing to share your own, but that is your call.

Why don't you want to share?

[Ifreann]

Incest tends to cause more likelihood of a virus to spread

Where do people get these ideas about incest?

[Gauthier]

Incest tends to cause more likelihood of a virus to spread

Where do people get these ideas about incest?

Apparently generational birth defects are a virus.

[Ifreann]

Where do people get these ideas about incest?

Apparently generational birth defects are a virus.

Geneticists are sure to be surprised.

[Fartsniffage]

I just thought to look up the laws around incest around the world. I was surprised to find that it's already legal in the Netherlands, Portugal, China, Spain, Turkey, parts of the US, Australia, France and a bunch of other places.

It doesn't seem to have caused the downfall of civilisation in those countries....

[Hjallaland]

Because necrophilia only takes place in the winter and outdoors... Necrophiles aren't some strange nephews of werewolves you know, they're normal people just like you and me, they just like shagging corpses.

As for the respect part, as stated in the OP, the dead person should give a written consent before his/her death, which in my view would be enough.

The last part is just a matter of education, nothing more and nothing less. We shouldn't ban things because a minority doesn't get it.

If I shag someone or something, I prefer to know if it's enjoying it.

So do i, but some don't for that matter. Each person has his/her own preferences.

Should it still be legal if it wasn't curel to animals? Just asking as last time i checked cats aren't exactly popular when talking about bestiality. In fact, most popular are dogs and horses and they (mostly dogs) jump upon their partner themselves.
Sure there should be strict rules regarding the rights of an animal in terms of bestiality but in general it certainly doesn't have to be cruel towards the animals.

That's two, then.

Two what? Animals? What about Sheep, cows, goats, donkey's, camels ect. They wouldn't give a shit either and if they wouldn't like it they would most likely kick the shit out of ya.

Because necrophilia only takes place in the winter and outdoors... Necrophiles aren't some strange nephews of werewolves you know, they're normal people just like you and me, they just like shagging corpses.

As for the respect part, as stated in the OP, the dead person should give a written consent before his/her death, which in my view would be enough.

The last part is just a matter of education, nothing more and nothing less. We shouldn't ban things because a minority doesn't get it.

It's a corpse, if you keep that in the house, its going to; stink, leave stains and possibly get chewed by pets. Therefore outdoors is probably a better bet.

We educate kids to death about sex and protection, and still we have high rates of youth and teenage pregnancy. Besides accidents happen at the best of times anyway so education is moot.

Well i don't think it should be done in a house either. Ofcourse some rules should be set up to make sure its safe and such, like only till an X hours after said persons death or something like that.

Still though, no need to ban things because of it, otherwise we could ban tons of things including sex all together.

In what way would incest cause diseases? Does sexual contact cause diseases? Aside from pregnancies and STD's, no. So unless you want to question sex in general, there isn't any real problem.

While sexual act itself doesn't cause diseases, inbreeding does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreedin ... _disorders

But hey, if people want to fuck their siblings and it's all consensual, they should go for it. In my book it's kind of utterly pathetic that you cannot find someone other than your siblings to fuck you, but to each their own. After all, there's only 7 billion people in the World, finding someone is indeed a very tough task. Maybe those who are failures at finding someone, can also fuck dead people. I guess that's the new "thinking forward".

So sure, X can do both of those activities, but if X does, then perhaps, just perhaps, X shouldn't act all stunned when most of the people look at X as an utter failure. Or is looking at someone in a mean way now a crime?

Well that only applies when they get children, and children with a disabilities aren't exactly diseases on their own. That's a matter of education and such. The sexual contact between said individuals is harmless and shouldn't be banned because others simply don't like the idea of it. Love is love, it happens whether its with a person from your village, a person from a thousand miles away or a person from within your own family, in the end it doesn't change all that much.
I wouldn't do incest either (I admit, i don't have any hot nieces for that matter) but i don't see why it should be a problem, if they are both at the proper age then they should be free to do it. Who are we to deny sexual contact between to consenting adults?

With incest, no. We don't need that infesting our gene pool. If you were to make it legal its obvious they would have kids and theres no way to regulate them not popping out inbreds. Get all the girls' tubes tied? Yeah that will work.

Sure, because if its illegal it doesn't happen...

[Hjallaland]

I just thought to look up the laws around incest around the world. I was surprised to find that it's already legal in the Netherlands, Portugal, China, Spain, Turkey, parts of the US, Australia, France and a bunch of other places.

It doesn't seem to have caused the downfall of civilisation in those countries....

Indeed. In the end there aren't that many people who practice incest and most of those who do also know the risk of getting children and therefor avoid getting them. Its likely that the social part plays a role in it aswell because on the social standards its still a huge taboo but in the end i don't think it would be much of a difference, those who do it do it and those who don't don't. I know that a niece and nephew of my mother are married with eachother, don't have kids and just live a normal happy life. I personally don't see any problem with it and wouldn't know wny some believe they should be locked up for simply being in love with eachother.

[Ifreann]

I just thought to look up the laws around incest around the world. I was surprised to find that it's already legal in the Netherlands, Portugal, China, Spain, Turkey, parts of the US, Australia, France and a bunch of other places.

It doesn't seem to have caused the downfall of civilisation in those countries....

To be fair, France wasn't exactly civilised to begin with.

---

That's two, then.

Two what?

People who support bestiality.

[Shamhnan Insir]

For your argument to be consistent, if you want to ban the activity at lower risk of passing on genetic problems based on that risk, then you'd have to ban the higher risk activity. Many people are much more likely to pass on genetic problems with anyone than most people could ever manage with a sibling.

Your argument ignores the near certainty of genetic illness in a child produced through incest. This I consider the higher risk. I already said that a line should be drawn to minimize genetic risk in the population.

How could two males, two females, or infertile people ever conceive anyway? Would you leave it legal for any instances with no possibility of pregnancy?

How is this relevant to the thread?

So, yes or no: would you ban people with genetic problems (which they have a significant chance of passing to any offspring) from having sex?

Again you're deviating, and you didn't answer my question.

[Aelex]

I just thought to look up the laws around incest around the world. I was surprised to find that it's already legal in the Netherlands, Portugal, China, Spain, Turkey, parts of the US, Australia, France and a bunch of other places.

It doesn't seem to have caused the downfall of civilisation in those countries....

Let me precise something, in France, incest isn't illegal, indeed; however marriage between person directly related by blood (sister, daughter, brother, son) is forbidden and so is the P.A.C.S (a form of civil union). It's in a grey area where it should stay.

[Fartsniffage]

I just thought to look up the laws around incest around the world. I was surprised to find that it's already legal in the Netherlands, Portugal, China, Spain, Turkey, parts of the US, Australia, France and a bunch of other places.

It doesn't seem to have caused the downfall of civilisation in those countries....

Let me precise something, in France, incest isn't illegal, indeed; however marriage between person directly related by blood (sister, daughter, brother, son) is forbidden and so is the P.A.C.S (a form of civil union). It's in a grey area where it should stay.

Nah. If there's no law applying to something then that something is legal.

[Aelex]

Nah. If there's no law applying to something then that something is legal.

Except in that case there is. Sex between blood related people isn't forbidden. Any kind of legal recognition of their relationship, however, is.
No marriage, no civil unions. It's honestly best this way.

[Fartsniffage]

Nah. If there's no law applying to something then that something is legal.

Except in that case there is. Sex between blood related people isn't forbidden. Any kind of legal recognition of their relationship, however, is.
No marriage, no civil unions. It's honestly best this way.

Right, so incest is legal.

[Aelex]

Right, so incest is legal.

But not recognized nor accepted by the law.

[Fartsniffage]

Right, so incest is legal.

But not recognized nor accepted by the law.

None of the sex I've ever had has ever been recognised by the law, does that put it in a legal grey area?

[The Princes of the Universe]

But not recognized nor accepted by the law.

None of the sex I've ever had has ever been recognised by the law, does that put it in a legal grey area?

Not sure if more funny than potentially disturbing or more potentially disturbing than funny...

[Hjallaland]

Two what?

People who support bestiality.

Amazing isn't it? Only two people who aren't taking part in the redicilous and pathetic social stigma's against those who enjoy shagging animals.

[Aelex]

None of the sex I've ever had has ever been recognised by the law, does that put it in a legal grey area?

No. But if you ever chose to be in a relationship with someone and to marry him/her or contract a civil union with him/her, it is however recognized by the state.
Incestuous couple aren't allowed to do so and are thus placed, legitimately, in a grey area where they're allowed to be in a relationship but the said relationship isn't legally accepted.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Your argument ignores the near certainty of genetic illness in a child produced through incest. This I consider the higher risk. I already said that a line should be drawn to minimize genetic risk in the population.

That is not correct. Children of first-degree relatives (siblings, parent/child) only have a risk of significant defect 31% higher than the general population. By the time you get down to third-degree relatives (1st cousins, half-aunt/half-nephew, etc) it drops to 2% higher than the general population. This is far less risk than that presented by many people with genetic disorders.

If you really draw your line of minimizing risk beyond incestuous sex, then that means the line is way past many people being able to have sex with anyone. So your position would logically require a legal prohibition on sex for anyone with these genetic problems.

How is this relevant to the thread?

You think the relevant issue is risk of genetic problems for offspring. Obviously that wouldn't be relevant in any way to such relationships

Again you're deviating, and you didn't answer my question.

There's no honestly claiming that I'm deviating from the discussion in any way. You dodged my question, so now I'm asking you more...which you continue to dodge.

Come on, try answering the questions

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Nah. If there's no law applying to something then that something is legal.

Except in that case there is. Sex between blood related people isn't forbidden. Any kind of legal recognition of their relationship, however, is.
No marriage, no civil unions. It's honestly best this way.

You claim there is, but you couldn't actually provide any examples. Marriage and civil unions are not relevant. It is perfectly possible to have sex without marriage or to get a civil union without having sex.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

I just thought to look up the laws around incest around the world. I was surprised to find that it's already legal in the Netherlands, Portugal, China, Spain, Turkey, parts of the US, Australia, France and a bunch of other places.

It doesn't seem to have caused the downfall of civilisation in those countries....

Let me precise something, in France, incest isn't illegal, indeed; however marriage between person directly related by blood (sister, daughter, brother, son) is forbidden and so is the P.A.C.S (a form of civil union). It's in a grey area where it should stay.

Not being illegal isn't a "gray area". It's called being legal

[Fartsniffage]

None of the sex I've ever had has ever been recognised by the law, does that put it in a legal grey area?

No. But if you ever chose to be in a relationship with someone and to marry him/her or contract a civil union with him/her, it is however recognized by the state.
Incestuous couple aren't allowed to do so and are thus placed, legitimately, in a grey area where they're allowed to be in a relationship but the said relationship isn't legally accepted.

Ah, so you would have argued that homosexuality was a legal grey area before 2013 and that this was legitimate?

[Hyggemata]

Well, I am talking about the laws as it stands now and as it will stand when the article prohibiting necrophilia becomes repealed.

You are as free to do that as I am free to point out its irrelevancy to the earlier discussion.

I don't agree with your statement. Perhaps it stems from a different interpretation to what exactly constitutes "relevance" to the present thread, but since we cannot agree with what exactly we argue, let us therefore not argue.

And what are you going to do to me for that? I didn't force you to address my arguments.

Yours? So now you cannot even decide whether you are presenting someone else's ideas or your own

They're my interpretation of the legal situation under Swedish law. That is the best summation I can provide.

Yes, I intend to avoid that question. Nowhere in the OP am I restricted to taking either a supportive or opposite position to legalization. I'm only arguing about the state of the law now and as it shall be when it is amended, that's all.

That's not all you've been discussing.

But that has been where you direct the conversation between us.

I never said you were obligated to answer any questions. You are not obligated to do so. I find it odd that you came to a discussion about opinions on the issue without being willing to share your own, but that is your call.

Why don't you want to share?

There is a difference between opinion and analysis. I am willing to share my analysis of the legal situation in Sweden but not my opinion.

[Aelex]

Ah, so you would have argued that homosexuality was a legal grey area before 2013 and that this was legitimate?

So you're trying to go with the strawmen, now?
Sweet, sweet.
Anyway, homosexuality wasn't a grey area given that they had already access to civil unions (what we call the "P.A.C.S") since their creation.
I would personally say that giving them full marriage right isn't really a problem given that their situation wouldn't affect any potential child they would have neither psychologically nor physically. Inbreeding has consequences. Adoption or C.I.V don't.