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

young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#141
Report 4 years ago
#141
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
I, nor Tazarooni89, have stated that one necessitates the other (in either direction). We just also understand how logic works. If you have reason x for being against y and x applies to z then you ought have some kind of justification for treating them differently.
I have provided such a justification, and I've even said I'd be willing to treat adultery in a similar way.

I don't think you're ever going to accept that I have an opinion on the subject, you seem to take it quite personally and even if I make a perfectly valid argument, you don't accept it.

Time to call it quits mate. If you can't accept that when someone is willing to treat adultery in the same way as incest they do have some consistency, then you've clearly become emotionally involved in the subject to the point where you will never look objectively at another person's arguments
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#142
Report 4 years ago
#142
(Original post by young_guns)
The difference between adultery and incest is that adultery doesn't inherently destroy a family relationship, whereas incest does. Though I would certainly be willing to consider a heavy fine in some cases of adultery, just like I would want a heavy fine but no prison for sibling incest

Actually an incestuous coupling must necessarily do so. A gay coupling does not
What makes you think that incest must necessarily destroy a family relationship? Note for example, that a large proportion of incest occurs between people who, though related by blood, didn't actually even have a family relationship or didn't know they were related to start with. What is there to destroy, in this instance?
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#143
Report 4 years ago
#143
(Original post by Wahid-r)
The daughter wouldn't be 9 years old in this example if that's what you're thinking. Would I take it that you're also against brother-brother relationships?
Yes.

You only believe it is carrying water because you're prejudiced against incestuous couples.
Which incestuous couples am I biased against? Where is this incestuous lobby? It's rank homophobia to say that gay people have some kind of unique obligation to favour parents having sex with their children
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#144
Report 4 years ago
#144
(Original post by young_guns)
I have provided such a justification, and I've even said I'd be willing to treat adultery in a similar way.

I don't think you're ever going to accept that I have an opinion on the subject, you seem to take it quite personally and even if I make a perfectly valid argument, you don't accept it.

Time to call it quits mate. If you can't accept that when someone is willing to treat adultery in the same way as incest they do have some consistency, then you've clearly become emotionally involved in the subject to the point where you will never look objectively at another person's arguments
What about gay couplings that cause rifts within the family unit? For example extremely religious families where the child or parent being gay has destroyed all ties etc. Should that criminalized? What about just cases of divorce where the parents are on such bad terms that the children lose a parent completely? If we follow your justification then an extremely high level of things become criminal, not only that but what is the test for determining this 'destruction of the family'?

I haven't been emotional. I have been critical. But whatever. I think everyone can see how reactionary you are to people who don't agree with you (your interaction with Wahid-r)
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#145
Report 4 years ago
#145
(Original post by tazarooni89)
What makes you think that incest must necessarily destroy a family relationship? Note for example, that a large proportion of incest occurs between people who, though related by blood, didn't actually even have a family relationship or didn't know they were related to start with. What is there to destroy, in this instance?
In cases where they didn't know they were related (rare) then I wouldn't punish them as they wouldn't have possessed the requisite mens rea.

But it's still wrong as in the case where they have no other family, they are destroying the only family relationship they do have. When their relationship ends, they will be alone in the world again. No family member who will always be there for them. That is destructive.

The same argument is made if you have a nuclear family; Mum, Dad, son and daughter. The father and daughter have a tempestuous affair, and then an acrimonious break up. The Mum then divorces the Dad for obvious reasons, and the father and the daughter don't ever want to see each other again. Family destroyed.

Personally, I think that's tragic and my philosophy of the role of the state calls for it to deter such things through legislative means
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#146
Report 4 years ago
#146
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
I haven't been emotional. I have been critica
No, you badger people you disagree with even when they make a point that has completely undermined yours, because you have no objectivity on the matter. And you keep changing the subject when you get shot down (not hitting the higher principle idea any more, are we?)

We're done.
0
reply
Wahid-r
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#147
Report 4 years ago
#147
(Original post by young_guns)
Which incestuous couples am I biased against? Where is this incestuous lobby? It's rank homophobia to say that gay people have some kind of unique obligation to favour parents having sex with their children
Why does there need to be a lobby in order for it to be a legitimate cause and for your opposition of it to be prejudice? Make an argument with substance.

You're on a roll today. Where did I say that only homosexuals should be accepting of incest?
I said that if a person believes that homosexuals should have rights, they should be accepting of incestuous couples. On what new definition is that homophobic? Don't throw around words when you clearly don't know what they mean.
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#148
Report 4 years ago
#148
(Original post by young_guns)
No, you badger people you disagree with even when they make a point that has completely undermined yours, because you have no objectivity on the matter. And you keep changing the subject when you get shot down (not hitting the higher principle idea any more, are we?)

We're done.
I make sure you're being consistent? Thats called being critical. When have you undermined my points? And what makes you think I lack objectivity? :confused:

We had come to an agreement on the higher principle idea remember? Hence the not addressing it anymore?
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#149
Report 4 years ago
#149
(Original post by Wahid-r)
I said that if a person believes that homosexuals should have rights, they should be accepting of incestuous couples.
Which pretty much means gay people have an automatic obligation to be in favour of incest, according to you
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#150
Report 4 years ago
#150
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
We had come to an agreement on the higher principle idea remember? Hence the not addressing it anymore?
What agreement? You abandoned it because me claiming pragmatism and expedience as my principles doesn't allow you to claim any inconsistency.
0
reply
Wahid-r
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#151
Report 4 years ago
#151
(Original post by young_guns)
Which pretty much means gay people have an automatic obligation to be in favour of incest, according to you
So?
I extend this to anyone who supports LGBT+ rights. Case in point: I'm a straight cisgender man, but it extends to me.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#152
Report 4 years ago
#152
(Original post by Wahid-r)
So?
I extend this to anyone who supports LGBT+ rights. Case in point: I'm a straight cisgender man, but it extends to me.
What you're saying is straight people have a choice whether they want to be in favour of incest. But if a gay person doesn't favour it, you think they're a hypocrite

See how you're treating the two sexualities differently?
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#153
Report 4 years ago
#153
(Original post by Wahid-r)
So?
I extend this to anyone who supports LGBT+ rights. Case in point: I'm a straight cisgender man, but it extends to me.
Do you accept that just because some of the arguments against homosexuality are also used against incest, it doesn't follow that just because they were wrong the first time around, it would be wrong the second time around? To claim that because they were wrong to apply to homosexuality they must be wrong to apply to incest is a logical fallacy

Do you accept that homosexuality and incest are not the same thing? If you do, and you accept they need to each be looked at on their own merits, then why put some bogus putative obligation onto gay people to favour it? Why short circuit the debate in that way if you're comfortable it would stand on its own merits?
0
reply
Wahid-r
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#154
Report 4 years ago
#154
(Original post by young_guns)
What you're saying is straight people have a choice whether they want to be in favour of incest. But if a gay person doesn't favour it, you think they're a hypocrite

See how you're treating the two sexualities differently?
Wow, I just said I'm straight and it applies to me too. Should I use a larger font or spell things onomatopoeically so it's easier for you to follow?
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#155
Report 4 years ago
#155
(Original post by Wahid-r)
Wow, I just said I'm straight and it applies to me too.
How does it apply to you too? A straight person can choose not to favour gay rights, can't they? Are you claiming that a straight person and a gay person not favouring gay rights has the same implications?

A gay person who didn't favour LGBT rights would be a hypocrite. The implication in your comments is a gay person who doesn't favour incest is a hypocrite.

Whereas a straight person who didn't favour it might be a bigot, but not a hypocrite
0
reply
Wahid-r
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#156
Report 4 years ago
#156
(Original post by young_guns)
How does it apply to you too?
...because I support LGBT+ rights.

A straight person can choose not to favour gay rights, can't they?
Yes, so can a gay person.

Are you claiming that a straight person and a gay person not favouring gay rights has the same implications?
Allow me to clear all the confusion you seem to be having.
If someone supports LGBT+ rights, they should also support rights of incestuous couples.

Now, EVERYONE should support both LGBT+ and rights of incestuous couples.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#157
Report 4 years ago
#157
(Original post by Wahid-r)
...because I support LGBT+ rights.
You might, but there's nothing that is inherently inconsistent about a straight person not supporting gay rights, right?

Whereas a gay person not supporting gay rights would be hypocrisy.

Allow me to clear all the confusion you seem to be having.
You can do it by answering two simple questions

(1) Is a straight person who doesn't support incest rights a hypocrite?
(2) Is a gay person who doesn't support incest rights a hypocrite?

If you dodge, then it's not confusion but more like your attempt to obfuscate
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#158
Report 4 years ago
#158
(Original post by Wahid-r)
If someone supports LGBT+ rights, they should also support rights of incestuous couples.
Why? That would be a serious argument if homosexuality and incest were identical.

Are they identical?
0
reply
Wahid-r
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#159
Report 4 years ago
#159
Whereas a gay person not supporting gay rights would be hypocrisy.
No, if a gay person wants to enjoy those rights but is against those rights being extended to all gay people then that's hypocrisy. Simply being gay and being against gay rights isn't hypocritical.

You can do it by answering two simple questions

(1) Is a straight person who doesn't support incest rights a hypocrite?
(2) Is a gay person who doesn't support incest rights a hypocrite?

If you dodge, then it's not confusion but more like your attempt to obfuscate
(1) That depends on whether they support LGBT+ rights.
(2) That depends on whether they support LGBT+ rights.
0
reply
Wahid-r
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#160
Report 4 years ago
#160
(Original post by young_guns)
Why? That would be a serious argument if homosexuality and incest were identical.

Are they identical?
I didn't say they're identical, the relevant factors are similar. They both pertain to the rights of consensual adults.
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! (469)
38.13%
No - but I will (95)
7.72%
No - I don't want to (87)
7.07%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (579)
47.07%

Watched Threads

View All