Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectHere We Go
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=15324&mesg_id=15386
15386, Here We Go
Posted by RexLongfellow, Sat Apr-28-01 09:02 PM
Interesting...my take
>Arguments against homosexuality which use comparisons
>are often shot down because
>the anti-homophobic viewpoint deems the
>comparison unequal. For example: homosexuality-murder
>(not hurting anyone), homosexuality-bestiality (not
>consensual, for starters), homosexuality-pedophilia (not
>consenting adults, power relation).
Those arguments don't make much sense, you can be gay and still be a pedophile, there's a big difference between same-sex relationships and taking someone's life...those comparisons seem a bit extreme.

>What about incest? As acceptance of
>homosexuality as natural increases, I
>always wonder, will the day
>come when people say "If
>I want to have sex
>with my sister, that's my
>personal choice. What I do
>in the bedroom is nobody's
Looking at that argument logically, I fail to see how it doesn't make sense. Society pretty much decides what is "right" and what is "wrong"

>Is incest wrong?
Wrong is a judgement call, but for the sake of argument I'll give my answer
Yes and no...No if it's 2 consenting adults (again, logical reasoning), but yes, because it distorts reproduction (biological reasoning). In most species, the female identifies the best fit male for reproduction. With humans, they have the knowledge proven that the best fit male most likely isn't in their family, because of DNA distortions, and/or mutations...bottom line, biologically speaking, the closer the two consenting adults in the family, the more distortions in the offspring (or the chances of distortion)

>Is it a personal choice?
Personally I think both are personal choices, but that's my opinion

>Is it natural?
Reproductively speaking, both aren't natural. Ignorance in animals is what happens...with humans, they have most of the proof that they need for reproductive reasoning (it's been proven that homosexuality cannot reproduce children, and it's been proven that incest can distort the gene pool).
Is it right or wrong is a moral issue...I'm gonna make the assumption that natural is being equated with reproducing.

>How is homosexuality different?
Homosexuality is a lot more accepted in today's society than incest. Logically speaking, they aren't far apart...morally speaking is where the big divide takes place

>How is it different in a
>way that makes incest wrong/unnatural,
>but homosexuality OK?
There's a difference between wrong and unnatural...wrong is more of a judgement call than unnatural...