Why do homophobes compare homosexuality to incest, polygamy, etc?

Nothing wrong with being homophobic.

Yes there is.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes there is.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I don't think it's an attempt at an argument against homosexuality. I think it's just a way of saying "it doesn't harm anyone else" is not a sufficient argument to prove that homosexuality is acceptable - there must be more to the story than just that. Because there are lots of other relationships with can be argued not to harm anyone else, and yet they're still considered unacceptable, or illegal.

I agree with the part in bold. So if someone considers homosexuality to be acceptable but not incest, I might want to find out all the reasons why they consider incest to be unacceptable, and then see whether or not any of them can also apply to homosexuality. And that can be done by the process I described earlier. (i.e. You think incest is wrong because of genetically weaker children? Is it still wrong if the couple can't have children? etc.)

It's not a way of saying that homosexuality is wrong, it's just a way of analysing the standards a person uses to judge which relationships are moral and which aren't, and checking to see if they are consistent (because very often, they aren't).

How if you're not offending anyone?

I don't think it's an attempt at an argument against homosexuality. I think it's just a way of saying "it doesn't harm anyone else" is not a sufficient argument to prove that homosexuality is acceptable - there must be more to the story than just that. Because there are lots of other relationships with can be argued not to harm anyone else, and yet they're still considered unacceptable, or illegal.

I agree with the part in bold. So if someone considers homosexuality to be acceptable but not incest, I might want to find out all the reasons why they consider incest to be unacceptable, and then see whether or not any of them can also apply to homosexuality. And that can be done by the process I described earlier. (i.e. You think incest is wrong because of genetically weaker children? Is it still wrong if the couple can't have children? etc.)

It's not a way of saying that homosexuality is wrong, it's just a way of analysing the standards a person uses to judge which relationships are moral and which aren't, and checking to see if they are consistent (because very often, they aren't).

How if you're not offending anyone?

I sort of agree with this. I don't think there is any need for people to put forward arguments for why homosexuality is ok, it's up to the otehr side to say why it isn't. I have issues with certain forms of incest (basically when one of the participents is much younger than the other so there is a high chance of abuse from someone in a position of power, not dissimilar from how doctors can't have a relationship with a patient).

So if I were to tell you that I believe you're disgusting simply for who you love, and that you're going to Hell, that you are sick, that you are wrong, and that God hates you, you'd be OK with that, would you?

And not just me, but everyone. Have you thought what psychological damage that would cause?

So if I were to tell you that I believe you're disgusting simply for who you love, and that you're going to Hell, that you are sick, that you are wrong, and that God hates you, you'd be OK with that, would you?

And not just me, but everyone. Have you thought what psychological damage that would cause?

Yes, I agree with that.

However, if someone thinks homosexuality is acceptable but incest [or some other relationship] is unacceptable, would you also agree that it is up to them to provide reasons why incest [or some other relationship] is unacceptable (as well as ensuring that none of their reasons could also apply to homosexuality e.g. "I find it disgusting")?

I guess I have to acknowledge that I'm somewhat of a hypocrite on that issue, but I do console myself with the fact that I do only buy meat produce when I can justify that the animal has been appropriately cared for in life.

That escalated a little bit. He said what's wrong with it if he meant no offense? What you stated in your post is clearly offensive.

Posted from TSR Mobile

The reason homosexuality is often compared to other traditionally taboo relationships is because, people often say that homosexuality should be accepted in society because "it isn't harming anyone else".

The point being made is that, a lot of other traditionally taboo relationships also don't harm anyone else. For example, an incestuous relationship in which no children are (at risk of being) produced can also be argued to "not harm anyone else". However, the same people supporting homosexuality will have no problem with these other relationships remaining illegal or frowned upon.

You might say incest is being "analysed on its own merits" - but the fact is that in this case, it's being analysed against inconsistent standards, compared to those used to analyse homosexuality.

I do apologise if someone has said this already and I've missed it, but no-one seems to have raised the actual reason why those who oppose homosexual acts compare it to incest, polygamy, and bestiality.
The reason is that the social "justification" for homosexual acts rests on the right of a person to satisfy his/her sexual desires as he/she pleases. Those who oppose homosexual acts extend this reasoning and claim that it logically follows that a person who has incestual, polygamous, or bestial sexual desires also has a right to satisfy these sexual desires as he/she pleases. Ergo, they claim, homosexual acts can not be justified without also logically justifying incestual, polygamous, and bestial acts.

I do apologise if someone has said this already and I've missed it, but no-one seems to have raised the actual reason why those who oppose homosexual acts compare it to incest, polygamy, and bestiality.
The reason is that the social "justification" for homosexual acts rests on the right of a person to satisfy his/her sexual desires as he/she pleases. Those who oppose homosexual acts extend this reasoning and claim that it logically follows that a person who has incestual, polygamous, or bestial sexual desires also has a right to satisfy these sexual desires as he/she pleases. Ergo, they claim, homosexual acts can not be justified without also logically justifying incestual, polygamous, and bestial acts.

It remains a valid argument that homosexuality does not harm others. It's a slippery slope argument/red herring to detract from that argument by waving around incest, polygamy, etc.

And I would reiterate that homophobes who accept heterosexuality for arbitrary reasons but reject homosexuality also display hypocrisy.

I mean, even heterosexuality can be used in a slippery slope argument. If I ask you: 'why do you accept heterosexuality but not incest' and you answer: 'because the former does not harm anyone', then the same counter-argument could be lodged.

Not really. Whether something is harmful takes a long analysis and incestuous relationships may fall short of the level of harm we would accept; whereas, homosexuality may not.

But if you think that by saying "homosexuality doesn't harm others", then this shows that it is perfectly acceptable, naturally it follows that any other relationship that doesn't harm others is also perfectly acceptable, doesn't it?

I don't think anybody accepts heterosexuality just for arbitrary reasons, or just "because it does not harm anyone". In fact I'd say sometimes it does harm people. But there is also the "continuation of the human race" aspect of heterosexuality, which no other sexual relationship has. Rejecting heterosexuality causes a great deal of harm.

Perhaps - but then if someone does not accept incest, then it is up to them to show that it causes a level of harm which ought not to be considered acceptable. Naturally, if they accept homosexuality, then the level of harm they are attributing to incest must be demonstrably higher than the level attributable to homosexuality.