homosexuality vs. incest vs. beastiality,polygamy,etc.

[loverofloveandstuff]

This is inspired by betamanlet's thread (http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t256806/) which has got me questioning my own beliefs regarding homosexuality, incest and the rest of the social sex related taboos. Without thinking, my natural reaction is that I support homosexuality but incest just seems totally wrong to me.

 

Is it just that I have been socially conditioned to accept homosexuality but not incest and beastiality? I am having trouble justifying homosexuality, without justifying incest... Can anybody help with this?

 

Years ago, homosexuality was was far less accepted than it is today. Maybe if I was born in that time, I would have the same reaction to incest as I do to homosexuality. Do you think society will evolve to accept these other taboos mentioned someday?

Edited December 10, 2010 by loverofloveandstuff

[TaraMaiden]

Incest only became an illegal offence in the UK in 1911.

 

In some communities it is acceptable as the norm, in others it has replaced homosexuality as "The Love that dare not speak its name".

 

I read an article in a UK magazine that interviewed siblings who were in love, and either had to hide it, because of social moral ethical public opinion, or were open about it and were subject to every form of hindrance, abuse and legal action possible....

There are more siblings in intimate relationships than anyone imagines.

 

Just as polyandry is discussed more and more widely nowadays, I think other matters might surface as being subjects worthy of logical and reasoned discussion.

 

The one thing of course, providing a big argument against incest, is the dangers of genetic failure and flaw.

 

Societies and customs are constantly changing, and even today, some states of the USA for example, have different laws regarding the Age of Consent.

 

I mean, just look at Jerry Lee Lewis and the furore surrounding his marriage to his cousin....13 at the time.....

 

I'm very open-minded. Sometimes, I surprise myself (!) but I can generally discuss anything dispassionately.

There are some things I find abhorrent, like the abuse of very young minors and children used in the sex trade....

But I can still discuss them quite openly.

 

I think it depends on how accepting one can be of how very complex human beings are.....

[theBrokenMuse]

Beastiality is wrong for the same reason that pedophilia is. There is only one party able to offer consent.

[Crusoe]

Incest only became an illegal offence in the UK in 1911.

 

In some communities it is acceptable as the norm, in others it has replaced homosexuality as "The Love that dare not speak its name".

 

I read an article in a UK magazine that interviewed siblings who were in love, and either had to hide it, because of social moral ethical public opinion, or were open about it and were subject to every form of hindrance, abuse and legal action possible....

There are more siblings in intimate relationships than anyone imagines.

 

Just as polyandry is discussed more and more widely nowadays, I think other matters might surface as being subjects worthy of logical and reasoned discussion.

 

The one thing of course, providing a big argument against incest, is the dangers of genetic failure and flaw.

 

Societies and customs are constantly changing, and even today, some states of the USA for example, have different laws regarding the Age of Consent.

 

I mean, just look at Jerry Lee Lewis and the furore surrounding his marriage to his cousin....13 at the time.....

 

I'm very open-minded. Sometimes, I surprise myself (!) but I can generally discuss anything dispassionately.

There are some things I find abhorrent, like the abuse of very young minors and children used in the sex trade....

But I can still discuss them quite openly.

 

I think it depends on how accepting one can be of how very complex human beings are.....

 

Have you travelled the world? I don't mean the tourist thing, the nice places. I mean the deep, dark, nasty, filth ridden streets and jungles of the world? Have you seen close up and personal the misery and suffering the complexity of the human mind causes if left to it's own devices?

 

Loveroflove, I sincerely hope society does not "evolve" to accept these other taboos. If we do, some of the wretched sights I've witnessed in those sh*tholes of the world will be commonplace on our streets.

[loverofloveandstuff]

Have you travelled the world? I don't mean the tourist thing, the nice places. I mean the deep, dark, nasty, filth ridden streets and jungles of the world? Have you seen close up and personal the misery and suffering the complexity of the human mind causes if left to it's own devices?

 

Loveroflove, I sincerely hope society does not "evolve" to accept these other taboos. If we do, some of the wretched sights I've witnessed in those sh*tholes of the world will be commonplace on our streets.

 

Can you elaborate on the moral differences between consensual incest and homosexuality? Can you justify one but not the other? I feel the general consensus on incest is 'eww... that's disgusting, just WRONG' and it's one that I initially jumped to but nobody has actually justified why.

 

I have not travelled the world in the way you have described but there are enough stories in the papers everyday to atleast get some idea of the extent of human suffering.

[loverofloveandstuff]

Beastiality is wrong for the same reason that pedophilia is. There is only one party able to offer consent.

 

Yeah, that's true. I guess this topic should focus more on incest vs homosexuality then...

[loverofloveandstuff]

I'm very open-minded. Sometimes, I surprise myself (!) but I can generally discuss anything dispassionately.

There are some things I find abhorrent, like the abuse of very young minors and children used in the sex trade....

But I can still discuss them quite openly.

 

I think it depends on how accepting one can be of how very complex human beings are.....

 

 

Thank goodness for open minded people and those are not afraid to stray away from the norm! If it weren't for minorities fighting for their beliefs, African American's would not have rights, homosexuals would still be shunned from society (in some places they still are), the Aborigines in Australia would not be entitled to an education and the government would still be trying to breed them out.

 

When I think about what is accepted now as the norm and what was accepted a hundred years ago, I can't help but be amazed. It makes me think about what we will have achieved in a hundred years from now, even a decade. I also wonder, had I been brought up in that time, would I have subscribed to the beliefs and norms then, that I consider so inhumane today? Maybe. I also wonder if I'd be very religious if I grew up in a theocracy. It's funny how we are conditioned by the world and the places we live.

 

I'm not saying incest is the same as the things I have mentioned but there's no harm in having an openmind. If we don't question things we won't learn anything!

[Green]

Society uses taboos to help itself out. Sisters and Brothers having romantic affairs doesn't lead itself to much stability. Its bad enough raising kids imagine having to worry about if your son is impregnating ur daughter... then as far as parent/offspring relationships that also has a likely hood of damaging the relationship and taking away from your kids happyness... which would tend to favor the parent who doesn't do that with their kids. Beastality is mostly kinda gross (I mean people these days complain about breast feeing in public so I can't imagine what it would be like to have to go around seeing dog jizz in hotel rooms and a man on the park bench making out with his dogs.

[loverofloveandstuff]

Society uses taboos to help itself out. Sisters and Brothers having romantic affairs doesn't lead itself to much stability. Its bad enough raising kids imagine having to worry about if your son is impregnating ur daughter... then as far as parent/offspring relationships that also has a likely hood of damaging the relationship and taking away from your kids happyness... which would tend to favor the parent who doesn't do that with their kids. Beastality is mostly kinda gross (I mean people these days complain about breast feeing in public so I can't imagine what it would be like to have to go around seeing dog jizz in hotel rooms and a man on the park bench making out with his dogs.

 

what do you think about homosexual couples... should they be able to adopt children?

[Crusoe]

Can you elaborate on the moral differences between consensual incest and homosexuality? Can you justify one but not the other? I feel the general consensus on incest is 'eww... that's disgusting, just WRONG' and it's one that I initially jumped to but nobody has actually justified why.

 

 

It's all about who gets hurt, how many get hurt and how badly they get hurt. Sometimes people need protecting from themselves. Incest is one of those cases.

 

Someone on here has a great signature, "Don't tear down a fence until you know why it was put up". Sometimes you've got to travel a long way to see what's behind those fences, once seen, you're real glad that fence is there.

[Green]

what do you think about homosexual couples... should they be able to adopt children?

 

I would never want to give a kid up for adoption... but if I did I think I would rather have the kid raised by a nice straight couple rather then a nice gay couple. But if the choice was between a nice gay couple and a crappy foster home or a crappy family I would choose the gay couple.

 

The thought of (my kid) being raised by lesbians has been one of the many things that has stopped me from ever sperm donating. I think a kid does need role models of both sexs in their lives. Especialy a boy needs a good strong male role model. (girls too) and girls and boys need a mother type figure in their life.

[theBrokenMuse]

Can you elaborate on the moral differences between consensual incest and homosexuality? Can you justify one but not the other? I feel the general consensus on incest is 'eww... that's disgusting, just WRONG'

I think it's purely for biological reasons that we generally are repelled by incest. No new genetic material is added to the offspring which causes deterioration over time. This was best seen in the days of yore when the royals decided it was a smart move to keep it within the family. Entropy said otherwise. In fact, take a look at Vlad the Impaler's (the real dracula for those who don't know) family tree if you want to know why he was such a loony.

[y2k]

I mean, just look at Jerry Lee Lewis and the furore surrounding his marriage to his cousin

 

The fact that she was only 13 should have been the controversial part. The fact that they were cousins is no big deal and it's not incest. It's already been biologically proven. My older sister married her first cousin and they're the happiest couple around. In fact this topic has happened on the LoveShack forums before:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t245220/

 

As for the original topic, it could be that many people are brought up to think a certain way.

 

I personally believe that when people are mentally mature enough and are capable to make their own decisions, they should be allowed to do what they want. If that means an actual incestuous relationship, then so be it. It sounds nasty to all of us but if two people wish to do that, then who the hell are we to stop them??? Although in actual incest, society has a right to stop them from re-producing in my opinion because the chances of messed up kids is high.

 

As for bestiality, it REALLY sounds nasty but I wouldn't see it as immoral if we had a way to see if the animal can give logical consent the way a human being can. Of course an animal cannot do such a thing, so I say it shouldn't be allowed. It can be abuse to the animal.

[TaraMaiden]

Have you travelled the world? I don't mean the tourist thing, the nice places. I mean the deep, dark, nasty, filth ridden streets and jungles of the world? Have you seen close up and personal the misery and suffering the complexity of the human mind causes if left to it's own devices?

 

No, but that's not an aspect we're discussing here.

we're discussing sexual relations in the context of that news link.

This is a smoke and mirrors argument, and is actually off-topic.

I don't deny the things you speak of exist, and happen.

It's just not an aspect of this discussion.

 

Loveroflove, I sincerely hope society does not "evolve" to accept these other taboos. If we do, some of the wretched sights I've witnessed in those sh*tholes of the world will be commonplace on our streets.

 

I think you need to keep it in the context of the discussion - sex between two consenting adults who happen to be related, and why it should be taboo when homosexuality isn't.

 

Depravity and degradation need wiping out, but the sexual evolution of human beings has in fact been stifled by Religion and the consequential social values we've been conditioned to accept.

 

Laying aside your introduction of the aspects you've introduced - laying them aside - ponder the matters you consider to be taboo, and tell me why they're taboo.

Because society in general says they are.

Why does society in general believe they are?

because that's what they've been conditioned, educated and influenced to think.

 

So are they really taboo - or are they taboo because society says they are, and society's always right?

[Crusoe]

No Tara, no smoke, no mirrors, just first hand experience of the damage incest does. How is the suffering and misery caused by incest off topic? It's a large part of why society considers it taboo.

 

To answer your question. If society says something is taboo, then it's taboo. When society stops saying it's taboo, it ceases to be taboo. Surely?

[hART]

Homosexuality is love between two people, just like heterosexuality. Poly is a communicated need in a relationship, that prevents cheating and trust issues. Poly should be equal opportunity for both parties in the relationship. Incest can cause birth defects and think of the bizarre emotional dynamic that creates in a family. Bestiality is just wrong and has caused there to be many infections humans wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

[loverofloveandstuff]

For the purposes of debate, when we are discussing homosexuality and incest I think it's only fair that there is an even playing field. Homosexuals couples (without any adopted children) should be compared with incestuous couples (withoutchildren). Homosexuals with adopted children vs. incestuous couples with children.

 

It's true that incestuous couples have a high chance of conceiving children with deformities and even if they don't, these families and their children will probably be shunned by society. However, it is impossible for homosexuals to even conceive a child, this is supposed to be a natural human desire and makes people a part of the cycle of life. Despite this, homosexuals can adopt a child, don't the same social implications apply to a homosexual family and child as an incestuous couple and their child(ren)? Maybe not exactly but I can imagine there would be many similarities.

 

If the only argument justifying homosexuality without justifying incest is the chance of deformities in an incestuous couple's children (if they have children), I don't think it's a very strong one.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I get my hackles up at the idea of comparing homosexuality with incest or bestiality.

 

Hackles or no, I don't think that sexual acts between consenting adults (human adults) should be illegal.

[loverofloveandstuff]

I get my hackles up at the idea of comparing homosexuality with incest or bestiality.

 

Hackles or no, I don't think that sexual acts between consenting adults (human adults) should be illegal.

 

That is my feeling too but I'm curious as to why I think that way. As for beastiality, that's sort of out of the equation, as muse said, one party can't consent.

[loverofloveandstuff]

Oh but it is a strong argument.

 

just the FACT there is a chance there will be an abnormal birth and if allowed for ages, ultimatley a decrease in quality of the human genes.

 

Bamboo, we're comparing it to the fact that homosexuals can't even have children. Hypothetically, if everybody in the world was homosexual the human race would die out... actually, there would likely be no human race in the first place. As for incest, I'll quote betamanlet from his thread:

I'm sure without incest the human species would not even be here today. There use dto be very few people, how do you think they procreated?

[laRubiaBonita]

it's a pretty narrow view to state that incest is a larger contributer to Hereditary risk.... persons with cystic fibrosis, for example, marry and reproduce with other carriers, even though their kids have a 1 in 4 chance of developing the disease; the same goes for other carriers of genetic diseases.

 

hell drink and smoke throughout your 'normal' preganancy and tell me how much better off your child will fair as compared with a child from an incestuous pregnancy.

 

it will all boil down to individual genetic factors- not merely the fact that the couple is genetically very similar.

 

At any rate- who is to even say that the incestuous couple or the homosexual couple even WANT children??? to even imply that because you are a couple it means you want to have/ raise children is very presumptuous.

[sally4sara]

Oh but it is a strong argument.

 

just the FACT there is a chance there will be an abnormal birth and if allowed for ages, ultimatley a decrease in quality of the human genes.

 

Anyone stupid enough to engage into an incestuous relationship probably will be dumb enough to spread the tainted Genes.

 

Knew a couple (not related to each other) that had one child with severe genetic disabilities; wheelchair and health issues for life. Then they had another - with the same disabilities only more severe; bed ridden and mild life support asst; not likely to live to adulthood. Then they had another - same disabilities to a slightly lesser degree than the first.

 

If we're going to make incest (between two consenting adults) illegal because of potential birth defects, then shouldn't we also force people known to carry genetic abnormalities to get sterilized?

 

Slippery slippery slope folks.

[SincereOnlineGuy]

This is inspired by betamanlet's thread (http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t256806/) which has got me questioning my own beliefs regarding homosexuality, incest and the rest of the social sex related taboos. Without thinking, my natural reaction is that I support homosexuality but incest just seems totally wrong to me.

 

Is it just that I have been socially conditioned to accept homosexuality but not incest and beastiality? I am having trouble justifying homosexuality, without justifying incest... Can anybody help with this?

 

Yes, homosexuality is "legal". Incest is not. Why is it so difficult for people to abide by the laws as they are written, and not run around telling police:

 

"it SHOULD be..."

 

"I didn't KNOW..."

 

"you would THINK..."

 

 

There are perfectly legitimate processes in place for getting the law changed, and those are the paths to choose rather than go the other route and then give the authorities one of the lines above (to no avail).

 

It is perfectly OK, too, if, say, you don't know anything about the U.S. Dairy industry, and don't have too much incentive to care (as long as your dairy products remain available to you at the consumer level), and let somebody ELSE decide that dairies complete with cows can no longer sell their milk directly to the consumer, but must instead sell it to the government, and then buy it back from the government at a government-determined price, before they can sell it at the consumer level.

 

Of course I want to apply the three lines I earlier wrote to that described reality, but I'm not going to go out and break the law just because it seems absurd.

 

Before you go out and celebrate your heightened resolve to abide by sex-related laws as they stand today, let me suggest that you first go out and get a current "Driver's Guide" for your state and begin at a level perhaps more directly important to your daily life.

[laRubiaBonita]

First off, that is probably how all these damn diseases started in the first place(incest) In perfect, people with these diseses shouldn't procreate and spread the tainted cells to other generations slowly disintigrating the human race into weak, sickly beings until ultimate demise. Well it seems that is what couples do(spawn) not all, but most, so yes the chances they want kids and will are very likely and is not presumptuous.

 

so i would think you should be against fertility treatments and assisting those who are challenged to get pregenant? isn't that "doing god's work?" it is certainly not survival of the fittest.... and i would think it accounts for a number of genetically poor individuals, who then in turn keep having genetically poor offspring.

 

Incest and homosexuality have nothing to do the creation of a disease- no more than heterosexuals have.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Yes, homosexuality is "legal". Incest is not. Why is it so difficult for people to abide by the laws as they are written, and not run around telling police:

 

"it SHOULD be..."

 

"I didn't KNOW..."

 

"you would THINK..."

 

 

There are perfectly legitimate processes in place for getting the law changed, and those are the paths to choose rather than go the other route and then give the authorities one of the lines above (to no avail).

 

 

Surely you jest! Sodomy was still illegal in many states up until 2003. This included oral sex, fellows; regular old hetero oral. Do you think that folks consulted legal statutes before engaging in these criminal acts in the heat and privacy of their own bedrooms? Or decided to go through the perfectly legitimate processes of getting law changed so they could get or give oral or anal sex with legal impunity? If you were old enough to have sex in 2003 ... did YOU abide by the law?

 

Or is your post a funny?