[Kevin]

Originally Posted by gradient

I don't think I speak your particular dialect of irational fundamentalism. In my world, none of those things are worthy of the term "sin" - I reserve the use of that word for things that actually cause HARM.

Well that's good on YOU. He was referring to the Bible. So within context I was correct.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

There is a reason that the usual conservative cheerleaders are staying away from this one: because it only reinforces the notion that they are inbred hicks.

Not at all. The only hicks I have seen are the haters in here. The name callers.

Smart people like Zimphire are staying away from this discussion precisely becuase they know that it will do a lot of damage to their credibility. Perhaps you should have thought about this before jumping in and insulting everyone who disagrees with the completely absurd premise of the OP.

OR because I had alot to do at work. OR I waited till the silliness started. Which it has. By the same people.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Wallinb, I wouldn't go so far as to say you are "original" or "wired different". In fact the OP is a pretty cliche comparison that is used by homophobes everywhere. I'm not calling you a homophobe, but this argument is one frequently used by them.

So, because a group of people you find distasteful has brought forth a point, that point is without merit? Conversely, I find that the word "homophobe" is used too liberally when in reality, one of these animals like man in it's natural state is backed into an intellectual corner. We know what animals do when they're backed into a corner, they get real nasty and start calling you names.

I also find the word "homophobe" used by offended homosexuals. I'm not calling you a homosexual, just that this word is frequently used by them.

Here is something for you to contemplate: If there are no distinctions between sexual sins like gay sex and incest, then what separates masturbation or lust from homosexuality?

Technically? None of them quite simply. However, biology has; you might say, a "built-in" way of disseminating it's own judgment. i.e. masturbation will not give you a communicable disease nor will lust. Neither one will lead to emotional fall-outs, discrimination, or scrutiny from others.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Okay fair enough. Here is the best reason I can think of why homosexuality is okay while incest is taboo, from a biological perspective.

Let's take a look then at the best of points you've had to offer;

Homosexuality contributes to the gene pool by allowing a greater number of animals that aren't reproducing to help raise unrelated offspring.

Brother and Sister can do this too.

Incest detracts from the gene pool as demonstrated by well known in-bred genetic defects.

A. I presume you're pro-choice right? What do we do with unwanted pregnancies? If a brother and sister have produced a child they do not want, they can have one of those carefully considered, professional, healthy, and clean abortions. B. A brother and sister can contribute to the gene pool in the exaxt same manner by helping raise unrelated offspring. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find out this already occurred to some degree even if the relationship is not incestuous.

Therefore an animal species, such as man in a natural state, is indifferent towards homosexuality, but reluctant to in-breed.

Actually no, I find myself reluctant in both cases as do most men. What now??? This simply has no foundation in logic Kerrigan with all due respect. "animal species like man in a natural state"??? What does this all even mean?

Perhaps not the best wording, but that is all I can muster up, having gotten 3 hrs of sleep last night.

Tell ya what then, go ahead and sleep on this okay and see if you can come up with some better ones tomorrow.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I've met people in denial before, and it's always sad to see. The conservative religious political culture in the US today sees homosexuality as an immoral behavior that should be illegal. Illegal. They don't just want gay marriage banned, they want gay sex to be a criminal offense. Do you want survey research showing that?

Members of this American conservative religious culture frequently use the "argument" that if gay sex is OK, then so is incest and man on dog! Do you want more examples of the use of this rhetoric by religious conservatives? Because it's not just virtually every prominent religious conservative like Dr. Laura and Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and on and on who compares homosexuality to incest and bestiality, its US senators like Santorum. It was even in Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. But you're in such denial about the state of American conservative religious culture that you deny it.

Are you finished with your BS now?

Really? I'm in denial? Or, could it be that I view the Left as a pathetic group of one-trick ponies?

I've expressed many times in this forum how I'm very left-leaning when it comes to social issues. It's just unfortunate that the Dems have no spine and such poor business sense, otherwise I'd likely vote for more of them outside of local elections.

Some on the extreme right want homosexuality banned, but not nearly as many as lefty, FUD-spreading, boobs want people to believe.


From my POV, as long as it's consensual, and not under age, any type of sex should be legal. Or are you too conservative to agree with that?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I'm not picking up any indication of comprehension in your posts, spliffdaddy.

It seems to me that as absurd as the OP may have seemed to you, you of all have been least adept at formulating a substantive argument against it.

There is a reason that the usual conservative cheerleaders are staying away from this one: because it only reinforces the notion that they are inbred hicks.

As illustrated best by the one with his head out the kitchen fold of his mobile home yelling at the homophobes next door.

Smart people like Zimphire are staying away from this discussion precisely becuase they know that it will do a lot of damage to their credibility.

Conversely, some of the most level-headed have been intrigued by this thread and have called you to task for your arguments. Scientist for example, cannot possibly fit your neat little box of hic can he? Is that your tactic here? Just throw enough insults around and call it a day???

Perhaps you should have thought about this before jumping in and insulting everyone who disagrees with the completely absurd premise of the OP.

I must admit, I've not heard this "incest" argument before and thought the premise equally absurd. However, after reading a few lines became intrigued by the apparent intellectual conundrums it provided and decided to continue reading. I didn't want to contribute necessarily 'til I saw your arguments in refutation of the OP. You've appeared to be ducking and weaving since you typed the first letter of your first response. I've not seen a compelling argument against incest provided yet, but what I do see is extremely interesting.

Those who generally claim to be indifferent to homosexuality seem to boldly claim that incest is disgusting, unnatural, unhealthy, abnormal, and just plain wrong, (you can't tell me you've not seen these words used before, but for whatever reason still haven't found the irony in it all) but... Why? Others, perhaps have no intellectual conundrum with either and are indifferent to both. However, the ones that do have yet to answer the question, but of all I find your take on incest most ironic in this.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Incest with a family member of the opposite sex is so dangerous biologically that one of the most universal taboos is against incest. Not to say that there aren't specific cultures with specific rules about when and whom within the family, but those rules are pretty much all designed to prevent conception. (No, I can't remember where those cultures are right now-my sociology book is one of the first I sold...)

Equating incest with homosexuality is just dumb. Incest is activities with specific people to whom one is related. Homosexuality is all about orientation-which gender one is erotically and romantically attracted to. There is no comparison, and to say there is smacks of trolling.

Plus, you think incest is "yucky", and decent people just shouldn't do that... right?

If both people are sterilized (provided they're of the opposite sex), there IS NO biological danger. C'mon, you think it's just gross and it should be illegal based on that.

[Taliesin]

What's wrong with incest? Besides reproduction-problems and moral problems regarding disobeying a clear divine commandment and besides the psychological manipulation through an older brother/sister and the much more probable rape-situations, I have another one, this time social one:

If the incess-practicing couple breaks up because of some differences of any sort, a real splitup is not possible, the family remains the same, no running for Mum and Dad to cry about the problems possible anymore, the partner is probably already there trying to do the same.

Really sick stuff.

Taliesin

[TETENAL]

Incest is not a punishable offence in:

• France
• Belgium
• The Netherlands
• Luxembourg
• Portugal
• Turkey
• Japan
• Argentina
• Brazil
• and several other latin-american countries

[Monique]

What is wrong with incest? George W. Bush and his offspring!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Monique

What is wrong with incest? George W. Bush and his offspring!

You really wanna go there? Especially considering the history of the French monarchy...


Now hush, and crawl back under your bridge.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The only hicks I have seen are the haters in here. The name callers.

And the evil doers.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

And the evil doers.

Did someone steal your Batmobile again?!?!

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Did someone steal your Batmobile again?!?!

That little prick Robin is using it to score w/ the babes again.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

That little prick Robin is using it to score w/ the babes again.

Well, you force him to wear tights and a mask (not to mention keeping him in a cave)...

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Really? I'm in denial? Or, could it be that I view the Left as a pathetic group of one-trick ponies?

Absolutely yes, denial. And don't think you're telling me anything surprising when you admit that your emotional irrationality over politics is the cause of that denial.

I've expressed many times in this forum how I'm very left-leaning when it comes to social issues. It's just unfortunate that the Dems have no spine and such poor business sense, otherwise I'd likely vote for more of them outside of local elections.

Some on the extreme right want homosexuality banned, but not nearly as many as lefty, FUD-spreading, boobs want people to believe.

From my POV, as long as it's consensual, and not under age, any type of sex should be legal. Or are you too conservative to agree with that?

It's not just "some on the extreme right" who want homosexuality illegal. It's close to half of Americans, and we're not talking gay marriage, but same-sex sexual relations. They apparently want people engaging in it to be arrested, like they do in Islamic theocracies. And this opinion is very strongly associated with conservative religious beliefs.

It's wrong to falsely impugn religious conservatives. It's also wrong to falsely defend them, and that's exactly what you're doing here, perfesser.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Absolutely yes, denial. And don't think you're telling me anything surprising when you admit that your emotional irrationality over politics is the cause of that denial. It's not just "some on the extreme right" who want homosexuality illegal. It's close to half of Americans, and we're not talking gay marriage, but same-sex sexual relations. They apparently want people engaging in it to be arrested, like they do in Islamic theocracies. And this opinion is very strongly associated with conservative religious beliefs.

It's wrong to falsely impugn religious conservatives. It's also wrong to falsely defend them, and that's exactly what you're doing here, perfesser.

A great many people find homosexuality disgusting, but you're taking it several steps forward and thinking that they want it to be made illegal, or that they want gays to be arrested. I'd hope you would know the difference. Half of Americans? Horse hockey.

"your emotional irrationality over politics is the cause of that denial"? Perhaps because the Dem leadership are fiscally backwards, politically damaged retards who can't even overtake a damaged president like GWB? They've not had direction or conviction in over a decade, so don't blame me if your party is an ineffectual, impotent shell of what it used to be.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

A great many people find homosexuality disgusting, but you're taking it several steps forward and thinking that they want it to be made illegal, or that they want gays to be arrested. I'd hope you would know the difference. Half of Americans? Horse hockey.

Horse hockey, huh?

"your emotional irrationality over politics is the cause of that denial"? Perhaps because the Dem leadership are fiscally backwards, politically damaged retards who can't even overtake a damaged president like GWB? They've not had direction or conviction in over a decade, so don't blame me if your party is an ineffectual, impotent shell of what it used to be.

Yeah, the Democrats are fiscally backwards. If the fact that you believe the Democratic party leaders are "retards" prevents you from acknowledging the simple fact that American religious conservatives don't like homosexuality, forgive me for not attaching much weight to the rationality of your judgment on other matters.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Horse hockey, huh?
Yeah, the Democrats are fiscally backwards. If the fact that you believe the Democratic party leaders are "retards" prevents you from acknowledging the simple fact that American religious conservatives don't like homosexuality, forgive me for not attaching much weight to the rationality of your judgment on other matters.

Yup. Beg your pardon if I don't accept Gallup, or their agenda. 43% is a little high, I'd think it's more like 35%. But to clarify, do you understand that just because you dislike something doesn't mean that you want it to be made illegal? I hate seeing Spandex on a 300lb woman, but it's her right. It's amazing how many people on this forum still don't understand the meaning of the world "tolerance".

As for the Dem leadership, the fact that they're fiscal idiots without direction prevents me from voting for them. Which is sad, because it leaves me to choose my wallet over social matters... which, given the state of over-taxation in this country, I'll do every time.


Now let's pull this back on topic, explain to me why you think it should be illegal for someone to have relations with a sibling, provided there's no possibility of them having offspring. Because, I find it shocking that a person who would be so defensive regarding civil rights would not support a person's right to choose in this matter.

[Rolling Bones]

My sister wuz ugly, well not ugly...sorta plain jane.

Never thought of poking her.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Yup. Beg your pardon if I don't accept Gallup, or their agenda. 43% is a little high, I'd think it's more like 35%. But to clarify, do you understand that just because you dislike something doesn't mean that you want it to be made illegal? I hate seeing Spandex on a 300lb woman, but it's her right. It's amazing how many people on this forum still don't understand the meaning of the world "tolerance".

As for the Dem leadership, the fact that they're fiscal idiots without direction prevents me from voting for them. Which is sad, because it leaves me to choose my wallet over social matters... which, given the state of over-taxation in this country, I'll do every time.


Now let's pull this back on topic, explain to me why you think it should be illegal for someone to have relations with a sibling, provided there's no possibility of them having offspring. Because, I find it shocking that a person who would be so defensive regarding civil rights would not support a person's right to choose in this matter.

Actually it IS 35%... damn, that was accurate.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll2.htm

half way down the page under the heading "Should homosexual activity be legal?". It's still a Gallup poll (bleh), but it makes much more sense.

Edit: Seems that your link borrowed the numbers from the "Is homosexual behavior acceptable?" question, which is very different than, "Should homosexual activity be legal?".

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Yup. Beg your pardon if I don't accept Gallup, or their agenda. 43% is a little high, I'd think it's more like 35%. But to clarify, do you understand that just because you dislike something doesn't mean that you want it to be made illegal? I hate seeing Spandex on a 300lb woman, but it's her right. It's amazing how many people on this forum still don't understand the meaning of the world "tolerance".

Haha, yeah now Gallup has some left-wing pro-homosexual agenda. Deny deny deny, and then when you see the facts, claim bias. People like you crack me up.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Actually it IS 35%... damn, that was accurate.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll2.htm

half way down the page under the heading "Should homosexual activity be legal?". It's still a Gallup poll (bleh), but it makes much more sense.

Edit: Seems that your link borrowed the numbers from the "Is homosexual behavior acceptable?" question, which is very different than, "Should homosexual activity be legal?".

You just can't stop digging yourself deeper, can you? That poll from the religioustolerance website is the exact same poll I cited, but mine had more recent data. The question was not about whether homosexual behavior is acceptable, the exact question was: "Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?" The percentage of people saying it should be illegal has varied between 1/3 and 1/2, and the most recent 2004 poll, which appears in my link, had the number at 42%.

Here's a pdf file of a paper with a ton of survey results on attitudes about homosexuality.

Here's the "should it be legal" question. The second number is the percent saying homosexuality should be illegal.

Jun. 17-20, 1977 Gallup 43 43
May 18-20, 1981 ABC/Wash Post 39 50
Jun. 25-28, 1982 Gallup 45 39
Nov. 11-18, 1985 Gallup 44 47
July 11-14, 1986 Gallup 32 57
Sept. 12-17, 1986 Gallup 33 54
Mar. 14-18, 1987 Gallup 33 55
July 1-7, 1988 Gallup 35 57
Oct. 12-15, 1989 Gallup 47 36
Aug. 29-Sept. 3, 1991 Gallup 36 54
Jun. 4-8, 1992 Gallup 48 44
Aug. 20, 1992 CBS/NYT 41 44
Feb. 9-11, 1993 CBS /NYT 46 43
Jun. 23-26, 1994 ABC/Wash Post 51 45
July 14-17, 1994 CBS/NYT 45 46
Nov. 21-24, 1996 Gallup 44 47
Aug. 10-27, 1998 Wash Post/Kaiser/Harvard 55 34
Feb. 8-9, 1999 Gallup 50 43
May 10-14, 2001 Gallup 54 42
May 6-9, 2002 Gallup 52 43
May 5-7, 2003 Gallup 60 35
May 19-21, 2003 Gallup 59 37
Jul. 13-27, 2003 CBS/NYT 54 39
Jul. 18-20, 2003 Gallup 50 44
Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court Decision
Jul. 25-27, 2003 Gallup 48 46
Dec. 10-13, 2003 CBS/NYT 41 49
Jan. 9-11, 2004 Gallup 46 49

It certainly fluctuates over time, but the most recent polls show that close to half of Americans believe homosexuality should be illegal.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BRussell

It certainly fluctuates over time, but the most recent polls show that close to half of Americans believe homosexuality should be illegal.

Fluctuates way too much to be valuable, I think is what you mean. Heh.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Haha, yeah now Gallup has some left-wing pro-homosexual agenda. Deny deny deny, and then when you see the facts, claim bias. People like you crack me up.

Reading comprehension, learn it. Of course, I'm not surprised you'd jump to conclusions.

No, Gallup's bias is decidedly to the Right, even I'd admit that. They're likely skewing the results to make people believe there's more of an anti-gay sentiment in this country than there truly is.

[Shaddim]

double post

[Monique]

Really polls reflect every man, woman and child in the United States. You can make a poll say whatever you want, my polls tell me that Bush is lousy at his job, that abortions should be legal, that gay marriage should be legal, that dying with dignity is in.

[Kevin]

My poll has Monique's name written all over it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Kevin

My poll has Monique's name written all over it.

with marker or needle? The latter sounds painful.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Monique

Just like saying that gays and those who practice incest are the same. I would never engage in incest because it is totally repugnant but I will always defend the rights of gays that do not hurt anyone. If you think that incest is not hurting anyone; why don't you marry your sister.

I've been to hard on you

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Fluctuates way too much to be valuable, I think is what you mean. Heh.

It's not valuable to me either way except to show that you're wrong. You do like to laugh at your own posts, however. Good for you - I get a chuckle from them too.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Frankly I'm a bit pissed that someone would want to compare homosexuality to incest, knowing that there are a number of gay people on MacNN. This is simply a matter of civility: you shouldn't take a person's sexuality and then use it to imply that they are the moral equivalent of inbreeders. Personally I'm not offended, but if you go around talking like this you are bound to hurt someone eventually, since you are preying on one of their deepest insecurities.

even gay brothers think its gross, I could never **** my own brother or sister if I had them.

[Athens]

2 gay men are different individuals with the same sex organs.

2 family member are of the same blood

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Reading comprehension, learn it. Of course, I'm not surprised you'd jump to conclusions.

No, Gallup's bias is decidedly to the Right, even I'd admit that. They're likely skewing the results to make people believe there's more of an anti-gay sentiment in this country than there truly is.

Right. In the black-helicopter world of the right-wing, there's always some conspiracy at work. I suppose all those CBS/NYT, ABC/WashPost, and other surveys that track right along with the Gallup surveys have a similar agenda.

And I note that although your whole point here has been that the right-wing isn't anti-gay, now you're saying a supposedly right-biased polling group is pushing an anti-gay agenda. You may want to start writing down what you're pulling out of your arse, so at least you remember it.

[Athens]

2 gay men are different individuals with the same sex organs.

2 family member are of the same blood

[Kevin]

Athens I think what he is trying to say is, we only think of it as wrong because we have been TAUGHT to think that way.

[greenamp]

INCESTAPHOBES!©

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Right. In the black-helicopter world of the right-wing, there's always some conspiracy at work. I suppose all those CBS/NYT, ABC/WashPost, and other surveys that track right along with the Gallup surveys have a similar agenda.

And I note that although your whole point here has been that the right-wing isn't anti-gay, now you're saying a supposedly right-biased polling group is pushing an anti-gay agenda. You may want to start writing down what you're pulling out of your arse, so at least you remember it.

I'd like to see if you carry on a decent conversation without being an abusive POS, now THAT would be impressive, no? Hell, I know I'm known for being abrasive, but you're just being a d*ck. Let's try acting like an adult.

Listen, the avg conservative US citizen doesn't want homosexuality outlawed, period. However, certain conservative organizations want everyone to believe that there's a grassroots movement to "ban gays". I've seen it, so have most other people who are paying attention.

[Monique]

It is funny that many people think because you outlaw something it will go away. Gays cannot go away because they are born like that and THEY DO NOT BECOME GAY.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Monique

It is funny that many people think because you outlaw something it will go away. Gays cannot go away because they are born like that and THEY DO NOT BECOME GAY.

There is just so many things wrong with this post...

1. No one knows what causes homosexuality or when it comes about
2. Even if people are "born" that way, that doesn't suddenly make it lawful.

Not that I am saying I think it should be made "illegal" that is absurd. But so are your reasons.

[Kerrigan]

Why hasn't anyone addressed, after I've mentioned it several times, the Westermarck effect, which offers compelling evidence that humans do not develop sexual feelings for those with whom they are brought up. This suggests that disinclination towards incest is not only reflected in taboos but is in fact instinctive. There is no such evidence that humans are instinctively repulsed by homosexuality.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Why hasn't anyone addressed, after I've mentioned it several times, the Westermarck effect, which offers compelling evidence that humans do not develop sexual feelings for those with whom they are brought up. This suggests that disinclination towards incest is not only reflected in taboos but is in fact instinctive. There is no such evidence that humans are instinctively repulsed by homosexuality.

Interesting, I'd never heard that before. I even missed your first post on it. Yet another reason to believe Freud was full of it.

But I find it hard to believe that heterosexuals aren't instinctively repulsed by the same sex. Wouldn't you say it's true that most heteros are disgusted by the thought of same-sex relations?

Furthermore, there's a ton of evidence of intra-familial sexual relations - fathers molesting their daughters, brothers molesting their younger sisters, etc. Happens all the time.

[Kevin]

hamsternated

[Kevin]

hamsternated

[Kevin]

hamsternated

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Why hasn't anyone addressed, after I've mentioned it several times, the Westermarck effect, which offers compelling evidence that humans do not develop sexual feelings for those with whom they are brought up. This suggests that disinclination towards incest is not only reflected in taboos but is in fact instinctive. There is no such evidence that humans are instinctively repulsed by homosexuality.

I've known gays to be repulsed by the female anatomy.

I am disinterested in incestual sex for the same reasons I am homosexual sex.

Nothing wrong with that.

[BRussell]

quintuple post

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Why hasn't anyone addressed, after I've mentioned it several times, the Westermarck effect, which offers compelling evidence that humans do not develop sexual feelings for those with whom they are brought up. This suggests that disinclination towards incest is not only reflected in taboos but is in fact instinctive.

It's just biology telling us it's wrong. It's also manifested in our psyche.

There really is no link between incest and homosexuality, other than the fact that they both go against judeo-christian ethics, and both involve at least some form of sexual contact.

I'll restate what I posted before, - incest poses various different "problems" to society and human beings beyond the (potential) detrimental effects on the (would be) offspring's genes and health. It is therefor clearly different from homo- or bisexuality.

[Kevin]

hamsternated

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Wouldn't you say it's true that most heteros are disgusted by the thought of same-sex relations?

I'd agree, - but I'm also pretty sure it's not "instinctive". Or maybe it is, and it's nature's way of making sure that there are still enough males left to procriate and resist the awesomeness of manbuttseks.

Originally Posted by BRussell

Furthermore, there's a ton of evidence of intra-familial sexual relations - fathers molesting their daughters, brothers molesting their younger sisters, etc.

I think a lot of that has to do with repressed anxiety and a crippled psyche. "Healthy" individuals don't engage in incestious relationships (at least most of the time). I would imagine it also has to do with "internal" power struggles (much like rape).

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Why hasn't anyone addressed, after I've mentioned it several times, the Westermarck effect, which offers compelling evidence that humans do not develop sexual feelings for those with whom they are brought up. This suggests that disinclination towards incest is not only reflected in taboos but is in fact instinctive. There is no such evidence that humans are instinctively repulsed by homosexuality.

Actually, I did address this. My post is about a third of the way down page 2.