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

[loverofloveandstuff]

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:

 

sorry but your post has confused me. Is this a response to the article in betamanlet's thread?

[laRubiaBonita]

You cannot back that up any more than I can back up what I said.

 

Exactly my point... you are speaking from opinion, not fact..... as am i, but i did look some stuff up, and what i read was that it cannot be proven that kids from incestuous parents are any worse off than kids that are from non-incestuous parents (at least genetically speaking)..... plus with all this assisted reproduction there are far worse genetic outcomes on the horizon.

[laRubiaBonita]

since we are discussing the article about the professor's relations with his daughter- i will say that a parent-child incestuous relationship does NOT sit well with me, in fact i think it's totally wrong because he is the parent, and parent should not be having sex with their own children regardless of the childs age- it, to me, is still a form of child abuse.

 

if it were siblings, cousins, etc... it would be more palatable.

[loverofloveandstuff]

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.

 

I'm going to ask again because I am curious and you quoted my OP ... was this directed at me because it doesn't seem to be related to my original post at all??? Did you even read what you quoted?

 

Also, what is a driver's guide? And why are you talking about changing the law? lol,have you posted in the wrong thread or am I tripping?

[loverofloveandstuff]

since we are discussing the article about the professor's relations with his daughter- i will say that a parent-child incestuous relationship does NOT sit well with me, in fact i think it's totally wrong because he is the parent, and parent should not be having sex with their own children regardless of the childs age- it, to me, is still a form of child abuse.

 

if it were siblings, cousins, etc... it would be more palatable.

 

Do you think it's right that the father was charged and the daughter wasn't?

[laRubiaBonita]

Do you think it's right that the father was charged and the daughter wasn't?

 

no. the only reason he was charged is because he is the father, he is a man , and because he is older.

 

i am sure it is assumed it was all the fathers doing..... i mean what "child" would sleep with their parent . i think if both parties consent, then both parties should be charged, otherwise is seems like it was the fault of the party who got charged for the crime.

 

i would be interested to know if the Ex-wife knew what was going on? i wonder who ratted the father and daughter out?

[reservoirdog1]

shouldn't we also force people known to carry genetic abnormalities to get sterilized?

 

Look at the animal kindom, servival of the fittest, all the weak, ailing and sick ones die in fights to mate leaving strong, pure genes to pass.

 

If humans didn't cry over "inhumane" and save all these ailing, sick humans, then maybe disease, defects and all that would disappear. Never happen though, because humans are to smart for theiur own good. What they think is right to do is dreadfully and painfully the wrong thing to do.

 

So my answer to your question in bold is- YES.

 

Sweet! An argument for eugenics! Insert the sadly predictable, but also very appropriate, reference to the excesses of the Nazi state and their program of sterilizing "idiots".

 

So, who's going to be the arbiter of what "genetic abnormalities" warrant sterilization? You? A board comprised of extremely clever people? The government of the day? Why not sterilize people with less than 20/20 vision? Or who have a rare blood type? Or who are predisposed to baldness? Where's the dividing line?

[SincereOnlineGuy]

I'm going to ask again because I am curious and you quoted my OP ... was this directed at me because it doesn't seem to be related to my original post at all??? Did you even read what you quoted?

 

Also, what is a driver's guide? And why are you talking about changing the law? lol,have you posted in the wrong thread or am I tripping?

 

Dude, you're still stoned from your last toke session.

 

 

Try to sober-up for a change and deal only with the reality right in front of you.

[loverofloveandstuff]

Dude, you're still stoned from your last toke session.

 

 

Try to sober-up for a change and deal only with the reality right in front of you.

 

No need to be rude. What is toke? I'm just going to take it you didn't read my original post as YOUR whole post is related to something that I haven't even touched on. I didn't mention the legalisation or criminalisation of incest, and I don't care either way. I am also not interested in whether the law should be amended or not so I don't know why you keep babbling on about it. I agree, people should abide by the law so I don't understand why your post is written so argumentatively. What "reality" are you even talking about?

 

 

This discussion is about the morality of incest in comparison to homosexuality. I am interested in why most people's (myself included) immediate reaction to incest is one of disgust... it was once the same for homosexuality but times have changed. It is interesting how vastly morals change over time. It makes me believe that there is no objective morality.

 

In future, you might actually want to read the post you're responding to before attacking the OPer.

 

EDIT: Do I know you? You seem to have a personal vendetta against me.

Edited December 15, 2010 by loverofloveandstuff

[creighton0123]

While I saw one person who professed to being bisexual, I might be the first openly gay man to voice his opinion on this topic.

 

The entire comparison of homosexuality to incest/beastiality/polygamy is very much insulting.

 

Thinking about it logically, sexual orientation, whether gay, bisexual, or straight, transcends types of relationships and sexual encounters.

 

Men and women, despite sexual orientation, can engage in incest, bestiality, or have a polygamous relationship. I'm surprised the OP didn't include pedophilia in the mix to boot... since the four are often found in comparison when being spouted off by homophobes from the likes of AFA, NOM, Focus on the Family, AFTAH, etc. etc.

 

Now I am not calling anyone here homophobic. In fact, the responses have been remarkably polite and respectful. The entire premise, however, is based on a hidden and underlying social assumption that homosexuality is not to be accepted or is "immoral".

 

When push comes to shove, we recognize the following:

 

Incest: This is a composition of a relationship that does not adhere to sexual orientation and does not share the same innate qualities. Despite the biological concerns of children of male/female incestuous relationships, the underlying social problem is the replacement of a familial relationship (kin relationship) with a sexual relationship. Whether consenting or not, human beings innately respond differently to family than with casual relationships. The sudden abandon of an exclusive familial relationship is in no way, shape, or form beneficial to a family as a whole.

 

Polygamy: While the modern advent of polygamous/polyamorous relationships is not inherently bad, historically polygamy was manifest through polygyny (one man, many wives). In this situation, extreme gender inequality was established. This was also occurring in a time when women were sold into marriage as property rather than equals. It would be setting us back significantly to return to this model of such gender in equality.

 

Beastiality: A fetish in and of itself, this also transcends sexual orientation. It exposes the human and animal to diseases that neither species would otherwise contract and is an issue of great concern when discussing health. It can cause great harm to either the human, the animal, or both and even result in death of one (or both). Also, given that animals do not experience human emotion, they cannot in and of themselves provide human consent. A habitual fetish also results in the human being unable to sustain health human-human relationships, resulting in a bit of psychological damage.

 

Homosexuality: This is the condition where one is innately emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to the same gender. Within the confines of specific religions, this otherwise amoral aspect of human nature is rendered immoral and is labeled with consequences. Outside of specific religions, gay couples in and of themselves are causing no intentional or avoidable harm to one another (or anyone), rendering the relationship essentially amoral (having nothing to do with morality).

 

Some posters here mentioned adoption for gay couples. Research has shown that this is a non-issue. Children have been raised for thousands upon thousands of years by all sorts of family compositions. The majority of these have been by biological parents of different genders, but sociological and anthropological research shows us that there is no significant variation in the success of children being raised by gay couples when compared to straight couples. In this argument, the anti-gay religious right fails to point out a number of things:

 

1. Our orphanages and foster care system in this nation and in the world are OVERFLOWING with children that heterosexual couples are unable to adopt.

 

2. There are currently 600k+ children currently being raised by two parents of the same gender in America alone.

 

3. Some children being raised are, in fact, biological children of one partner, whether through previous relationships/marriages or through artificial means.

 

As a gay man, I find discussions like this riddled with hidden stereotypes and assumptions. The idea that a comparison need exist is extremely and fundamentally degrading.... whether the intention to insult/degrade is there or not.

[creighton0123]

It makes me believe that there is no objective morality.

 

Philosophically, there is no "objective morality". Instead, there is a reduction from all semblances of moral orders that can be reduced to a philosophical construct of moral universalism, which states that an action can be legitimately labeled as moral or immoral depending on whether or not said action causes intentional or avoidable harm to others. The application of this is ambiguous depending on how an individual culture defines "harm".

 

When it comes to things like polygamy/homosexuality, specific cultures take what is otherwise an amoral construct (such as a mature relationship between two adults) and irrationally or intuitively labels it "moral" or "immoral". This is never a moral order. Instead, this is a social order.

 

Whenever a culture/society gets in the business of taking otherwise amoral human constructs/conditions and places the weight of reward/punishment against it, it can no longer truly be defined as morality. Instead, it is a principle of social order.

 

Take, for example, the situation of a slaves order by a master:

 

If a master orders his slave to kill someone (an obviously immoral action since it causes intentional harm to another person) or be killed himself, the resulting action has nothing to do with morality. Instead, it devolves to an action within a social order. We absolutely see this in most Western religions. The only few religions I can see in the world that resemble moral orders are the archetypal principles of Buddhism and northern paganism.

 

Judaism is a social order.

Islam is a social order.

Christianity is a social order.

Hinduism is a social order, but not as much of one.

Fascism is an EXTREME social order.

 

Hell, all nations are social orders with the establishment of punishments for those who don't pay taxes.

 

Does this make sense?

[loverofloveandstuff]

When it comes to things like polygamy/homosexuality, specific cultures take what is otherwise an amoral construct (such as a mature relationship between two adults) and irrationally or intuitively labels it "moral" or "immoral". This is never a moral order. Instead, this is a social order.

 

Okay, are you trying to say homosexuality and polygamy are not moral matters? By legalising/criminalising both of them, a judgement is made on whether these actions are right and wrong. That is enough for it to be a subject of morality.

 

Doesn't a social order come from moral relativism and what is considered to be right or wrong within that society in the first place? I would say they are social orders AND moral orders.

 

Men and women, despite sexual orientation, can engage in incest, bestiality, or have a polygamous relationship. I'm surprised the OP didn't include pedophilia in the mix to boot... since the four are often found in comparison when being spouted off by homophobes from the likes of AFA, NOM, Focus on the Family, AFTAH, etc. etc.

Yeah, I thought about that after posting... pedophilia. By the way, I am FAR from a homophobe... I have been in intimate relationships with both men and women.

 

Some posters here mentioned adoption for gay couples. Research has shown that this is a non-issue. Children have been raised for thousands upon thousands of years by all sorts of family compositions. The majority of these have been by biological parents of different genders, but sociological and anthropological research shows us that there is no significant variation in the success of children being raised by gay couples when compared to straight couples. In this argument, the anti-gay religious right fails to point out a number of things:

I'm more interested in the social implications. Are kids raised by gay couples bullied? Are they treatead like outcasts? I don't think I know anybody who would treat the child of homosexuals in this way but little kids can be cruel.

 

If anybody's interested this website raises some good points justifying homosexuality without justifying incest...http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2009/08/13/justifying-homosexuality-without-justifying-incest/

[TaraMaiden]

Okay, are you trying to say homosexuality and polygamy are not moral matters? By legalising/criminalising both of them, a judgement is made on whether these actions are right and wrong. That is enough for it to be a subject of morality.

I beg to differ.

My partner has recently attained his first class honours degree in Law and the subject of Morality versus Legality is a common one.

Simply because something is immoral, it doesn't make it necessarily subject to Law, as well. Many criminals get away with immoral acts, simply because however they might be condemned EMOTIONALLY - they are still within the parameters of the law.

This is how landmark cases are sometimes born. Because of changes in the Law.

For example, The Human Rights Act dictates that drug addicts in prison still have a right to drug use, because sudden withdrawal from these highly addictive, toxic and brain-damaging drugs would endanger their safety and well-being.

So they are given access to and permitted to take these illegal substances.

It's not Moral -but it's the Law.

 

Doesn't a social order come from moral relativism and what is considered to be right or wrong within that society in the first place? I would say they are social orders AND moral orders

.

Quite. And occasionally they're separate issues.

 

 

By the way, I am FAR from a homophobe... I have been in intimate relationships with both men and women.

I am far from an anything-phobe. And am heterosexual.

 

I'll tell you what though: the phrase -

"There's a lot of her father in that girl"

 

- will never sound the same again.....

Edited December 16, 2010 by TaraMaiden

[loverofloveandstuff]

I beg to differ.

My partner has recently attained his first class honours degree in Law and the subject of Morality versus Legality is a common one.

Simply because something is immoral, it doesn't make it necessarily subject to Law, as well. Many criminals get away with immoral acts, simply because however they might be condemned EMOTIONALLY - they are still within the parameters of the law.

This is how landmark cases are sometimes born. Because of changes in the Law.

For example, The Human Rights Act dictates that drug addicts in prison still have a right to drug use, because sudden withdrawal from these highly addictive, toxic and brain-damaging drugs would endanger their safety and well-being.

So they are given access to and permitted to take these illegal substances.

It's not Moral -but it's the Law.

Maybe I worded it wrongly. I didn't mean to say that the law is necessarily correct when making these moral judgements, just that the law DOES make moral judgements and dictate what is right and wrong in a society by the legalisation and criminalisation of things. (They are not just social orders as I think creighton was trying to say).

[TaraMaiden]

But that's just the point. What is moral is not necessarily legal, and what is immoral is not necessarily illegal.

So any given moral/immoral factor is primarily assessed by human emotional and social standards, BEFORE a decision is made whether to establish legality or illegality.

 

All moral/immoral viewpoints are first and foremost, social and emotional, cultural and religious opinions.

The Law is applied later.

[loverofloveandstuff]

But that's just the point. What is moral is not necessarily legal, and what is immoral is not necessarily illegal.

So any given moral/immoral factor is primarily assessed by human emotional and social standards, BEFORE a decision is made whether to establish legality or illegality.

 

All moral/immoral viewpoints are first and foremost, social and emotional, cultural and religious opinions.

The Law is applied later.

 

Yeah... I agree with all of this, not sure what you think I'm trying to say.

[TaraMaiden]

Ah.

Then it's possible we're both saying the same thing and therefore uselessly indulging in bestiality and necrophilia.

 

 

(Flogging a dead horse..... )

[creighton0123]

Okay, are you trying to say homosexuality and polygamy are not moral matters? By legalising/criminalising both of them, a judgement is made on whether these actions are right and wrong. That is enough for it to be a subject of morality.

 

On the contrary. At a philosophical level, simply because a law exists governing expected or proper behavior in an individual society doesn't mean that the law has anything to do with morality. I raised a comparison about paying taxes, which has little to do with morality on the part of the tax payer.

 

Doesn't a social order come from moral relativism and what is considered to be right or wrong within that society in the first place? I would say they are social orders AND moral orders.

 

Yes, but when something that is neither right or wrong, such as a state of human nature or an emotion, and it is labeled as "right" or "wrong" and has placed upon it rewards or consequences, it ceases to be purely a moral order. There are very few moral orders in the world. Most of them are based on ideals that aren't always practiced and on small groups of people (sub-cultures).

 

By the way, I am FAR from a homophobe... I have been in intimate relationships with both men and women.

 

I know :-) Reading through the post, very few people here are homophobic. I was simply pointing out that the comparison raised is fundamentally demeaning and is often used by irrational homophobes. Everyone here is being polite :-D

 

I'm more interested in the social implications. Are kids raised by gay couples bullied? Are they treatead like outcasts? I don't think I know anybody who would treat the child of homosexuals in this way but little kids can be cruel.

 

Yes. This is also the case with children born abroad who come here legally, children of lower economic brackets, children in the foster care system, and children of biracial couples. The problem here is not in the child or his/her family, but society as a whole. "Little kids can be cruel" is the problem. The solution isn't preventing Matthew and John from having the resources, desire, and ability to provide a family and home for a child in need.

[creighton0123]

Maybe I worded it wrongly. I didn't mean to say that the law is necessarily correct when making these moral judgements, just that the law DOES make moral judgements and dictate what is right and wrong in a society by the legalisation and criminalisation of things. (They are not just social orders as I think creighton was trying to say).

 

You're both correct and incorrect. All societies in the world contain laws and regulations surrounding certain components of morality. Most also continues laws and regulations rendering otherwise amoral actions as moral/immoral and applying the same regulations.

 

Homosexuality fits this idea enough to mention simply because it is what this thread is discussing. In and of itself, a romantic and sexual relationship between two people of the same gender causes no intentional or avoidable harm to the two people involved or society as a whole. Given that principle of moral universalism (the concept that is implemented in deriving all principles of morality) any system that renders such a relationship between two people of the same gender as "moral" or "immoral" and establishes laws and regulations surrounding it causes the whole system to cease being a moral order and begin being a social order.

 

All social orders, for the purpose of order, places weight and consequence of a vast majority of immoral actions. That does not render said order both a social and a moral order. Instead, it just points out that they share quite a bit in common.

 

There are very few TRUE moral orders in the world. The same model can also be applied to things like polygamy, the idea of open relationships, honoring one's parents, etc.

 

Property ownership is also a good comparison. In a moral order, a person can own property and have complete control over it. In a social order, you will find regulations concerning what the person does with that property. Such regulations include the number of persons who can live at the residence, the allowed maximum height of grass in the front lawn, the surrounding of in ground pools by adequate fencing, leashing of dogs, the allotted amount of pets in general. In some properties, we even go to the extent by telling people what color curtains they can have in their windows.

 

The ultimate reward for those existing in social order is social honor, an important construct that people seek to achieve. In America, we have a significant basis in social order, most being essential to the proper flow of society. However, the majority and our government has gotten itself into the practice of regulating not only issues of dispute and order, but social values and norms. When laws are established only because they encourage what is the norm, damage can be done. This was manifest in the past when it came to the issue of women's rights (the right to vote or fair treatment in the workplace), rights for racial minorities (legalized segregation, voting rights, property ownership rights, etc. etc.), national minorities (issues pertaining to legal vs. illegal immigration), and most recently, sexual minorities (issues pertaining to fair treatment in the workplace, housing, military and down to the essential issue of marriage equality). None of these later applications of social order to societal norms, rendering what is amoral as either moral/immoral have anything to do with true morality, making this country, other countries, and history rank with social orders with very few true moral orders.

 

-Creighton

[SincereOnlineGuy]

No need to be rude. What is toke? I'm just going to take it you didn't read my original post as YOUR whole post is related to something that I haven't even touched on. I didn't mention the legalisation or criminalisation of incest, and I don't care either way. I am also not interested in whether the law should be amended or not so I don't know why you keep babbling on about it. I agree, people should abide by the law so I don't understand why your post is written so argumentatively. What "reality" are you even talking about?

 

 

This discussion is about the morality of incest in comparison to homosexuality. I am interested in why most people's (myself included) immediate reaction to incest is one of disgust... it was once the same for homosexuality but times have changed. It is interesting how vastly morals change over time. It makes me believe that there is no objective morality.

 

In future, you might actually want to read the post you're responding to before attacking the OPer.

 

EDIT: Do I know you? You seem to have a personal vendetta against me.

 

 

OK, you hinted that you might be tripping: have you been taking acid lately?

 

I first quoted you and then responded directly to it. It just seems that this particular acid trip you're on somehow obliterated any semblance of reading comprehension left in you.

 

As plain as day (to the sober readers in the crowd) you asked:

 

"Can anyone help with this?" (in reference to the difference between incest and homosexuality, and why one should be accepted and the other not)

 

 

I pointed out the obvious (that one is legal and the other not {for which you still don't seem to exercise any respect}) (which sort of makes sense if you've been "tripping" on acid).

 

So, try to sober up and/or dry out and accept the reality all around you.

 

The acid you've been taking is just as illegal as the incest you are endorsing.

 

The rest of us have more regard for the laws all around us than you do.

[goingstrong]

Sounds like someone is an incestaphobe.

[loverofloveandstuff]

OK, you hinted that you might be tripping: have you been taking acid lately?

 

I first quoted you and then responded directly to it. It just seems that this particular acid trip you're on somehow obliterated any semblance of reading comprehension left in you.

 

As plain as day (to the sober readers in the crowd) you asked:

 

"Can anyone help with this?" (in reference to the difference between incest and homosexuality, and why one should be accepted and the other not)

 

 

I pointed out the obvious (that one is legal and the other not {for which you still don't seem to exercise any respect}) (which sort of makes sense if you've been "tripping" on acid).

 

So, try to sober up and/or dry out and accept the reality all around you.

 

The acid you've been taking is just as illegal as the incest you are endorsing.

 

The rest of us have more regard for the laws all around us than you do.

 

Ummm... I specifically asked about justifying the morality of incest and homosexuality, not the laws regarding it. Why do you keep telling me to accept the reality and to follow the law? WHAT reality are you even talking about? What makes you think I am intending to break the law... (I'm not)? Are you incapable of having a normal discussion without letting your emotional bias consume you? Dude, you're the one who needs to work on your comprehension skills. You have attacked me over things I'm not even concerned about... nor did I say.

 

By the way, as far as "tripping" is concerned, do you take everything so literally? Do you think people are really out of their mind when they say "I must be out of my mind." Geeze. Get your head screwed on.

[loverofloveandstuff]

Sounds like someone is an incestaphobe.

ya reckon?

[112233]

No new genetic material is added to the offspring which causes deterioration over time.

 

Pretty sure that's not technically true. Any existing recessive flaws may tend to become manifest, but there is not, to my knowledge, any more 'deterioration' of the alleles than in any other sort of sexual reproduction.

[112233]

Incest can cause birth defects ...

 

Actually birth can cause birth defects, non-reproductive relative boinking won't.