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

RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#81
Report 4 years ago
#81
(Original post by young_guns)
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.
Well what then separates the incest from other things which have the same effect? Especially as the effect of incest seems to be your reasoning for keeping it criminalized.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#82
Report 4 years ago
#82
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
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.
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.

You seem extremely emotionally involved in this.
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
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#83
Report 4 years ago
#83
(Original post by young_guns)
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'?
0
reply
Gwilym101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#84
Report 4 years ago
#84
FFS this old chestnut again.

If someone is gay the only difference is that they are attracted to the same gender as themselves, that is it, no other difference. The relationship operates the same way.

In incest fundamentally platonic relationships such as parent and child or siblings has been altered. This then alters that persons perception of other relationships. You also have a different dynamic of power as except with twins partners are going to be significantly different in age this opens up a huge possibility of abuse. Older siblings grooming younger siblings is one of the more common form of family abuse.

In short, Incest and Homosexuality are not the same and will people please stop comparing them.
1
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#85
Report 4 years ago
#85
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Can you please quote where exactly I got 'personal'?
Mate, we're done. Stop trying to pick a fight.

Good night
0
reply
XxelliexX
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#86
Report 4 years ago
#86
Incest is problematic for two main reasons: the chances of offspring being deformed in some way (nobody wants to give birth to King Joffrey) and the power dynamic between the couple. A mother having sex with her son would just be intuitively disgusting to most people (even if the son is of a legal age) because of the role the mother is supposed to take in her child's life. Similarly an older brother having sex with his sister is problematic (even if both parties are allegedly 'consenting') because of the potential for emotional abuse...

The power dynamic can't be the only problem here though, because in the vast majority of relationships there is an unequal balance of power as one of the partners (typically the male) has the ability to physically dominate the other one. But we wouldn't say these relationships shouldn't be allowed... And also the argument that incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to procreate because of the potential of deformed offspring is flawed, because we would be much more reluctant to say that couples with genetic defects shouldn't be allowed to procreate.

But anyway, assuming these two problems are sound... if they are removed... say for example if a pair of identical twins wanted to be together (there's no chance of procreation and they're the same age and strength so neither one has more power than the other) then I don't think they should be stopped from being together. The problem isn't with incest itself (assuming it's between two consensual adults), but more how that incest came about (through emotional or physical abuse of a more powerful family member?) and the consequences the incest might have on the children.
1
reply
askew116
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#87
Report 4 years ago
#87
(Original post by young_guns)
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?
I only mentioned abuse to put my points into context, as I was a newcomer to this thread

This is what I mentioned about 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.
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.

Even for siblings/spouses that are disturbed by two of their family members being incestuous together - there are plenty of parents/siblings who don't like their loved-ones' chosen partner, and they just have to deal with it.

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.
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#88
Report 4 years ago
#88
(Original post by young_guns)
Mate, we're done. Stop trying to pick a fight.

Good night
Again, not trying to be offensive, I'm just trying to hold you accountable to what you're saying.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#89
Report 4 years ago
#89
(Original post by askew116)
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.
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

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.
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.

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 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?
0
reply
eroseusslf
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#90
Report 4 years ago
#90
I think, as long as it's consensual, people should be with whoever they want. Whether it's someone of the same sex, or someone they're related to.
1
reply
askew116
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#91
Report 4 years ago
#91
(Original post by young_guns)
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?
Disregarding the fact that my family set-up is different from the examples you suggested, I know for a fact that I love and accept each one of my family members unconditionally.

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.
0
reply
Everglow
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#92
Report 4 years ago
#92
Incest is a taboo of the modern day. If we take the issue of procreation from incestuous relationships out of the equation for argument's sake, then all we're doing is forcing our social stigmas down other people's throats by criminalising and demonising it. Most people don't like the idea of it - and that's fine - but that shouldn't mean the act becomes illegal because it's unpopular. Many things that we don't like or that are unethical are legal.

We wouldn't want incestuous couples to procreate for all the biological reasons that others have stated - but at the same time, does that mean we have to criminalise it? We don't criminalise people with hereditary disabilities from procreating. It might seem selfish to have children whilst knowing all the huge risks you're running with incest or a hereditary disability, but can you really justify outlawing it altogether? It's really a case on how much we want to infringe on people's freedoms.

If consent has been established and both participants of the relationship are happy then I don't see the problem. When I talk about incest here, though, I'm talking about sibling relationships, not those involving a parent and their child for example which I think is a whole other matter.

I'm not advocating incest, but I'm not condemning it either because I think it's far too easy to judge others on what we don't fully understand.
1
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#93
Report 4 years ago
#93
(Original post by askew116)
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.
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
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#94
Report 4 years ago
#94
(Original post by Zaffre)
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.
If you get pregnant you can always just abort it though.
(I don't believe in abortion myself, I'm just going by the laws and majority opinions of this country.)
0
reply
askew116
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#95
Report 4 years ago
#95
(Original post by young_guns)
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
Yes, I agree, while I could carry on debating all night, I have a busy day tomorrow, and need my beauty sleep!

Good night! :ciao:
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#96
Report 4 years ago
#96
(Original post by young_guns)
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 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.

For example, if a person believes that incest should be illegal because it carries a risk of producing children with genetic illnesses (and that is their complete justification for its illegality), then that person must also believe that people with hereditary genetic diseases should also be prohibited from having children, since that also carries the same risk. If they do not, then it means that they do not believe that this risk is, by itself, sufficient justification for banning something, in which case their justification for the illegality of incest is not complete.

Or to put this into more formal, logical language: If you propose the statement "A, because B", you're automatically assuming the validity of the greater principle "If B, then A".
1
reply
KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#97
Report 4 years ago
#97
I think incest should be legal, but only if at least one of the partners gets some kind of operation to make them sterile, such as an implant for women, or tied tubes for men.
0
reply
ftr
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#98
Report 4 years ago
#98
(Original post by young_guns)
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.
If you are against incest that does not cause harm to anyone else then you can't use the popular argument (for being gay) that two consensual adults should be able to do what they want , without sounding hypocritical.
0
reply
sean.17
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#99
Report 4 years ago
#99
(Original post by Sid99)
Because we're not discussing heterosexuals?
but if you're going to involve homosexuals, then you have to bring in heterosexuals... How can you compare the rights of homosexuals to incests and not even mention heterosexuals. This is a joke -_-
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#100
Report 4 years ago
#100
(Original post by tazarooni89)
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.
Actually it is. That's why we have thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of cases of precedent in the common law and thousands of statutes.

That is, rather three cases and two statutes
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! (163)
39%
No - but I will (22)
5.26%
No - I don't want to (31)
7.42%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (202)
48.33%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed