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

[JewishAthiest]

Hey, I'm new here, and this is my first post. I'm not an English speaker, so if you notice any misspelled words or grammar mistakes, please bare with me.
Before I'll get to my point, some background: I was raised as an orthodox jewish in a religious home. I am a former believer, and in general, I am a very non-spiritual person, and probably always has been. Ironically enough, I lost my faith altogether at once in what can only be described as a very intense "spiritual experience" . The only one I ever had.

Anyway, I would like to hear your opinions about the subject of incest. In particular, how do you respond the the claim that homosexuality should be frowned upon for the same reasons incest is.

Let me first start with a story:
A couple of days ago, I was on my way to a business meeting with a colleague of mine - religious man who is also a close friend.
We talk a lot, about various issues. Politics and society, soccer, girls, family, etc, and since we don't agree on a lot of issues, we often even get to a point where the debate is really loud. Nevertheless, we stay good friends, and don't let these issues bother us too much.
Although we spend a lot of time together, only on rare occasions do we discuss the elephant in the room - religion and belief in god.
It often feels like we both try to tiptoe our way around it, whenever something related comes up.
Anyhow, while we were driving the long way to the coffee house, I told him that some common acquaintance just came out of the closet.
"The television shows these days"... he cautiously mumble, knowing I wouldn't appreciate it, "what a bad influence they have on people".
"What's the harm in that?" I respond.
"Well, it is not natural, you must agree".
"Oh, are you sure want to talk about what's natural and what's not?"
"No, but you have to agree that this is not normal", he deflects, knowing that I was referring to some of the superstitions he holds.
"I agree in the sense that this is not 'the norm', so what? being left-handed is not 'the norm'. It's not enough to make it morally wrong".
"I'm not saying it's morally wrong, I'm just saying that today's TV shows make us believe this is normal and ok and affects us subconsciously"
"So what?! If it is not morally wrong in your opinion, then why does it bother you that TV shows have this kind of effect on people?"
...
...
It went on and on, while I was trying to explain to him why saying "I'm not saying it's wrong" and "but TV is this and that" is nonsensical and contradictory.
Finally, when we got to our destination, I felt like I need to sum up and state my stance on the issue:
"If it is made in consent, and the two guys are old enough, why wouldn't they have sex? Why is it my or your concern? They are not hurting anyone."
To which he replied:
"Well, you know? How about we allow sex in the family? If it is made in consent, and no one is hurting anyone, why wouldn't we approve it?"
To this I wasn't ready. I never really thought about it.
He sensed that, and a big smile of victory and satisfaction was on his face, while we were entering the coffee house and had to leave that at it.

Later the same day, I tried to think; why is that at some of the secular countries in Europe these days, this is considered bad, and correct me if I'm wrong - a crime even.
I know that incest causes genetic defects, is that the reason it became a social taboo?

Notice that this issue encompass two areas: A political one, and a moral one.
Should we, as a society, forbid incest by law, and if so - why, and most importantly, how is it consonant with the principle - that I'm sure most of you share - that "if two persons love each other, are old enough, and they are not hurting anyone, then why shouldn’t they engage in a sexual relations?"

Here is professor Krauss' respond to the same question (at time 1:09:20):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSwJuOPG4FI&t=69m21s

What are your thoughts and views about the subject?

[rexbeccarox]

Honestly, I don't give a crap if you want to bone your sister; as long as you're both of consenting age, I couldn't give two monkey butts.

[Chad32]

As far as the idea of consenting adults doing what they want, I guess incest is a bit of a gray area. Though that's only because it increases the chance of a child having birth defects. I'm not sure how that's comparable to homosexuality.

I don't think incest should be flat out illegal, any more than forbidding people from having kids if they have certain genetic conditions. That's something for the couple to make an informed decision about.

[Simon Moon]

A partial list pf animals that engage in homosexuality:

American Bison - including anal penetration
Elephants - male elephants sometimes form long term homosexual relationships
Penguins - form long term lesbian relationships
Lions
Dolphins
Brown bear
Killer whales
Bonobo chimps


Show him this list and ask him if he still thinks homosexuality is not natural.

[Chad32]

Bonobos are a great example, because they are possibly the least violent ape and solve their disputes with sex.

[SteelCurtain]

The moral issue regarding incest is the likelihood of issues with potential offspring. If your genes are too similar, you don't stand a good chance of getting Joffreys and Tommens, but rather Tyrions.

So if there is an increased likelihood of having handicapped children, it should be outlawed. Also, when there is a generational gap (fathers/daughters), there is generally a power differential that is being taken advantage of.

I do not see a real issue if two brothers or sisters of age entered into a homosexual relationship. Even if it does eek me out heavily (the incest part.) No one is getting victimized for the most part. Luckily enough there is a biological mechanism in place that normally prevents this, but obviously there are exceptions to every rule.

[Regina]

It's strange actually, because when I explain to a lot of people that me and my brother are both gay, they seem to jump to the conclusion that it means we've done stuff together (the thought of which actually makes me sick, personally). That's like asking a straight guy if he'd fuck his straight sister, same thing tbh.

Incest is a grey area, I certainly think it should be discouraged for the reasons others have mentioned about children with birth defects. Ultimately though it is a personal thing that doesn't really affect anyone else, so I think outlawing it outright might be a bit severe. I don't blame anyone for frowning upon it though.

[Chad32]

Just because you're both gay doesn't mean the westermarck effect didn't happen. My sister actually had the body type I find attractive, but I don't have the urge to bone her.

[Esquilax]

"Well, you know? How about we allow sex in the family? If it is made in consent, and no one is hurting anyone, why wouldn't we approve it?"
To this I wasn't ready. I never really thought about it.
He sensed that, and a big smile of victory and satisfaction was on his face, while we were entering the coffee house and had to leave that at it.

There is so much wrong with him thinking he's victorious from that argument, mostly because there's like nineteen hidden, unsupported premises in it.

For one, he's making a comparison between incest and homosexuality based solely on the wording of your earlier argument, and not on the characteristics of the subjects he's comparing. Sure, he said the same thing you did but with a different word, but where's the actual connection that links the two of them together? Where's the actual valid comparison that would lead you to think this is an actual slippery slope he's pointing out? If there isn't one, and he certainly didn't even attempt to provide one, then you're entirely justified in treating homosexuality and incest as different things, and that acceptance of one on the basis of your argument does not necessitate the acceptance of the other. It's like if he'd gone off of your argument but replaced the word "homosexuality" with the word "murder." You'd be quite right in asking him what murder has to do with homosexuality, and nowhere in what he's said is there an actual point of connection... so why should you take what he's argued seriously at all?

Mind you, that's just the way in which his position fails as argumentation, there's also the unspoken assumption that incest, in all cases and at all times, is wrong... which is something else he probably doesn't have the wherewithal to justify beyond intuitive ickiness. I'm not saying an argument couldn't be made for that, just that he hasn't made it, and therefore a key portion of his argument is unsupported; why shouldn't we approve of incest, all things being equal, and with consent and a lack of harm implicit? What's actually the argument there?

So, basically, both the content of the argument, and the argument itself, is faulty, or at least unsupported. That's enough.

So if there is an increased likelihood of having handicapped children, it should be outlawed.

Wouldn't a consistent application of that logic also preclude, say, handicapped people from having children, where that handicap is inheritable? Where do you draw the line, in terms of what's an acceptable likelihood of genetic defects?

[Losty]

I don't think homosexuality or incest is wrong. Even if siblings have children their children are still highly unlikely to end up in an incestual relationship as people naturally tend to not want to have sex with anyone they were raised with.