Homosexuality (relation to Incest)

N

Norsefire

Salam Shalom Salom
Registered Senior Member
Recently I had an interesting debate with my friend. This friend of mine is actually quite liberal; he is pro-gay rights, etc, in fact the only "right wing" view of his is that he is pro-death penalty

Anyway, he was saying to me that gays should be allowed to marry because it isn't bothering anyone else. I said, "True, but it is still a violation of tradition and classical morality, and there can be other ways of recognizing gay couples without the need of marriage, therefore preserving the institution of marriage for heterosexual couples while allowing homosexual couples the legal rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples"

Then he said to me "but it's not wrong to them. How can you tell them it's wrong?"

This presented me with an interesting tool, using this own logic against him. I moved on to incest, of which he is fanatically opposed. The interesting part is, when I asked him why it's wrong, he said "it's just wrong; it's not the same thing. It's very wrong. How can you defend it?"

Interestingly, he was unable to elaborate (and also interestingly, this was my previous stance on homosexuality. I used to think it was just "wrong" and could not believe people actually defended it. Since then my viewpoint has changed)

However, I argued that it was exactly the same situation: two consenting adults. To this, he responded "still it's wrong"

And I said "yes, to you, however if two people are consenting and want to do it, who are you to stop them? Who are you to decide what is right and wrong"; in the argument I was pro-incest (of course I am not though)

Thereby twisting the argument, and using the same logic against him. Both incest and homosexuality involve the same situation: two consenting adults. Therefore, if you approve of one, you MUST approve of the other. He continued to claim that it was "wrong", but could not elaborate. I then told him that, nonetheless, it's not his right to decide what two consenting adults do in their private time since they are not harming you.

Now, if we use mathematics, we can say this: 2X=2. Let's say this equation is true of homosexuality (the number 2 I simply picked off the top of my head and has no real correlation to the situation)

Now, since incest meets the same situation, we can say 2X=2. If X is the situation (which I will give the number 1), then 2*1=2, 2*1 can not equal anything but 2.

Therefore by legalizing homosexual marriage, logically, you must legalize incestial marriage.
 
If they are consenting adults, sure. If your sister/brother or son/daughter is well into adulthood and is not doing it for a misguided reason, eg mental health problems, I see nothing wrong with that. However, if they want to have children, that is a problem for said children, because incest -> genetic defects.
 
visceral_instinct said:
If they are consenting adults, sure. If your sister/brother or son/daughter is well into adulthood and is not doing it for a misguided reason, eg mental health problems, I see nothing wrong with that. However, if they want to have children, that is a problem for said children, because incest -> genetic defects.
Click to expand...

Therefore you honestly do not think incest is wrong?:bugeye:

No, if they want to have children, they should be free too. Right? Homosexuals are allowed to adopt in a handful of nations.
 
NGHGHGHH. There's a difference between incestuous couples having children, and gays adopting. Being adopted won't give you a debilitating physical defect.
 
I can't think of any moral reason why 2 incestuous adults can't get married. I can think of a reason they shouldn't have kids. But I hold the same reason for any couple with a genetic disorder. Its selfish and they are putting their wants before the health of their child. They can adopt same as a gay couple.
 
Very good argument,

I knew a Jewish couple that were married and were first cousins, they had a child who was what could be described as very needy and high maintenance with ADD, but I don’t know if it was due to birth defects or just being Jewish. (Nothing against Jewish people, they all seem characteristically very high strung and energetic or what I have heard termed ‘Very New York’)

Isn’t this above relationship incest between first cousins?

Growing up I also knew a 14 year old teen brother and his 13 year old sister who were always sexually active with each other and very open about it, they never had children but boy if they did I bet it would have been birth defect city as the two of them were not what could be described as very normal.. But everyone in the neighborhood got a kick out of them..
 
Orleander said:
I can't think of any moral reason why 2 incestuous adults can't get married. I can think of a reason they shouldn't have kids. But I hold the same reason for any couple with a genetic disorder. Its selfish and they are putting their wants before the health of their child. They can adopt same as a gay couple.
Click to expand...

You don't find incest wrong?
 
Between 2 consenting adults? No.
Not something I would want my kids doing, but its not immoral. Just because I don't understand how they could or why they would, doesn't mean its immoral. There are lots of sexual things I find icky, but they aren't immoral.
 
Orleander said:
Between 2 consenting adults? No.
Not something I would want my kids doing, but its not immoral. Just because I don't understand how they could or why they would, doesn't mean its immoral. There are lots of sexual things I find icky, but they aren't immoral.
Click to expand...

It's generally considered taboo and immoral in everywhere in the world.
 
thread not going the way you want norse?:p

i agree with shorty, the only form of incest which should be illegal is child abuse and for the same reason. Maybe it should still atract a higher penelty because the person SHOULD be caring for the child no abusing them.

However between conenting adults who cares? There is a father daughter relationship which was recently in the media here, apart from the fact these 2 kept having kids i dont think it should really make any difference.

And as VI said they shouldnt have there OWN genetic kids, if she used a sperm bank or they adopted who cares?
 
Orleander said:
yes, now it is. Didn't used to be. Used to be that was how you kept the bloodlines pure.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that it is wrong?

Asguard said:
thread not going the way you want norse?
Click to expand...
Actually I do not mind; however, my point was mainly that if we are going to be legalizing all of these silly things, it will mark a total collapse in morality and tradition.

agree with shorty, the only form of incest which should be illegal is child abuse and for the same reason. Maybe it should still atract a higher penelty because the person SHOULD be caring for the child no abusing them.
Click to expand...
Two things
1) Shorty never posted in this thread
2) Incest is not child abuse...

However between conenting adults who cares? There is a father daughter relationship which was recently in the media here, apart from the fact these 2 kept having kids i dont think it should really make any difference.
Click to expand...
Even though it's wrong?

And as VI said they shouldnt have there OWN genetic kids, if she used a sperm bank or they adopted who cares?
Click to expand...
Many people care because it is wrong.

My main point, however, was the hypocrisy of pro-gay rights people who oppose incestial marriage, of which I'd say most PEOPLE regardless of how they feel on homosexuality do.
 
Aware how many times you used the word 'wrong' as a reply in that post, Norse? While you criticized your friend for doing so.

I think people only care about incest because they find the idea of themselves engaging in such a practice with their parents, children or siblings pretty cringe-worthy. They are simply not that way inclined. Ring a bell?
 
Ack, Norsefire, quit whining that it's wrong. If they adopted or used sperm bank, they would not be putting the child at risk of defects, therefore IT'S NOT WRONG. THEY'RE 2 CONSENTING ADULTS. GET YOUR NOSE OUT OF THEIR BUSINESS.
 
Creepy ....

Norsefire said:

Therefore by legalizing homosexual marriage, logically, you must legalize incestial marriage.
Click to expand...

If we stick to an utterly simplistic consideration, indeed. Incestuous marriage, even more than is alleged of homosexual marriage, defeats the purpose of the institution. Historically, and anthropologically, the purpose of marriage over the millennia has been to acquire in-laws. Incestuous marriages contribute nothing to this purpose. In the last century and a half or so, though, marriage in Western countries has become more and more about far-flung and self-centered romantic notions.

In principle, I simply side with P.J. O'Rourke, who noted in Modern Manners that incest is simply pathetic, an acknowledgment that one is incapable of sustaining or building new familial relationships. One could fairly make the argument that this is indicative of psychological dysfunction.

Nonetheless, we tend to drone on and on about the children, but even that complaint is more complicated than we are generally comfortable admitting.

More than anything, the question of incest only further devalues state participation in the marital institution. Law professor Joanna Grossman notes that incest laws "have largely religious origins". Additionally,

There are other justifications for incest laws that might be more compelling. Anthropologists Margaret Mead and Claude Levi-Strauss both wrote convincingly in defense of the "incest taboo." Mead characterized the widely held belief that incest is wrong as "among the essential mechanisms of human society."

According to Mead, the taboo has strong benefits: Because certain sexual and marital relationships are categorically forbidden, and the categorical ban is instilled early on in children's minds, children can grow and develop affectionate, close bonds with a wide span of relatives, without the intrusion of "inappropriate sexuality." Children can "wander freely, sitting on laps, pulling beards, and nestling their heads against comforting breasts-neither tempting nor being tempted beyond their years."

Levi-Strauss focused on the benefits of the incest taboo to society at large. The ban on intrafamily marriage forces families to reach outward and connect with other families -- and it is those connections between many different families that make society function.

(Grossman)
Click to expand...

And while one can certainly appreciate Mead's assertions, I am unsure that we can justify prohibition on such grounds. Levi-Strauss makes a point recently explored by Stephanie Coontz in Marriage, A History:

In the 1970s anthropologist Ernestine Friedl pointed out that most of the functions of marriage could in theory be performed by a group of brothers and sisters. "Procreation," she wrote, "could be accomplished by irregular sexual encounters with men and women of other sibling groups, with each set of brothers and sisters supporting the children of the sisters only." The only thing such a system could not do, she said, was allow individuals to acquire in-laws. She suggested therefore that the effort to acquire in-laws was as vital purpose of marriage as the organization of reproduction or the enforcement of incest taboos.

Friedl's comments were mere speculation before the recent publication of a huge and fascinating study of the Na, a society of about thirty thousand people in the Yunnan Province of southwestern China. Among the Na, the only society we know of in which marriage is not a significant institution, brothers and sisters live together, jointly raising, educating, and supporting the children to whom the sisters give birth ....

.... The Na are a startling exception to what otherwise seems to be the historical universality of marriage. But this society makes one thing clear: Marriage is not the only way to impose an incest taboo, organize child rearing, pool resources, care for elders, coordinate household production, or pass on property to the next generation. It is, however, the only way to get in-laws. And since the dawn of civilization, getting in-laws has been one of marriage's most important functions. (32-33)
Click to expand...

In the end, if people are really determined to marry their sibling or some such, there isn't a tremendous lot we can do to stop them that isn't disingenuous. However, even if we pull away all legal barriers to incestuous marriages—

The term "incest" -- which conjures an image of a sexually exploitative relationship between an older male relative and a young girl -- is one barrier to cultural change. Cousin marriages between two adults are not, of course, incestuous in this sense.

Just as the term "bastard" gave way first to "illegitimate child" and later to "nonmarital child" in the literature on unwed parenting, perhaps "incest" could be replaced with more palatable terms like "kinship marriage" or "distant consanguineous relationships."

(Grossman)
Click to expand...

—it is likely that for generations, such relationships will still face social prejudice that is patronizing at best. In the long run, children of consanguineous unions present a greater theoretic instability to the species, but such, it seems, is natural selection. After all, love, marriage, and procreation these days are not about society but individuals. But we're the human species, and being self-centered hasn't destroyed us yet. I highly doubt kissing kinship in our societies will be enough to accomplish that outcome.
____________________

Notes:

Grossman, Joanna L. "A genetic report should cause a rethinking of incest laws". FindLaw/CNN. April 10, 2002. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/columns/fl.grossman.incest.04.09/

Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking, 2005.

See Also:

Saletan, William. "Incest and Delayed Motherhood". Human Nature. Slate. May 19, 2008. http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/humannature/archive/2008/05/19/incest-and-delayed-motherhood.aspx
 
Norsefire said:
...
...
...
Therefore by legalizing homosexual marriage, logically, you must legalize incestial marriage.
Click to expand...

Incest is bad becuase it often results in severe genetic problems for any resultant children. That becomes a burden to society as well as the children.

Homosexuality results in no children... which is good for our overpopulated world.
 
Norsefire said:
"True, but it is still a violation of tradition and classical morality,
Click to expand...
I find this a key point in many of your positions. We should keep doing things a certain way because it is tradtional. What year should we use as the cutoff point?

It was once tradition to only let men vote. Should we have continued that?
It was once legal in the US to fire someone if they were gay. Should we have continued that?
It was once legal to own slaves there. Should we have continued that?
And so on....
 
I'm not against incest in consulting adults. But, I really doubt most of the Adult-Child incest relationships are mutual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top