Yeah, I didn't realize how strong most incest laws still were currently.

Take down my father-daughter extreme example and replace it with two brothers. In most places, they can forget about marriage---it's illegal for them to even have sexual relations with each other. In lots of places, that's true for first cousins as well.

That's not based on inbreeding. It's not based on abuse. I can't imagine there's much to base it on, except for social norms. I'm sure the gay pride movement will tackle that next, right?

And, yet again, why would a brother-brother marriage have to be based on sexual relations anyway? What if they just needed to share finances?

I yielded a point and presented you with a corollary. Technically I yielded that point at the very beginning here, but yeah.

This isn't "slippery slope". With slippery slope, there has to be something truly terrible in the future that your actions now would bring. But I'm not presenting it as terrible. I'm presenting it as natural and a sort of, "hey, why not?"

I don't see why, as incest is commonly treated as psychologically aberrant behaviour. It is not comparable to homosexuality, as being gay is being sexually attracted to the opposite sex, but incest is mixing sexual attraction with a deep emotional bond and /or connection that does not appear in a healthy human being. Apart from the genetic reasons.

You keep hinting at tying abnormal and unhealthy behaviour (that is defined as such for perfectly obvious reasons) with homosexuality, which is neither.

__________________
El. Psy. Congroo.

Well, I suspect Grackle's point is that your classification of psychological aberration is arbitrary and self-defining.

__________________

It's not really arbitrary?

I'm arguing that consenting adult incest occurs so very rarely, even in secret by all indications, that it can hardly be considered psychologically normal behaviour. Most cases of incest involve a one-sided power dynamic that often leads to abuse, whether that's father-daughter, older brother - younger sibling of any sex, etc.

Incestuous relationships between siblings of adult age are extremely rare.

Homosexuality on the other hand is extremely prevalent and has been throughout history in human society. You could argue that "love is love", and nobody is being hurt by incest, and you would be right (in that extremely rare case), but there is no real empirical basis to have to allow it or enable it legally.

Not so with homosexuality.

__________________
El. Psy. Congroo.

Your argument is that it doesn't happen very often? Seems like that should make it less of an issue, and less of a reason to restrict rights.

As for happening "in secret", I'm surprised you'd bring up that point in the same post that you reference homosexuality throughout history, which has likewise often been secret due to legal ramifications and/or social shame.

It's a social stigma, and you don't have a real reason to oppose it. Like polygamy.

. . .

I'm not trying to make people say, "Ooh gross, homosexual marriage is just like all these other kinds of marriage that I don't accept! It must be bad too!"

I just know that the governments deal with a set of pseudo-religious social mores, but they pretend that they don't. That's dangerous. If my religion can't be top dog, then I don't want any other religion to be. Can't we all empathize with that, and let people decide morality for themselves without the government telling us what is and isn't right? (with the exception of the "don't infringe on other people's rights" that most people seem to agree on currently)

If incest suddenly becomes socially acceptable to the point where it's not illegal anymore, then the debate on whether they can be married or not can start.

As of right now, the two are not really comparable due to the different moral and legal aspects involved.

As society evolves, or devolves depending on your point of view, what marriage defines will change.

__________________
I used to take Warcraft lore seriously, then the lore took a Rule of Cool to the knee.

So you're a fan of sodomy laws, but only if they involve brothers or male cousins?

I think you're twisting my point here just a bit.

I was never making a case for legalizing incest, but pointing out that your comparison of homosexuality with the legal status of incest, polygamy etc is faulty based on the fact that homosexuality is extremely common and pretty much accepted in most societies today whereas the others you mentioned are not, and at best they are fringe phenomena.

As for the "happening in secret" part, it was merely to illustrate that while it may happen more often than it does publicly, it is still a fringe phenomenon. It had nothing to do with homosexuality having to take place in secret during several periods of history when the ruling moral caste penalized it, it was no less prevalent. In other periods of history homosexuality was commonly accepted (as typically referenced in ancient Greece), and before you go on to talk about the accepted cases of incest in ancient Egypt and among royalty - that was always incest based on necessity, not for real sexual urge or love.

Bottom line - you cannot take homosexuality and lump it with fringe cases of abberant sexuality such as incest, polygamy etc and argue "well if one is legally accepted and allowed the rights of partnership, all of these should". It's facile, and degrading to homosexuals.

edit for your edit: I'm not opposing incest or polygamy, just countering your point by saying there is no need to represent it in a legal status, whereas there very much is for homosexuality. There is no moral judgement of any of it from my side.

__________________
El. Psy. Congroo.

Um...there's no real response to this because the two things being linked are unrelated.

__________________
I used to take Warcraft lore seriously, then the lore took a Rule of Cool to the knee.

Stop comparing these things to homosexuality; they aren't going to be the same. Nothing is the same as anything else.

Just take it on it's own. When questioned with, "Why not incest?" or "Why not polygamous marriages?" or "Why not nonsexual marriages?", don't just answer by saying that it's not the same as homosexuality. Of course they aren't. Those three things I listed aren't even the same as each other!

Pause.

If you're "not opposing incest or polygamy", then why is there no need to decriminalize it? Let's focus on that.

Incest and polygamy aren't criminalized by default, they aren't in Austria for example. Sexual abuse is.

They simply aren't legally represented. And it's the same in quite a few countries.

As for your previous statement, we were reacting to your argument that if homosexual partnership needs to be legalized, then "why not incest, or polygamy".

__________________
El. Psy. Congroo.

Uh, you brought them up.

__________________
I used to take Warcraft lore seriously, then the lore took a Rule of Cool to the knee.

What is this debate even about anymore? BaronGrackle is all over the place making all sorts of bizarre claims!

As an aside...
I'll be in Vienna "soon" as a more semi-permanent resident. My doctoral adviser got a job at Universtät Wien last fall, and she invited me to come with her. I accepted her offer for one of her pre-doc positions. Hopefully, I can be there by the summer.

In other news -

Evangelicalism. Bad or Terrible?

__________________
"Yeah, a sheltered and overly idealistic son of an absolutist monarch, set to inherit the whole nation and continue to rule it as an autocrat.

A beloved archetype of modern era!" - Kir the Gul'dan

I'd take Baron seriously if he didn't use snark and smug smiley faces in every post.

“The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven” Recants Story, Rebukes Christian Retailers

The Burpo-Malarkey Doctrine

The worst!

__________________
"All right, I'll get that kid to eat. Where's my screw driver and my plumber's helper? I'll open up his mouth and I'll shove it in."


The Alliance's three rules on faction conflict:
1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't leave the game.

Considering the kid's name was Malarkey, why did anyone believe in him the first place?

__________________

Our doors are always open.

__________________
El. Psy. Congroo.

I was going with what wikipedia told me. Including Austria, which states incest is punishable by up to two years imprisonment.

It was poor word choice on my part. But you can't just end the discussion by claiming that homosexuality is different than polygamy or incest... you can't, because all of them are different from each other. Incest is different than polygamy. Homosexuality is different than heterosexuality. The various types of heterosexual marriage are different from each other.

And because all of them are different from each other, that is what makes it foolish to assert (for example) that homosexual marriage would be more similar to heterosexual marriage than polygamous heterosexual marriage or incestuous heterosexual marriage are.

You can't in one breath say "homosexuality is different than incest" while simultaneously saying "homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality"... because differences will abound in both cases. And that's the similarity between them all.

What's your reason for forbidding two brothers, or a man and two women, or two nonsexual friends from marrying each other?

I'm not seeing the obvious level of "bizarre", from my vantage. If you've spotted something I'm missing, then go ahead and let me know.

It's a defense/offense mechanism, even if it's less than optimal at times... probably from too much Simpsons and Family Guy in my diet. But don't cling to that as grounds for a blanket dismissal. Observe:

"The earth is elliptical, dipstick. Not flat. "

"Oh yes, the Jews are clearly an inferior race and not actually human beings like the rest of us. You definitely have science on your side there, smart guy. "

"How are we supposed to have an intelligent discussion, if you still think the best system of government is an autocratic god-emperor selected by birth? "

Judge material for what it is. You can shame other people for their tone, but that doesn't change the nature of truth.


EDIT: A very wide range, yeah? But I get along with most of the individuals I've encountered.

Say whatever ''truth'' you want, but don't expect me to take you seriously when you try to sound smart but end up looking like a total clown. Either change your tone or keep honking your nose with religious debates.

Aren't you one that loves to troll and similar? Ever heard of the glass house?
Baron, don't change, sometimes people just can't handle things.

__________________

Say no to genocide!
Save the Nightborne!

Hey no need to jump on Baron, he's just asking questions.

Smoke criticizes. Urge to attack Smoke growing...

Smoke criticized by others. Urge to defend Smoke growing...


Crap, I am too combative. But it feels so good.

Well because everyone would say they hate those fanatical-asses who go out unto the streets to tell us how damned we are and how damned we will be because, damn it, we are just so damned damn to damnation.

But it's also like this weird-passive political thing where many I know have this..strange view of how they'd rather preach to dying children rather than give those children aid. To make sure they live.

This was during that whole Libya-fiasco but it still rings true.

__________________
"Yeah, a sheltered and overly idealistic son of an absolutist monarch, set to inherit the whole nation and continue to rule it as an autocrat.

A beloved archetype of modern era!" - Kir the Gul'dan

Huh, never heard of that. Probably because I've never heard of it actually being enacted here.

__________________
El. Psy. Congroo.