This is going to be a fun one.
So here are the facts:
I commented on a news article about a mother and adult son charged with incest (and adultery as well for her.) This is what I said:
Someone responded to me and I replied before I realized my original comment was removed for being inappropriate. Then I added the edit when I saw.
The next day I discovered I’d been banned from that community for “pro-incest comments” and several others I don’t think I’ve ever been in for rule 4 violations. The orignal post was removed.
You can see those here:
Site rule 4 is: Usernames or posts/comments containing transphobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, zionism, anti-veganism, or trivializing COVID. No self-described or obvious fascists, conservatives, or reactionaries.
My comments had none of those things. I’d even go so far as to say my banning was reactionary.
Now, I’m not defending incest, especially not for myself. My problem is with puritanical laws interfering with the private sex lives of people. In my original comment I stated that grooming was a separate issue and should be dealt with, but that there is nothing inherently wrong with incest. That is, enthusiastic consensual sex between capable adults.
I know someone will bring up the Hapsburgs, so yes, children of incest should be avoided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_incest
Incest between people who know beforehand is absolutely wrong and pretty much guaranteed to not meet the criteria for consent, but it is a broad topic that isn’t as simple as parent/child.
o0o0 i see, you want the actual, common incest to be legal because of an edge-case easily handled by judges.
got it, youre an incest cheerleader… for some reason.
A judge can’t just rule someone gets a free pass when something is illegal because they didn’t know. That isn’t how law works.
The law could conceiveably be written to exclude those cases, but anyone trying to include that would have people like you claiming they are pro incest for pointing out exceptions.
my original point was grand jury which absolutely decides whether charges are applied and prosecution attempted
either way, still not sure why anyone would think that edge case is a reason for you all to want incest to be legal… sure are strainin’ to do some explainin as they say.
You said judges, not grand juries. You also assume I want the opposite of what I wrote.
Not wanting something to be illegal is not the same as being in favor of it. There are lots of things that I am fine with being legal that I am opposed to because I think making them illegal would be a huge negative compared to addressing it through social pressure.