If Homosexuality is Legal (somewhat) then Incest Should Be.
Scroll to see replies
Firstly, incest is something which shouldn't even be considered. A homosexual is attracted to a gender in whole not just a particular person, they shouldn't be compared or even put in the same discussion. the debate most people are making is due to reproduction, no way should a child be born under the risk of health issues from incest relations. The whole homosexual thing being legal is damn right and should stay that way. England as a country accepts all races and religions and allows us all to be treated equally, so why should that be any different for someone who loves the same gender? It's 2013 and it's time we were all treated the same.
You mentioned 'the whole reproductive argument' but have you thought of the reproductions of that? Legalising incest would mean that you incite people to give birth to seriously ill offspring. Not only is that cruel it is immoral and put even more strain on an already stretched NHS.
As for homosexuality I find it do narrow minded of you to compare it to incest. Incest is closer to Beasteality. One consenting individual taking advantage of an individual that is vulnerable whether it be them overpowering them mentally or physically.
Posted from TSR Mobile
As for homosexuality I find it do narrow minded of you to compare it to incest. Incest is closer to Beasteality. One consenting individual taking advantage of an individual that is vulnerable whether it be them overpowering them mentally or physically.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Bigotry how?
No that isn't what I'm saying although incest would be less harmfull if you ignored the morality but no that still isn't what I'm saying.
No that isn't what I'm saying although incest would be less harmfull if you ignored the morality but no that still isn't what I'm saying.
I don't actually know what you're trying to say other than asking if I'd approve of incest as long as they didn't reproduce. What did you mean about bigotry?
I have an issue with parent-child incestuous relationships because of the power relationship between the two. A parent and their child can never be on an equal level in a relationship leading to possible abuse and manipulation of the less powerful party. With a brother-sister relationship, there is less chance of that happening they are more likely to be on an equal level. I suppose there is a higher risk of grooming if one party is much older and has grown up with a position of power over the other, but I don't think that's reason enough to make it illegal.
Certainly an excellent question, I will edit as soon as I think of an equally interesting answer.
But the whole ''incest is wrong because of chances of disabled offspring'' is flawed. It is a consequentialist argument defending a deontological argument of gay marriage - no one argues that gay marriages should be allowed because they create optimum offspring; or that if studies showed that children brought up under two gay parents have psychological defects then gay marriage should be banned.
But there is a moral distinction between loving the same-sex and loving your mother, I just can't think of it yet.
But the whole ''incest is wrong because of chances of disabled offspring'' is flawed. It is a consequentialist argument defending a deontological argument of gay marriage - no one argues that gay marriages should be allowed because they create optimum offspring; or that if studies showed that children brought up under two gay parents have psychological defects then gay marriage should be banned.
But there is a moral distinction between loving the same-sex and loving your mother, I just can't think of it yet.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by lilyobz
So long as incestuous couples don't have kids then I have no problem with it. You cannot jeopardise an unborn child with genetic defects.
Why?
Original post by lilyobz
So long as incestuous couples don't have kids then I have no problem with it. You cannot jeopardise an unborn child with genetic defects.
Should disabled people not be allowed to reproduce? Women over the age of 40? They have a much higher risk of having a child with genetic defects.
At all the people saying it it wrong because there is a risk of the children having a genetic illness, I really hope you are also against geneticlly ill people having children otherwise it is a bit hypocritical.
I am against incest (and homosexuality for that matter) but on purely biblical grounds.
I am against incest (and homosexuality for that matter) but on purely biblical grounds.
100% Serious
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I see what you are saying. I wouldn't say it's prejudice as such however the point I was making was to reiterate the lack of links between homosexuality and incest ergo making the argument and the question in the OP moot. However when it comes to incest itself I would say there is an argument for it to remain illegal.
Now do you see what I am saying?
Now do you see what I am saying?
Original post by jsmithy11
At all the people saying it it wrong because there is a risk of the children having a genetic illness, I really hope you are also against geneticlly ill people having children otherwise it is a bit hypocritical.
I am against incest (and homosexuality for that matter) but on purely biblical grounds.
I am against incest (and homosexuality for that matter) but on purely biblical grounds.
If you're against homosexuality for biblical (and therefore religious) reasons then that's the way it is, however don't you think that in these modern times there is room for a modern look at society and a modern interpretation of it?
I'm not sure. There is still potential for manipulation if the child was desperate for their parent's affection and would do anything to please them. But I guess this happens in lots of relationships and we don't outlaw them, so this shouldn't be any different. I don't really know enough about the psychology of children who feel abandoned by their parents to make an informed decision on the subject.
Actually I did mention health implications. But actually the jist of my first post was to dispell any link or any idea that there is a link between that and homosexuality.
I am going to focus on the mother-child incest scenario.
I think the distinction between mother-child/father-child incest and homosexuality lies in the degree to which both shake up the traditional family structure (a structure which I will assume to be a good thing)/the definition of marriage. Whereas gay marriage certainly shakes up a traditional family structure in the sense that it is less dynamic, i.e. there is only male energy/female energy, it still manages to hold on to a linear, top-down structure where there is transference of emotional, social and ethical knowledge from a parent at the top to the child at the bottom.
A mother-son/father-daughter incest relationship completely does away with the top down structure and is more a horizontal, interdepdent structure where no 'family' in the true sense of the word exists. I suppose the parent will still be at the top and the child at the bottom, but I'm not sure it will be transference of knowledge which will be taking place.
The brother-sister scenario is a bit more challenging.
I think the distinction between mother-child/father-child incest and homosexuality lies in the degree to which both shake up the traditional family structure (a structure which I will assume to be a good thing)/the definition of marriage. Whereas gay marriage certainly shakes up a traditional family structure in the sense that it is less dynamic, i.e. there is only male energy/female energy, it still manages to hold on to a linear, top-down structure where there is transference of emotional, social and ethical knowledge from a parent at the top to the child at the bottom.
A mother-son/father-daughter incest relationship completely does away with the top down structure and is more a horizontal, interdepdent structure where no 'family' in the true sense of the word exists. I suppose the parent will still be at the top and the child at the bottom, but I'm not sure it will be transference of knowledge which will be taking place.
The brother-sister scenario is a bit more challenging.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by ameritus
I get where you're coming from but it's pointless. If someone truly loves their own mum in that way then it's kind of messed up 
and anyway there are countless other people they can choose to have a relationship with, not just their own mum.
Whereas with gay people, it's an attraction to an entire gender rather than just being limited to a select few people. The reason it's no longer taboo is because most of us as a society have developed enough to realise this.
and anyway there are countless other people they can choose to have a relationship with, not just their own mum.Whereas with gay people, it's an attraction to an entire gender rather than just being limited to a select few people. The reason it's no longer taboo is because most of us as a society have developed enough to realise this.
I get you entirely. I just shudder at the thought of two guys making out.
See, something being icky isn't a good reason to outlaw it. I'm sorry but if you allow homosexuality under the grounds that you cannot stop true love, then the same rules should apply to polygamy and incest. Provided the participants are entirely consensual of course.
Before I argue further, why are you arguing that acceptance of homosexuality is simply a result of development?
Original post by thunder_chunky
If you're against homosexuality for biblical (and therefore religious) reasons then that's the way it is, however don't you think that in these modern times there is room for a modern look at society and a modern interpretation of it?
Acceptance of homosexuality isn't really a modern look. More of an old look just revitalised. Homosexuality was cool back in the Roman era ( or Greek). rejection of homosexuality came after Christianity spread and sexuality became more repressed.
Original post by bottled
Acceptance of homosexuality isn't really a modern look. More of an old look just revitalised. Homosexuality was cool back in the Roman era ( or Greek). rejection of homosexuality came after Christianity spread and sexuality became more repressed.
'Revitalised' would be the wrong word. It was never a social norm. It was a debaucherous act that the middle/upper-classes would indulge in - it was a fetish, looked upon as purely that, nothing more (i.e. noone would consider marrying, but wouldn't mind dabbling).
Homosexuality, in its modern form, isn't revitalised but reinvented; it has a legal and social existence.
Original post by ArtGoblin
Should disabled people not be allowed to reproduce? Women over the age of 40? They have a much higher risk of having a child with genetic defects.
If the child has a high risk of becoming disabled, wouldn't it be a wiser choice to not reproduce? (Assuming the disability servilely affects their quality of life)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
