If you're for gay rights surely you should be for incest?

It depends on what it is; each should be examined on its merits. I don't believe in making laws based on some putatively infallible grand principle. Each law should be examined on the merits in particular.

That's why I disagree when people say because that because arguments in favour of homosexuality and incest are sometimes the same, that means they are the same and should be treated identically. Each issue should be looked at on its merits.

I also did not saying you were fascist (nor was it implied) nor did I say you are no better than a homophobe. In fact I specifically said the opposite.

You seem extremely emotionally involved in this.

I didn't say you did say that. I said it was heading in that direction, and I can see from your comments it is.

Actually it seems clear you are. I am simply stating my view of what the law should be, and you are becoming increasingly belligerent and personal because I'm not changing my opinion.

As I said, I think it's time to stop because the pro-incest crowd always seem to start personalising it when you don't change your opinion

Can you please quote where exactly I got 'personal'?

Could we just row back to the abuse bit. You said that I was making some assumption about abuse in families, etc.

Every argument I make against incest presumes a non-abusive incestuous relationship with no possibility for children. So what's the issue with my assumption on abuse?

My main problem with your argument here, is that it appears to assume that all non-incestuous families are well-functioning with no potential for abuse of power, which we all know is not the case.



Of course, I accept that there is the potential for abuse, as there is in any type of relationship or family, but those should be dealt with on a case by case basis, instead of banning the very concept.

Mate, we're done. Stop trying to pick a fight.

Good night

Abuse goes on in all ways, shapes and forms. The fact that it has the potential to in incestuous relationships doesn't make the whole concept morally wrong.

Let's go back to your post (to someone else) how you'd be devastated if it happened to your family. That's my main point. Just because you find it repulsive applied to yourself, doesn't mean that for others, who have a different concept of family, should or would find it equally repulsive.

Yes, I admit, if I found out any of my immediate family were seeing each other romantically/sexually I'd be pretty freaked out, but I'd still accept it, as it's none of my business.

I completely agree. That's why I always make my arguments against incest based on the assumption that it is non-abusive with no possibility for children. I understand that to do otherwise, I wouldn't be arguing against incest but against something else for which there are laws prohibiting anyway



I think that we have to legislate based on the way the world is, not how it would ideally be. In reality, the vast majority of people would be disgusted, disoriented and angry if they found out two members of their immediate family were having an incestuous relationship. It fundamentally alters the family dynamic, in a negative way, even for family members not involved.



I think it's probably easier to say that in theory than in practice. Say your Dad and your sister had a sexual relationship, and then an exceptionally acrimonious break up and woudn't be around each other. How do you think that would effect your family? How do you think it would effect your Mum? Do you think your family would still be in one piece afterwards? And would you be okay with that?

I agree that you don't always know how you'd react to a situation until you experience it, but I can tell you for a fact that my family would have to do something pretty terrible for me to leave them, and incest isn't even close to being on that list.

I think the main issue is the genetic risks associated with incest. The human body itself releases hormones and smells and all that good stuff to deter you from inbreeding and limiting natural genetic variation, so it's natural that the idea is repulsive to the majority of us.

Also, even with condoms it is close to impossible to guarantee that there is no risk of pregnancy (and therefore a potentially messed up child). On the other hand, I hear it's pretty damn easy for homosexuals to avoid getting pregnant.

Isn't the more relevant point that as a result of the breakup of the incestuous relationship, they might be leaving you?

Say you have a nuclear family unit; Mum, Dad, son and daughter. The father and the daughter hook up, have a tempestuous sexual relationship, which then ends. It's also the end of the family as a unit. The parents divorce. The daughter and the father cease to have a relationship because they are now ex-boyfriend / girlfriend (for want of a better term) and don't want to see each other.

No sense of continuing to have a cohesive family unit. It's scattered to the four winds. Personally, I think that's a really sad thing, and I believe the state has a legitimate role in deterring such things. We have a different philosophy on the role of the state. We can agree to disagree

It depends on what it is; each should be examined on its merits. I don't believe in making laws based on some putatively infallible grand principle. Each law should be examined on the merits in particular.

That's why I disagree when people say because that because arguments in favour of homosexuality and incest are sometimes the same, that means they are the same and should be treated identically. Each issue should be looked at on its merits.

That's the biggest load of horse ****. Gay people don't have any obligation to be anything simply because of their sexuality, that's retrograde nonsense.

Furthermore, the question of incest is completely independent of homosexuality and should be treated thus (there is straight and gay incest). It is homophobic to claim gay people have some kind of unique obligation to be in favour of a father ****ing his daughter simply because they prefer to be with John rather than Jane.

The most important consideration here is that incest is damaging to the family unit and family cohesion, whether children might result or not. It confuses and undermines family relationships and the integrity of the family unit in a way that homosexuality does not.

If you deprive gay people of being able to have relationships with one another, you damage them and prevent them from having positive relationships. Allowing gay people to have relationships, to get married, to have children, is positive socially and encourages family formation and healthy family units.

Incest, on the other hand, has no benefits for the formation of healthy family units. And a critical point here is that if you tell a guy he can't **** his brother, then there are still many other partners our there (incest is not a sexual orientation, there are still other potential partners). If you tell gay people they cannot be with someone of the same sex, there are no other potential partners.

In summary, incest damages families in a way that homosexuality does not. Gay people have no obligation to be in favour of something that is fundamentally damaging to families and individuals.

Because we're not discussing heterosexuals?

I don't think it's possible to avoid the generalisation of laws into grander principles, even if you're looking at each issue on its own merits.