Bestiality vs Child Sex vs Homosexuality vs Incest

[Silverbackman]

Whenever someone thinks of incest or child sex, the whole "icky" feeling takes over. I think most people would support this icky feeling for these acts. Who wouldn't? In many countries both child sex and incest are banned, even incest between two consenting adults. Many would agree with this as well I think.

Bestiality seems to be legal in more countries than child sex and incest. It certainly isn't discussed are as popular as other "abnormal" sexual practices but certainly people would go "ewww" with animal sex as well.

Most people would probably agree that Bestiality, Child Sex, and Incest should be acts that should be considered "Mentally Ill" or people who have these desires should get treatment.

Not too long ago the same was for homosexuals in Western Countries. To a certain extent it still is the same in parts of the Western World and illegal in many other countries in the world.

What is the difference between incest and homosexuality for example? Both can be classified as "abnormal sex". Both taboos can easily be broken as seen today in the Western World (homosexuality) as well as during ancient times with the Egyptians (incest). I think most people wouldn't want the taboo against incest to be taken away. However some think taboos on homosexuality should. But is this justifiable? If we lift the taboos off homosexuality, then shouldn't we do the same thing with incest? Of course incest seems too "icky", but to some so does homosexuality.

The following page advocates same-sex "marriage";

http://www.deism.org/frames.htm

There are many good arguments for same-sex marriage but a few it seems the author cannot win against. For example;

5. "Homosexual marriage is as wrong as giving a man a license to marry his mother or daughter or sister or a group."

False comparison.

It's a tactic of radical right wingers to try to compare same-gender love to sexually predatory behaviors or incest. There's no comparison.

Stay on topic, please.

Next.

How is there no comparison? Why is it a false comparison? If a brother and a sister love each other in the way a husband and wife do, why is their relationship considered sick and "same-gender love" not? In most social issues I am not a "right-winger", but I see a very valid comparison here. Many same-sex marriage advocates claim that incest is sick and homosexuality isn't but isn't this huge hypocriticalism? They can't imagine how incest can be considered not sick, but this is the feeling many people have about homosexuality.

You can't just say marriage is between two adults who love each other because if that is the case the marrying my mother or my father should be valid too, right?

Now this isn't my personal opinion on homosexuality. I am open to free-will, if you want to have sex with your relatives or animals go ahead (although I will consider it damn sick). If you want to have sex with someone of the same gender go right ahead as well. While I don't necessarily think homosexuality is as sick incest or bestiality I do see how it is definitely an alternative separate issue than real marriage.

Thoughts?

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I think that any kind of sex is acceptable as long as both (or all) participants consent to it.

With this in mind, I do not think that child sex or animal sex are acceptable, because children are too immature and animals are simply unable to make that decision.

As for Incest, I see no real problems. Again, as long as all participants consent to sex, what business is it of mine? Let them do what they want, they're not hurting anyone.

Although I do think that incestuous couples who may plan long term relationships should adopt if they want kids. Just too much chance of genetic defects.

And homosexuality? I am genuinly shocked that you would think to include it in this poll alongside child sex and bestiality.

That's the way I see it

Peace
ATF

 

[bruceg]

I tend to agree with you, Awaiting... the web page quote nailed it dead on - "sexually predatory behaviors" - to which I'd add that for most folks the idea of incest isn't between consenting adults - it's older/younger sibling or parent/child - which places it in the "child sex" category until they're adults anyways.

 

[Silverbackman]

How about "marriage"? The way I see it is that if we legalize marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex, we have to do the same to two members of the same blood. Because at different times in history both incest and homosexuality has been accepted or taboo.

What do you think?

 

[path_of_one]

I think "abnormal" sex is defined by the culture in question; there is no cross-cultural/universal understanding of what is "normal" sex.

There have been cultures in which the norm was homosexual sex. There have been/are (many) cultures in which the norm is to marry your cross-cousin- that person is the ideal spouse. In many royal lineages, brother-sister marriage was acceptable to keep wealth and power in the family. The "incest taboo" is universal to humans, but who is under that taboo is not. Our US culture extends it to anyone you are related to, no matter how distant, but most cultures do not. Parents and siblings are typically under the incest taboo worldwide (though siblings have notable exceptions in certain cultures), but cousins and others are generally not.

It is ethnocentric to determine that any of these are "sick" or "abnormal" based on our own (outside) cultural standards.

Beastiality seems to never be "normal," but is generally ignored rather than discussed.

As for the child sex thing, I hate to say it, but I will anyway- what "child" sex is also is a problem. When is a person a "child" and when an "adult"? It's fine to say 10 year olds or something are children, but what about 14/15 year olds? In our (US) culture they are children; in many, many cultures they are adults and already getting married (often women to much older men). This becomes more and more of a problem in our own society as girls hit puberty sooner (common at 9/10 years of age now) yet are not adults for another 8-9 years. It seems we give our girls conflicting messages as well- they should date boys in high school when they are in high school, even though they are generally more mature developmentally at that age. But after they're 18, as a culture we're fine with them marrying much older men if they choose. It's a little bizarre and arbitrary, to be honest. We also treat girls and boys differently- most teenage (14/15) girls who have sex with a teacher or coach result in severe penalties for the adult involved and the girl is seen as a victim. Most teenage boys (14/15) who have sex with an older adult woman are seen as more "normal," as having wanted to do that (not victimized), and the penalties for the adult woman (if she is even put on trial) are often less. We have a double standard here that makes no sense, given that girls develop more quickly than boys. Essentially, we are giving messages that girls do not really want to have sex and so they are victims if they have sex with older men, whereas boys do want to have sex and so they are not victims if they have sex with older women. What a mess...

I will say that I think it is incredibly inaccurate to put child-adult sex, bestiality, incest, and homosexuality all in the same conceptual category. Depending on the circumstances child-adult sex is OFTEN predatory (though it doesn't have to be- consider the 17 year old girl and 22 year old guy, etc.), bestiality cannot be based on consent, and incest is relatively rare (if limited to siblings/parents). Homosexual sex, on the other hand, is relatively common in many cultures worldwide, and studies have shown that most humans have had at least some homosexual feelings at some point in their lives. The same cannot be said about having sexual feelings for close relatives or animals, or children (however a culture defines that age category). Homosexuality also exists in other animal species, and seems to be a natural biological phenomenon.

 

[Silverbackman]

I think "abnormal" sex is defined by the culture in question; there is no cross-cultural/universal understanding of what is "normal" sex.

There have been cultures in which the norm was homosexual sex. There have been/are (many) cultures in which the norm is to marry your cross-cousin- that person is the ideal spouse. In many royal lineages, brother-sister marriage was acceptable to keep wealth and power in the family. The "incest taboo" is universal to humans, but who is under that taboo is not. Our US culture extends it to anyone you are related to, no matter how distant, but most cultures do not. Parents and siblings are typically under the incest taboo worldwide (though siblings have notable exceptions in certain cultures), but cousins and others are generally not.

It is ethnocentric to determine that any of these are "sick" or "abnormal" based on our own (outside) cultural standards.

Beastiality seems to never be "normal," but is generally ignored rather than discussed.

As for the child sex thing, I hate to say it, but I will anyway- what "child" sex is also is a problem. When is a person a "child" and when an "adult"? It's fine to say 10 year olds or something are children, but what about 14/15 year olds? In our (US) culture they are children; in many, many cultures they are adults and already getting married (often women to much older men). This becomes more and more of a problem in our own society as girls hit puberty sooner (common at 9/10 years of age now) yet are not adults for another 8-9 years. It seems we give our girls conflicting messages as well- they should date boys in high school when they are in high school, even though they are generally more mature developmentally at that age. But after they're 18, as a culture we're fine with them marrying much older men if they choose. It's a little bizarre and arbitrary, to be honest. We also treat girls and boys differently- most teenage (14/15) girls who have sex with a teacher or coach result in severe penalties for the adult involved and the girl is seen as a victim. Most teenage boys (14/15) who have sex with an older adult woman are seen as more "normal," as having wanted to do that (not victimized), and the penalties for the adult woman (if she is even put on trial) are often less. We have a double standard here that makes no sense, given that girls develop more quickly than boys. Essentially, we are giving messages that girls do not really want to have sex and so they are victims if they have sex with older men, whereas boys do want to have sex and so they are not victims if they have sex with older women. What a mess...

I will say that I think it is incredibly inaccurate to put child-adult sex, bestiality, incest, and homosexuality all in the same conceptual category. Depending on the circumstances child-adult sex is OFTEN predatory (though it doesn't have to be- consider the 17 year old girl and 22 year old guy, etc.), bestiality cannot be based on consent, and incest is relatively rare (if limited to siblings/parents). Homosexual sex, on the other hand, is relatively common in many cultures worldwide, and studies have shown that most humans have had at least some homosexual feelings at some point in their lives. The same cannot be said about having sexual feelings for close relatives or animals, or children (however a culture defines that age category). Homosexuality also exists in other animal species, and seems to be a natural biological phenomenon.

Actually incest is as common in nature as homosexuality. However in many case incest can be more harmful to a population but to the extent over homosexuality is still questionable. Homosexuality in a certain animal population usually results into massive population decline while incest produces genetic disorders in the offspring.

Incest is actually as common in human cultures as homosexuality. So I don't see why one should be treated more taboo than the other. Many people get the "icky" feeling from incest but forget to realize that many people get the icky feeling from homosexuality as well. Incest and homosexuality in many ways are equal in taboo.

Child and animal sex have more fundamental problems because of the whole consenting here. A non-human animal definitely cannot make the decision for sex and a child may not have the maturity. As you stated we really don't know what a child is. Perhaps 15 years and older should be considered adulthood in this case?

So in general sex between consenting adults, whether same gender or same blood, maybe permissible in society but these are obviously alternatives to what marriage should be. So it wouldn't make much sense to give homosexuals the right to marry in terms of government recognition unless we were to let bloodsexuals (incest) marry as well.

Would you agree or disagree?

 

[Jaiket]

If a brother and a sister love each other in the way a husband and wife do, why is their relationship considered sick and "same-gender love" not?

It's a matter of taste.

In most social issues I am not a "right-winger", but I see a very valid comparison here. Many same-sex marriage advocates claim that incest is sick and homosexuality isn't but isn't this huge hypocriticalism?

If they find the act distasteful, no they are not being hypocritical.

You can't just say marriage is between two adults who love each other because if that is the case the marrying my mother or my father should be valid too, right?

Right. If it tickles your fancy, and no-one is being hurt, I don't think any morality can legislate that you are wrong.

 

[Jaiket]

Actually incest is as common in nature as homosexuality.

Really?

Homosexuality in a certain animal population usually results into massive population decline

I'd like to know why you think this is true.

Incest is actually as common in human cultures as homosexuality. So I don't see why one should be treated more taboo than the other.

Are you making this stuff up on the spot?

Many people get the "icky" feeling from incest but forget to realize that many people get the icky feeling from homosexuality as well. Incest and homosexuality in many ways are equal in taboo.

As is heterosexuality. I know men and women who cringe at the idea of engaging in a bit of the jiggy with a member of the opposite sex.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

What exactly is "marriage"? Is it a legally recognized two-person incorporation? For argument's sake I'm going to suggest that "marriage" is a status conferred by one's community for the purpose of perpetuating the communal, or social structure. While same-sex couples may, in some locations, enter into a civil union with the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage, it is still, under the other definition, up to the community to confer on them the status of marriage by granting them recognition similar to opposite sex couples. So it's not just a question of equality and equal access under the law, though it is that. It's also the matter of the benefit to the community of inclusion versus the detriment of perpetuating non-inclusivity. I personally think the benefits outweigh, but I also know that social attitudes evolve at a glacial pace.

Chris

 

[iBrian]

What exactly is "marriage"? Is it a legally recognized two-person incorporation? For argument's sake I'm going to suggest that "marriage" is a status conferred by one's community for the purpose of perpetuating the communal, or social structure.

It's a good point - and, call me a cynic - but here in the UK I've tended to view marriage more as a tax arrangement, than anything else. If you're already in a strong relationship, all the marriage certificate does is change you tax status.

2c.

 

[truthseeker]

My opinion is piggy-backing on some of the opinions and information already posted. I tend to think that Bestiality is the worst because there is no will from or reasoning with an animal. Homosexuality doesn't really fit here because there are consenting human beings in like mind. And different societies have different views on what a child is.

Okay.

Say there is a couple, first generation cousins, and they are in love and sexually active. Is that really incest? I've heard of people marrying cousins and things like that - though I can't say that I agree with the marrying of siblings because of the procreation risks. I guess those risks are still there among cousins but there is still a bit of a relation gap. These are the same risks that are shared with close-knit communities, such as Mennonites and Amish, aren't they?

 

[path_of_one]

We tend to overestimate the amount of genetic risk from incest. Siblings have significant genetic risk, IF they have a background of genetic abnormalities in the family. Societies in which cross-cousin marriage is normal do not show increases in genetic risk- but remember that "cousin" is often quite broadly defined and a person has many to choose from in these societies. It isn't quite like our idea of "cousin". And yes, the genetic risks are typically higher in small, isolated/closed populations such as the Amish, at least over time. Remember that incest or closed populations do not increase the RATE of genetic mutation which causes various disorders, but after a genetic mutation arrives, with a small population it is more likely to make it to the next generation and so on. With families, it is that the more closely two people are related, the more likely they are to share the same genetic material. So if there is any history of genetic disorders, there is a greater likelihood of them showing up in the offspring. It is not that incest leads to genetic disorders, but rather that genetic disorders in parents lead to genetic disorders in offspring. Incest is more likely to bring together two people very similar in genome, so any disorders that ALREADY exist in the parents are more likely to show up in the offspring. But the risk is not any higher than two unrelated individuals, both of whose families share the same genetic disorders (such as an unrelated man and woman, both of whom have a family history of hemophilia or sickle-cell anemia).

As for saying that incest is as common in humans as homosexuality, that is patently false, at least according to all the research I've read. Of course it depends on how YOU define incest. Incest between parents and children or between siblings is very rare in human populations, incest between "cousins" (variously defined) is more common, but that doesn't "count" as incest except in cultures that define it as such (like ours). So you may count it as incest, but it isn't to them- only to you.

I don't think there's any hard and fast rule we can set for what a child is, but the current international standards (I believe) set the breaking point at 14. For example, child labor is considered to be kids 14 or younger. There are other twists to marriage/sex as well- because some cultures marry kids when they are very young (by 10) but the kids do not assume the responsibilities and rights (i.e., sex) of a spouse until they are much older. Marriage can involve sex, but need not. It is an economic and social transaction.

And a final word- I've never heard of a species that had any problems whatsoever due to homosexuality. The percent of individuals in any species that are homosexual are a minority, so there is little danger of population decline. In human societies in which homosexuality is the "normal" form of sex, there are still ways to procreate heterosexually- it is just seen as "icky." For example, among the Etoro, they understand heterosexual sex is necessary for continuing the society, but it is considered dangerous, yucky, and thus is contained by lots of rules (like you can't have heterosexual sex in the village- too gross). But to the best of my knowledge in both anthropology and biology, there has never been a population that "died out" because of homosexuality. And the human species, speaking from a population point of view, certainly does not need any more kids. If anything, we need a HIGHER percentage of homosexual unions. We are way overpopulated and outstripping our resource base. From a purely ecological/population biology standpoint, homosexuality in humans should be encouraged, at least until we get our current levels of population growth under control.

 

[Obvious Child]

As for Incest, I see no real problems. Again, as long as all participants consent to sex, what business is it of mine? Let them do what they want, they're not hurting anyone.

Although I do think that incestuous couples who may plan long term relationships should adopt if they want kids. Just too much chance of genetic defects.

I broadly agree on this. However, there are two problems. Firstly, incest is a clear opportunity for complex pressure and issues of one person being dominated by another, perhaps from a pre-sexual age. Secondly, if we bar them from having kids together, we have to decide if it's actually criminal, and if so whether this applies to genetically disabled people having kids too.

 

[truthseeker]

Firstly, incest is a clear opportunity for complex pressure and issues of one person being dominated by another, perhaps from a pre-sexual age.

I don't understand.

 

[Silverbackman]

Really?

I take you are one of those radical socialistic "liberals" who contradict themselves when they claim that homosexuality is so different from incest. To you incest is "sick", correct? Well to some homosexuality is "sick". Get it now?

This is a very good atheistic quote;

I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer gods than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts

But this quote can be applied to many things;

I contend we are both discriminators, I just believe one more sexual act is "immoral" than you do. When you understand why you are against other forms of consensual sex like incest, you will understand why I am against homosexuality."
...Stephen F Roberts moderated for a different topic by silverbackman.

I am not saying I am against homosexuality. Do whatever you like is what I think as long as both partners consenting adults. All I am saying is that we need to treat al consensual couples under law equally. We can't discriminate against incest couples and no homosexual couples. It’s not fair and quite oxymoronic. A person against homosexual can used the moderated quote of mine quite easily here.

Since you are atheist, I hope you can see the equal contradiction here in sexuality and traditional religions.

And yes, incest is common in nature. If you deny that just pushing your homosexual rights agenda you are being quite bigoted here.

I'd like to know why you think this is true.

It happens in nature similar to how incest can destroy a population of animals.

When I say homosexual animals I mean animals that are purely homosexual. This doesn't include bonobos (pygmy Chimps) who participate in homosexuality as a recreational sex or as bonding rituals.

Are you making this stuff up on the spot?

Yup, you clearly have an agenda if you don't know about cultures where incest has been normal. The ancient Egyptians are a perfect example. 50 years ago it was common to marry cousins and in some states and countries it still is.

As is heterosexuality. I know men and women who cringe at the idea of engaging in a bit of the jiggy with a member of the opposite sex.

So what? What is your point? I know people who cringe at the idea of having sex with a human instead of a four-legged mammal. There are some serial killers that cringe at the idea of having sex with anything but a dead person's carcass (as with many serial killers.

 

[Silverbackman]

It's a good point - and, call me a cynic - but here in the UK I've tended to view marriage more as a tax arrangement, than anything else. If you're already in a strong relationship, all the marriage certificate does is change you tax status.

2c.

Yes I agree. The government should have no say what marriage is. It should be up to the people or community to decide what marriage is. There maybe some homosexuals that believe marriage is only between members of the same sex. This is why there shouldn't be any tax benefits or no government endorsed idea on what marriage is.

 

[Jaiket]

I take you are one of those radical socialistic "liberals" who contradict themselves when they claim that homosexuality is so different from incest.

*Yawns* Ad hominem.

Quickly, homosexuality is the sexual attraction to a memebr of your gender. Incest is a sexual attraction to member of your close family. If you can't spot the difference I'll shout it for you. A RELATIONSHIP CAN BE INCESTUOUS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT IS HOMOSEXUAL.

To you incest is "sick", correct?

Where did I say that?

I find incest and homosexuality to be equally distasteful; the idea of having sex with a male or a mamber of my family of any gender completely disturbs me. So, no I didn't separate them as moral issues, as you should probably have grasped from the post immediately before the one you quoted.

This is a very good atheistic quote

Yeah, it's a beauty.

But this quote can be applied to many things

Crikey.

I am not saying I am against homosexuality. Do whatever you like is what I think as long as both partners consenting adults.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Since you are atheist, I hope you can see the equal contradiction here in sexuality and traditional religions.

You're rambling....

And yes, incest is common in nature. If you deny that just pushing your homosexual rights agenda you are being quite bigoted here.

Guilty, I push my homosexual rights agenda at every opportunity. I for one believe equality is for all people. How you manage to equate that to bigotry is beyond me.

Anyway, you actually said:

"incest is as common in nature as homosexuality"

When I said 'really?' I was hoping you might have some means of substantiating that claim. The same goes for these two statements:

"Homosexuality in a certain animal population usually results into massive population decline"

"Incest is actually as common in human cultures as homosexuality"

Since you offered complete piffle to back your claims I am going to resort to the opinion that you simlpy made them up

So what? What is your point? I know people who cringe at the idea of having sex with a human instead of a four-legged mammal. There are some serial killers that cringe at the idea of having sex with anything but a dead person's carcass (as with many serial killers.

You've made my point. There are people who find all sorts abominable, and so affording rights based on what we judge to be tasteful is unethical if we have consenting adults of sound mind.

 

[Quahom1]

There were some options left off of the poll:

extramarital affairs
multiple spouses
self gratification
monogomous relationships
marriage
abstenance


hmmm......

 

[Faithfulservant]

I attended a rally and the same analogy was used. Here goes.

Once upon a time homosexuality was "disgusting" and deemed an illness. it was on the same level as bestiality and incest.

years later its not disgusting.. now its accepted as consentual and normal... Now two consenting homosexuals want the right to be married..so they are afforded all the rights of heterosexual married couples... Ok so thats allowed..

Next step.. two consenting first cousins.. Its not quite as acceptable as homosexuality....yet.... but they are adults and have the right to do what they want in the privacy of their homes.. Well now they want the right to get married so they can have the same rights afforded married couples... Ok well the same idea.. they are both consenting adults they must be allowed the same rights as homosexuals and heterosexual couples. Ok so thats allowed.

Next step... a man walks in with his beloved pet and asks for the same rights as others.. Now you might think that Im being silly now and insulting gay ppl by putting them in this same catergory..but this happens more than is spoken its just not acceptable in todays society.. just like homosexuality once was. Bestiality is a sickness and these people feel they are in love and have relations with animals...Homosexuality was once considered a sickness..

Well the next step on this poll is child sex..... same concept.

The concern is the moral health of our society. Biblically we are on a moral decline equivalent with Sodom and Gomorrah and the days of Noah.. which according to the bible is an indication of the endtimes..

The Rally I attended was called May Day for Marriage. It was a calling of people to stand up for the sanctity of marriage as given by God during creation. That we not sit back and allow one of our holiest and oldest decrees given by God to be trivialized into a civil right allowed by anyone who wants it. It is believed that God gives two ppl into marriage.. its not a ceremony performed by MAN... but GOD.

This is a very controversial subject and one that usually becomes heated. I dont think its possible to discuss this without it becoming personal for someone. I want to say that Im not attacking anyones sexual preference.. Im just stating what analogy was used and where it was used at.

 

[lunamoth]

I have only 2 little pennies for this thread.

First penny, the various sexual partnerships discussed are not all equivalent at all. A lot of the pairings (or multiplings) are between unbalanced levels of consent or power, i.e., between an adult and a child or animal. Further along these lines, in the case of polygamy, once again the partnership even if among 'consenting' adults is one of unequal power. It creates a situation of competition within a family for love, attention, and material resources.

Second, the only ethical stance or moral position is to allow civil unions for homosexuals. Who has the right to determine that another should face a life without the intamacy that comes from a committed relationship with another? Who has the right to deny practical legal necessities between two people who live together, share all resources and perhaps are also raising children together?

If on the one hand you believe that promiscuity is bad, leading to spread of diseases as well as moral decline as various partners are easily discarded for the next better conquest, then the only compassionate position is to respect two people's desire to have a legal monogamous relationship. You say that that is against your morals, to have two people of the same gender in a legally recognized relationship, with all the responsibilites that go along with that? You are essentially then saying to them that it is better to be promiscous, in fact it is what you expect.

Last time I checked gluttony was also a sin. Do we go around telling obese people that they are bringing down the moral fabric of society?

lunamoth