Incest, homosexuality

[theVOID]

How did you get from "I find it repulsive" to "it's morally repulsive"? Last time I checked morality wasn't whatever you happen to agree with.

You missed the lttle bit at the start. The I find it bit, which means, that I find it morally repulsive, subject to my own moral standard. (There is no it's in it, which you just decided to change to suit yourself).

Your language was confused, Individuals find something morally repulsive the same way a detective finds someone guilty, it's based on an evaluation of some moral standard, so it makes no sense to say "I find this morally repulsive" or "I think this is morally wrong" or anything to that effect. We can remove "morally" from any one of these sentences and get the same exact meaning, demonstrating that the use of the word was meaningless within that sentence.

That's why I asked you to explain how you got from A to B (to demonstrate your "moral" reasoning).

And changing (I find) it to it's was part of the A to B question, I wasn't at all changing your position for convenience because the former (I find it repulsive) is what you justifiably had, but the latter
(it's morally repulsive) was unfounded.

I said nothing about society in general and I certainly didn't tell them what to do, as you are with me! Every coin has two sides, and you should apply your own logic to yourself.

Again this makes me want to point out that using "morally" just adds meaningless baggage to your claim as morally wrong is wrong and should be prevented, to say something is morally wrong and to not want to stop it makes no sense.

Last time I checked morality wasn't whatever you happen to agree with.

And last time I checked the definition of morallity, apparently it applies to the individual and their own moral standards.

The only real definition of morality is "a standard by which we judge action", how we determine what the standard is is where the moral theories like subjectivism come in, though I'm fairly confident that subjectivism is false, because it neglects to take into account relational values which do exist and are not subjective.

Individual subjectivism (I like) is what you seem to be using, it's the same thing as moral nihilism, using the word morality for this type of value statement is pointless, like I showed above.

It is also seen as a social taboo, therefore allowing to be placed under the other definition of morality.

Something being taboo does not make it morally wrong, all it means is that the society in question does not like it. Sex before marriage was (and in some places still is) taboo, but I suspect neither of us would conclude that it's morally wrong because of the opinion of a particular society.

Unless you have some other reason why Incest is morally wrong you've got a double standard, because saying it's taboo therefore it's morally wrong is group subjectivism and is false (is not morality).

Excuse me, the question was posted on an open forum, and went as such;

Aww, your playing victim because I pointed out a confusion in the way you're using terms? Come on, that's over the top

Here's a hypothetical: Incest is legal, you alone have the ability to criminalise it, would you do it and why?