Thursday, 1 March 2012

Still Trying For A Response...

To my dismay, I failed to receive any responses to my last entry questioning on what moral grounds homosexuality is moral, but incest is not. It seems they are either both moral/amoral or both immoral. (I did not weigh in with an opinion, I just asked a few questions)

Can anyone help me understand what makes homosexuality moral and incest immoral? If they are both amoral/moral, then where is the celebrity and homosexual defense of incest like we see with homosexuality? If the homosexual community is really for love, justice, peace and rights (as they often share they are) then we should see the same passion towards all sexual orientations, right?

Since I have not seen Celeb passion for the liberty of incest like I do for other orientations, I have changed Ann's quotation for the purpose of asking for a distinction to be made.

What makes her 'homosexual' quote heroic and posted by 1000's on Facebook? Call the answer "X".

Let "X" be the basis for an outpouring of support for incest. I say this because logically, the basis on which many deem homosexuality 'moral' is the same argument anyone can make for incest couples being both 'normal' and moral. I.E: loving adults choose to share their love: who are you to claim moral superiority and judge their actions?

If the 'incest' quote does not sit right, just remember according to the homosexual community you are 'unloving' if you dare judge the people walking out relationships of incest and Ann will likely give you hell.

Edited version:


What is the distinction between incest and homosexuality that makes one immoral and the other moral?

It seems like the “2 adults who love each other choose to express their love” works for both incest and homosexuality.

It seems like “who are you to H8, judge and claim homosexuality is immoral” also can just as easily be said of incest.

It seems like there is a real inconsistency within the homosexual and celebrity community for using 1 set of logic to boldly support homosexuality, and yet that same set of logic sits silent by those same people when it seems equal application ought to be made to the incest community. Is this hypocrisy, or is there a distinction that can be made?

Homosexual community, Lady Gaga and Anne Hathaway, please draw a distinction between why you feel incest is wrong, but homosexuality is not.   Otherwise, I will apply the same logic you use to support the homosexual community with incest.  Furthermore, I call on you to support the incest community just as vigorously as you support your own interests.

Please note: I am not saying incest or homosexuality is either moral or immoral.  I am dealing with the simple logic of inclusion/exclusion:

If all carrots are vegetables, then this carrot is a vegetable.

If all loving relationships where 2 people choose to express their love is moral, then incest is moral.

Please note: I am not implying I am correct by these questions. I am genuinely looking to learn why the passion for one group, but silent for the other group when it appears the same logic can easily be applied to both groups. 


  1. Maybe incest is given a bad connocation because often it is one sided. (not always clearlY...but I'd say often) So it carrys a negitave vibe to it. Sometimes the incest is forced on another person, and it is not necessarily comparable to gay / lesbian becuase it's not a mutual expression of love. It's a foce act of sex.
    Just a raw thought off the top of my head.


  2. Anon...try without name calling.
    P.S I am not 'for' incest.

  3. I agree, it seems like generally incest and homosexuality should classified the same way (either moral/amoral/immoral).

    Perhaps incest also gets a bad rap due to about whether or not disabilities/genetic issues occur in children of incestuous relationships.

    That would be a similar discussion to any two people who have a high likely hood of producing children with some serious genetic defect, is it moral?

  4. If both parties are of the age of consent, and there is no risk of children, then there ISN'T any distinction to be made here.

    1. That's kinda what I am thinking, but am open to learning if there is one.

  5. I've always wondered the same thing myself; ANY argument that is made as to why two homosexual people want to be married can be equally applied as to why a person, disturbing as this sounds, would want to marry their sibling. ANY argument. And the same goes towards polygamy (spelling?).

    One argument that I've heard for not advocating incestual relationships, which is probably the most compelling, is that any children resulting are likely to have genetic and medical issues. While that is true, there is no reason that they cannot adopt or go with artifical insemination. Afterall, that is the same argument that same sex couples use when you point out that naturally having children is an impossibility in their relationship as well. Same goes for the stigma of being a child an growing up with such parents.

    As for Amber's argument that incest is forced, that is true. However, sometimes (often I would argue) the sexual abuse inflicted upon a child is from an abuser of the same sex. However, all that proves is that abuse is abuse, neither necessarily making it incestual per se, or even homosexual, but unwelcome and destructive.

    NO ONE in their right mind would advocate an incestual relationship. However, there is simply no argument that can be made by the gay community that can't also me likewise applied to polygamist or incestual relationships. Which goes to show that just because you can do a thing because it FEELS good or FEELS right, doesn't necessesarily follow that you SHOULD be able to do it. Or at least if it were the case, that all logical would apply equally.

  6. This is the problem with the position of inclusion strictly due to someone being "orientated" that way. A lot of people are oriented in ways that make others uncomfortable, and there's no expectation to be accepting of incest, or polygamy, or other things that might be considered even more deviant.

    Your question can just as easily be asked in the opposite way; why is NOT acceptable to be uncomfortable with homosexuality, but it is acceptable to be uncomfortable with other orientations? Just as you ask, why is one OK and not the other, I also ask why is having an opinion on one OK, but having that opinion of the other is not OK?

    1. Orientation? Like, they are born a certain way? This has no bearing on morality. This would be a crutch for people who want to be immoral..

  7. I have a question for you Ryan, what do you mean "immoral" here? What are the implications of something being immoral?

    E.g. if person A does something which is immoral, does that give person B some right to do something?

    Give us some context here.

  8. Noris,
    Great question:
    "Immoral" would be in a very loose context. I am not arguing from a 'theist' perspective in this entry, so I am not appealing to any creator imposing anything. I have left it open to try to wrap my head around how people can claim incest is 'immoral' but not homosexuality. This is what I am trying to figure out. In the last entry, I copied an incest couple and the commenters on the news site went nuts declaring the incest couple evil, immoral, sick etc. I can't figure out where that 'declarative propositions' come from. Why do they think incest is immoral but not homosexuality? Seems kinda ambiguous to me.

  9. I'm still not clear on what you mean by immoral. Lets say we say that murder and rape are immoral. We'd then say that a third party would be "right" in using physical force to stop rape or murder.

    When you ask "is incest immoral" do you mean "would a 3rd party be justified in using physical force to stop incest"?

    1. no.
      Again, from a non-theist perspective, one could argue that 'mouthing off to their wife' is immoral ALSO they can argue that no force should be allowed to stop the immoral activity.

      Doing soemthing immoral does not necessarily mean stop the activity. Does this help?

      I am not clear on 'immoral' becasuse I am 'borrowing' the term. It is an entirely different discussion to discuss 'immoral' in the context of a theist perspective, which this entry is not doing.

    2. Without a definition of immoral (or at least a description of the implications), I worry that there is no point of asking if two things should both equally as moral/immmoral/amoral.

      Particularily if you and I or other readers have think immoral/moral have different implications.

      I think that if something is immoral than it means that physical force is justified to stop the action.

    3. Immoral
      violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

      Lots of things fit into this definition that we should not 'stop by force'.

      In the Christian faith, affairs are 'immoral', therefore should we stop them by force? I would say no. Therefore something can be immoral (from my perspective) without the need for force stoping it.

      Hope this helps.

  10. The other argument that I've often heard for denouncing incestual relationships is that "well, it has always been that way". Once again, before same sex relationships were openly tolerated in general by many people, it used to be said that it was frowned upon because "it has always been that way". But say for arguments sake that people were to become more accepting of polygamous or incestual relationships, would that subsequently make it okay to likewise tolerate those kind of relationships as well?

    1. based on our current society my guess would be yes. That's why public opinion is of low/no value - it is not anchored or based on anything of weight or true value.

  11. (The reply button doesn't seem to be doing anything for me).

    So, are you saying there are no implications to something being immoral? E.g. if X is immoral, then you probably shouldn't do it, and hopefully you feel guilty if you do?

    So, you're asking, is incest something that you probably shouldn't do and you should feel guilty if you do?

    1. I am not making that point in this entry.
      I am not saying 'there are no implications'. I am saying that there are no 'neccesary implications' based on something being immoral. There may, or may not be.

    2. You're asking: "on what moral grounds homosexuality is moral, but incest is not"

      So I'm just asking what are the implications of something being moral or immoral?

      If we have no shared understanding of what moral/immoral means then we can't easily discuss your question can we :)

    3. I agree! Hence my confusion on why society calls homosexuality 'moral' and incest 'immoral'. What defenition are we using, and on what basis do we make that claim???
      That is what I am trying to figure out.

    4. I think society generally means that if something is immoral then physical force is justified.

      E.g. in Canada incest is punishable by up to 14 years in jail.

    5. Fiar comment. So then I am asking what makes one immoral in 'societies' terms.

    6. To be more specific, you're asking "how does society determine in what scenarios is physical force justified"?

      Well, I guess in a democracy its whatever the majority decides it likes or doesn't like :)

    7. I've shared my opinion on the implications of moral/immmoral. What are yours?

      Perhaps: if something is immoral then God can punish you for it?

    8. Ryan,

      1. You've asked a question here "on what moral grounds homosexuality is moral, but incest is not", but you're not willing/able to define or describe-the-implications-of something being immoral.

      I think the question is then pointless.

      2. Once again you're unwilling to share your opinion on relevant topics, e.g. I was willing to share what I think are the implications of something being immoral (that physical force is justified), you once again end the conversation with no reason.

    9. Fair enough:
      My view/opinion/thought (not reality declaration)

      God is love.
      God gives us an instruction manual to serve us (Bible)
      Living within the bounds of his morality is good and brings life.
      God wants us to have life.
      When I error, I connect with people and learn how to lean and grow.
      God is excited when I grow.
      Not my job to legislate morality.
      God gives us free choice, we choose.
      Harm/hurt should involve physically stopping to protect innocent.

      I make mistakes all day. I don’t want to be put in jail for being rude, mean or disrespectful, but think I need to work on those issues.
      Mistakes do not equal jail.

      That’s the quick and basic Noris.

    10. to answer directly:
      The bible teaches us, man + woman (who are not related) join together and become 1 flesh. Therefore, sex outside of this 'misses the mark'.

      We are called to love and serve regardless if people agree or not with this position.

    11. Are you saying making mistakes is immoral? I'm certainly not. E.g. dropping my phone is a mistake, losing a business sale because I said something is wrong is a mistake.

    12. Ok, so what are the implications of "missing the mark"? Nothing?

    13. Good question.
      Not an expert. Don't know.
      Hence me desiring to learn.
      P.S I'm okay giving my opinion, but I don't need to in order to make a limited point.

    14. mistake does not mean immoral.
      When I mouth off and am rude, that is immoral and I stive to work on that.

    15. I'm still not clear on what you mean by immoral. If there are no implications to something being immoral, then I don't think saying something is immoral means anything.

    16. Of course there are. I don't see a 'back and forth' over a thread proving anything to you. For example, I say, "the bible says, the wges of sin is death" and "Jesus came to give us life"..."therefore obey his commands", then you come back with something that disagrees with that and undermines it like, "what is death and is God judging with death"...or something like it for example, then I say, "no, its a consequence to choice", then a common response is, "how could a loving" or "prove to me God exists" then the debate ends. So I have learned not to go on such paths. So I worte trying to understand how society thinks. How Christians think is fairly simple. Love God. Love others. Follow the playbook to do the love thing well. Where we miss the mark, sin, do immoral stuff, there is a God who loves us and forgives us. Proving this to peole is likely impossible, so I don't try. Instead, I try to live out a life of loving people, which I have found is both well received and comes with no 'counter arguments' or demands for proof. People appreciate being loved. I struggle to 'love people' over debates when I don't even know who Noris is. Hope this helps you understand why i don't entertain some of your questions...although some other questions you ask are thought provoking.

    17. I think I'm asking a much simpler question. I'm basically just saying please define what you mean when you use the word moral/immoral.

      So, you ask "on what moral grounds homosexuality is moral, but incest is not" and I am just looking for more detail on what you mean by the words moral and immoral as used in your question.

    18. and I'm saying I don't know how society defines it...hence my quest to know.

    19. If you want you can use the dictionary definition you quoted above:

      "violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. "

      So to rephrase your question: "on what grounds is incest immoral, meaning not conforming to patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics, whereas homosexuality is seen as moral?"

    20. "and I'm saying I don't know how society defines it...hence my quest to know."

      Would it make more sense then to ask that question, e.g. what does society mean by moral and immoral?

    21. I don't think there are any philosophical grounds to differentiate incest and homosexuality (apart from the possible genetic defects of offspring from incest).

      But thats not how "society" works. Probably the way society works is someone decides something is wrong, they convince everyone else its wrong, and now its wrong. Perhaps it started when people realized some of the implications of incest (often comes with abuse, defects in children), and telling people it is "immoral" was a simple way to stop people from doing it.

    22. yes noris, sorry for the struggle to get there...

  12. Whats the point discussing whether or not things are moral/immoral without definition/implications of something being immoral?

    Wouldn't that like me asking you if your job is foobar, then refusing to tell you what foobar means?

    1. that brings us to one of the main points - what defines morality? as Ryan discusses, morality is a waving line that changes, so it's not really morality. maybe that is the point.

    2. How about this: what are the implications of something being moral or immoral?

      E.g. why should we care if something is immoral?

      a) so we can try to avoid it
      b) so we can go to heaven
      c) so we know when to feel guilty
      d) to justify us putting people in jail

    3. Personally, I think physically kidnapping people and locking them up (we call this prison) is immoral.

      What do you guys think here? you see Person A pick up Person B, take them home, lock them up, moral? immoral?

      What if Person B was having an incestuous relationship? Are A's actions now somehow moral?

    4. Noris, for the most Of the thread you seemed mega ignorant on what immoral/ moral is founded by...I see in this post, you opine, a moral position. How do you stand on grounds you are confused on?

    5. Bradley, I wasn't asking questions to solve my confusion, I was asking questions to understand Ryan's question, and to point out the problems with it.

    6. p.s. its noirs. or should I address you bradely?

  13. Actually, both incest and homosexuality have been considered 'moral' in various cultures down the ages. Think Egypt (Pharaoh would marry sister) and ancient Greece (Sparta - male; Sappo - female) as two well known cultures. No doubt there are more.

    1. Ryan is talking about the actual morality not perceived reality - they are not the same.

  14. popular opinion is arbitrary and therefore has no basis in logic, or morality or reason or anything solid that can be used as a judgement baseline. Proof of this abounds - that's why many controversial positions ultimately have to contradict their own standings. There is no such thing as morality apart from God because none of us in our own right have the capacity, or the right to define moral from immoral.

  15. However even religious "morality" (claimed to come from a "god") isn't based on anything definite, as there are PLENTY of examples of things that we can agree are absolutely immoral (slavery, genocide, human sacrifice, killing people for eating shellfish or working on a weekend, and so on) that are presented as not only "moral", but are COMMANDED in the buybull. As far as incest goes, the story of Lot presents a quirky little tale of exactly this, with no sort of reprobation at all.

  16. First of all, I think you're equating love with sex. I presume when you talk about incest you're referring to the morality of an incestuous sexual relationship; you wouldn't be having this discussion if we were referring to a platonic love between relatives. This same argument goes for homosexuality, but a lot of people cannot separate homosexual sex from homosexual love - both are considered immoral by a lot of people. There are many reasons why gay people enter into relationships - companionship, pooling of financial resources, looking after each other in sickness or old age, for example. Don't boil everything down to sex.

    There are plenty of reasons to condemn incest while accepting homosexual relationships. From the biological perspective, sex between closely related heterosexual individuals is likely to result in offspring that have a considerably higher incidence of genetic abnormalities. Sex between homosexual individuals cannot by definition result in children, so there is no risk of offspring born with genetic problems. Ditto for homosexual couples adopting children. Also, one could argue that there is an evolutionary advantage to having a small proportion of homosexuals in the general population. In a family, for example, gay individuals contribute to the resources of the extended family unit (financial, emotional, etc) without producing any offspring to compete for those resources. As a result, they contribute disproportionately to the well-being (and therefore the genetic survival) of the offspring of their close relatives who DO reproduce, thus helping to continue the family's genetic line.

    Also, an incestuous relationship in a family is likely to result in the breakdown of the family unit. For example, it would be difficult to imagine a family surviving intact the crisis of a parent having an incestuous relationship with one of their children, or the discovery of a sexual relationship between siblings. Broken families lead to higher rates of crime, poverty and violence - all things that society at large has a collective interest in minimizing. A loving family can certainly survive the revelation that a child is involved in a homosexual relationship - my own family did when I came out to them, and we're closer than ever now that I'm not hiding anything from them. A homosexual extramarital affair by a spouse is not so much a problem of the immorality of homosexuality but of adultery, which society quite rightly condemns.

    It's difficult to imagine an upside to an incestuous relationship, but I can think of plenty of reasons why homosexuality should be tolerated. It's not all about sex.

    1. Thanks for taking the time to share Eric.

    2. Wow. You essentially said nothing. Sounds like you are gay and passionate about defendIng that, rather than interested in truth. Try again, with some sense and substance!!! You sound smart, and I bet a lot of people think you are...however, this response suggests you are incredibly foolish.


Think of how you can make your point and be respectful.
Try to keep cursing to a minimum; with thanks.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain