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

young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#201
Report 4 years ago
#201
(Original post by tazarooni89)
I'm not calling it a "sexual orientation". I don't care what it's called; I'm making the point that such a thing exists.
You're saying that if the object of their incestuous desire died, they would never, ever be attracted to anyone ever again?
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#202
Report 4 years ago
#202
(Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
What about demisexuals?
Is demisexuality something actually established by science, or merely a neologism coined by right-on sex activists and queer theorists?
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#203
Report 4 years ago
#203
(Original post by young_guns)
You're saying that if the object of their incestuous desire died, they would never, ever be attracted to anyone ever again?
Its theoretically possible. Some people say that they have these feelings after being married to someone for a certain amount of time.
0
reply
Dima-Blackburn
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#204
Report 4 years ago
#204
(Original post by young_guns)
Is demisexuality something actually established by science, or merely a neologism coined by right-on sex activists and queer theorists?
I'm not aware of any studies on it, but it seems pretty real given the fact that many people identify as demi-sexual.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#205
Report 4 years ago
#205
(Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
I'm not aware of any studies on it, but it seems pretty real given the fact that many people identify as demi-sexual.
Leaving aside whether demisexuality is real or not, even if it were, demisexuality wouldn't preclude someone from finding another partner if they were prevented from being with a particular one.
0
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#206
Report 4 years ago
#206
Surely the potential for undue influence is not itself undue influence? A lot of people here seem to be using peripheral issues to get around the fact that they have no good objection to the core proposition.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#207
Report 4 years ago
#207
(Original post by young_guns)
You're saying that if the object of their incestuous desire died, they would never, ever be attracted to anyone ever again?
I think it's very plausible that if the object of someone's desire dies, then they may never be attracted to anyone else again to the extent that they wish to, or are able to be in a serious and satisfying relationship with them; especially if they have already been in a long term relationship with that person.

For example, my grandfather passed away about 15 years ago, at the age of about 70-something. I don't get the impression that my grandmother has desired to be in a relationship with anyone else since. However I'm sure if he were still alive, she would want to continue to be in a relationship with him.
0
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#208
Report 4 years ago
#208
(Original post by tazarooni89)
I think it's very plausible that if the object of someone's desire dies, then they may never be attracted to anyone else again to the extent that they wish to, or are able to be in a serious and satisfying relationship with them; especially if they have already been in a long term relationship with that person.

For example, my grandfather passed away about 15 years ago, at the age of about 70-something. I don't get the impression that my grandmother has desired to be in a relationship with anyone else since. However I'm sure if he were still alive, she would want to continue to be in a relationship with him.
I'm not sure you can directly compare 70-something grandparents to teenagers or 20-somethings when it comes to relationships, but maybe that's just me.
0
reply
ftr
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#209
Report 4 years ago
#209
(Original post by young_guns)
Did I brush past the chip on your shoulder? Sounds like it something that's deeply personal to you

To address your argument, it's lucky for me that I don't use the popular argument that two consensual adults should be able to do what they want. I use the argument that two gay people being together doesn't hurt anyone, whereas an incestuous coupling does.

Your argument is looking a bit worthless now
How does an incestuous couple hurt people?

I assume you are referring to the possibility of deformed babies.

In that case, well that can be stopped if the right action is taken. Also are you against disabled people having sexual relatiobships?

No it's not personal to me. I find the thought of myself being in a relationship with anyone in my family sickening just like being in a relationship with another man. Doesn't mean I stop other people from doing it as am not a moron like some.

You are beginning to look a lot more hypocritical now. Bet you cry when someone says that gays shouldn't be together as well.
0
reply
rose1614
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#210
Report 4 years ago
#210
two completely different things. One should be accepted other has reasons not to be accepted
0
reply
Wahid-r
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#211
Report 4 years ago
#211
(Original post by young_guns)
That's like saying if you support gay rights you should support any consenting adult coupling. That's dishonest and intellectually lazy.

There are many gay people or supporters of gay rights who would be opposed to, say, consensual cannibalism, on the basis that they believe the harm overrides the consent in a way that is obviously not present in gay relationships. Many people might also have the same view of incest, that it has an inherently harmful aspect that is not present in gay relationships.

Gay people and supporters of gay rights can have all sorts of views on the role of the state, and what is permissible and what is not. That's why it's dishonest and wrong to say if you're gay or a supporter of gay rights you must support this particular coupling or you're a hypocrite in your eyes.
So just to clarify again, they are hypocrites. Please explain the 'harm' it causes. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with incest. There may be issues with certain practical situations e.g. harm to potential offspring, but that's not enough to rule out incest as an entire concept.

If you are so confident that incest will stand on its own merits, what are you worried about? Why do you want to short circuit the debate by saying other people must support it?
Umm I'm talking about this because that's what this whole thread is about? Look at the title genius. Just because I'm pointing out the hypocrisy doesn't mean this is the only argument I can make.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#212
Report 4 years ago
#212
(Original post by TurboCretin)
I'm not sure you can directly compare 70-something grandparents to teenagers or 20-somethings when it comes to relationships, but maybe that's just me.
Who says we're talking about teenagers or 20-somethings in the first place?
0
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#213
Report 4 years ago
#213
(Original post by tazarooni89)
Who says we're talking about teenagers or 20-somethings in the first place?
Well, you seemed to be making quite a broad point on the basis of quite a specific example, although I admit I didn't track back through the conversation to discover whether the scope of your discussion was narrower than it appeared from the latter post.

Also, maybe the notion of incestuous pensioners was just too much for my brain.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#214
Report 4 years ago
#214
(Original post by ftr)
How does an incestuous couple hurt people?

I assume you are referring to the possibility of deformed babies.
Nope. You can always go back and read post 25, though I'm thinking you might struggle with it
0
reply
ftr
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#215
Report 4 years ago
#215
(Original post by young_guns)
Nope. You can always go back and read post 25, though I'm thinking you might struggle with it
Read it. Complete Bull****.

Can't be bothered arguing with a hypocrite anymore as you are clearly not rational.
0
reply
mrkl
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#216
Report 4 years ago
#216
LOL. I see some people support marrying their Dad.

INtroducing Mr and Mrs Hmmmm not sure what to put here.
0
reply
Catholic_
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#217
Report 4 years ago
#217
(Original post by Sid99)
I would just like to make it known that I am completely for equal rights for gay people in every way.

But it's just something I've been thinking about. Surely if you're for gay rights then you must be for the rights of those who wish to be in an incestuous relationship?

Let me lay down my reasoning for this.


Gay people:


Over 16,18 it's their choice/Naturally attracted to people of the same gender/with a condom sex is safe (to a degree)/Their choice who they fall in love with/They're not hurting anybody.

People who want to be involved in an incestuous relationship:
(assuming they will abstain from having children)

Over 16,18 it's their choice/Naturally attracted to brother,sister,mother,father/With a condom sex is safe (to a degree)/Their choice who they fall in love with/They're not hurting anybody/Since people are talking about condoms breaking lets say if that ever did happen they'd take precautions against a child being born.

--------------------

Surely then when laid out like this if you are FOR gay rights because you believe it's their right to be in a relationship they want to be in then you'd have to be exuding some sort of prejudice or phobia if you were not for the rights of those who wanted to take part in an incest based relationship?

I'm also interested to hear if there are any gay members of TSR your opinions on this topic.
Incest is vile.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Catholic_
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#218
Report 4 years ago
#218
This thread should be closed. Dangerous views such as this should be not be accepted by the public. It's transgressive against common etiquette and morals. The O.P should really reconsider his posting


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Sid99
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#219
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#219
(Original post by Catholic_)
This thread should be closed. Dangerous views such as this should be not be accepted by the public. It's transgressive against common etiquette and morals. The O.P should really reconsider his posting


Posted from TSR Mobile
I don't take advice telling me what is and isn't a "dangerous viewpoint" from religious people.
0
reply
elitepower
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#220
Report 4 years ago
#220
No. Incest has health dangers and is more open for abuse.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (427)
37.89%
No - but I will (87)
7.72%
No - I don't want to (76)
6.74%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (537)
47.65%

Watched Threads

View All