Is there a difference between homosexuality and incest?

fishpaste

I know the obvious differene (=P), I mean in terms of morals etc. Logically speaking. Assuming homosexualiy is morally sound, does this imply that incest is morally sound? Or is there a fundamental difference which makes it immoral?

I'd say, yes, incest between a male/female is dangerous, for any children they might accidentally end up bearing, and there's a tendany for it to be an abusive relationship in many cases such as say father/daughter. But I struggle to see any reason why say, two sisters who for whatever reason decided they wanted to get it on would be any of my business.

Incest is regarded as being a-moral to the extent it interferes with transfer of genes. Procreation of two heterosexual people of the same bloodline can result in biological/psychological deficiencies with the child, and it's future relationships. Due to these (generally biological) considerations, incest is regarded as immoral (and illegal). In the case of homosexual relationships, logically speaking, these reasons don't seem to exist any longer, so that seems to be of no problem. However, since homosexuality has remained in the dark for so long, and was considered immoral for a long time itself, I would assume that homosexuality, combined with "incest" would not evoke social enthousiasm. In other cultures, for example the Etoro - tribe, homosexual behavior with elder is a necessary step for boys to become men. Problems like these are best looked at form a perspective as broad as possible, instead of looking at it within our own cultural predispositions.

Reply 65

I wanted to say something more about morality in general. What is considered moral or immoral is very much a specific thing to a specific culture. Morality, itself a more concrete interpretation of natural law principles, is something a society expresses in order to guarantee social cohesion and the "proper" function of that society. Thus, morals do evolve, to a large extent, with the evolution of a society as a whole, however it can be argued that there are some more critical moral principles, such as the precept not to kill (which is in fact also essential for the survival of a society). However, morality in the western world has been translated in religious terms (catholic church) in the course of history. In this context they can be of a more instrumental-political nature. I strongly feel that arguments such as "sex is meant for procreation" (to give an utterly stereotypical example) are colored by this religious context and still carry the sediments of the historical purpose the Catholic Church devised these moral principles for. contemporary western society is traited by cultural and religious diversity, and there, an interpretation of morality like this will fall short. Human rights doctrines, for example, present us with a more general and neutral framework of basic values to guarantee cohesion and a functioning society insofar they are not so much colored by specific religious considerations or ideology, and can function as a framework in which different cultures and religions (or self-invented transcedental inclinations) can flourish side by side, respecting one another. This is a certain ideology as well, but this time expressed in the legal world in stead of the moral/religious world. An expressive acknowledgement of the acceptance of higher order principles in law can be found in the De Martens clause (in the field of humanitarian law).

Reply 66

VanBen

Incest is regarded as being a-moral to the extent it interferes with transfer of genes. Procreation of two heterosexual people of the same bloodline can result in biological/psychological deficiencies with the child, and it's future relationships. Due to these (generally biological) considerations, incest is regarded as immoral (and illegal).

So if two people incestuously indulge in sexual activity with each other but do not procreate is should then be legal as the science cannot provide a justification as there is no procreation.

Reply 67

NDGAARONDI

So if two people incestuously indulge in sexual activity with each other but do not procreate is should then be legal as the science cannot provide a justification as there is no procreation.

Not at all, scientific grounds are the main arguement, but next to that scientific arguement, lots of others can be found of a more social nature (e.g. family values).

Reply 68

VanBen

...lots of others can be found of a more social nature (e.g. family values).

True but the most common reasoning for outlawing incest is the scientific one in my experience. Then people will refer to morality and not realising its links with natural law and religion and... :rolleyes:

Reply 69

That's why we need academics :wink:

Could you specify your last post a bit more though?

Reply 70

Well people often advocate a view with reasoning that they will not use in other situations, consistency really. For example quoting holy text for one thing but not another etc.

Reply 71

NDGAARONDI

Well people often advocate a view with reasoning that they will not use in other situations, consistency really. For example quoting holy text for one thing but not another etc.

That is, unfortunately, very true. However, people in academia are supposed not to show a similar degree of inconsistency and logically/empirically found their findings. This is, however, another debate I think :smile:

Reply 72

VanBen

This is, however, another debate I think :smile:

It is.

Reply 73

aleathiel