Here's a question I'd be intrigued to see opinions on
A question I would be intrigued to see gay people answer actually (this isn't actually an attack on them at all, but I'd be curious to see what they think) - but also for straight people too.
If homosexuality is ok, then why is incest wrong? I don't support incest by the way. But if it's between 2 consenting adults then why is that any more right or wrong than homosexuality?
Yet, I think most people if not all would conider incest wrong (including gay people). I just find it hard to accept that a gay person might say well you are not supposed to have sex with someone who is blood related .. I mean it's not more damming a statement than saying you are not supposed to have sex with someone of the same sex? Since when was that right exactly. Since society decided to liberalise it? What if they liberalise incest in 100 years?
Got me thinking.
If homosexuality is ok, then why is incest wrong? I don't support incest by the way. But if it's between 2 consenting adults then why is that any more right or wrong than homosexuality?
Yet, I think most people if not all would conider incest wrong (including gay people). I just find it hard to accept that a gay person might say well you are not supposed to have sex with someone who is blood related .. I mean it's not more damming a statement than saying you are not supposed to have sex with someone of the same sex? Since when was that right exactly. Since society decided to liberalise it? What if they liberalise incest in 100 years?
Got me thinking.
Scroll to see replies
There is nothing to suggest that two gays wanting to get together suggests any mental dysfunctionality on their part. It is profoundly rare for incest to be desirer or engaged in and the nature of seriously desiring sex with a close family member suggests mental illness.
There is no danger of producing a child that would be saddled with serious health problems and leper status.
There is no danger of a relationship breakdown ruining or permanently damaging family relations not just between the pair but other family members too.
There is no danger of producing a child that would be saddled with serious health problems and leper status.
There is no danger of a relationship breakdown ruining or permanently damaging family relations not just between the pair but other family members too.
Theres nothing wrong with being gay.
People can love people of the same sex and theres nothing wrong with that!!!
Incest could seriously damage family relationships and isnt a good idea in the first place tbh.
Plus its not very common either!
Being gay isnt a problem. People just need ti learn to accept it because its a natural part of life.
I support peoples choices whether they are gay or not. Theres no need for anyone to be horrible to them. Were all humans and we all like different things.
I support gay rights!
People can love people of the same sex and theres nothing wrong with that!!!
Incest could seriously damage family relationships and isnt a good idea in the first place tbh.
Plus its not very common either!
Being gay isnt a problem. People just need ti learn to accept it because its a natural part of life.
I support peoples choices whether they are gay or not. Theres no need for anyone to be horrible to them. Were all humans and we all like different things.
I support gay rights!
Original post by TheArtofProtest
To be honest, these are very flimsy arguments made against decriminalizing incest and making it legal.
The same kind of arguments you are making now (lead to societal destruction) were made against homosexuals a couple of decades ago.
I'm by no means a proponent of incestuous relationships but I just don't think your arguments are worth the paper they are written on. If that is the case, then there is a major case of hypocrisy to be made here.
The same kind of arguments you are making now (lead to societal destruction) were made against homosexuals a couple of decades ago.
I'm by no means a proponent of incestuous relationships but I just don't think your arguments are worth the paper they are written on. If that is the case, then there is a major case of hypocrisy to be made here.
No I disagree.
Homosexuality is a sexuality. Being attracted to members of the same sex. It has been hapening on a comparatively industrial scale throughout history and people of all races and abilities have engaged in it. Incest is not a sexuality. It is a desire to have sex with a close family relation. This suggests a mental disturbance which is not reflected in homosexuality.
Homosexuality does not and has never been argued to pose a high danger of stillborn or crippled offspring
Homosexuality would once have posed a danger of ruining family relations but that was because of its legal status and popular attitudes and not inherent to it as is necessarily the case with incest precisely because it occurs between members of the same family.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
To be honest, these are very flimsy arguments made against decriminalizing incest and making it legal.
The same kind of arguments you are making now (i.e: lead to familial/societal destruction) were made against homosexuals a couple of decades ago.
I'm by no means a proponent of incestuous relationships but I just don't think your arguments are worth the paper they are written on. If that is the case, then there is a major case of hypocrisy to be made here.
The same kind of arguments you are making now (i.e: lead to familial/societal destruction) were made against homosexuals a couple of decades ago.
I'm by no means a proponent of incestuous relationships but I just don't think your arguments are worth the paper they are written on. If that is the case, then there is a major case of hypocrisy to be made here.
This basically. The 2 posts were full of subjective bias .. you couldn't categorically prove anything you said at all.
Incestual relationships have been scientifically proven to reduce the size of gene pool, therefore increasing the chances of genetic defects and stillborns. Therefore it remains illegal to prevent the harm that bringing children into the world like this would cause.
Whereas consensual homosexual relationships have never been proven to harm anyone.
Whereas consensual homosexual relationships have never been proven to harm anyone.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Toughtee
Incestual relationships have been scientifically proven to reduce the size of gene pool, therefore increasing the chances of genetic defects and stillborns. Therefore it remains illegal to prevent the harm that bringing children into the world like this would cause.
Whereas consensual homosexual relationships have never been proven to harm anyone.
Whereas consensual homosexual relationships have never been proven to harm anyone.
So people with genetic defects shouldn't have sex?
This argument doesn't apply to homosexual incest anyway.
Original post by chazwomaq
So people with genetic defects shouldn't have sex?
This argument doesn't apply to homosexual incest anyway.
This argument doesn't apply to homosexual incest anyway.
They're very interesting points that I'd not considered before, thank you for bringing them up
I guess you'd have to be careful around the area of familial ties being used coerce a relationship, but beyond that I can't really see a rebuttal to your points!
I think a lot of it comes down to the feeling of disgust, which I'm guessing is what some people feel about homosexuality. Maybe it'll be the next civil rights thing, who knows!
All terrible "arguments" in this thread.
Original post by Toughtee
Maybe it'll be the next civil rights thing, who knows!
I highly doubt it'll be the next big civil rights thing - I don't think it has or will ever have sufficient popular support. There isn't a gigantic bloc of incestuous people waiting to come out of the closet.
Original post by Toughtee
They're very interesting points that I'd not considered before, thank you for bringing them up
I guess you'd have to be careful around the area of familial ties being used coerce a relationship, but beyond that I can't really see a rebuttal to your points!
I think a lot of it comes down to the feeling of disgust, which I'm guessing is what some people feel about homosexuality. Maybe it'll be the next civil rights thing, who knows!
I guess you'd have to be careful around the area of familial ties being used coerce a relationship, but beyond that I can't really see a rebuttal to your points!
I think a lot of it comes down to the feeling of disgust, which I'm guessing is what some people feel about homosexuality. Maybe it'll be the next civil rights thing, who knows!
Thanks for your gracious reply.
It's an interesting one isn't it? It's hard to analyse beyond the instinctive feeling of disgust.
I agree that something to do with disruption of the family ties is important. If a relationship turns sour, it's hard to "escape" it if it's with a family member. And there's also the potential for grooming - an uncle or aunt has every chance groom a youngster in preparation for when they are of age, in a way that a non-family member doesn't typically. Is that enough to make it illegal though? Does it undermine consent?
I'd assume one of the reasons as to why it's illegal is to prevent grooming and/or the exploitation children.
Uh... that actually isn't a half bad argument. Homosexuality and incest in some ways similar. Well at least, the whole take on it. If you asked the average LGBT supporter why homosexuality isn't wrong, they'll probably say cuz its between 2 consenting people and blah blah blah. Incest can also be between 2 gay, straight, or bi consenting people. It does happens just like gay relationships happen.
Its more wrong than homosexuality because most people can get down with the idea of two people of the same sex but two people connected through biologically? Also you are not supposed to associate your sibling and parent figure with sexual attraction. Just no.
Society decided to liberated it after normalizing it and teaching about it in schools. If society normalized, and decriminalized incest wouldn't most people also claim it isn't wrong because it between 2 consenting people? If the majority of people think that, others will too. If incest joined the LGBT, yes people would be in resistance but eventually "fall" in line and support it. The T sector of the LGB wasn't there at first and the gay people rejected it. After transgender became part of the LGB, now transgenders are the new "norm".
Incest couples can also adopt just like gay people can adopt children. Gay men and gay women use surrogates, just like incest couples can. I'm sure there are some siblings who are together who adopt children or use surrogates and they never know.
Its more wrong than homosexuality because most people can get down with the idea of two people of the same sex but two people connected through biologically? Also you are not supposed to associate your sibling and parent figure with sexual attraction. Just no.
Society decided to liberated it after normalizing it and teaching about it in schools. If society normalized, and decriminalized incest wouldn't most people also claim it isn't wrong because it between 2 consenting people? If the majority of people think that, others will too. If incest joined the LGBT, yes people would be in resistance but eventually "fall" in line and support it. The T sector of the LGB wasn't there at first and the gay people rejected it. After transgender became part of the LGB, now transgenders are the new "norm".
Incest couples can also adopt just like gay people can adopt children. Gay men and gay women use surrogates, just like incest couples can. I'm sure there are some siblings who are together who adopt children or use surrogates and they never know.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
I highly doubt it'll be the next big civil rights thing - I don't think it has or will ever have sufficient popular support. There isn't a gigantic bloc of incestuous people waiting to come out of the closet.
Maybe it's because they're all in closet, hence you don't know they exist
Original post by chazwomaq
Thanks for your gracious reply.
It's an interesting one isn't it? It's hard to analyse beyond the instinctive feeling of disgust.
I agree that something to do with disruption of the family ties is important. If a relationship turns sour, it's hard to "escape" it if it's with a family member. And there's also the potential for grooming - an uncle or aunt has every chance groom a youngster in preparation for when they are of age, in a way that a non-family member doesn't typically. Is that enough to make it illegal though? Does it undermine consent?
It's an interesting one isn't it? It's hard to analyse beyond the instinctive feeling of disgust.
I agree that something to do with disruption of the family ties is important. If a relationship turns sour, it's hard to "escape" it if it's with a family member. And there's also the potential for grooming - an uncle or aunt has every chance groom a youngster in preparation for when they are of age, in a way that a non-family member doesn't typically. Is that enough to make it illegal though? Does it undermine consent?
Yeah I agree! It would be difficult to legislate and determine which cases undermined consent and which didn't. It could lead to an increase in the number of rape cases based on coercion and abuse of position of influence, but I don't know really.
I'm not gay, but incest *isn't* immoral. that view is culturally pervasive simply because it hasn't been challenged yet, because people are scared of the "why are you defending incest? is it because *you* are incestuous?" argument, just like people defending gay people used to have "are you gay or something?" asked to them. people need to understand that whatever is consensual within a voluntary adult sexual relationship is by definition ethical. it produces happiness for those involved and does not take away from the happiness of others.
Original post by BubbleBoobies
I'm not gay, but incest *isn't* immoral. that view is culturally pervasive simply because it hasn't been challenged yet, because people are scared of the "why are you defending incest? is it because *you* are incestuous?" argument, just like people defending gay people used to have "are you gay or something?" asked to them. people need to understand that whatever is consensual within a voluntary adult sexual relationship is by definition ethical. it produces happiness for those involved and does not take away from the happiness of others.
There is a morality argument to it. Inbreeding significantly increases the risk of genetic disorders and can increase the frequency of unwanted alleles in the gene pool.
How do you allow incest but prevent inbreeding? Do you force women to terminate pregnancies as the result of incest?
I do find the thought of incest disgusting, but I firmly believe that nothing should ever be illegal purely because it's disgusting. A law that doesn't protect society or individuals shouldn't exist. But I think in this case the law is protecting society, and the individuals that could be born suffering all manner of diseases as the result of inbreeding.
Original post by JordanL_
There is a morality argument to it. Inbreeding significantly increases the risk of genetic disorders and can increase the frequency of unwanted alleles in the gene pool.
so? and what about dwarfs and people with down syndrome? they (likely) pass on their 'defective' genes to their kids when they reproduce yet people don't have a problem with them either, and there are kids born without eye balls (etc) all the time in the west, yet their mothers are not told to get an abortion by the state or by doctors.
How do you allow incest but prevent inbreeding? Do you force women to terminate pregnancies as the result of incest?
who's even suggesting that incestuous relationships = incestuous reproduction? are you saying that incest couples are immoral simply because of the mere possibility of defective reproduction...? their relationship altogether, not their reproduction, is illegal though.
also, how would you prevent inbreeding? well, if you can prevent incest relationships, why can't you prevent inbreeding? the government uses coercion to implement its will - why is that so bad when it concerns abortions? but either way, I'm not arguing for the state to force abortions to end for pregnant women
I do find the thought of incest disgusting, but I firmly believe that nothing should ever be illegal purely because it's disgusting. A law that doesn't protect society or individuals shouldn't exist. But I think in this case the law is protecting society, and the individuals that could be born suffering all manner of diseases as the result of inbreeding.
like I've explained, not only is incest =/= incestuous breeding necessarily, but it is hypocritical to only ban incest couples from having the right to breed (or have relationships) when we're willing, in parallel, to allow people with other similar genetic defects to reproduce. I mean, while we're at it, we might as well be banning stupid people from giving birth too, for "the protection of society"
Original post by BubbleBoobies
Preventing people from reproducing entirely is very, very different from preventing people from reproducing with family members.
But you'll actually find that people with genetic disorders are often offered the opportunity to have their embryos screened and abort if they've inherited the disorder.
who's even suggesting that incestuous relationships = incestuous reproduction? are you saying that incest couples are immoral simply because of the mere possibility of defective reproduction...? their relationship altogether, not their reproduction, is illegal though.
I never said that. I said that allowing incest would have to allow inbreeding. Or we could keep inbreeding illegal, in which case we'd see women who accidentally get pregnant as the result of incest giving themselves DIY abortions to avoid the legal repercussions.
You can't separate sex from reproduction.
also, how would you prevent inbreeding? well, if you can prevent incest relationships, why can't you prevent inbreeding? the government uses coercion to implement its will - why is that so bad when it concerns abortions? but either way, I'm not arguing for the state to force abortions to end for pregnant women
Imprisoning people is different to forcing abortions.
Original post by JordanL_
Preventing people from reproducing entirely is very, very different from preventing people from reproducing with family members.
nah, not really. it's just as bad...if we're talking about how we're stopping certain individuals from romantically associating *purely* based on the concept of inbreeding being possible. I mean, the possibility of rape is existent yet we don't force all men to not sleep with all women based on this fact.
But you'll actually find that people with genetic disorders are often offered the opportunity to have their embryos screened and abort if they've inherited the disorder.
so why can't incest couples do the same via their increased chance of defects? and mind you, the furthered risk isn't "significant" like you said - it's only so manifestly bad when it is repeated throughout many generations in the sense that the effect is accumulative the more genetic imbreeding goes on (that's why pakistan is so bad, for instance; they've had many many generations of inbreeding)
I never said that. I said that allowing incest would have to allow inbreeding. Or we could keep inbreeding illegal, in which case we'd see women who accidentally get pregnant as the result of incest giving themselves DIY abortions to avoid the legal repercussions.
no it wouldn't have to allow inbreeding, seeing as you can have incest legal but incest reproduction being illegal. and if she "accidentally" got pregnant then she'd have an abortion. if she didn't have an abortion, either 1) force her to (really I don't understand why this is so abhorent if you yourself are admitting that the child would suffer via defects) or 2) allow her to reproduce and the odds are she won't create a defective child through merely 1 generation.
You can't separate sex from reproduction.
yes you can.
Imprisoning people is different to forcing abortions.
not really - it's the principle of coercion either way. the difference is merely subjective.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by BubbleBoobies
nah, not really. it's just as bad...if we're talking about how we're stopping certain individuals from romantically associating *purely* based on the concept of inbreeding being possible.
No, it's not. It's entirely different. One is preventing people from ever having their own kids. The other is preventing people from having kids with a tiny subset of the population.
so why can't incest couples do the same via their increased chance of defects? and mind you, the furthered risk isn't "significant" like you said - it's only so manifestly bad when it is repeated throughout many generations in the sense that the effect is accumulative the more genetic imbreeding goes on (that's why pakistan is so bad, for instance; they've had many many generations of inbreeding)
This just isn't true. The risk really is significant, even in a single generation. It costs a hell of a lot of money to offer genetic screening, it isn't even given to everyone with genetic disorders, so it couldn't be extended to even more people.
no it wouldn't have to allow inbreeding, seeing as you can have incest legal but incest reproduction illegal. and if she "accidentally" got pregnant then she'd have an abortion. if she didn't have an abortion, either 1) force her to (really I don't understand why this is so abhorent if you yourself are admitting that the child would suffer via defects) or 2) allow her to reproduce and the odds are she won't create a defective child through merely 1 generation.
yes you can.
not really - it's the principle of coercion either way. the difference is merely subjective.
I don't understand how you can't see the difference between imprisoning someone and forcing them to undergo a potentially traumatising medical procedure.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 1 minute ago
Worried about son who wants to move out, will he be able to afford it?Last reply 5 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 8 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 11 minutes ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 14 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 14 minutes ago
choosing a medical school (Leicester, St Andrews, Nottingham)Last reply 18 minutes ago
Why do some girls take pleasure in going after other girls boyfriends?Posted 19 minutes ago
LSE undergraduate accommodationLast reply 22 minutes ago
Can someone please mark my AIC essay (my teacher is such an unreliable marker)Last reply 22 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 23 minutes ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme 2024 (2025 Start)Last reply 23 minutes ago
Best Accommodation for Med Students at University of Plymouth?Last reply 24 minutes ago
Official University of Warwick Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 26 minutes ago
Bae systems accommodation barrowTrending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
