Homosexuality and the "Taboo Trinity"

[Daemon6]

I recently had a debate (argument >.<") with someone concerning the issue of homosexuality. It started, as usual, with the other person stating that it was an abomination and naming all who practice it as "disgusting sinners". He went on to claim that if homosexuals were given equal rights that it would open doors for other taboos such as pedophilia. I was able to counter his argument against the "taboo trinity" (as I call them ), but I was left with some nagging questions.

Pedophilia was easy, being as it is not only physically and mentally dangerous for the child, but a degeneration of social unity and an issue of consent. In other words it's a wholly abhorrent and an abuse of human rights. Bestiality was also easy as inter-species "relations" are dangerous for both parties. This also had the consent issue which constitutes it as abuse.

That left me with the last: Incest. In regards to steady relationships in which having children is a possibility it's easy to list as wrong. The significantly higher chance of birth defects and deformations makes it something to avoid. But what about casual or homosexual relations? If it's between two consenting adults with no intention of any type of long term relationship what makes it different from the current controversy surrounding homosexuality? What factors outweigh the consent?

Just so it's thoroughly understood! I am in no way arguing that incest is acceptable behavior; I find it as repugnant as most. It occurred to me, however, that if I were able to counter my own position then others might as well, and in doing so give credence to their assertion that A will lead to B (so to speak). So I'm posting it here to get other people's takes and see what the flaws in my own view are.

 

[Aught3]

Oh yeah, there's nothing actually wrong with incest it's just built into us as being 'icky' - both evolutionary and environmentally. Just because one of the taboo trinity goes doesn't mean the others have to become acceptable. Ickiness and slippery slope are the exact arguments you are countering in his argument but I applaud you for discovering them in your own and being willing to try and address them

Normal caveat about birth defects in offspring yadayadayada.

 

[ladiesman391]

I think your right Daemon6 on every point, I think incest (if it's two consenting adults) is an "AT YOUR OWN RISK" scenario, like with sports, it may be fun but carries many risks with it. Erring on the side of caution though incest should be illegal, as it's consequences can very directly affect another beings life without it's consent ie. Defected baby, whereas homosexuals cannot reproduce accidentally therefore their choices only affect the consenting parties....

 

[RestrictedAccess]

To be honest, were you to say to me that incest shouldn't be acceptable because it leads to an increased risk of genetic and birth defects, I would counter with:

1.)there's no guarantee the relationship would produce offspring,

2.)there's no guarantee the offspring would be genetically malformed, and

3.) if genetic defects in offspring mean the relationship should be taboo, then it would follow that those relationships with people who are already genetically deformed should be taboo as well, as their defects have a chance of being passed on to their offspring. That means no more baby making with midgets.

It's always best not to define things as taboo simply on a basis of ickiness, but you already know that. At least you recognized the flaw in your own argument. Personally I've got nothing against incest. Whatever floats your boat, man.

 

[Photolysis]

I'm going to play Devil's advocate here a bit, because whilst I personally find the idea of bestiality/incest repulsive, I disagree with the arguments presented.

Bestiality was also easy as inter-species "relations" are dangerous for both parties. This also had the consent issue which constitutes it as abuse.

Dangerous in what sense? In terms of diseases, humans carry plenty of them as well. In terms of er ... mechanical issues that lead to internal damage, or dangerous behaviours, those can easily crop up between humans too, depending on the preferences of those involved. And just because it can occur in some circumstances, it does not mean it always does.

In terms of consent, I disagree. Animals can certainly consent to actions, and equally reject them. I suppose one could argue that they lack the cognitive capability to make an informed choice, but then surely one could apply that to almost any behaviour/action involving a pet or animal? It would also follow that animals could not give informed consent amongst themselves! There's also the hypocrisy element as well, of demanding consent for sexual purposes, but not for euthanasia, castration, killing for meat, battery farming and so on.

That left me with the last: Incest. In regards to steady relationships in which having children is a possibility it's easy to list as wrong. The significantly higher chance of birth defects and deformations makes it something to avoid. But what about casual or homosexual relations? If it's between two consenting adults with no intention of any type of long term relationship what makes it different from the current controversy surrounding homosexuality? What factors outweigh the consent?

I personally feel that if there's no chance of having children, then I don't have a problem with it, in the sense that I think it should be legal. But then that slides towards eugenics, and at what point do you stop? If you prohibit siblings from having children for fear of genetic mutations, why allow people who have confirmed mutations to have children? What happens if improvements to gene therapy allow harmful mutations to be removed?

 

[Daemon6]

Dangerous in what sense? In terms of diseases, humans carry plenty of them as well. In terms of er ... mechanical issues that lead to internal damage, or dangerous behaviours, those can easily crop up between humans too, depending on the preferences of those involved. And just because it can occur in some circumstances, it does not mean it always does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health
The problem with the disease factor is that considering the relatively rare occurrence of zoophilia, there is a higher risk that a doctor will misdiagnose or miss symptoms entirely. Drugs for such diseases are, more than likely, not common either. On top of all that there is the shame factor. A person is far more likely to avoid exposure from such interactions than they would from normal forms. All of these reasons minus the shame factor apply to the animal as well. Understand that I am not an expert so this is based on a reasoned assumption.

The likelihood of physical injury is significantly higher as well, as animals are not mentally capable of telling what is 'too far'. There are many animals that could cause severe, even fatal, injuries from the act alone. Whether it be from size or attribute (i.e. horns, claws, teeth, hooves, etc.) or its response to the event itself. Humans may pose some threat with fetishes but they are aware of surroundings and can be informed either through verbal or body language.

In terms of consent, I disagree. Animals can certainly consent to actions, and equally reject them. I suppose one could argue that they lack the cognitive capability to make an informed choice, but then surely one could apply that to almost any behaviour/action involving a pet or animal? It would also follow that animals could not give informed consent amongst themselves! There's also the hypocrisy element as well, of demanding consent for sexual purposes, but not for euthanasia, castration, killing for meat, battery farming and so on.

I can't say I agree with this to be honest; though perhaps it is how my own argument was presented. By that logic there is nothing wrong with beating an animal to make oneself feel better. This, of course, is not only illegal but many would consider it to be reprehensible. I am, perhaps, unable to articulate the difference at the moment but I believe there is one. Maybe the fact that zoophilia is wholly a selfish endeavor, whereas the others have logical reasoning supporting them. Yes, even battery farming.

As to consent, an animal may be unwilling but still be forced to participate. Between humans this would be considered rape, but many consider animals to be property and as such consent is not required. I would consider the ability to consciously consent as a prerequisite to legal consent. That is why people who use date rape drugs are still considered rapists. The same goes for pedophilia; a child may be convinced but it does not make the act any less rape, as the child is too young to make that kind of decision on their own.

Again, feel free to counter my arguments (smileys make me a sad panda ) The more viewpoints offered means a better (subjective, at very least) understanding of the issue ^-^!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I would say, as usual, that there IS something wrong with incest. The rules against it aren't there because The Man is a big meanie who needs to control people. There's a question of boundaries and healthy developmental relationships, and incest is a failure of that development. Your mom and dad are supposed to be MOM and DAD, not "mom and maybe someday my girlfriend." Your relationship with your brothers and sisters needs to be free of any sort of sexualized aspect. We're biologically wired that way, we're supposed to find someone who DOESN'T live down the hall to hook up with. The "ewww!" factor shouldn't be discounted: it is normal, and there for a reason.

That goes for step-siblings as well. If your mom marries a guy with a kid your age, you shouldn't start getting it on... unless you're already grown up, and she's hot.

Granted, there's a little less issue with cousins, especially when we don't grow up in extended families the way we used to do. We can do genetic tests to make sure that you and your second cousin won't produce children with a third arm growing out of the forehead. I guess "separated at birth" siblings could hook up without any real issues, except for the mutant babies.

 

[Photolysis]

Interesting points.

The problem with the disease factor is that considering the relatively rare occurrence of zoophilia, there is a higher risk that a doctor will misdiagnose or miss symptoms entirely. Drugs for such diseases are, more than likely, not common either.

Animal diseases are passed on to humans by plenty of other means as well, though obviously the activity is relatively risky in this regard. But certainly there's plausible deniability. As for being misdiagnosed, surely that could also apply to tropical diseases as well? Therefore we should ban people from going to exotic areas!

On top of all that there is the shame factor. A person is far more likely to avoid exposure from such interactions than they would from normal forms.

I disagree. People are far less likely to seek help for such problems because of the taboo and criminal nature (in many jurisdictions). It's similar to getting help with drug problems; people are less likely to seek help for drug problems, they're not less likely to take drugs (as backed up by many stats that show drug laws having little effect on usage).

The likelihood of physical injury is significantly higher as well, as animals are not mentally capable of telling what is 'too far'. There are many animals that could cause severe, even fatal, injuries from the act alone. Whether it be from size or attribute (i.e. horns, claws, teeth, hooves, etc.) or its response to the event itself. Humans may pose some threat with fetishes but they are aware of surroundings and can be informed either through verbal or body language.

Whilst I fully agree that it is a far more dangerous activity by the very nature of it, I don't see that as a case for criminalising it. Most animals also give warning signs before attacking or taking violent action as well. Whilst it is true that animals can be unpredictable, we are more than happy to accept these dangers elsewhere, so why not here?

The problem is, is that bestiality is highly variable. Different acts with different species that all have different behaviours. I don't think it's something that can be generalised as "that's dangerous".

Humans may pose some threat with fetishes but they are aware of surroundings and can be informed either through verbal or body language

Yet humans can also be very ignorant about the risks of certain activities; the solution is not to ban them, but educate.

As to consent, an animal may be unwilling but still be forced to participate. Between humans this would be considered rape, but many consider animals to be property and as such consent is not required.

I would strongly disagree with the view that "they're my property so I can do what I want argument"; it would be rape.

By that logic there is nothing wrong with beating an animal to make oneself feel better. This, of course, is not only illegal but many would consider it to be reprehensible. I am, perhaps, unable to articulate the difference at the moment but I believe there is one. Maybe the fact that zoophilia is wholly a selfish endeavor, whereas the others have logical reasoning supporting them. Yes, even battery farming.

The difference between beating an animal and having sex with it is that one action is most definitely causing harm, the other one is not necessarily. As for some actions being selfish, surely all the other actions (such as battery farming) are for selfish purposes? We also have no problems using animals for other forms of pleasure; horse riding for example. A different form of pleasure admittedly.

I would consider the ability to consciously consent as a prerequisite to legal consent. That is why people who use date rape drugs are still considered rapists. The same goes for pedophilia; a child may be convinced but it does not make the act any less rape, as the child is too young to make that kind of decision on their own.

I feel this is an invalid comparison. With date rape drugs, they are used to influence the victim to either negate resistance (i.e. knock them out), or to make them more suggestible, so the choice was not of their own free will. I would suggest drugging an animal for similar purposes would be equally as morally reprehensible.

With regards to pedophilia, I agree a child is not able to make such a decision. I don't agree with such a position with regards to animals. It's also worth noting that there have been cases where animals have approached humans for sexual reasons without provocation (I seem to recall an example of a woman being approached by a gorilla?). Conversely, such instances do not happen between children and pedophiles.


Whilst you have many valid points about health issues and risks, I don't see those as being valid reasons to ban it, particularly as those same risks occur and are accepted elsewhere. The real issue I would say is what qualifies as acceptable consent.

 

[Daemon6]

Whilst you have many valid points about health issues and risks, I don't see those as being valid reasons to ban it, particularly as those same risks occur and are accepted elsewhere. The real issue I would say is what qualifies as acceptable consent.

Well said, but I would venture that it's a mixture of risk and acceptable consent. Bestiality and pedophila are not acceptable in either category. Bestiality is different to be sure but just as unacceptable.

*note* I believe there might have been a misunderstanding regarding this post. I am not arguing legalities of said practices so much as trying to define what makes them unacceptable versus homosexuality.

There's a question of boundaries and healthy developmental relationships, and incest is a failure of that development.

This is a superb point. The social ramifications of inter-family 'relationships' are a very potent reason to avoid such things.

 

[Aught3]

@ Ijoe

It seems to me that your issue is not with incest per se but with forming a relationship with the people that were around when you grew up - almost like an obligate outcrosser. If you think that it is okay when estranged siblings getting together but not adopted siblings (or perhaps childhood friends could fit your category as well) then it appears to be something other than the fact that the relationship would be incest that is the problem.

Seems almost like you're saying it's unnatural (built in ewww factor) therefore it's not okay.

 

[Daemon6]

:shock: Oh man! play nice you two :O

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Seems almost like you're saying it's unnatural (built in ewww factor) therefore it's not okay.

Not exactly. I'm saying that there are issues involved, which is why there's an ewww factor, and that factor is a legitimate thing because there are good reasons beyond it.

For instance, you accept that pedophilia is a negative thing. There's an "ewww factor" but there are also rational reasons to reject it. Would you say that it is wrong to have sexual feelings towards children?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

:shock: Oh man! play nice you two :O

It seems like we're doing a good job so far... :lol:

 

[Aught3]

:shock: Oh man! play nice you two :O

I thought I was
Or do you mean IJoe's general tone when someone disagrees with him? :lol:

Not exactly. I'm saying that there are issues involved, which is why there's an ewww factor, and that factor is a legitimate thing because there are good reasons beyond it.

But do you agree that this is not restricted to genetic relatives and in some cases wouldn't even apply to brother/sister or cousin relationships?

For instance, you accept that pedophilia is a negative thing. There's an "ewww factor" but there are also rational reasons to reject it.

Well it's more a feeling of contempt for the perpetrator than the same type of ewww factor - probably has more anger in the reaction towards paedophilia than incest. I think we can probably eliminate parent/child relationships on the same ground as paedophilia.

Would you say that it is wrong to have sexual feelings towards children?

Well it's certainly unnatural but that doesn't make it wrong. Were you thinking more of actions? Because I would agree that they would be wrong, but the paedophile is taking advantage of a youth - it's not the same thing as two consenting adults.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Well it's certainly unnatural but that doesn't make it wrong. Were you thinking more of actions? Because I would agree that they would be wrong, but the paedophile is taking advantage of a youth - it's not the same thing as two consenting adults.

And taking advantage of a youth is wrong? Which means that someone who considers taking advantage of a youth is wrong?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Or do you mean IJoe's general tone when someone disagrees with him? :lol:

Not fair... I only take that tone when someone is being stupid!

 

[Aught3]

Not fair... I only take that tone when someone is being stupid!

Okay true enough, but the sheer number of stupid people that you've dealt with makes it seem that way.

...Which means that someone who considers taking advantage of a youth is wrong?

Wrong? Wrong how? I don't think there's anything wrong with considering it. Considering it then rejecting it would actually be the right thing to do. And after-all we are considering the consideration of paedophilia and it's not wrong of us to do so. Sometimes the best way to get an understanding of a mindset is to consider the action fully.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Wrong? Wrong how? I don't think there's anything wrong with considering it. Considering it then rejecting it would actually be the right thing to do. And after-all we are considering the consideration of paedophilia and it's not wrong of us to do so. Sometimes the best way to get an understanding of a mindset is to consider the action fully.

See, now you're being intentionally obtuse... if you want me to give you the "tone" you can just ask for it. I can send you a really mean PM if it makes you happy... :lol:

Let's try again: deciding that fucking little kids is a good idea: wrong or right? Thinking about poking a toddler in the pooper, and getting a boner over it: wrong or right? Wishing that you could stage an orgy with a bunch of 9 year olds and you, and get away with it: wrong or right?

 

[Aught3]

deciding that fucking little kids is a good idea

Wrong - and I think I already agreed to this.

Naw, a mean pm wouldn't make me happy but I wouldn't mind getting back to incest :?

 

[Daemon6]

Thinking about poking a toddler in the pooper, and getting a boner over it: wrong or right?

Is it wrong that I found this to be hilarious?