Homesexuality and incest?

Question

Homosexuality is considered genarally admissible (al teast by the liberal western world)

Incest (I am talking about one between two consenting adults who are related) is considered illegal.

Please don't read this as anything to do with my personal life. I am a straight man who is skeptical whether either of them are genetic traits.

I find homosexuality acceptable, but consider incest as disgusting.

Is there really any difference? Of course, having inbred children is not good for the society, but taking that fact out, are the two very different? Should we treat them completely differently and have completely different laws?

It isn't all our personal feeling and opinons (of disgust and acceptance of a certain practice) just influenced by society, specifically by certain individuals who can create that influence?

I am sure this is going to touch a lot of nerves!

To everbody saying I am comparing apples to oranges:

The question here is the sexual behavior of consenting healthy, metally sound, adult individuals. Currently the society grades them as follows:

1) Heterosexual relations between two individuals who differ in genetic makeup at a certain pre-defined level (3nd cousins might be ok) - Grade A
2) Homosexual relations between two individuals who differ in genetic makeup at a certain pre-defined level - Grade B
3) Heterosexual or Homosexual relations between two individuals who have very similar genetic makeup - Grade C

There are different laws based on these rankings

Now is there is rational, scientific reasoning behind these rankings?

The question here is about sexual behavior, period. Don't give apple vs. oranges argument. It is weak.

If homosexuality is indeed genetically determined, do we have enough proof that incestuous behavior is not?

Answer 1

I think that the social motivations for considering deviant behavior morally admissible or not are fairly simple over history:

Homosexuality (a biologically unnatural act) harms no one, presuming the participants are consenting, and generates no offspring that might 'pollute' the gene pool;

Incest (a biologically natural act) isn't directly harmful but presumes that consent (usually from the female) is likely coerced, deceived or forced; any offspring are genetically malformed/mutated/flawed - any physical/mental deformity is looked upon by society as lacking, weak or fouled. Ancient civilization would likely view the offspring as "bedeviled" and kill it, along with the generating parents.

These preconceptions have simply persisted over time and color our modern perceptions of these acts.

Answer 2

The morality of homosexuality is a grey area, because moral absolutists quote the bible or some other holy text as saying that homosexuality is a sin, while others are more willing to judge its morality based on its ultimate effect on society -- ie since homosexuality doesn't have any adverse effects on society as a whole, and can be shown to be genetic and not a "choice", homosexuality can be considered an amoral issue (neither moral nor immoral) Going by this explaination of how we decide what is moral or not (if we are not moral absolutists), it can be seen that the morality of an act is often decided based on the effects on society. Back when humans still lived in little communities or tribes, incest was probably discouraged, or even detested, because of the ill effects that it could bring to the tribe; threatening its existence. I agree that what we decide is acceptable or not is often influenced by our culture and the people around us, but ultimately, standards of morality and acceptance are there because they were useful to ancient communities and remain useful to socety now. In addition, suppose there was an ancient culture that saw nothing wrong with incest; even encouraged it. The people of that culture would've been so ridden with mutations and deformations that it would eventually die out. Call it a societal version of evolution, if you will. A practice which threatens the existence of a society would be "selected against" and the society would not be able to last for very long. On the other hand, as shown by some species in the animal kingdom, populations are able to thrive even with some homosexual members. Hence homosexuality does not have the same effect on a society's survival as incest has.

Answer 3

Lets see now, by your understanding of logical inference, since apples, oranges, brussels sprouts, and chicken wings are all food, and even though some taste better than others, there isn't really any difference. What a round about way to mask your real prejudice where gays are concerned, yet to see if you can promote the same prejudice in others through activating what you hope are innate feelings of some mutual forms of disgust.

Your motives are as transparent as the facade over your ignorance. Do you think people don't or won't know that the bans against incest are based on the observed adverse effects of inbreeding.
Or is it somehow your subliminal message that homosexuality is the result of incestuous behavior?
Try and prove that one statistically or otherwise.

And the inferences added in your attempt to solve the problems in your initial presentation by the "additional comments" are just as idiotic and untenable and patently ridiculous

Answer 4

Yes, there is a difference, and it is this: a consensual homosexual relationship between two adults is exactly that, consensual. Incest between two siblings is actually not that uncommon, and probably does no harm. But incest between an adult and a child is clearly (like rape) more to do with power and control than sexuality. As such, it is extremely unhealthy.

(And by the way, the notion of "inbreeding" being bad is not necessarily so. It may create some big ears, but it doesn't cramp your chances of success. Look at the Royal families of Europe!)

Answer 5

there all sick in the head.. but we shouldn't judge them let god deal with them

Answer 6

you are okay as long as you are a hillybilly