Choose your dysfunction?
These sorts of threads are unsettling for the ignorance they suggest. To wit:
Scifes said:
homosexuality is supposed to be ok mainly because it's harmless and it's a personal sexual trend/orientation, which is a personal freedom.
Where do you get that? "Personal sexual trend/orientation"? Is that from the latest Family Research Council paper on the subject?
Homosexuality has existed since before humans were human. It exists in nature. Are gay penguins following a "personal sexual trend/orientation"? Homosexuality is a
natural outcome.
I mean, really, let's consider a gay child in the twenty-first century. I guess the parents were part of some secret society, some underground conspiracy, to maintain homosexual bloodlines in society. I mean, I think of a transgendered seven year-old I know, and it
never occurred to me that his parents were closet homosexual conspiracy agents, or secret transsexuals.
The controversy over homosexuality is one of persecution and supremacism.
why can't the same be said for incest or bestiality if agreed upon by both parts?
why do some people see incest wrong, then go on defending homosexuality with excuses which are applicable to incest and bestiality?
Explain to me how an animal consents to sexual intercourse.
Should we conclude from your question that you think a Pavlovian outcome, that is, operant conditioning—say,
training your chihuahua to want you to stick your penis into it—equals consent? Why not, then, just groom children as sex slaves? I mean, as long as you can condition them to accept the labor, it's consent, right?
As to incest, the issue is a little more complicated. To the one, fine, whatever. To the other, though, people need to re-examine what it is they want and expect of the basic family structure. Sure, incest is, technically, fine with me. If people want to admit they're so pathetic that they can't get a date outside the family, I don't see any reason for me to get involved in their sex lives. However, such an outcome redefines the nuclear family at a fundamental level. Its purpose in and relationship to society changes, and before incest ever becomes legal and acceptable, the society is going to have to figure out what those changes are and how to deal with them.
Now, I'm of the
opinion—and you'll find that psychologists more or less agree—that if we simply remove from the family structure the sense of refuge a person experiences and even constructs for themselves within the family unit in order to make incestuous relations more acceptable, we will create and inflame various neurotic dysfunctions.
A practical application: I have a daughter. As the years pass, she will more and more interact with the attitudes in society that judge her according to her sexual worth. Does she have a fine ass? How are her tits? Does she spit or swallow? Is she a screamer, or is she quiet? Does she like being on top? Will she take it up the ass?
It's actually very important to her psychological development and stability that she have a part of the world in which she is exempt from such considerations. The way American society is constructed,
family is the best potential for creating and maintaining such a refuge. And that refuge is what people will reject when they resort to incest.
Imagine the people who won't bother to go home for a holiday dinner because they don't want Dad asking them for a blowjob, or a sibling trying to get in their ass.
So the question we encounter in considering incest is, simply, "
What is the purpose of the family structure in society?"
All you have to do to legitimize incestuous relationships is redefine the function of the family unit in society.
And, yes, I admit that the fact that one cannot see that looming question—or, in the case of bestiality, the issue of consent—strikes me as indicative of troubling ignorance. Indeed, when trying to figure the relationship between these issues and homosexuality, I find myself wondering whether those who see such links as you suggest are desperate, hateful, or simply stupid.
