But then wouldn’t that bring us BACK to the arguments against homosexuality? One could argue that the biological factors weigh in favor of male-female relationships, since procreation is a sexual activity and the reproductive organs are meant for compatibility.
I realize that the counter-argument would be that sexual preference is also a matter of biology (is the hypothalamus thing still good science?), but the increasing cultural acceptance of homosexuality seems to be premised in consent and personal identity…which again, seems to be the basis of the pro-incest crowd.
Furthermore, if you wanted to argue a biological basis for homosexuality, you’d have to somehow prove that body should conform to brain (whereas the anti-gay crowd would argue that brain should conform to body). The only trump card I see the pro-homosexual argument playing is that it comes back to preference and consent.
My head hurts. I feel like I’m running in circles.
Incest destablizes families. Parents could not raise their children as effectively in they were also looking at them as future sex partners. Siblings would not interact the same way either. The example where both silbings are over eighteen and use birth control would still be wrong, because if they think of that as a happy memory, it might influence how they raise their children, the sister might allow her husband to have sex with her daughter, and so on.
An example to illustrate why incest is wrong: Imagine an eighteen-year-old man who adopts a ten-year-old girl. Eight years later, he marries her. Is that wrong? Of course, even thought they’re not related. Parents, siblings, and potential mates must all be kept separate in a child’s mind, so that they can have a normal childhood.
Homosexuality is a fixed orientation that cannot be changed. Incest is simply behavior. There is a diffrence between an innate part of one’s biology and chosen behavior.
Isn’t it hypocritical to be against homosexuals but not interracial couples? Or are you against both of those too? How do you feel about adulterers? Pre-marital sex? Sex with an infertile partner? Are you incapable of making distinctions at all, or is it just homosexuality and incest that you have trouble telling apart?
ResIpsaLoquitor there is very little biological problem with homosexuality, as long as it doesn’t replace hetrosexuality completely. In no way do they form a burdon on society that allows homosexuality…
Insest on the other hand has the side effect of producing genetically week children, these become a burdon on the society that allows insest.
Hetrosexual sex without the risk of childbirth is only quite recently available, so only in modern societies does the prohibition about hetrosexual genital insest become less important.
Question: in societies where homosexuality was accepted but insest was not. Were there taboos against insestuous homosexuality? or were the taboos only against insetuous heterosexuality?
From a biological point of view, it would seem hypocritical. The same factors that cause the ick factor for incest almost certainly (IMO) cause the ick factor for homophobes.
What it really comes down to is the good of those participating in it, different to preference and consent. But that leads to a rather vague argument which is easily misunderstood.
If, and only if, the majority of incestuous relationships are healthy and for the good of the individuals involved, then my argument is void and I have negatively stereotyped incestuous relationships. However, since the evidence seems to be that the majority of incestuous relationships are unhealthy we can generalise and say that for the good of the many, we can justify denying the very small minority who could have their lives greatly improved through incest their nookie for the sake of the greater good of the many who would be affected adversely by the general populace approving of incest.
My argument here is completely theoretical, so go ahead and disagree with me. But I’m guessing that if we in any way explicitly approve of incest, then:
a) Some people would use such an explicit approval to try and explain away sexual assault in terms of consensual incest
b) Some people would be harmed by getting into incestuous relationships that would cause unforseen developmental issues down the track
and I believe that the problems incurred here outweigh
c) A minority of people would engage in fantastic, wonderful incestuous relationships that made their life more fulfilling.
However, looking back I can see that my point differs very slightly from Gyrate’s. I’m also including a group of people who could have their lives positively affected by incest with someone they know to be their relative. Can such relationships exist? I think the point is most likely moot as I don’t think a respectable developmental or clinical psychologist would suggest that an incestuous relationship with a sibling you grew up with could be healthy.
I think it’s really the developmental issues that set this one into a category of it’s own. While I’m not sure what the general liberal consensus is on allowing people to screw up their own lives, it seems to me that even liberal philosophy draws many lines for the case of children due to developmental reasons. I can imagine no possible way of codifying the situation such that the amount of positives coming out of an explicit approval of incest outweighing the negatives. Note that these views are independent of an innate aversion to incest, it’s just that in the case of incest a maladaptive trait (and hence the innate mechanism) matches up with a trait that is generally bad for the individual. I think all here except Sinful would argue that in the case of homosexuality a maladaptive trait (with homophobia as an innate defence mechanism, IMO) does not match up with any harm to the individual. And by this I mean harm by engaging in the activity, not harm by the reaction of closed-minded individuals etc…
If liberal philosophy dictates that we should give such an approval even if the bad outweighs the good, and that people’s private lives are their own to screw up, then wouldn’t the position in the OP be impossible for a liberal to hold by definition?
Everyone keeps citing the genetic problems. Why do all hetero relationships have to be about breeding? Relationship=!breeding. It can, but it’s not an absolute.
And that still wouldn’t address a homosexual incestuous relationship.
Also, Diogenes, can you cite for me how all incestuous relationships are purely psychological? If homosexuality is Biological, so would Hetero correct? From that point is it bio or psycho based? Do you have a cite for either way? If a guy has a desire to have sex with women, how is it worse if she is his sister?
That’s it? We’re having this debate based on what someone feels is “icky”?
Heck, I find the thought of certain sexual practices “icky”, but I wouldn’t want to base either legislation or dogma on that. I find Marmite icky – should I lobby my local MP to have it outlawed? What about those people who sit next to you on public transport who smell a bit funny – should I have them arrested? This is ludicrous.
Moderators, ban the heritic Gyrate is marmiteaphobic.
There is a question about how much we should protect people from the things they find “icky” in their daily lives. And what things is it acceptable to find “icky” as opposed to what things people should attempt to stop feeling “icky” about.
For instance children often find the idea of kissing to be “icky” (especially in movies, on TV) but this is something society hopes they will grow out of. Many people seem to find the idea of nudity to be “icky”, what protection if any do we owe to such people to stop them having to encounter nudity in their everyday lives?
Marmite notwithstanding, my point is that “things I personally don’t like” does not equal “things that are inherently bad”. I suppose I should be used to this by now, but nevertheless it continues to astonish me that most people seem unable to tell the difference between the two.
I think there also needs to be something else in the equation, before ,“things I personally don’t like” turns into “things that are inherently bad”.
If you find something “icky” but don’t find a group that agrees with you, you simply tend to believe it is your own problem in finding it “icky”. Even if a significant group agrees with you (eg not liking to eat raw liver) that does not make the thing wrong, since the group in general don’t find wrongness in the thing.
But if you find it “icky” and a group finds it wrong, then you will convert to finding it wrong under group pressure. So someone who dislikes meat and finds it “icky” can easily be converted to someone who finds it wrong by a group of vegetarians, for example.
If we find out why something is seen as “icky” we may then find the key to changing peoples minds about the thing, before they become converted to people who feel the thing is inherently wrong.
As a child I found homosexuality “icky” because it was associated with men who acted in a weak and feminine way. Though to young to have any idea of its sexual meaning the link to being soft and unmanly was strong enough to make the idea of homosexuality “icky”. Looking back, if I had known in those days of such heroes as Alexander the Great, and Lawrence of Arabia, being homosexuality inclined, it would have helped break that feeling of “ickyness”.
allS i Know iS ifin my sis is good enuf fer dady she be gooD enuf fer me. Momma tolt me there aint nuthin wrong with luvin yere famly in that specal durty way as long as y’all goes to curch cum sundy.
Y’all don’t castristrate me cuz im difrent…that jery sprnger fella said i gots sum potentyall
who is you ta judj anyhowe, you aint seen my sisturwife yet
There are a great many behaviors, sexual and otherwise, people engage in that I find icky. Mega-icky. Ickissimo. My personal shudders of revulsion have nothing whatsoever to do with whether those behaviors should be made illegal.
When a behavior is harmful to other people, I think we should define the law as narrowly as possible, so that we outlaw the harmful behavior without forbidding similar but harmless behavior.
If some dude wants to fuck a chicken before eating it, ew ew ew, but that’s his business and not mine.
If somebody masturbates in public IN A WAY THAT I DON’T HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT, I see no reason why it should be illegal. (However, if there’s any chance that I’m going to stumble across what they’re doing, then we can start building the case that it’s harmful, in a disturbing-the-peace kind of way).
And if two adults decide to have sex despite the fact that they’re siblings or otherwise closely related, EW EW EW but not my business. As long as they don’t engage in the behavior in a harmful fashion (e.g., having children, which has an abnormally high chance of producing deformities), it shouldn’t be illegal.
I have no problem with a person who thinks homosexuals are freaks, or who thinks a longhair semi-androgyne like myself is a freak, or who thinks people who spend many hours every week on a messageboard is a freak. They’re entitled to their opinions. Sinful, you’re perfectly entitled to think anyone’s a freak. As long as you don’t try to put your opinions into law, there’s no problem.
I say that anyone who judges others as being freaks must have issues and be freaks themselves. Why would they care otherwise? To the long hair guy… Unless you live in some tiny hick town, I tend to doubt people view as a freak. Longhair was socially acceptable 20 years ago. “I may not agree with what you say but i will defend to death your right to say it”
