Responding to "Homosexuality is wrong, the same way incest is wrong"

[Brian37]

Okay the things Im going to say sound a little out their but read thru this please.

I just want to get this out of the way, there is no such things as right or wrong. There is no universal rules that say killing is wrong (unless your religious then in tat case its your god). Morals are ideas or sentiments decided by the majority of the population of a group. Incest is widely accepted as wrong and is therefor seen as a crime and a moral violation. Being homosexual isn't right or wrong there is simply no such thing and same with insect. 

Take killing for example, killing someone is wrong or right at all. In the stone age before humans worked in groups they realized that if they joined together and agreed to mutually not hurt each other that they would benefit. However if they killed a team member they would suffer the consequences by dying. this is commonly seen in the line "don't do to other what you wouldn't want done to you". If you kill someone you endanger your own life. Because of self preservation you don't kill others and over time this has morphed into right or wrong etc.

Im open to any ideas or suggestions, corrections etc.

~ Prometheus

Acutually, morality while an artificial abstract construct that varies upon location and can change over time, that is still different than studying something through science. And the medical/psychological experts do not see homosexuality as immoral. Incest on the other hand, while it does happen in mammals and other primates, DOES have an evolutionary reason as to why we evolved to avoid it. If we only fucked family members, we never would have evolved to the point of having so many different skin tones and facial features, not to mention possible defects incest can cause in a pregnancy.

Primates and mammals evolved with pheromones, and that allows life to make the distinction between relatives and non relatives. But it also has the use of marking territory even out side of seeking sexual partners. And sex in primates serves not just to make babies, but also as a form of socializing.

I think it is wrong to confuse our artificial abstract with what evolutionary science says. One is a layperson's abstract, and the other is lab tested.

So no, the two cannot be equated, nor should they be. This argument allows laypeople to either be flat out bigots, or water down their bigotry to the point of pretending they are not bigots.

If someone wants to know what any form of life does, or the way life behaves the way it does, the scientists are the ones to ask, everything else is like you said, our own personal bias.


And to justify this by saying "insects don't have this concept", yea and? They also don't have our complex language. Insects are good at being insects, but not good at being humans. And humans are good at being humans, but not good at being insects. While all life stems from evolution, that does not mean never take our different adaptations into account. We simply have different adaptations. But I wouldn't ignore them either.

Being LBGT isn't wrong. It is simply another outcome of evolution.