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

tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#161
Report 4 years ago
#161
(Original post by young_guns)
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.
I'm not referring to situations where they do not possess mens rea. I'm referring to for example, a genetically related brother and sister who are raised completely separately, meet later on as adults but at which point they do not know they are related (i.e. they have no family connection to each other), and then they begin a relationship. After they discover they are genetically related, they still decide to continue that relationship (hence, mens rea).

In this case, it's not possible to claim that a family relationship is being destroyed by that relationship, because they never had one in the first place.

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.
Again, I have not referred to any case where they "have no other family". I'm referring to cases in which, although the couple are genetically related, they did not have an actual family relationship with each other in the first place, and so there is nothing to destroy with a sexual one.

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.
Yes, but this is just an example of how a family could be destroyed by incest. It is not demonstrative that family relationships are necessarily destroyed by incest.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#162
Report 4 years ago
#162
(Original post by Wahid-r)
I didn't say they're identical, the relevant factors are similar. They both pertain to the rights of consensual adults.
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.

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?
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#163
Report 4 years ago
#163
(Original post by tazarooni89)
Again, I have not referred to any case where they "have no other family". I'm referring to cases in which, although the couple are genetically related, they did not have an actual family relationship with each other in the first place
Being unaware that they are your sibling doesn't mean they're not your sibling.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#164
Report 4 years ago
#164
(Original post by tazarooni89)
Yes, but this is just an example of how a family could be destroyed by incest. It is not demonstrative that family relationships are necessarily destroyed by incest.
That's how things generally would go down, and I feel perfectly happy to legislate on the basis of how they would proceed 9 times out of 10.
0
reply
Jessika13
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#165
Report 4 years ago
#165
I completely understand what you are saying. I am completely accepting of gay relationships and marriage... However there is something about incest that aside from having children, I can't accept. Maybe it's the way I've been brought up because I have a lot of family I'm not blood related to, but my family were raised to accept them as your family and those types of relationships are not okay. I also cannot look at any member of my family and even think about anything other than family, it's just not natural to me. Having said that I understand you can't help who you love. Personally though, I think it's a love that shouldn't be acted upon but I'm in no place to judge somebody as I've never been in their shoes.
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#166
Report 4 years ago
#166
(Original post by young_guns)
What agreement? You abandoned it because me claiming pragmatism and expedience as my principles doesn't allow you to claim any inconsistency.
I abandoned it? You should get your memory checked.

(Original post by young_guns)
Oh dear, you're reaching now. Apart from the fact that few people with a good command of the English language would consider expedience a "higher principle" (higher implying something loftier)

But I'm happy to let you stretch the English language because it leaves me original argument wholly intact and creates no inconsistency between the treatment of gay people and the treatment of incest practitioners if expedience and pragmatism is the sole consideration
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Its not really stretching. A 'higher principle' being that which is above others. Pragmatism and expedience can in fact qualify as higher principles. You seem to have assumed there are objective higher principles but at the same time suggest that they are subjective. As I said previously any justification for a position is a 'higher principle' as it is seen as above the matter at hand.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#167
Report 4 years ago
#167
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
I abandoned it? You should get your memory checked.
You'll have to show me the bit where we "reached agreement" according to you.

And yes, you abandoned it. The thrust of your original argument (though it was all really shadow boxing and we didn't get down to it explicitly) was that if one accepts the "higher principle" in homosexuality (your presumption being that this higher principle is that consenting adults can do what they like) then one would be forced to accept it with incest.

Of course, that argument fell because my higher principle, and that in most laws as I demonstrated, is not "consenting adults can do what they like" but "expediency and pragmatism rule the day", and evolutionary change in discrete categories rather than grand plans being applied across society.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#168
Report 4 years ago
#168
Being unaware that they are your sibling doesn't mean they're not your sibling.
It does however, mean that you don't have a "family relationship" with them. It means you're just related by blood; but as far as an actual sibling relationship goes, there's nothing to destroy.

(Original post by young_guns)
That's how things generally would go down, and I feel perfectly happy to legislate on the basis of how they would proceed 9 times out of 10.
How do you know how many times out of 10 the situation would end up as you describe? It's not like there's a vast array of statistics on how incestuous relationships have turned out, in order to evidence this?
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#169
Report 4 years ago
#169
(Original post by tazarooni89)
How do you know how many times out of 10 the situation would end up as you describe? It's not like there's a vast array of statistics on how incestuous relationships have turned out, in order to evidence this?
And this argument goes the other way as well. Unlike with gay marriage, there is no serious constituency (except for right on university students who presume to speak for those who have actually experienced incest) calling for a change in the law.
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#170
Report 4 years ago
#170
(Original post by young_guns)
You'll have to show me the bit where we "reached agreement" according to you.

And yes, you abandoned it. The thrust of your original argument (though it was all really shadow boxing and we didn't get down to it explicitly) was that if one accepts the "higher principle" in homosexuality (your presumption being that this higher principle is that consenting adults can do what they like) then one would be forced to accept it with incest.

Of course, that argument fell because my higher principle, and that in most laws as I demonstrated, is not "consenting adults can do what they like" but "expediency and pragmatism rule the day", and evolutionary change in discrete categories rather than grand plans being applied across society.
Can you not even read what you said?
(Original post by young_guns)
But I'm happy to let you stretch the English language because it leaves me original argument wholly intact and creates no inconsistency between the treatment of gay people and the treatment of incest practitioners if expedience and pragmatism is the sole consideration
That is agreement (if reluctant).

In either case, you have admitted (even if not using the words 'higher principle') that you are arguing not in the name of pragmatism or expedience but rather in defense of the family. You have repeated time and again that you believe that the reason incest should be illegal is because it destroys families. That then is your 'higher principle'. Now I am still waiting for you to show that incest destroys families irrevocably and that it is inherent in incest (regardless of social stigma against such relations).

Furthermore, in order to be consistent (and be taken seriously as a justification) you ought be applying this to other situations which destroy families. Which I can tell you are reluctant to do (merely adultery is not enough). What about parents who leave and cut off all ties with their family? What about those who go against there families wishes? What about merely dating a partner that your family vehemently opposes? What about gay parents in an anti-gay household? What about gay children in anti-gay households? These all hold the potential (and in some high likelihood) of destruction of families and familial relationships. Should they all also be criminalized?
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#171
Report 4 years ago
#171
(Original post by young_guns)
And this argument goes the other way as well. Unlike with gay marriage, there is no serious constituency (except for right on university students who presume to speak for those who have actually experienced incest) calling for a change in the law.
Yes, you're right. But then it remains the case that both incest and homosexual relationships have the potential to harm families, but that neither must necessarily do so; meaning that the "harm to families" principle is still an incomplete argument.

However, I think you've pointed out the crux of the reason as to why one is legal and the other isn't; it's ultimately because one is more popular and in demand than the other. You can bet that if there was sufficient pressure from the public to make incest legal, it probably would be legalised.
0
reply
hdaindak
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#172
Report 4 years ago
#172
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.

didn't think of that- thats true
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#173
Report 4 years ago
#173
(Original post by hdaindak)
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.

didn't think of that- thats true
Cheers I think it's certainly one of the important distinctions to consider when assessing the effects of legislation banning one or the other
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#174
Report 4 years ago
#174
(Original post by tazarooni89)
homosexual relationships have the potential to harm families
How do homosexual relationships have a potential that is inherent in their homosexuality, rather than inherent in any relationship, gay or straight?

Also, to underline the above point (in case you didn't read my page 2 explanation of why banning homosexuality is wrong and banning incest is acceptable); given the harm inherent in incest, one should give considerably more weight to the fact that it is not really that oppressive to ban an incestuous relationship, certainly not in the way it is to ban a gay relationship.

If you ban gay relationships, then gay people cannot have a serious, satisfying sexual/romantic relationship. If you ban incestuous relationships, the practitioner still has billions of other potential partners
0
reply
Sid99
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#175
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#175
(Original post by young_guns)
Being unaware that they are your sibling doesn't mean they're not your sibling.
I mean you pretty much exposed all the prejudice and double standards you hold in the above quote.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#176
Report 4 years ago
#176
(Original post by Sid99)
I mean you pretty much exposed all the prejudice and double standards you hold in the above quote.
I'm starting to think you're obsessed with me. Last time you flounced off and said you were going to ignore me, you promised that this time you really would ignore me.

And :lol: you seem to be confused about the meaning of prejudice or double standard.
0
reply
Sid99
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#177
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#177
(Original post by young_guns)
I'm starting to think you're obsessed with me.

And :lol: you seem to be confused about the meaning of prejudice or double standard.
Of course I am bb you're so loveable

No I am not

"preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."

Seems to describe you throughout the entire thread,
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#178
Report 4 years ago
#178
(Original post by Sid99)
Of course I am bb you're so loveable
Last time you flounced off and said you were going to ignore me, you promised that this time, you really would.

It's almost as if you're butthurt over something I said? If you don't have the strength to ignore me, I'm happy to help you by ignoring you?
0
reply
Sid99
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#179
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#179
(Original post by young_guns)
Last time you flounced off and said you were going to ignore me, you promised that this time, you really would.

It's almost as if you're butthurt over something I said? If you don't have the strength to ignore me, I'm happy to help you by ignoring you?
BB please stop messaging me it's not going to work out between us,
We need to let it go

In all seriousness I don't understand why anyone is bothering to respond to you to be honest you just keep repeating the same moot points.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#180
Report 4 years ago
#180
(Original post by young_guns)
How do homosexual relationships have a potential that is inherent in their homosexuality, rather than inherent in any relationship, gay or straight?
Consider what might happen for example, if a homosexual relationship or marriage took place between members of two highly religious and conservative households. Family ties can, and often are damaged.

Also, to underline the above point (in case you didn't read my page 2 explanation of why banning homosexuality is wrong and banning incest is acceptable); given the harm inherent in incest, one should give considerably more weight to the fact that it is not really that oppressive to ban an incestuous relationship, certainly not in the way it is to ban a gay relationship.

If you ban gay relationships, then gay people cannot have a serious, satisfying sexual/romantic relationship. If you ban incestuous relationships, the practitioner still has billions of other potential partners
If you ban incestuous relationships, how can you say that any of the "billions of other potential partners" would provide a sexual/romantic relationship that is sufficiently serious or satisfying for the people involved? Perhaps they have eyes for each other only (especially if they've already been in a relationship for a long time before knowing that they're related).
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! (458)
38.01%
No - but I will (91)
7.55%
No - I don't want to (85)
7.05%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (571)
47.39%

Watched Threads

View All