Homosexuality may threaten some families, but incest is taken to threaten the concept of family. — darthbarracuda

I think incest would only threaten some families too. It seems that incest will always be extremely rare so I don’t see how it could threaten the concept of family for a whole society. I actually think that incest could actually strengthen family bonds in some open minded and tolerant families. For example, imagine that a guy marries his first cousin. In the past, the 2 nuclear families would only see each other once every few years on the holidays. Assuming that all the family members are tolerant of the union, they would now have more frequent holidays and parties together as both nuclear families want to spend time with their corresponding children(who are both married to one another which just makes family gatherings really convenient). It’s also really convenient to have your in laws to also be your uncle and aunt as this allows you to minimize the amount of time needed to spend time with all your family members and it may give you more time for other stuff. So, it actually seems like a superior arrangement if everyone could just get over the yuck factor(which also used to widespread for gay relationships). It’s also worth noting that incest used to be more acceptable in the past and I don’t think it really caused too many problems for society despite the fact that they even lacked contraception.

Depends what you mean. If you mean that someone who knew they were HIV and therefore had a strong chance of harming another but had sex with them anyway, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a liberal who would disagree. If you mean that, since HIV was particularly rife among the gay community that they would, by my reasoning, be somehow retrospectively culpable, then you have not payed attention to my reasoning. — Kenosha Kid

No, I was wondering why you think the risk of bad pregnancies posed by incest is a major concern and a reason to condemn incest while also not thinking that the increased transmission of HIV by homosexual men doesn’t also give us reason to condemn male homosexuality. After all, incestuous couple can use contraception and minimize or even virtually eliminate the risk of them having children. So, why would those incestuous couples be worse than say homosexual men that are HIV negative having casual sex with a condom on? I don’t see why they are any worse people and that’s why I’m not against incest.

It's an inference from the fact that incest is the most widespread taboo in the world. — Kenosha Kid

Except that it's not. There are bigger taboos: child molestation, rape, murder, overthrowing the government, picking your toes during dinner. The biggest taboo, of course, is not defending your mother's honour if you're a guy. She's sacrosanct. But there, still is Oedipus.

Incest is not the most widespread taboo in the world.

My view is actually that both are not immoral. I don’t understand why we hate incest if we acknowledge that homosexuality is ok — TheHedoMinimalist

:chin: So, you're turning the tables on homophobes. Their argument is that homosexuality is bad because it's like incest and incest is bad. Your argument is incest isn't bad because it's like homosexuality and homosexuality is not bad!

There are two arguments:

A. The argument from incest against homosexuality. (homphobia)

1. If incest is bad then homosexuality is bad.
2. Incest is bad
Ergo,
3. Homosexuality is bad

B. The argument from homosexuality for incest. (your argument)

4. If homosexuality is not bad then incest is not bad
5. Homosexuality is not bad
Hence,
6. Incest is not bad

Note: Statements 1 and 4 are logically equivalent.

The pro-gay camp rejects premise 1 in argument A. That amounts to saying that premise 4 in argument B is dubious. The bottom line -> you can't make the argument B if argument A is not accepted on the grounds that premise 1 is false.

No, I was wondering why you think the risk of bad pregnancies posed by incest is a major concern and a reason to condemn incest while also not thinking that the increased transmission of HIV by homosexual men doesn’t also give us reason to condemn male homosexuality. — TheHedoMinimalist

That seems, alarmingly, to be the second option, although despite being asked you refused to clarify. Not comparable on any level for reasons that are abundantly clear by reading what I wrote, not what you wished I wrote.

There are bigger taboos: child molestation, rape, murder, overthrowing the government, picking your toes during dinner — god must be atheist

You know 'widespread' doesn't mean 'in my country' though, right? There are lots of countries where incest is more taboo than paedophilia, rape, revolution, etc. America had a revolution. France had a revolution. As far as I know they didn't start railing their siblings.

Being over 40 isn't an act. Incest is. — Kenosha Kid

Lame come-back, as usual. Having sex after 40 is an act, like having sex with your cousin is an act. :roll:

Like I said, having children is irrelevant to this topic. Just as gay and heterosexual couples aren't expected or forced to have children, neither should incestuous couples. Like gay couples, incestuous couples could adopt or find a surrogate.

It's your word against mine.

Except I can cite examples of what is seriously frowned upon and what is not. You just speak in generalities and claim facts without showing them or accounting for them, but which (if they were true) support your opinion. Well, they don't, until you actually show some evidence.

In America, you get the chair for killing someone. But you go scott free if you have a sexual relationship with your sibling, if you both consent and are of age of majority.

I would say this attitude (not the literal equality of severity of punishment) goes for most of the planet.

I wonder where and how you gather your statistics. At this point I am thinking you, Kenosha Kid, gather statistics from imagining what is the most convenient fantasy to support your theory and you insist that your facts are true, without showing any evidence.

Okay, I get it. You, personally, find incestuous sexual relationships more abominable than murder, rape, theft on a large scale, and crimes against humanity. I admit that it is your privilege to make personal choices in this matter. You make a mistake, however, when you extrapolate from your own personal views and insist that the entire world feels that way.

No, the entire world does not feel that way. It is reflected in our laws and customs that the world does not feel that way.

Maybe you just need to see that.

Lame come-back, as usual. Having sex after 40 is an act, like having sex with your cousin is an act. :roll: — Harry Hindu

Having sex is an act that is not under dispute. Having sex with your own close relative is a particular sex act that can lead to offspring with e.g. learning difficulties (your parents can attest). Having sex after 40 is just having sex. That is, if you're 43, you cannot choose to have sex as a 33 yr old instead, whereas you can choose to have sex with someone who isn't a close relative. Too difficult for you?

It's your word against mine. — god must be atheist

Not really. Research will elaborate, just look up incest laws and rape laws by country. I haven't done a count, but given the number of countries that decriminalised incest in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the growing number of countries that have criminalised spousal rape in the 20th and 21st centuries, right now or in the near future, it might be that incest is actually more accepted than rape (go you). Of course, there's the prior millennia to take into account too.

Not really. Research will elaborate, just look up incest laws and rape laws by country. I haven't done a count, but given the number of countries that decriminalised incest in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the growing number of countries that have criminalised spousal rape in the 20th and 21st centuries, right now or in the near future, it might be that incest is actually more accepted than rape (go you). Of course, there's the prior millennia to take into account too. — Kenosha Kid

So now that you agree with me, I'm wrong?

So now that you agree with me, I'm wrong? — god must be atheist

No no, now that you're right I disagree with you. I still haven't actually tallied them up, but even so the point was that incest has been more taboo since records began. It might be that right now or in the near future it isn't, but that doesn't change the past.

Interestingly, in the context of the OP, same-sex incest is legal in Germany. They're still worried about genetics it seems...

It seems that incest will always be extremely rare so I don’t see how it could threaten the concept of family for a whole society. — TheHedoMinimalist

Incest might be rare in part because it is seen as a taboo. Do you know how popular incest porn is?

Probably incest is a taboo at least in part because it can really mess up family dynamics. Imagine a friend tells another friend they love them romantically or erotically, but the love is not reciprocated. Already an awkward situation that can sometimes end friendships right then. Now imagine this happening between siblings, who may live in the same house, who share the same parents, and cannot nearly as easily separate in their relationship. Very awkward.

No no, now that you're right I disagree with you. I still haven't actually tallied them up, but even so the point was that incest has been more taboo since records began. It might be that right now or in the near future it isn't, but that doesn't change the past. — Kenosha Kid

I can't see you make an argument to show that recorded history now is less indicative in this set of ethical questions than the recorded history of say, 500 years ago. Because you need to prove, if it turns out that murder and rape and blasphemy was less of a taboo than incest in recorded history from 200 years ago and before, than in the more recent times, that the societal value system of that era is more indicative than the value system of our present era, of what the value system must have been in prehistoric times. I am curious how you will do that.

That seems, alarmingly, to be the second option, although despite being asked you refused to clarify. — Kenosha Kid

I don’t recall you asking me to clarify anything. What question did you ask earlier?

Incest might be rare in part because it is seen as a taboo. Do you know how popular incest porn is? — darthbarracuda

I think incest porn is only popular because it’s taboo. In fact, almost all porn seems to have taboo themes. For example, if you search the word “wife” on a porn site, you will find videos of wifes having sex with everyone but their hubbies.

Probably incest is a taboo at least in part because it can really mess up family dynamics. Imagine a friend tells another friend they love them romantically or erotically, but the love is not reciprocated. Already an awkward situation that can sometimes end friendships right then. Now imagine this happening between siblings, who may live in the same house, who share the same parents, and cannot nearly as easily separate in their relationship. Very awkward. — darthbarracuda

I haven’t thought about that. I think that’s actually a pretty good argument against incest that doesn’t also apply to homosexuality.

The difference between incest and homosexuality is this: incest usually occurs between close family members--usually between persons of opposite sex--usually involving a significant age difference. It isn't a "lifestyle"; it's a dysfunction among a small group of related persons.

Homosexuality appears to be independent of family dysfunction, and in most cases does not involve a closely related relative. There are numerous lifestyle options for a homosexual outside of the natal family, ranging from celibacy to rampant promiscuity; cross-dressing to conservative business attire; Marriage and adoption are now options. (A lot of early gay liberationists were quite glad to dispense with marriage and children The assimilationists smuggled it back in.)

Even though it seems like it sometimes, we don't live in an "Anything Goes" culture. While homosexuality may be just fine in many heterosexual circles, Man-Boy Love, and the North American Man-Boy Love Association are decidedly NOT just fine.

While a case might be made that incestuous relationships or man-boy sexual relationships are not inherently harmful, there is very strong opposition to both. My guess is that there is no natural taboo against either one, but there definitely is a cultural barrier, and it is enforced.

As billions of normal people have demonstrated, a perfectly normal heterosexual relationship between two consenting adults can be awful, never mind a sexual relationship imposed by a parent on a child, or imposed by an older male on a young male.

A big difference is that incest can span all sexual preferences while homosexuality cannot. This is because incest isn’t a mere proclivity. It operates at a different level, like bestiality or masochism, at best a kink, at worst an abomination or abuse.

I can't see you make an argument to show that recorded history now is less indicative in this set of ethical questions than the recorded history of say, 500 years ago. — god must be atheist

Eh?

I don’t recall you asking me to clarify anything. — TheHedoMinimalist

Great. You know you can follow the posts back by clicking the name of the person in the quote?

I can't see you make an argument to show that recorded history now is less indicative in this set of ethical questions than the recorded history of say, 500 years ago.
— god must be atheist

Eh? {ED: your question}

Great. You know you can follow the posts back by clicking the name of the person in the quote? {ED: your own set of instructions how to answer your own question expressed as "Eh?"} — Kenosha Kid

I am not responsible for your immediately forgetting what you had said in a one previous post. I am not going to tell you what you have written and opined, just so that you understand what I am responding to and why my response makes sense if you consider first what YOU had said.

This is very frustrating for me. If I can't rely on you to remember what you have said and thus make sense of my response, whom can I rely on to make your memory jogged?

Having sex is an act that is not under dispute. Having sex with your own close relative is a particular sex act that can lead to offspring with e.g. learning difficulties (your parents can attest). Having sex after 40 is just having sex. That is, if you're 43, you cannot choose to have sex as a 33 yr old instead, whereas you can choose to have sex with someone who isn't a close relative. Too difficult for you? — Kenosha Kid

wtf are you saying - that incestuous couples have this special power that no one else has where they can choose who they are attracted to?

If you're gay are you choosing to not have sex with the opposite sex? Is it a choice that determines what you are sexually attracted to, or what your sexual orientation is?

And like I keep pointing out-all of this is irrelevant when married couples are not forced to have babies. Having babies and being married are mutually exclusive. So why can't incestuous couples marry and adopt?

Homosexual relationships were once taboo, and are still taboo in many countries, so pulling out the taboo card is disingenuous.

KK is a waste of time. Mr. Kid isnt intellectually honest and reading their posts insults one's intelligence.

KK is a waste of time. Mr. Kid isnt intellectually honest and reading their posts insults one's intelligence. — Harry Hindu

:rofl:

I am not responsible for your immediately forgetting what you had said in a one previous post. — god must be atheist

Not suggesting that, I'm trying to figure out these two histories you're talking about. Explain.

There is nothing to explain. I think the ball is in your court. If not, then the ball got lost. I'm okay with that.

↪god must be atheist KK is a waste of time. Mr. Kid isnt intellectually honest and reading their posts insults one's intelligence. — Harry Hindu

One wise person told me never to chalk up to malice what you can explain with ... well, with stupidity. I don't think Kenosha Kid is stupid... far from it, but his mind has become muddled. Maybe not, but his writing style and his getting lost in the explanation of his own point indicate that he maybe was very strong intellectually in the past, but he is no longer. I don't know him, I only go by what I see reading his posts. I may be off the mark totally, but I did notice that he can't express what he thinks, because most likely what he thinks leaves his mind before he can succeed in writing it down. Or else he remembers he used to think something, but that thing is gone now. As simple as that.

Sorry to see that, maybe he will get better. I wish him good luck with his health.

I don't mean to be mean. I sincerely think what I wrote here, without any intention to hurt or to offend.

There is nothing to explain. — god must be atheist

Then there's nothing I can do with that since I don't understand wtf you're talking about anymore. If you can't explain it either, then we're in the same boat.

My latter point was simply that you may (soon) be right that incest is currently/will be less taboo than rape. Nonetheless up until recently that wasn't the case. There's nothing difficult to grasp about this.

Sorry to see that, maybe he will get better. I wish him good luck with his health. — god must be atheist

Ummm... Thanks, I guess. This is my fault for engaging, I guess.

The difference between incest and homosexuality is this: incest usually occurs between close family members--usually between persons of opposite sex--usually involving a significant age difference. — Bitter Crank

Out of the 3, I think the only meaningful difference is that it occurs between close family members as this can create awkward situations that I think are more difficult to avoid than say having sexual tension with your coworkers(I think quitting your job is much easier than avoiding your family usually). I’m not sure why the age difference would matter(unless someone is underage or something) and I’m not sure why it would be bad for it to be between persons of opposite sex.

It operates at a different level, like bestiality or masochism, at best a kink, at worst an abomination or abuse. — NOS4A2

What’s the difference between a kink and a sexual orientation though? I’m pretty sure that, historically, homosexuality was viewed as a perversion just as incest or bestiality are viewed today.

I’m not sure why the age difference would matter (unless someone is underage or something) — TheHedoMinimalist

That is a critical consideration. Underaged children are vulnerable to exploitation by adults because they a) aren't strong enough to defend themselves; b) have no context to understand sex with an adult; c) are too small to physically participate in penetrative sex safely. Children have sexuality and sexual urges which are far less developed than an adult's. Plus, sexuality apart, their brains are not fully developed yet either. Those are the standard reasons why adults and children should not have sex.

Are there imaginable situations where a child and adult might have a mutually satisfactory sexual experience? Probably. This might be the case for incest, homosexuality, or unrelated heterosexual adult/child interactions. However, the likelihood that these sorts of interactions will not end well is much higher than these interactions being fondly remembered by everyone concerned.

Human beings are very likely to put their own personal and private wants and needs before anyone / everyone else's needs. That's just the way we are, UNLESS we have internalized social controls, and even then... This isn't just a problem of sexual behavior; it's a problem with a lot of our behavior, across the board. People who irrationally and resolutely refuse to be vaccinated against Covid 19 are a good example.

Long ago I read an anthropologist's account of a small society that encouraged its children to be as sexual as they wished to be from an early age. While children tended to be sexual with other children who were more or less at the same stage of development, this wasn't always the case. Sometimes children and adults had sexual contact. While this wasn't punisher's, it wasn't encouraged either.

The upshot of the report was that children reached sexual maturity with a very good understanding of what to expect from sex, how to engage in good sex, and what other potential sexual partners had to offer in terms of companionship, and so forth.

Sounds like a utopia. This society was abnormal -- maybe a happy one, but very unusual in its sexual norms. Some young children manage a fair amount of sexual experimentation even in our schizoid society. It was probably easier for gay boys to do this than for heterosexual youth. It wasn't utopian, of course. If an adult caught one in the middle of this activity, it could result in a hysterical episode (on the part of the adult). I'm 75. I have no idea what children are up to these days.

KK is a waste of time. Mr. Kid isnt intellectually honest and reading their posts insults one's intelligence.
—Harry Hindu

:rofl: — Kenosha Kid

Proving my point, I see.

wtf are you saying - that incestuous couples have this special power that no one else has where they can choose who they are attracted to?

If you're gay are you choosing to not have sex with the opposite sex? Is it a choice that determines what you are sexually attracted to, or what your sexual orientation is? — Harry Hindu

<crickets chirping> — Kenosha Kid

:rofl: