>>Is it a personal choice? > >again, depends. Most incestual relationships >involve such a large age >difference that it would suffer >the same "power issues" problem >that your pedophilia example does >(in fact, many incestual relationships >border on pedophilia).
First, thanks 4 responding. I was truly surprised when no one made a peep on the Gay 2 Straight post after I wrote this (clarification on "If yes..." part, that applies for "personal choice?" and "natural?" only). Second, I feel like you're kinda running from the issue here... we're talking about incest in a situation where the family relation is all that's "wrong"... what most incest situations are like is of no consequence. Not to put you down, but this is the type of thing that made me think up the comparison - avoiding the issue, etc.
>>Is it natural? > >Well...what are you calling natural? At some point in your history, there HAD to be incestual relationships (that whole small population -> large population thing). Other members of the animal kingdom have incestual relationships.
I'm gonna take that as a yes... I think...
>Now to the important stuff: > >>How is homosexuality different? >>How is it different in a >>way that makes incest wrong/unnatural, >>but homosexuality OK? > >I think the largest issue is >that homosexuality doesn't present the >problem of genetically fucked up >kids. That is good >enough for me. If >you want more, let me >know.
Interesting. I kind of expected this, it was destined to be raised... but I shall obviously not let the discussion end here. First, one word: contraception. Second, what brother-brother incest (cringe now, non-desensitized readers)? And sister-sister? No children could come out of these relationships... does nature really discourage incest more than it does homosexuality?