head vs. wall
Scifes said:
because that's the only excuse that withstands logical scrutiny.
Historically, homosexuality has been received by societal institutions negatively, to the point of being a capital offense. I find it very illogical to suggest that people have chosen a lifetime of discrimination and, in many cases, risked their very lives, purely for a sexual rush.
once again, so is incest and bestiality.
I don't disagree.
i find it the first wave of personal freedom running wild.
5 years after incense and bestiality activists walk the streets
waving signs, objecting to incense would be a matter of "persecution and supermacism".
"The first wave of personal freedom running wild"?
In truth, though, I'd be very interested to see the first mass protest in support of incest or bestiality. No, really: Let's see that "Don't Steal My Bitch" pride, if for no other reason than I want to know who I need to protect my dog from. (Actually, in truth, I don't have a dog, but rather, a cat. Many people describe her colloquially, however, as a bitch, for whatever that's worth.)
i REALLY doubt that donkey was trained.
It's a bit hard to take that video seriously, for a couple of reasons. Male animals will fuck
anything. I have a friend whose cat tries to mate with its hunting kills. Yes, cross-species necrophilia.
Or the proverbial dog humping your leg: It's
masturbating, and you're it's "pocket pussy".
Still, though, I want to know how the donkey managed to get the guy's pants down. Or, more correctly, no, I don't, but it
is important to your argument.
If people want to admit they're so pathetic that they can't get a date of the other gender,I don't see any reason for me to get involved in their sex lives.
I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but as a comparative argument it doesn't exactly work. Indeed,
I've actually addressed this part of the argument before, when people were using their revulsion toward incest as an argument against homosexuality:
... [F]or most of history, marriage was not primarily about the individual needs and desires of a man and woman and the children they produced ....
.... Reviewing the role of marriage in different societies in the past ... I came to reject two widespread ... theories about how marriage came into existence ... the idea that marriage was invented so men could protect women and the opposite idea that it was invented so men could exploit women. Instead, marriage spoke to the needs of the larger group. It converted strangers into relatives and extended cooperative relations beyond immediate family or small band by creating far-flung networks of in-laws.
(Coontz, 5-6)
I understand if you've never encountered this before; it was two years ago, and the homophobes weren't especially interested in addressing this even then, so it didn't get much discussion. So, to reiterate what I wrote two years ago:
And you might also stop to consider the
purpose of marriage. Incestuous unions do not fulfill the purpose at the root of what the homophobes refer to as "traditional marriage". Indeed, but for bastardy laws—which, incidentally, are few and far between in the twenty-first century—homosexual marriage does fulfill that purpose ....
.... Incest does not regard the larger group; it does nothing to extend cooperative relations beyond immediate family. As British commentator and radio and television host Mark Steel remarked of Darwin's marriage:
As Darwin pieced his theory together, it caused him enormous anxiety; he became obsessive. For example, he used a similar method to the one he'd used to work out natural selection to decide whether or not to get married. He wrote out two columns headed, "Marry", and "Not Marry". Under "Marry" was,
Constant companion and friend in old age; better than a dog, anyhow .... Charms of music and female chit-chat .... Intolerable to think of spending one's life like a neutered bee.
A biologist's way of saying, "Well, at least I'll get me end away on a regular basis." Under "Not Marry" was,
Conversation of clever men at clubs, perhaps quarreling .... Not forced to visit relatives.
Which may be why he married his cousin. He was thinking, "Well think of the time I'm saving in visiting relatives. 'Cause her relatives are the same as mine. I'm laughing!"
(The Mark Steel Lectures)
Now, I understand if your personal sentiments are more influential to you than, say, a well-documented study of the historical, psychological, and anthropological roles of marriage in humanity (e.g., Coontz), but there
is a tremendous difference in the differentiation between gay and incestuous relationships.
so does homosexuality and marriage
I don't agree. In a gay marriage with children, you have parents and children; the
parents are the sexual partners. The relationship between parent and child is still one of authority and guidance. In an incestuous family, you have parents and children, and there are no differentiated boundaries about their roles in the family relationship; parents can be sexual partners with the children, though we would hope that part of the relationship at least waits until the children are of age.
One thing I find striking about your argument is that it does not recognize the differentiation of relationships between incestuous and non-incestuous families.
Virtually all cultures have instituted strong parent-child relationships, husband-wife bonds, man-woman division, and special relationships, cultural roles, and statuses, according to one's biological connection with other individuals. In a word, all cultures know of some form of kinship relationship, for the incest taboo is universal, regulating sexual relationships and establishing differences among people according to their kinship status.
The incest taboo may be considered the core of kinship systems. Inasmuch as restrictions on sexual partners come up, Culture creates a system of differentiated relationships that assigns a specific place to each individual, according to his position in the larger system. The incest taboo gives rise to the first great kinship differentiation among individuals: there is a group of people one is forbidden to have intercourse with (relatives), and a group of people one is permitted to have intercourse with (non-relatives).
The incest taboo is a universal institution; thus, kinship is also universal. Yet, this universality is by no means a biological fact. Even if it is a universal feature, it is a cultural feature that regulates biological behaviour. In other words, man is biologically incestuous, but Culture regulates his behaviour, imposing incest regulations and thus creating the cultural concept of kinship.
(Andrade)
This basic differentiation of the family or kinship structure within society is long-standing. One is certainly welcome to challenge its validity, but that is part of the point: Somewhere along the line, incest advocates such as yourself
must address these issues. And that requirement isn't necessarily for the satisfaction of your critics, but, rather, because if you do not address such issues consciously and methodically, you will address them anyway, subconsciously and neurotically.
So don't take me wrongly here: You are welcome to challenge the foundation and application of
Object Relations Theory, one of the vital benchmarks of psychological research—e.g., libido as object-seeking,
viz. Fairbairn, Klein—but that's
at least how deeply your superficial argument needs to go; you don't seem to recognize the implications of what you're advocating.
well they already figured out those changes and dealt with them when they accepted homosexuality.
Really? You think so? You think two men, or two women, having sexual contact redefines the parent-child relationship as drastically as parents having sex with their children?
it's called sexual freedom, and family is what its members want it to be, if the members of the family want it to be with two mothers or two fathers, or two siblings who have different mothers but their two fathers are married, then it's their business, those who can't accept it suffer from persecution issues and supermasicm.
same with a family of a father/husband and wife/daughter.
At a superficial level, it's called sexual freedom. At a psychological or anthropological level, it's something else entirely. I understand that those who have no particular care about the implications of behavioral sciences don't go any deeper than the conveneient surface considerations, but, functionally, those issues
are important. My only argument about incest is that one must eventually reconcile those deeper issues.
And, yes, I recognize that's inconvenient for incest advocates.
oh, what selectiveness.
so is the sense of refuge more important than the sense of breeding in a family?
I'm sorry, but are we supposed to take that seriously?
i disagree with the whole point you're making.
That's expected.
-being exempt from sexual considerations isn't necessary, being exempt from BAD sexual considerations is.
it's less healthy for a normal girl to be negatively judged by her sexuality in her whole life except home than for a girl practicing incest whose sexuality is moderately considered at home and everywhere.
And I'm sure you have a wealth of psychological literature to support that point.
families fostering a healthy sexual atmosphere is independent of sexual relationships within that family.
Incorrect.
Insofar as incest is a universal taboo, one that appears to be universally broken, it provides a unique opportunity for linking Bowen family systems theory with the other sciences, particularly sociobiology and anthropology. Incest provides an excellent example of gene-culture coevolution. Incest cannot be reduced to cultural or individual differences and thus provides an issue of substance about which Bowen family systems theory can contribute a new perspective.
Furthermore, the prohibition against incest serves as one fo the central organizers upon which the family as a multigenerational emotional system is constructed. This taboo, as we shall see in reviewing the anthropological findings, represents a baseline for normative operation of the individuality-togetherness forces. The prohibition against incest is an elemental bedrock upon which physical and emotional differentiation within the family can occur. The breakdown of this prohibition can lead to a range of social, psychological, and physical symptoms, including the possibility of the extinction of the family.
Finally, incest is a phenomenon that can highlight the differences between Freudian theory, which is the basis for most individually oriented theories of behavior, and Bowen family systems theory. Incest viewed from a psychoanalytic perspective is understood mostly in terms of an unconscious fantasy experience—the Oedipus complex originating in the intrapsychic experience of the child. The focus is on the Oedipal triad. In contrast, a Bowen family systems perspective is more interested in incest as an actual, factual behavior that is real, not fantasized. Through the lens of Bowen theory, incest is understood in terms of the interlocking emotional triangles in the multigenerational emotional process. Also, Bowen family systems theory combines a theory of the family emotional system with evolutionary biological theory. Bowen theory resides upon Darwinian natural systems theory, and it is both an application and expansion of that theory as applied to the human family. Thus, where Freudian theory would look at the underlying basis of incest in terms of the balance of id, ego, and super-ego, Bowen family systems theory describes incest as a manifestation of an imbalance of the forces of individuality and togetherness.
(Titelman, 300-301; boldface accent added)
Incestuous relationships do not reflect a culturally appropriate balance of self and other within the family environment. And, yes, one can certainly challenge such an assertion, but you're going to have to come up with something better than the freedom to get it off in order to address the practical issues involved.
-besides, family isn't the only place, you have friends as well.
Obviously one's friendships are not clearly differentiated in the case of incestuous unions. Or, to put it superficially for your benefit:
Then get on your friends, damn it!
-thirdly, what about children's need of parents of both genders? or are homosexuals' children undeserving of that?
Your
real agenda has never been a secret in this thread. From the title "the shit that doesn't stink" to the basic comparison of homosexuality to incest and bestiality, to the present argument. What the child needs, above all else, is
qualitative. That is, the child needs
loving and
nurturing parentage. You might as well ask if children with a dead parent are undeserving of parents of both genders. Are you suggesting that if a parent dies, the other is
obliged to remarry as soon as possible in order to provide a replacement unit for the children?
-what about incest between two fully grown adults?
What, has this not been covered already?
your point is far fetched and doesn't affect the matter significantly. it's also leaning greatly on how sick your society is.
Our society is sick because we
don't have sex with our parents, siblings, and offspring?
Or did I miss something about what passes for your argument?
now you're introducing irrelative external elements to better suit your argument.
what you said can happen to married couples as well. it's in no way special to incense.
:facepalm:
that has already been done.
in the old dictionary, the one running for thousands of years,is that a family can't exist without a mother and father.
Tell that to the war widows who raise their children.
but look at how homosexuality has changed things.
You know, we all recognize that this thread is
really about your sentiments toward homosexuals, but the desperation of your argument is tragically entertaining. What you remind is the frequent inability of homophobes to recognize anything deeper than the most blatantly superficial.
This is a chronic problem of homophobia. In the 1990s, for instance, when homophobes brought gay rights to the fore, they had trouble with the idea of
consent; the comparison back then was that homosexuality was akin to necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia, none of which involve proper consent by one party to the sexual act. Since then, it's just been variations on a theme. Polygamy, for instance, is a matter of numbers and object relations; incest is a matter of object relations.
At some point, these homophobic arguments need to delve deeper than mere appearances, and deal with the psychological and anthropological implications of sexuality. In the end, a gay marriage is only a superficial distinction from a heterosexual union. Your argument overlooks single parenthood, whether through divorce, willful parental absence, or death. It implies that a parent rendered single through whatever means ought to rush out to replace the missing family member, but gives no consideration to how the child feels about the replacement—how many step-parents have heard a child lash out, "You're not my
real mother/father!" But, apparently—
• "thirdly, what about children's need of parents of both genders? or are homosexuals' children undeserving of that?"
• "in the old dictionary, the one running for thousands of years,is that a family can't exist without a mother and father."
—such considerations either haven't occurred to you or, for some reason, simply aren't important.
not seeing the looming question, or its answer?
You cannot provide an answer without first recognizing the question.
i wonder of those who can't see the links can't think for themselves and merely repeat what they're told.
When the response is YouTube footage of some idiot running around bare-assed in a field with a horny jackass, there's really not much I can say about it.
Your argument is primarily political, it seems. As I said, all you have to do to legitimize incestuous relationships is redefine the function of the family unit in society. And the fact that gay people can be good parents has
nothing to do with the proposition of having sexual relations with one's offspring.
the main scientific argument defending homosexuality being moral is that it's natural.
that is a fallacy.
and hypocrisy.
it is a fallacy because it assumes that as long as it's natural it is moral. which is called Appeal to tradition
Incorrect. What you have asserted is a revision of history. The argument that homosexuality occurs in nature pertains to the persecutory and false assertion that homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural. The underlying assertion of fact—that homosexuality is unnatural—is incorrect; one thus cannot draw the conclusion of its immorality therefrom.
it is hypocrisy because incense is natural* as well, but still deemed immoral, or to say the least, disgusting and repelling. while homosexuality is seen as normal and ok.
The incest taboo has certain biological and evolutionary roots. And you're welcome to challenge them.
http://www.livescience.com/health/080116-incest-science.html
In truth, I'm uncertain what your point is with that link. The incest taboo among humans is a cultural expression.
"Asexual reproduction is [like] the ultimate in incest because you're breeding with yourself," Wheelwright told LiveScience. "You can still see species asexually reproducing, or cloning themselves, in situations where there is no advantage to [sex]," he said, "and you can see species that commit incest where there is no penalty to inbreeding.
(Mosher)
Show me, please, what it looks like when a single-celled microorganism fucks itself.
Additionally, the link reinforces the proposition that the incest taboo is a cultural expression of evolutionary outcomes:
Because so-called higher organisms such as humans are susceptible to life-shortening genetic combinations, Lieberman thinks nature has weeded out incestuous behavior over time through natural selection. Humans and other animals, she said, likely evolved ways to detect and avoid mating with their close relatives.
"We don't have DNA goggles to detect our relatives, but I think we've evolved psychological systems that help us do so," Lieberman said, including face recognition and even scent. But Lieberman thinks the strongest cue humans have is growing up with a sibling under the same roof.
"People refer to this as the Westermarck Effect, which essentially says children who co-reside are much less likely to breed with each other when they reach adulthood," she said.
Even unrelated children who grow up together exhibit avoidance toward inbreeding, she said.
"The Kibbutz communities in Israel are a good example," she said. Only weeks after birth, mothers give their kids to a "children's society" staffed by trained caregivers. Lieberman said people raised in the same community are much less likely to marry each other than someone from a neighboring area.
Another example Lieberman noted are 1800s records of arranged Taiwanese "minor" marriages, where parents would arrange a marriage for their daughter by handing her over to the future groom's household shortly after birth.
"Compared to 'major' marriage arrangements, where a couple meets just before the wedding, minor couples had fewer kids," she told LiveScience. "Minor couples frequently refused to consummate their marriage, so the fathers would stand outside their door until they did."
Lieberman thinks minor couples had such trouble because they grew up with one another, "activating the genetic cues that screamed, 'Avoid mating with this person,'" she said. "Those cues probably didn't get activated with the brother-sister couple who married. They didn't grow up together."
It is certainly
interesting. Arnhart overplays the "conflict" between Westmarck and the Freudian outlook. Still, though, you are only reiterating that your argument runs up against nothing less than evolution itself. As Arnhart puts it, "I think the incest taboo is one of the clearest illustrations of how a moral rule can be explained by a Darwinian view of human biological nature."
I'm not sure that a couple of "bored teenagers alone together with too much time on their hands" makes that strong an argument justifying incestuous sexual relations. It's not as if the "ability of the human libido to suppress one's moral judgment is truly amazing" is what we might call a revolutionary new idea. And, indeed, since what ended the relationship was his "leaving home to go to college", we only see a reinforcement of the proposition that one simply needs greater socialization outside the immediate family structure.
but more to the point ....
I'm not certain the
proposition that bonobos "mate with all members of its group, regardless of age or sex" helps your argument; it's a misnomer to describe that as pedophilia, but we can set that aside since the issue is incest.
That said, incest certainly does occur in the animal kingdom. Many animals will mate with their relatives if no other mate is available ....
(Leolupus)
Meanwhile, I look forward to your paper expounding on the sexual habits of
wasps as a justification for human incestuous relations. For the rest of us, however, it is worth noting that
Metzger et al. observed:
In the context of mate choice we show, for the first time in a non-social hymenopteran species, that females can avoid mating with their brothers through kin recognition. In "no-choice" tests, the probability a female will mate with an unrelated male is twice as high as the chance of her mating with her brothers. In contrast, in choice tests in small test arenas, no kin discrimination effect was observed.
Once again we see incestuous tendencies arising in a restricted mate-selection environment. As this applies to humans—
"besides, family isn't the only place, you have friends as well."
—this would seem to indicate that the regular sociobiological advice is to get with the friends.
Or maybe they're not as pretty as your mom, or rugged and manly as your dad.
It just seems like a whole lot of effort to justify closing off the mate-selection network.
____________________
Notes:
Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, a History: from Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking, 2005.
Steel, Mark. "Charles Darwin". The Mark Steel Lectures. British Broadcasting Corporation. BBC 4, London. November 4, 2003. Television.
Andrade, Gabriel. "The Transformation of Kinship in the New Testament". Anthropoetics, v.11, no.1. Spring/Summer, 2005. Anthropoetics.UCLA.edu. November 8, 2010. http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1101/andrade.htm
Daniels, Victor. "Object Relations Theory". October 20, 2007. Sonoma.edu. November 8, 2010. http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/objectrelations.html
Titelman, Peter. Clinical Applications of Bowen Family Systems Theory. London: Psychology Press, 1998. Books.Google.com. November 8, 2010. http://books.google.com/books?id=N8kouwnl5CYC
Mosher, Dave. "Incest Not So Taboo in Nature". LiveScience. January 16, 2008. LiveScience.com. November 8, 2010. http://www.livescience.com/health/080116-incest-science.html
Arnhart, Larry. "So What's Wrong with Incest?" Darwinian Conservatism. October 7, 2006. DarwinianConservatism.BlogSpot.com. November 8, 2010. http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2006/10/so-whats-wrong-with-incest.html
Leolupus. "Do Pedophilia and Incest exist in the Animal Kingdom?". Yahoo Answers. 2008. Answers.Yahoo.com. November 8, 2010. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081210082354AAr1mg8
Metzger, Marie et al. "Does Kin Recognition and Sib-Mating Avoidance Limit the Risk of Genetic Incompatibility in a Parasitic Wasp?" PLos ONE 5(10): e13505. 2010. PLoSone.org. November 8, 2010. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013505
