Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Homosexuality and Incest: 2 men vs 2 brothers

rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 10:27:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is my first post on the debate.org forums!

Let me start all of this off by saying that I am gay and proudly so. I do not know for sure whether it is morally wrong for two brothers or two sisters to have sex. I have no desire to sleep with any of my siblings, but when I hear people opposed to gay rights saying that morally accepting homosexuality would mean that there is nothing immoral about two brothers or two sisters having sex, I feel a need to have a response other than "It shows how much your mind is in the gutter that you even think if such things."

I do not think it is perverted to think about whether two adult brothers or two adult sisters should be morally or legally allowed to have sex. Homosexuality was punishable under law for centuries because of religious and cultural taboos. Therefore, now that the taboo regarding homosexuality has been successfully challenged to the point that it is legally permissible, other taboos should also be challenged unless there is a secular and rational reason for maintaining them. I am generally on the side of sexual freedom as long as it is consensual, among adults, and there is no harm to anyone, including potential offspring. Heterosexual incest is frequently called immoral because of the chance that offspring will have genetic deformities. In homosexual incest there is no such probability.

Incest is also frequently equated with pedophilia but the two things are different. An adult having sex with a child is wrong because it takes advantage of the power adults have over children and over children's impaired ability to give consent.

I ask specifically about two adult brothers or two adult sisters because

-there is no chance of conceiving children
-there is no pedophilia
-unlike incest between a parent and an adult child, there is less chance of an abuse of a position of authority

One could argue that incest is wrong because we are genetically wired to find it repulsive (so as to prevent inbreeding). Studies have shown that siblings raised together tend to not find each other attractive, whereas siblings who do not meet until adulthood tend to have a strong physical attraction to each other because of the innate similarities in appearance and personality (although that attraction is rarely acted on due to the incest taboo). This indicates that there may be some genetic inhibiting effect on the sexual attraction between siblings who grow up together, presumably to prevent inbreeding. (Granted, it is difficult to separate any genetic inhibition of sexual attraction among siblings who grow up together from inhibition caused by cultural and religious taboos.) If our minds are wired to find sibling incest repulsive, why should we allow people to make themselves miserable by having sex with their siblings?

In answer to this last challenge, I think it is worth pouting out that many siblings are not raised together as do not meet until adulthood, so this supposed genetic effect would not apply. It is also worth considering that the revulsion many (but not all) cultures felt towards homosexuality was once argued to be innate due to homosexual acts' being "against nature" and contrary to the need for procreation in order to continue the species, ensure the survival of one's genes, etc.

So, from a perfectly secular and rational point of view, what reason is there that incest among same-sex adult siblings should be illegal or immoral? How can pro-gay rights people respond to arguments that accepting homosexuality provides an ideological basis for accepting certain forms of incest without merely resorting to taboos? Should gay-rights advocates be necessarily offended when accepting homosexuality is compared to accepting same-sex adult sibling incest?
PrivateEye
Posts: 972
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 10:40:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
peta or whoever u are, it's getting a bit creepy dude. probably peta. did you ever think about how you're such good friends with togepi dude? i bet it's all about your sister and all the fighting you two used do growing up... like "look at me mommy, it's her, i have female friends on the internet!!" same as the male pms bullsh*t you're always pulling. obsessed with your sister bro, weird.
PrivateEye
Posts: 972
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 10:48:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
i actually nearly fell over laughing when laurierose offered you out for a drink too lol
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 11:56:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't see why not. I think the reason for its non acceptance would be that the hetero equivalent of same sex incest relationship is not medically and evolutionarilly regressive, hence the same sex equivalent is considered a taboo too. A heterosexual relationship is, after all, taken as the yardstick of validity of relationships.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 12:01:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 10:40:20 AM, PrivateEye wrote:
peta or whoever u are, it's getting a bit creepy dude. probably peta. did you ever think about how you're such good friends with togepi dude? i bet it's all about your sister and all the fighting you two used do growing up... like "look at me mommy, it's her, i have female friends on the internet!!" same as the male pms bullsh*t you're always pulling. obsessed with your sister bro, weird.

I have no idea who or what you are talking about.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 1:09:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
First of all, I'll say I was quite surprised this was not a trolling post, lol.

At 6/17/2013 10:27:33 AM, rockwater wrote:
This is my first post on the debate.org forums!

Welcome to this website. =)

So, from a perfectly secular and rational point of view, what reason is there that incest among same-sex adult siblings should be illegal or immoral?

IMHO it deals with inbreeding being anti-social and politically regressive. In most societies, marriage is a means by which to integrate families into a greater social unit. Inbreeding discourages this social aspect. Politically, it highly encourages nepotism.

How can pro-gay rights people respond to arguments that accepting homosexuality provides an ideological basis for accepting certain forms of incest without merely resorting to taboos?

IMHO, this is similar to asking how can women prevent getting raped. Some matters are largely out of the hands of the parties interested in promoting change. Some matters are due to the ingrained biases that others have.

Should gay-rights advocates be necessarily offended when accepting homosexuality is compared to accepting same-sex adult sibling incest?

Well, both are taboo, the question would be why both are taboo. You elaborated on homosexuality being taboo in excellent detail.

I think the answer is inherent in another question - "Should gay-rights advocates be necessarily offended by the biases of others?" To the extent that they suffer detrimentally in society and are denied the rights afforded by the law, yes.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 2:27:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 1:09:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
First of all, I'll say I was quite surprised this was not a trolling post, lol.

At 6/17/2013 10:27:33 AM, rockwater wrote:
This is my first post on the debate.org forums!

Welcome to this website. =)

So, from a perfectly secular and rational point of view, what reason is there that incest among same-sex adult siblings should be illegal or immoral?

IMHO it deals with inbreeding being anti-social and politically regressive. In most societies, marriage is a means by which to integrate families into a greater social unit. Inbreeding discourages this social aspect. Politically, it highly encourages nepotism.


I agree that there is something to be said in looking for sexual partners outside of your immediate family so as to encourage the forming of community ties outside of endogamous clans, but is that enough of a reason to justify the current illegal status of same sex adult sibling incest? Adultery is legal (albeit grounds for divorce) in many states and it arguable causes much more harm.

I am not suggesting that people march demanding the right to sleep with their same sex adult siblings. It just seems to me that gay rights advocates do not make their arguments stronger by saying "Look, legalizing gay marriage is not going to in any way help bring about legalized incest," when in fact society's disapproval of homosexuality, like its disapproval of adult non-procreative incest, seems largely based on taboo rather than on any secular, rational, or scientific argument. Arguing that it is better for people to have sex with people from different families for the sake of social mixing and interdependence is not that different from arguing that a child should not be raised by two mothers or fathers because it precludes having a parent of the opposite sex.
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 4:03:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 11:56:31 AM, Cermank wrote:
I don't see why not. I think the reason for its non acceptance would be that the hetero equivalent of same sex incest relationship is not medically and evolutionarilly regressive, hence the same sex equivalent is considered a taboo too. A heterosexual relationship is, after all, taken as the yardstick of validity of relationships.

"A heterosexual relationship is, after all, taken as the yardstick of validity of relationships."

Mountain Dew squirts out of nose and thinks to self, man is he gonna get tarred and feathered for saying that.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 5:40:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 2:27:26 PM, rockwater wrote:
At 6/17/2013 1:09:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
First of all, I'll say I was quite surprised this was not a trolling post, lol.

At 6/17/2013 10:27:33 AM, rockwater wrote:
This is my first post on the debate.org forums!

Welcome to this website. =)

So, from a perfectly secular and rational point of view, what reason is there that incest among same-sex adult siblings should be illegal or immoral?

IMHO it deals with inbreeding being anti-social and politically regressive. In most societies, marriage is a means by which to integrate families into a greater social unit. Inbreeding discourages this social aspect. Politically, it highly encourages nepotism.


I agree that there is something to be said in looking for sexual partners outside of your immediate family so as to encourage the forming of community ties outside of endogamous clans, but is that enough of a reason to justify the current illegal status of same sex adult sibling incest? Adultery is legal (albeit grounds for divorce) in many states and it arguable causes much more harm.

In both homosexual and incestual relations there are practical matters that would discourage both practices - the former being the impossibility of procreation between partners, and the latter being the societal motivations I specified.

I am not suggesting that people march demanding the right to sleep with their same sex adult siblings. It just seems to me that gay rights advocates do not make their arguments stronger by saying "Look, legalizing gay marriage is not going to in any way help bring about legalized incest," when in fact society's disapproval of homosexuality, like its disapproval of adult non-procreative incest, seems largely based on taboo rather than on any secular, rational, or scientific argument. Arguing that it is better for people to have sex with people from different families for the sake of social mixing and interdependence is not that different from arguing that a child should not be raised by two mothers or fathers because it precludes having a parent of the opposite sex.

True, and an interesting point. It is hard to discern exactly why these laws exist.

I've argued elsewhere that marriage should be primarily a private matter, and that the only reason the government gets involved is the very issue of procreation that you mention - to not procreate posits an existential threat to the government and its charge, so it regulates such activity through the institution of marriage.

In the case of interdependence vs same sex parents, I could make the case that interdependence is much more of a societal necessity than the gender of a child's parents. Without interdependence, it's possible that the very fabric of society would slowly and surely deteriorate to the point that any concept of society would be largely non-existent. Same sex parentage poses much less of a risk.

Such a stance would validate the necessity of keeping incest illegal, while allowing for same sex parentage.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 11:43:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 4:03:33 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2013 11:56:31 AM, Cermank wrote:
I don't see why not. I think the reason for its non acceptance would be that the hetero equivalent of same sex incest relationship is not medically and evolutionarilly regressive, hence the same sex equivalent is considered a taboo too. A heterosexual relationship is, after all, taken as the yardstick of validity of relationships.

"A heterosexual relationship is, after all, taken as the yardstick of validity of relationships."

Mountain Dew squirts out of nose and thinks to self, man is he gonna get tarred and feathered for saying that.

I don't see how that's wrong. Isn't the argument for gay marriage along the line of, ' If a man and woman can, why can't a man and man?'. Throw in consent.
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 12:53:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 10:27:33 AM, rockwater wrote:
This is my first post on the debate.org forums!

Let me start all of this off by saying that I am gay and proudly so. I do not know for sure whether it is morally wrong for two brothers or two sisters to have sex. I have no desire to sleep with any of my siblings, but when I hear people opposed to gay rights saying that morally accepting homosexuality would mean that there is nothing immoral about two brothers or two sisters having sex, I feel a need to have a response other than "It shows how much your mind is in the gutter that you even think if such things."

I do not think it is perverted to think about whether two adult brothers or two adult sisters should be morally or legally allowed to have sex. Homosexuality was punishable under law for centuries because of religious and cultural taboos. Therefore, now that the taboo regarding homosexuality has been successfully challenged to the point that it is legally permissible, other taboos should also be challenged unless there is a secular and rational reason for maintaining them. I am generally on the side of sexual freedom as long as it is consensual, among adults, and there is no harm to anyone, including potential offspring. Heterosexual incest is frequently called immoral because of the chance that offspring will have genetic deformities. In homosexual incest there is no such probability.

Incest is also frequently equated with pedophilia but the two things are different. An adult having sex with a child is wrong because it takes advantage of the power adults have over children and over children's impaired ability to give consent.

I ask specifically about two adult brothers or two adult sisters because

-there is no chance of conceiving children
-there is no pedophilia
-unlike incest between a parent and an adult child, there is less chance of an abuse of a position of authority

One could argue that incest is wrong because we are genetically wired to find it repulsive (so as to prevent inbreeding). Studies have shown that siblings raised together tend to not find each other attractive, whereas siblings who do not meet until adulthood tend to have a strong physical attraction to each other because of the innate similarities in appearance and personality (although that attraction is rarely acted on due to the incest taboo). This indicates that there may be some genetic inhibiting effect on the sexual attraction between siblings who grow up together, presumably to prevent inbreeding. (Granted, it is difficult to separate any genetic inhibition of sexual attraction among siblings who grow up together from inhibition caused by cultural and religious taboos.) If our minds are wired to find sibling incest repulsive, why should we allow people to make themselves miserable by having sex with their siblings?

In answer to this last challenge, I think it is worth pouting out that many siblings are not raised together as do not meet until adulthood, so this supposed genetic effect would not apply. It is also worth considering that the revulsion many (but not all) cultures felt towards homosexuality was once argued to be innate due to homosexual acts' being "against nature" and contrary to the need for procreation in order to continue the species, ensure the survival of one's genes, etc.

So, from a perfectly secular and rational point of view, what reason is there that incest among same-sex adult siblings should be illegal or immoral? How can pro-gay rights people respond to arguments that accepting homosexuality provides an ideological basis for accepting certain forms of incest without merely resorting to taboos? Should gay-rights advocates be necessarily offended when accepting homosexuality is compared to accepting same-sex adult sibling incest?

Here rockwater, this is meant to answer your questions from Scripture, not to cause trouble, hope this helps. http://www.fossilizedcustoms.com...
Shalom.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 3:48:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 5:40:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I've argued elsewhere that marriage should be primarily a private matter, and that the only reason the government gets involved is the very issue of procreation that you mention - to not procreate posits an existential threat to the government and its charge, so it regulates such activity through the institution of marriage.

I'm interest in your stated existential threat to government from non-procreation. Does government have a vested interest in self-preservation? I'll go along with it having an interest in preserving society (but only because currently almost everybody wants to keep society around in one form or another). But shouldn't it be in the governments interest to cede power to a more capable entity if it has confidence that said entity is more capable and more qualified to discharge its responsibilities? Perhaps this is better suited to discussion in another thread but I'd rather not start one if no one has any interest in discussing it.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 10:00:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is nothing inherently immoral about incest. I don't even know why this is a question. The OP is basically just asking for people's subjective opinions. Most people seem to find the idea of incest pretty disgusting and I'm sure there's an evolutionary explanation as for why. But there's also an evolutionary reason for why we're grossed out by acne, and yet we don't consider people with acne who have sex to be doing something immoral.

Let people engage in whatever sexual behavior they choose. If you're so concerned about morality, then do your best to educate people on their options and the consequence of their choices - say by informing them that around 40% of incest babies with first degree relatives have health problems, for example. After that it's up to them. Sexuality is complicated, and incestuous behavior is evident in both captive and wild animals just as homosexuality has been observed in nature. The only time voluntary, consensual sex becomes morally questionable is in the case of pedophilia or when considering the legitimacy of inebriated consent.
President of DDO
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 10:06:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Incest is perfectly permissible, as long as everyone is consenting. And, having an incest baby is perfectly permissible too--it's your business of what/how you want to conceive.

That being said, I do personally find it morally questionable for say a brother and sister to have a baby knowing that it very likely will have serious health problems and a low quality of life. I think it's extremely reckless, and, in some ways, selfish.

But again, my own personal issues don't matter. It's their choice in the end.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 10:07:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 3:48:19 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 6/17/2013 5:40:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I've argued elsewhere that marriage should be primarily a private matter, and that the only reason the government gets involved is the very issue of procreation that you mention - to not procreate posits an existential threat to the government and its charge, so it regulates such activity through the institution of marriage.

I'm interest in your stated existential threat to government from non-procreation. Does government have a vested interest in self-preservation? I'll go along with it having an interest in preserving society (but only because currently almost everybody wants to keep society around in one form or another). But shouldn't it be in the governments interest to cede power to a more capable entity if it has confidence that said entity is more capable and more qualified to discharge its responsibilities? Perhaps this is better suited to discussion in another thread but I'd rather not start one if no one has any interest in discussing it.

A couple ways to answer this:

1) In order for the government to achieve its purpose, it must exist in the first place. Without existence, the government simply cannot do what it is supposed to do. Therefore, self-preservation is hard-wired into the government, and indeed any institution.

2) If a more capable entity surfaced, it would only be deemed more capable via competition. In many pre-modern societies, competition could only come from without, as the head of state was typically a hereditary position. This is how empires fell.

In most modern societies, competition can also come from within. Therefore, I would say that the question answers itself, in that a more capable entity would only be proven to be more capable if it replaced the current government.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 5:17:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 10:27:33 AM, rockwater wrote:
This is my first post on the debate.org forums!

Let me start all of this off by saying that I am gay and proudly so. I do not know for sure whether it is morally wrong for two brothers or two sisters to have sex. I have no desire to sleep with any of my siblings, but when I hear people opposed to gay rights saying that morally accepting homosexuality would mean that there is nothing immoral about two brothers or two sisters having sex, I feel a need to have a response other than "It shows how much your mind is in the gutter that you even think if such things."

I do not think it is perverted to think about whether two adult brothers or two adult sisters should be morally or legally allowed to have sex. Homosexuality was punishable under law for centuries because of religious and cultural taboos. Therefore, now that the taboo regarding homosexuality has been successfully challenged to the point that it is legally permissible, other taboos should also be challenged unless there is a secular and rational reason for maintaining them. I am generally on the side of sexual freedom as long as it is consensual, among adults, and there is no harm to anyone, including potential offspring. Heterosexual incest is frequently called immoral because of the chance that offspring will have genetic deformities. In homosexual incest there is no such probability.

Incest is also frequently equated with pedophilia but the two things are different. An adult having sex with a child is wrong because it takes advantage of the power adults have over children and over children's impaired ability to give consent.

I ask specifically about two adult brothers or two adult sisters because

-there is no chance of conceiving children
-there is no pedophilia
-unlike incest between a parent and an adult child, there is less chance of an abuse of a position of authority

One could argue that incest is wrong because we are genetically wired to find it repulsive (so as to prevent inbreeding). Studies have shown that siblings raised together tend to not find each other attractive, whereas siblings who do not meet until adulthood tend to have a strong physical attraction to each other because of the innate similarities in appearance and personality (although that attraction is rarely acted on due to the incest taboo). This indicates that there may be some genetic inhibiting effect on the sexual attraction between siblings who grow up together, presumably to prevent inbreeding. (Granted, it is difficult to separate any genetic inhibition of sexual attraction among siblings who grow up together from inhibition caused by cultural and religious taboos.) If our minds are wired to find sibling incest repulsive, why should we allow people to make themselves miserable by having sex with their siblings?

In answer to this last challenge, I think it is worth pouting out that many siblings are not raised together as do not meet until adulthood, so this supposed genetic effect would not apply. It is also worth considering that the revulsion many (but not all) cultures felt towards homosexuality was once argued to be innate due to homosexual acts' being "against nature" and contrary to the need for procreation in order to continue the species, ensure the survival of one's genes, etc.

So, from a perfectly secular and rational point of view, what reason is there that incest among same-sex adult siblings should be illegal or immoral? How can pro-gay rights people respond to arguments that accepting homosexuality provides an ideological basis for accepting certain forms of incest without merely resorting to taboos? Should gay-rights advocates be necessarily offended when accepting homosexuality is compared to accepting same-sex adult sibling incest?

If two gay adult siblings want to have sex/ get married, then I see nothing wrong with this. However, if straight siblings have sex/ get married then this is a gray area due to the high probability of birth defects pertaining to any children they may have. The gene pool should avoid being tainted to that extent.

Also, I am a population control advocate, which is one of the main reasons I push for homosexual rights to the furthest extent. We don't need people popping out babies left right and center, sucking up our air and finite resources. The more gay people there are, the better our society will be in the long run, as we will have more for ourselves.