Homosexuality and Incest

[Nexus]

I've heard many people object to homosexuality while saying "If we say nothing is wrong with homosexuality, then what's wrong with incest? It's still two consenting adults, so what's the problem?" Is this a legitimate argument? Why or why not? Additionally, if your argument against incest is because of birth defects, then what's to say homosexual incest is wrong? For the purposes of this thread, we'll assume that both parties are sound-minded, consensual adults. So is homosexuality and incest comparable when we talk about what is and is not acceptable?

The reasoning behind this argument, if you haven't already figured it out is that homosexuality and incest are comparable for the following reasons:

1. The people involved claim its natural
2. Both are sexual attractions
3. Both are consensual
4. In the case of homosexual sex, birth defect is not an issue
5. It's a "victimless crime" (in the case of homosexual incest)

All of these arguments could be made for homosexuality in that it's said to be natural, consensual, a sexual attraction, and victimless.

I'm not advocating one opinion or another about these two things. I want to hear your analysis.

[Antares]

All of these arguments could be made for homosexuality in that it's said to be natural, consensual, a sexual attraction, and victimless.

Exactly. My argument against heterosexual incest is birth defects, but I have none that I would deem sound against homosexual incest. Just to add another idea to the fray; what about childless heterosexual incest (the method is entirely up to them, and note that I'm pro-choice, so I wouldn't mind abortion or Plan B as a method)

[Lights]

1. The people involved claim its natural
2. Both are sexual attractions
3. Both are consensual
4. In the case of homosexual sex, birth defect is not an issue
5. It's a "victimless crime" (in the case of homosexual incest)

You forgot that they are both condemned in Leviticus and both meet with great moral disapproval. ;) I don't particularly like how you added "the people involved" in your first argument since there are countless people (psychologists, sociologists, zoologists, etc.) who would argue that homosexuality is natural, who are not, themselves, homosexual.

I could challenge the argument that incest is natural with the Westermarck effect theory.

Reverse sexual imprinting is also seen: when two people live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one, both are desensitized to later close sexual attraction. This phenomenon, known as the Westermarck effect, was first formally described by Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermarck. The Westermarck effect has since been observed in many places and cultures, including in the Israeli kibbutz system, and the Chinese Shim-pua marriage customs, as well as in biological-related families.

It seems to demonstrate a natural emotional disposition to reject incest. This effect has also been observed in other primates. Incest does not occur in the wild very prevalently. In fact, it could be argued that homosexuality occurs far more often and on a much broader scale in the animal kingdom.

[Danisty]

Exactly. My argument against heterosexual incest is birth defects, but I have none that I would deem sound against homosexual incest. Just to add another idea to the fray; what about childless heterosexual incest (the method is entirely up to them, and note that I'm pro-choice, so I wouldn't mind abortion or Plan B as a method)I completely agree. I don't really get what the big deal is with incest as long as no children are being produced. It's not a decision I would make since I'm not attracted to anyone in my family, but why should I care if someone else is?

[bucolic_]

I think this 'argument' would technically be a red herring fallacy, since he appear to be diverting the argument. It's supposed to be a discussion of homosexuality, not incest.


I could challenge the argument that incest is natural with the Westermarck effect theory.

But you could also argue that incest is natural due to 'genetic sexual attraction,' which is essentially the opposite of the westermarck effect.

[stasis]

Is this a legitimate argument?
No.


Why or why not?
The reasoning behind this argument, if you haven't already figured it out is that homosexuality and incest are comparable for the following reasons:
I would contend that this is not actually the reasoning behind the argument. Consider first the fact that heterosexuality and incest are not popularly or readily compared in this way. Does the moral tenability of heterosexual relationships lead to incest?

The argument you summarize in the OP is one that popularly revolves around the legislation of homosexual marriages; this, in tandem with the above, suggests the primary criterion for the comparison to be that the practice of homosexual relationships is traditionally illegal or otherwise prohibited by traditional moral authority. In other words, it is the position that law itself is how we should ascertain what is and is not moral or ethical and that therefore suspending one law is to undermine the validity of all laws. People who base their sense of morality on the legal have no way of dealing with moral or ethical questions when law is a suspended factor, and so they tend to find themselves asking things like "well, why not legalize everything then?" and exclaiming "but people will just break all the laws now!" whenever the question of the justice of this type of convention arises.

What the argument indicates is a lack of ethical reasoning (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.'s_stages_of_moral_development) in the first place.

[zibber]

"If we say nothing is wrong with homosexuality, then what's wrong with incest? It's still two consenting adults, so what's the problem?" Is this a legitimate argument?

Absolutely. Nothing is wrong with either. It's just a strawman conservatives use.

Of course I wouldn't recommend procreation, but that's another thing entirely.

[Double Victory]

Absolutely. Nothing is wrong with either. It's just a strawman conservatives use.

Of course I wouldn't recommend procreation, but that's another thing entirely.

Oddly enough, I was thinking about this exact scenario yesterday, and I came up with the exact same reasoning as a couple people here, like zibber's. Incest used to be fine culturally when a family wanted to keep their line "pure", and in places like Japan, it's incredibly prevalent in books and manga.

[stasis]

As pertains to the argument being made, qualifying incest as being fine or not fine is to implicitly accept the premise that it's actually related to homosexuality. Incest is irrelevant.

[cncracer]

I think I see this as two different issues. I think homosexuality is a genetic issue, and not a personal choice, and as such I have no problem with gays in a relationship.
I see incest as a personal choice and if between adults I am not sure if I care or not. It is a long held taboo; which I think is related to birth defects from such a relationship. I suspect with the way adults seem to accidentally get pregnant it might be wise to still avoid incest relationships.

[thoke]

Gay incest is probably fine, yes.

Assuming that the sexual attraction involved is qualitatively indistinguishable from that involved in ordinary homo- or hetero-sexuality (i.e. assuming it's not a fetish and they're not just doing it because it feels "naughty").

I don't think incest is a red herring when discussing homosexuality. It's a perfectly reasonable point to make: if we want to say that homosexual sex is acceptable simply because consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to each other, then we're committed to saying that consenting relatives should be able to sleep together. If we want to say that incest is wrong but homosexuality is okay, then we have a slight problem. But the solution is easy enough: accept incest.

[Antares]

But the solution is easy enough: accept incest.

Exactly my words. I don't understand why it's so hard to get conservatives to forget their purist ideals (this society is TAINTED! :o).

[Lights]

Oh good grief! Now all the religious nuts and conservative rednecks are going to claim that tolerance of homosexuality leads to tolerance of incest.

I can already hear it now...

"If you legalize gay marriage, brothers are going to be boning each other in the streets!"

[Dave C C]

Homosexuality and Incest is correct or incorrect only by the standards that any particular society wishes to impose upon themselves.

[LordMaiestas]

Nothing is wrong and Nothing is right it is how you define it that matter.

[thoke]

Oh good grief! Now all the religious nuts and conservative rednecks are going to claim that tolerance of homosexuality leads to tolerance of incest.

I can already hear it now...

"If you legalize gay marriage, brothers are going to be boning each other in the streets!"

Well they'd probably be wrong to say that. Incest isn't very common, is it? Certainly not as common as homosexuality, I would assume.

[ayayumi]

Oh good grief! Now all the religious nuts and conservative rednecks are going to claim that tolerance of homosexuality leads to tolerance of incest.

I can already hear it now...

"If you legalize gay marriage, brothers are going to be boning each other in the streets!"

I laugh at those kind of idiots. I laugh even more at the idiots you actually listen to them. What they don't realise is that it is them (puritans) who come up with the craziest senarios. How can you take someone seriously if all they do, if all the arguments they have are abstracts from a book. Abstracts they blindly accept as true, correct or natural. I am not saying the Bible or whatever is "bad" but blindy accepting something without thinking with your own little (in their case) brain leaves me at awe.

[MindOverMatter]

morals are defined on a personal level. personally I don't think either to be bad alone or in combination. As for procreation, not a good idea, with the birth defects and a family tree that looks like a braided rope.

[Lights]

I laugh at those kind of idiots. I laugh even more at the idiots you actually listen to them. What they don't realise is that it is them (puritans) who come up with the craziest senarios. How can you take someone seriously if all they do, if all the arguments they have are abstracts from a book. Abstracts they blindly accept as true, correct or natural. I am not saying the Bible or whatever is "bad" but blindy accepting something without thinking with your own little (in their case) brain leaves me at awe.

Even morons can vote.

[Aldrin]

Got nothing against either sibling or homosexual marriage, equal rights for all I say. However in the case of incest I would say prescription conception control really should be the case at all times. The risk of drudging up a recessive family disease is just to great...and that really isn't fair to the child.

[lisakki]

I think two different arguments are used for homosexuality and incest. The reasons people don't like homosexuality is well, I'm sure you guys know all of it already.

The problem with incest is that most incest occurs between father and daughter, often when the daughter is too young to be held responsible for her actions. And following this line of thought, I'm sure most of you all agree that having sex with children is wrong(...right guys?). That's where the taboo on incest comes from.

[Ligda]

No.

I would contend that this is not actually the reasoning behind the argument. Consider first the fact that heterosexuality and incest are not popularly or readily compared in this way. Does the moral tenability of heterosexual relationships lead to incest?

The argument you summarize in the OP is one that popularly revolves around the legislation of homosexual marriages; this, in tandem with the above, suggests the primary criterion for the comparison to be that the practice of homosexual relationships is traditionally illegal or otherwise prohibited by traditional moral authority. In other words, it is the position that law itself is how we should ascertain what is and is not moral or ethical and that therefore suspending one law is to undermine the validity of all laws. People who base their sense of morality on the legal have no way of dealing with moral or ethical questions when law is a suspended factor, and so they tend to find themselves asking things like "well, why not legalize everything then?" and exclaiming "but people will just break all the laws now!" whenever the question of the justice of this type of convention arises.

What the argument indicates is a lack of ethical reasoning (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.'s_stages_of_moral_development) in the first place.

THANK YOU.

why aren't more people realizing this?

to link homosexuality and incest and comparing it like this is ludicrous. two inherently, fundamentally different things. maybe if we were discussing this on a purely therorectical level between two consentual adults, but we live in a world that completely separates the two. as lisakki stated, the vast majority of incest is between a father and a daughter, and that, my friends, is child rape. to compare that to a happily, consentual gay couple is wrong. it breeds stereotypical ideas of the homosexual rapist.

[Thrifty]

Where have you read/seen/etc that the most common type of incest is father-daughter (the ones of you that assert so) ?

My opinion on the subject is this: "Live and let live".

[Ligda]

there are is no hard data concerning adult consentual incest simply because it is extremely taboo. when comparing adult incestuous relationships with father-daugher incestuous rape, the latter is thought to occur far more often. however, we also have no hard data concerning child incestuous rape either, due to a large number of unreported cases. leaving us with the unfortunate act of comparing two very vague numbers.

at the risk of being perceived as lazy, To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-Wolf170-2

that has many peer-reviewed articles and scholarly texts if you're interested on the subject. but, unfortunately, you are correct in implying that we, as a society, have only vague inferential statistics suggesting that consentual incest is so rare. that being said: "Among women, research by Russell (1986) and Wyatt (1985) has yielded estimates as high as twenty percent."

of course, that is the high estimate, with 2% the low estimate. Personally, I seriously doubt that 1 in 50 to 1 in 5 adult women will consent to having sex with a family member, the inferential estimates of child incestuous rape.

[Ace1337]

As long as it's consentual I approve of everything. By consentual I mean someone who is psychologically healthy and mature enough to agree to something. So gay or heterosexual incest, homosexuality, euthanasia, suicide, eating feces or drinking urine, you name it. I really don't care what some people do with themselves as long as they don't violate other people's rights. Hetero incest without condoms would be violating the rights of the baby who didn't ask to come to this world retarded or with 3 legs.

[ame]

narrowing it down
does homosexual pairing harm anyone? No.
does heterosexual incest. Yes. the child that could result would bear the consequences if not the genetic but the social stigma as well.

expanding on that the Westermarck effect is evidence of it being unnatural so a homosexual incestuous relationship would be a sign of an unhealthy family eventually in more ways than one once picked up or encouraged as being seen as normal to the children.

[lisakki]

Where have you read/seen/etc that the most common type of incest is father-daughter (the ones of you that assert so) ?

My opinion on the subject is this: "Live and let live".

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-Herman-1

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You could argue that wikipedia is inaccurate, and I would have nothing to say to that, I guess.

[Antares]

does heterosexual incest. Yes. the child that could result would bear the consequences if not the genetic but the social stigma as well.


Well, there are remedies and preventions. Such as abortion, contraceptives or homosexual incest.

Hetero incest without condoms would be violating the rights of the baby who didn't ask to come to this world retarded or with 3 legs.

Of course. The rights of the baby who could be readily aborted if the parents decide to do the right thing. There'd be no baby rights to violate then.

[ame]

"Well, there are remedies and preventions. Such as abortion, contraceptives or homosexual incest."

It is that there is an inevitable negative result if preventative measures aren't resolutely and painstakingly taken care of.
The potential psychological effect on an individual on top of that is not healthy.
Take for example a mother son relationship veering into a sexual nature. Expansion away from our families is healthy development to the mind and general wellbeing of a person.
A sexual relationship means tighter bonding and possibly a reluctance on one or both of the parties to let go of that convenience, meaning less wholesome quality and commitment for potential partners that is a natural development of every human being.

[Okamimako]

I personally don't think that homosexuality will open up the doors for allowing incest. Homosexuality, for me, is a combination of different things, environment, exposure, etc. I don't think that genetics has much to do with it, but I also can't see how something like homosexuality can happen without the help of a couple chromosomes. It's just one of my hypocritical views, I guess.

As for incest, I think there's probably more along the lines of perversion that happens when the person's a child that wouldn't happen in a normal upbringing, such as relationships with their own parents or siblings along the same line, etc. There could be conditioning on the side of the child. Even if there isn't any sort of sexual/romantic contact until the child is of age (16, 18, whatever the age of consent may be), then the older of the pair (whether they be a parent, older sibling, aunt/uncle, what say you) can pretty much "ready" the child for an incestual relationship when the child doesn't really have a choice in the matter.

Of course, I don't really see anything wrong with incest where the two people involved just find themselves attracted to each other (the only example that I know of that I can use is the grandparents from the novel Middlesex), except for the moral/cultural reasons.

[ame]

As for incest, I think there's probably more along the lines of perversion that happens when the person's a child that wouldn't happen in a normal upbringing, such as relationships with their own parents or siblings along the same line, etc. There could be conditioning on the side of the child. Even if there isn't any sort of sexual/romantic contact until the child is of age (16, 18, whatever the age of consent may be), then the older of the pair (whether they be a parent, older sibling, aunt/uncle, what say you) can pretty much "ready" the child for an incestual relationship when the child doesn't really have a choice in the matter.

Of course, I don't really see anything wrong with incest where the two people involved just find themselves attracted to each other (the only example that I know of that I can use is the grandparents from the novel Middlesex), except for the moral/cultural reasons.

I also believe it has to do with conditioning.
Conversely where my line might be blurred where a lot of mainstream idea people would disagree is the area of cousins.
I was good friends with a muslim girl whose parents were first cousins.
There was no lack of intelligence and she did attract the guys. She didn't suffer any sort of illness or was sick any more often than anyone else.
She did hide the fact but let me know because she knew about my propensity to question tradition.
It has been a practice for a long time only recently being designated a red flag kind of relationship and it does not have any adverse effect.
Anything "closer" has shown problems both physical and psychological.
So I suppose I sit in the middle between the everything is good and nothing is. Where I've always been.