Most of the commentary I have read on here on here is (as usual) off the topic or failing to understand it. The Judge WASNT promoting incest or child abuse. He was instead making a comment on social mores and how they change using homosexuality as the classic example. And since he was specifically talking about ADULT incestuous relationships the predictable outrage from the usual suspects was a idiotic as ever.
Incest has a very strong societal taboo. There is also a genetic predisposition to avoid incest. Which of those two statements differs from the story of homosexuality in society? NEITHER.
Whether adult incest will even be decriminalised or socially acceptable is an interesting question, but as usual, you cannot ask a serious provocative question in this society without your motivations being the only thing ever asked.
Personally, the thought repulses me, but so does homosexuality. Do if we remove our personal revulsion or opinion,
what is the basis for criminalising adult incest?
I don't expect any rational discussion on the last paragraph any more than the judge dd.
- you are committing well known and understood to be probable disability onto the progeny of such union!