Father doesn't accept gay son

OldNotWIse

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What's the good reason why two brothers can't have sex?

Your argument seems to be if it happens in nature it's ok, correct me if i'm wrong.

Do you think rape is ok, after all it occurs in nature. Rape is something evolution and nature encourages and for good reason( the same essentially as avoiding incest, allowing your genes to propagate).

I think you don't want brotherly incest to be acceptable because it feels wrong, so you are looking for possible justifications. The only problem is your justifications spin off with horrific consequences such as rape being ok.

Gay:
Paedophilia...
Beastiality...
Incest...
Rape...

Keep going and you will have ticked all the buzzwords and successfully rounded up another weary and thoroughly predicatable "gays are bad" thread. How refreshing

floggg

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

My stance is I have no problem with anyone being homosexual, I don't care if someone is gay. With regards incest, It I find it disturbing, but I can't say it's wrong without being a hypocrit, as they are hurting no one assuming no potential offspring are involved.

I think we have to be very careful of not using are " feelings" as justification for not accepting people for whatever reason. How many Jews were killed because Hitler basically had a feeling of hatred towards them and rationalised afterward why they were better off dead.

Can you seriously not draw a logical distinction between antisemitism and an aversion to incest? Can you not tell why there might be a reason for one (and none for the other)?

Scanlas The 2nd

Lyaiera wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm not equating incest and homosexuality, that doesn't mean we should apply double standards.

Brotherly incest just like homosexuality is often viewed negatively because of hit feelings which aren't directly controllable. So if you use those gut feelings as reasoning why brotherly incest is wrong but don't allow it to be used against homosexuality it is a case of double standards to fit your personal worldview.

Do you think it's ok to call two people having sex wrong just because it feels wrong?

Many people think homosexuality is wrong because it feels wrong. If you reject "feelings" as valid justification then you need to provide some other justification why brotherly incest is wrong.

I'm not interested in denigrating a progressive outlook, I'm interested in moral consistency. Some might say rejecting two people from being in a relationship who aren't hurting anyone is regressive.

And again, you keep saying that the only reason anyone discounts the legitimacy of incestuous relationships is an "ick" factor. That's not the case at all. And you are clouding the issue by saying that the only reason people are against them is the same reason people are against homosexual relationships. Again, that is not the case at all.

Basically, you're ignoring the reasons given and comparing homosexual and incestuous relationships because it's incendiary, tabloid, damaging shit to fling at teh gays. Which puts you in the same camp as Coir.

What reasons is there that brotherly incest wrong? There will be no defected children.

Colmustard

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm not equating incest and homosexuality, that doesn't mean we should apply double standards.

Brotherly incest just like homosexuality is often viewed negatively because of hit feelings which aren't directly controllable. So if you use those gut feelings as reasoning why brotherly incest is wrong but don't allow it to be used against homosexuality it is a case of double standards to fit your personal worldview.

Do you think it's ok to call two people having sex wrong just because it feels wrong?

Many people think homosexuality is wrong because it feels wrong. If you reject "feelings" as valid justification then you need to provide some other justification why brotherly incest is wrong.

I'm not interested in denigrating a progressive outlook, I'm interested in moral consistency. Some might say rejecting two people from being in a relationship who aren't hurting anyone is regressive.

Are you saying the only correct sexuality in this world is yours. Are you saying gay people should feel wrong when they are having sex, because you would if you were them???

There is a condition called genetic sexual attraction which can happen to separated siblings or even cousins. That attraction feels very right to those that experience it.

But because culturally sex with-in a family is wrong, it will feel wrong. It wasn't always this way, the Royal families right across Europe are all inbred and marrying brothers and sisters in royalty go right back to the Egyptians.

But your argument seems to be your perceived unnaturalness of gay sexual relations because that act can't produce children. So I ask you is it natural to use birth control and when was the last time you had sex to reproduce. Good catholic sex if you like.

Scanlas The 2nd

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What's the good reason why two brothers can't have sex?

Your argument seems to be if it happens in nature it's ok, correct me if i'm wrong.

Do you think rape is ok, after all it occurs in nature. Rape is something evolution and nature encourages and for good reason( the same essentially as avoiding incest, allowing your genes to propagate).

I think you don't want brotherly incest to be acceptable because it feels wrong, so you are looking for possible justifications. The only problem is your justifications spin off with horrific consequences such as rape being ok.

Gay:
Paedophilia...
Beastiality...
Incest...
Rape...

Keep going and you will have ticked all the buzzwords and successfully rounded up another weary and thoroughly predicatable "gays are bad" thread. How refreshing

If you read my post a few minutes ago you'd see I have no issue with homosexuals. I'm the one making an unbiased reasonable argument, you however are slinging around hyperbole.

Scanlas The 2nd

Colmustard wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm not equating incest and homosexuality, that doesn't mean we should apply double standards.

Brotherly incest just like homosexuality is often viewed negatively because of hit feelings which aren't directly controllable. So if you use those gut feelings as reasoning why brotherly incest is wrong but don't allow it to be used against homosexuality it is a case of double standards to fit your personal worldview.

Do you think it's ok to call two people having sex wrong just because it feels wrong?

Many people think homosexuality is wrong because it feels wrong. If you reject "feelings" as valid justification then you need to provide some other justification why brotherly incest is wrong.

I'm not interested in denigrating a progressive outlook, I'm interested in moral consistency. Some might say rejecting two people from being in a relationship who aren't hurting anyone is regressive.

Are you saying the only correct sexuality in this world is yours. Are you saying gay people should feel wrong when they are having sex, because you would if you were them???

There is a condition called genetic sexual attraction which can happen to separated siblings or even cousins. That attraction feels very right to those that experience it.

But because culturally sex with-in a family is wrong, it will feel wrong. It wasn't always this way, the Royal families right across Europe are all inbred and marrying brothers and sisters in royalty go right back to the Egyptians.

But your argument seems to be your perceived unnaturalness of gay sexual relations because that act can't produce children. So I ask you is it natural to use birth control and when was the last time you had sex to reproduce. Good catholic sex if you like.

Read my posts again. You are generalising in black and white.

I said I have no issue with homosexuals.

Let me ask you this, what makes it wrong for two individuals to have a sexual relationship.

I never used that retarded "natural " argument against homosexuality. So get your facts right.

floggg

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What reasons is there that brotherly incest wrong? There will be no defected children.

This was addressed. You were probably too busy twisting my argument to notice.

floggg wrote:

Now, obviously framing this only in terms of homosexual incest is clever because the sexual reproduction aspect is removed. However I don't think we think of incest only in reproductive terms - we seem to have an innate aversion to it whether or not it leads to conception (e.g. We wouldn't stop being concerned if both a brother and sister were infertile).

Also, the phenomenon of homosexual incest is I imagine do rare (I have never once heard of a case of it outside of porn, where normal rules don't apply) that it's not something we would encounter to test our inherent aversion to incest.

Colmustard wrote: »

Excellent post.

I will add although homosexual sex is non reproductive sex, so is most desires for sex, you don't look at a beautiful woman and desire babies from her, a man just desires sex from her.

Although sex leads to reproduction that is not the only reason people have sex. Especially now in this era of advanced birth control. So the same aversions are in place, I don't want to have sex with any of my family, (I don't even want to think about it). It does happen but for other reasons.

I have also addressed why your argument is not reasonable, given they obvious differences between the two.

Scanlas The 2nd

floggg wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What reasons is there that brotherly incest wrong? There will be no defected children.

This was addressed. You were probably too busy twisting my argument to notice.

floggg wrote:

Now, obviously framing this only in terms of homosexual incest is clever because the sexual reproduction aspect is removed. However I don't think we think of incest only in reproductive terms - we seem to have an innate aversion to it whether or not it leads to conception (e.g. We wouldn't stop being concerned if both a brother and sister were infertile).

Also, the phenomenon of homosexual incest is I imagine do rare (I have never once heard of a case of it outside of porn, where normal rules don't apply) that it's not something we would encounter to test our inherent aversion to incest.

Colmustard wrote: »

Excellent post.

I will add although homosexual sex is non reproductive sex, so is most desires for sex, you don't look at a beautiful woman and desire babies from her, a man just desires sex from her.

Although sex leads to reproduction that is not the only reason people have sex. Especially now in this era of advanced birth control. So the same aversions are in place, I don't want to have sex with any of my family, (I don't even want to think about it). It does happen but for other reasons.

I have also addressed why your argument is not reasonable, given they obvious differences between the two.

PS - if you want to sleep with your brother BTW, I won't stop you (assuming he is of an age where he can consent). Just be safe and remember you still need a condom even if you can't procreate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying if the majority of people have an innate aversion to something it is wrong?

OldNotWIse

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If you read my post a few minutes ago you'd see I have no issue with homosexuals. I'm the one making an unbiased reasonable argument, you however are slinging around hyperbole.

I don't think so.

Now you start with the standard accusations:

Not reading posts (a Boards classic)
Hyperbole
Tell me...will "strawman strategies" be next?

Colmustard

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying if the majority of people have an innate aversion to something it is wrong?

Isn't that sexuality a majority of gay people think straight sex is just wrong.

Scanlas The 2nd

Colmustard wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying if the majority of people have an innate aversion to something it is wrong?

Isn't that sexuality a majority of gay people think straight sex is just wrong.

I don't understand what you're saying, can you elaborate.

Scanlas The 2nd

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If you read my post a few minutes ago you'd see I have no issue with homosexuals. I'm the one making an unbiased reasonable argument, you however are slinging around hyperbole.

I don't think so.

Now you start with the standard accusations:

Not reading posts (a Boards classic)
Hyperbole
Tell me...will "strawman strategies" be next?

Ok now that you have made some tangential points would you like to engage in a discussion, what do you believe determines that two people being in a relationship is wrong?

floggg

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying if the majority of people have an innate aversion to something it is wrong?

No, that is not what I am saying.

I had pointed out earlier in that post why we would have an innate aversion to incest.

As we don't generally think of sex in reproductive terms (for the most part unless we are trying or trying not to conceive) we don't tend to think of incest in reproductive terms or to draw distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual incest (regardless of whether or not these distinctions could or should be made).

The point was to demonstrate there are obvious differences between an aversion to incest and an aversion to gay sex generally, and hence your "logical" comparison of the two is incorrect, given that the two seem to have very different root causes.

I don't know if have ever once said incest was right or wrong - I'm just making the point you cannot compare an aversion to incest to homophobia. You seem however to be intent on ignoring the fundamental difference between the two in favour of twisting my arguments.

Whether incest is right or wrong is irrelevant to homosexuality or homophobia (or indeed the Holocaust).

Colmustard

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I don't understand what you're saying, can you elaborate.

Phewww

OK Sexuality is a broad area of study related to an individual's sex, gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation. Sexual orientation describes an enduring pattern of attraction—emotional, romantic, sexual, or some combination of these—to the opposite sex or the same sex.

So if I was gay and attracted to a male that would be my orientation my preference. In some gay men this is so strong that the thoughts of having sex with the opposite gender disgusts them.

I assume you are very straight, the thoughts of you been with a man probably disgusts you, gay people can feel the same way about been with the opposite sex.

OldNotWIse

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Ok now that you have made some tangential points would you like to engage in a discussion, what do you believe determines that two people being in a relationship is wrong?

I refuse to get sucked into your "if gays can do it so can brothers" game. As I have said (and indeed other posters), of what relevance is incest?

AEDIC

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Yes I was simply clarifying someone else's post claiming that people who do not like gays are "homophobic" by stating that by definition, a "phobia" is far more than "not liking" and I do not for one second buy your theory that people who hate gays are actually secretly terrified of them (ie have a phobia) but that they simply cannot express that. Sorry but that's ridiculous. Sometimes people just hate for the sake of hating, or to make themselves feel better or because they saw their parents doing it and they are too mentally lazy to think for themselves - you cannot expect people to believe that every gay basher is simply suffering from a phobia that they cannot deal with.

Its not my theory, it's yours. Every time you use the word phobia it is your theory by definition. And you have used it several times, what I am doing is explaining that a phobia is irrational and therefore not able to be explained in rational terms. So if people want to persist in using the term Homophobe, then they have to accept that it is an irrational fear.

I haven't expounded my theory as to why some people seem to hate gay people, or why some people seem to think that it is ok to try and pick up Lesbians in bars, you seem to be looking for an explanation as to why people do that not me.

You are correct about one thing though...people do seem to just hate for the sake of hating.... in all aspects of life on a number of different issues.

OldNotWIse

AEDIC wrote: »

Its not my theory, it's yours. Every time you use the word phobia it is your theory by definition. And you have used it several times, what I am doing is explaining that a phobia is irrational and therefore not able to be explained in rational terms. So if people want to persist in using the term Homophobe, then they have to accept that it is an irrational fear.

I haven't expounded my theory as to why some people seem to hate gay people, or why some people seem to think that it is ok to try and pick up Lesbians in bars, you seem to be looking for an explanation as to why people do that not me.

You are correct about one thing though...people do seem to just hate for the sake of hating.... in all aspects of life on a number of different issues.

News to me
Re my point about being hit on in bars, I am not "looking for an explanation" I am simply pointing out that as lesbians, we have a lot to put up with from a lot of straight men that we meet. I hope this doesn't offend or upset you.

Scanlas The 2nd

Colmustard wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I don't understand what you're saying, can you elaborate.

Phewww

OK Sexuality is a broad area of study related to an individual's sex, gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation. Sexual orientation describes an enduring pattern of attraction—emotional, romantic, sexual, or some combination of these—to the opposite sex or the same sex.

So if I was gay and attracted to a male that would be my orientation my preference. In some gay men this is so strong that the thoughts of having sex with the opposite gender disgusts them.

I assume you are very straight, the thoughts of you been with a man probably disgusts you, gay people can feel the same way about been with the opposite sex.

And what determines in your mind if two individuals being in a relationship is wrong?

Scanlas The 2nd

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Ok now that you have made some tangential points would you like to engage in a discussion, what do you believe determines that two people being in a relationship is wrong?

I refuse to get sucked into your "if gays can do it so can brothers" game. As I have said (and indeed other posters), of what relevance is incest?

So you've avoided my question.

The relevance of incest is to determine if your beliefs of right and wrong are consistent and logical or merely socially conditioned.

OldNotWIse

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

So you've avoided my question.

The relevance of incest is to determine if your beliefs of right and wrong are consistent and logical or merely socially conditioned.

No, I am not refusing to answer your question. I am telling you that for me there is no justification whatsoever to try to draw parallels between homosexuality and incest (much the same was that there is no justification to refer to paedophilia and beastialty yet we see these being brought up time and time again), so I will not be engaging with you on this matter.

Scanlas The 2nd

floggg wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

So you've avoided my question.

The relevance of incest is to determine if your beliefs of right and wrong are consistent and logical or merely socially conditioned.

And you're ignoring the logical differences between homosexuality and incest, and the aversion to each which undermines the tenuous link you've tried to draw.

The only link I've drawn is that both are often deemed unacceptable due to how they make people feel.

Do you think two brothers in a relationship is wrong? You haven't answered that yet.

Initially you seemed to think if people are innately averse to something it is wrong, then afterwards you said that was not the case.

What is the reason two brothers in a relationship is wrong, can you confirm
Whether you think it's because people are inherently averse to it?

If that's the case then anything people are inherently averse to is wrong, such as letting an tarantula walk on your hand, is that wrong?

Read what I'm saying and understand the reasoning, don't just skim over and spot the word tarantula and say " how can you compare tarantulas
And homosexuals".

Scanlas The 2nd

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

So you've avoided my question.

The relevance of incest is to determine if your beliefs of right and wrong are consistent and logical or merely socially conditioned.

No, I am not refusing to answer your question. I am telling you that for me there is no justification whatsoever to try to draw parallels between homosexuality and incest (much the same was that there is no justification to refer to paedophilia and beastialty yet we see these being brought up time and time again), so I will not be engaging with you on this matter.

What does drawing parallels mean?

Your response is similar to many "homophobes" when trying to reason with them as to why homosexuality is wrong. They can't justify it so they refuse to be drawn into a reasonable debate.

AEDIC

OldNotWIse wrote: »

News to me
Re my point about being hit on in bars, I am not "looking for an explanation" I am simply pointing out that as lesbians, we have a lot to put up with from a lot of straight men that we meet. I hope this doesn't offend or upset you.

of course not...why would it? Unless you are making assumptions of course

floggg

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

So you've avoided my question.

The relevance of incest is to determine if your beliefs of right and wrong are consistent and logical or merely socially conditioned.

And you're ignoring the logical differences between homosexuality and incest, and the aversion to each which undermines the tenuous link you've tried to draw.

Without addressing this point, there is no point in you continuing to seek an answer to a question which we have shown is not relevant.

I understand though that you probably still will, so i'll bow out.

Scanlas The 2nd

floggg wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

So you've avoided my question.

The relevance of incest is to determine if your beliefs of right and wrong are consistent and logical or merely socially conditioned.

And you're ignoring the logical differences between homosexuality and incest, and the aversion to each which undermines the tenuous link you've tried to draw.

Without addressing this point, there is no point in you continuing to seek an answer to a question which we have shown is not relevant.

I understand though that you probably still will, so i'll bow out.

I've accepted homosexuality and incest is different.

Now that I've accepted that can you answer what determines if two individuals in a relationship is wrong?

You seem to be saying it's ok to be against certain relationships if it feels wrong and if that feeling is natural.

You're argument is that the negative feeling against homosexuals is man made whereas the negative feeling against incest is natural. Correct me if I'm wrong.

1ZRed

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

So you've avoided my question.

The relevance of incest is to determine if your beliefs of right and wrong are consistent and logical or merely socially conditioned.

If you think like that and you believe that what is deemed "wrong" is socially conditioned, why aren't you holding straight incest to the same standard? You might try to say that is wrong due to the possible consequences of a man and a woman having an incestuous relationship but if birth control was used or one or both of the partners were infertile, then that would make that point redundant.

Anyway, this argument has nothing to do with incest - be it gay or straight. When people want equal rights or want to do away with homophobia, the issue of incest should never come into it. It is not to be included in the same argument and it is not what people want along with being treated equally. The two don't go together, they are very separate arguments.

OldNotWIse

AEDIC wrote: »

of course not...why would it? Unless you are making assumptions of course

Ah now, dont be judging others by your standards

Scanlas The 2nd

1ZRed wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

So you've avoided my question.

The relevance of incest is to determine if your beliefs of right and wrong are consistent and logical or merely socially conditioned.

If you think like that and you believe that what is deemed "wrong" is socially conditioned, why aren't you holding straight incest to the same standard? You might try to say that is wrong due to the possible consequences of a man and a woman having an incestuous relationship but if birth control was used or one or both of the partners were infertile, then that would make that point redundant.

Anyway, this argument has nothing to do with incest - be it gay or straight. When people want equal rights or want to do away with homophobia, the issue of incest should never come into it. It is not to be included in the same argument and it is not what people want along with being treated equally. The two don't go together, they are very separate arguments.

If you believe people should be treated equally then do you believe two brothers have equal rights?

AEDIC

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Ah now, dont be judging others by your standards

I don't, because I dont judge anyone...which is why I asked the question rather than making an assumption... see how that works

floggg

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

floggg wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

So you've avoided my question.

The relevance of incest is to determine if your beliefs of right and wrong are consistent and logical or merely socially conditioned.

And you're ignoring the logical differences between homosexuality and incest, and the aversion to each which undermines the tenuous link you've tried to draw.

Without addressing this point, there is no point in you continuing to seek an answer to a question which we have shown is not relevant.

I understand though that you probably still will, so i'll bow out.

I've accepted homosexuality and incest is different.

Now that I've accepted that can you answer what determines if two individuals in a relationship is wrong?

You seem to be saying it's ok to be against certain relationships if it feels wrong and if that feeling is natural.

You're argument is that the negative feeling against homosexuals is man made whereas the negative feeling against incest is natural. Correct me if I'm wrong.

My argument is that they are two entirely different things. They have different causes and origins.

Since you accept they are different, respectfully, **** off with your attempts to make me justify my right to respect and dignity and to live free from discrimination by reference to incest.

It's apples and oranges. If you want a debate on incest, start a thread. I may comment on it.

But don't try and link the two - there is no basis for it and as I said before its insulting.

1ZRed

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If you believe people should be treated equally then do you believe two brothers have equal rights?

That is incest. I said I wanted gay and straight people to be treated as equally as each other. If two straight people can't have an incestual relationship, what makes you think that two gay people should be allowed by law just because they get equal rights?

OldNotWIse

AEDIC wrote: »

I don't, because I dont judge anyone...which is why I asked the question rather than making an assumption... see how that works

"Unless you are making assumptions of course" followed by a winking smiling face? - just asking a genuine question were you?

Scanlas The 2nd

floggg wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

floggg wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

So you've avoided my question.

The relevance of incest is to determine if your beliefs of right and wrong are consistent and logical or merely socially conditioned.

And you're ignoring the logical differences between homosexuality and incest, and the aversion to each which undermines the tenuous link you've tried to draw.

Without addressing this point, there is no point in you continuing to seek an answer to a question which we have shown is not relevant.

I understand though that you probably still will, so i'll bow out.

I've accepted homosexuality and incest is different.

Now that I've accepted that can you answer what determines if two individuals in a relationship is wrong?

You seem to be saying it's ok to be against certain relationships if it feels wrong and if that feeling is natural.

You're argument is that the negative feeling against homosexuals is man made whereas the negative feeling against incest is natural. Correct me if I'm wrong.

My argument is that they are two entirely different things. They have different causes and origins.

Since you accept they are different, respectfully, **** off with your attempts to make me justify my right to respect and dignity and to live free from discrimination by reference to incest.

It's apples and oranges. If you want a debate on incest, start a thread. I may comment on it.

But don't try and link the two - there is no basis for it and as I said before its insulting.

Incest is incidental, it is merely a test to see if your morals are rationalised to what feels right to you or if you are consistent. I don't care about incest.

Im not making you justify your right to dignity, I'm making you justify your right to stop others living in dignity.

I believe it is morally ok for any two people have a relationship if they aren't hurting anyone else, I don't see how you can disagree with that.

AEDIC

OldNotWIse wrote: »

"Unless you are making assumptions of course" followed by a winking smiling face? - just asking a genuine question were you?

Nope, the 'why would it' followed by a question mark (usually the universal sign of a question) was the genuine question, which you failed to answer, but instead chose to make a comment which I can only assume was banter as it was followed by a 'winking smiling face'.

What you describe above was irony.

floggg

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Incest is incidental, it is merely a test to see if your morals are rationalised to what feels right to you or if you are consistent. I don't care about incest.

Im not making you justify your right to dignity, I'm making you justify your right to stop others living in dignity.

I believe it is morally ok for any two people have a relationship if they aren't hurting anyone else, I don't see how you can disagree with that.

Who am I stopping from living in dignity? When did I assert that right?

I never expressed any view on incest, I deliberately stayed silent. ITS NOT RELEVANT TO A THREAD ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY!

And no, incest and homosexuality don't raise the same issues so your test wouldn't determine whether my views are rationalised or consistent.

If you want to debate incest, as I said start a new thread. I would be eager to see you deal with the implications of heterosexual incest which you have ignored here (and which is I imagine abundantly more common than the homosexual incest argument you confined your comments to).

But don't do it here please - it has nothing to do with this thread or homosexuality/homophobia.

Scanlas The 2nd

floggg wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Incest is incidental, it is merely a test to see if your morals are rationalised to what feels right to you or if you are consistent. I don't care about incest.

Im not making you justify your right to dignity, I'm making you justify your right to stop others living in dignity.

I believe it is morally ok for any two people have a relationship if they aren't hurting anyone else, I don't see how you can disagree with that.

Who am I stopping from living in dignity? When did I assert that right?

I never expressed any view on incest, I deliberately stayed silent. ITS NOT RELEVANT TO A THREAD ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY!

If you want to debate incest, as I said start a new thread. I would be eager to see you deal with the implications of heterosexual incest which you have ignored here (and which is I imagine abundantly more common than the homosexual incest argument you confined your comments to).

But don't do it here please - it has nothing to do with this thread or homosexuality/homophobia.

It's relevant to see whether those condemning the boy's father our hypocrites, I for one condemn the father but I don't condemn other relationships which our harmless.

I'll bow out however as getting people here to give reasoning behind their morals is like getting blood out of a stone.

OldNotWIse

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Just because straight girls get hit on in straight bars doesnt make it right for lesbian girls to be hit on in straight bars. Two wrongs and all that. Also, my point that I made about this before referred to a scenario where a lesbian couple are in a straight bar, one gets hit on and when they explain that they are a couple, the man takes this as some sign that they are looking for a threesome or to be "converted" (I speak from weary, personal experience!). The difference is that if a man hits on a straight girl and her male partner tells the guy they are together...he will most likely respect that. He certainly wouldn't be suggesting any kind of gang bang or tell the guys girlfriend, "hey if you ever change your mind about this fella, call me". So no, it is not the same, at all.

Wow you get harassed by "that drunk guy" in bars and this is something that obviously doesnt happen in gay bars. Is this not a form of Hetrophobia ??

B.A._Baracus

I understand the thread is about fathers not accepting a gay son and a discussion has formed around that.

But this 'Brian' guy is just another look-at-me youtuber ... sure his latest video is "150 pointless facts about me!" :rolleyes: he clearly is trying very hard to become famous via the internet and make money from it... I dig making money from the net but not all this "look at me" crap.

The video linked in the OP is just a 'LOOK AT ME I AM GAY!' video. So what dude. Its 2012.


/ rant :pac:

Lyaiera

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's relevant to see whether those condemning the boy's father our hypocrites, I for one condemn the father but I don't condemn other relationships which our harmless.

I'll bow out however as getting people here to give reasoning behind their morals is like getting blood out of a stone.

You've repeatedly ignored the reasons given why incestuous relationships are dangerous. So I agree that your bowing out of the thread is a good thing.

randylonghorn

AEDIC wrote: »

The 'problem' is though ONW that the definition of a phobia is an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations.

I know that this is just applying naked logic and that doesn't always work but, what you keep asking for (and I understand why) is a rationalisation of something that is defined as irrational. I think that is why it is difficult for people to give you an explanation that you are comfortable with.

Personally, I don't believe that most so-called homophobes suffer from an extreme and irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. I have met people who are nervous or uncomfortable around homosexuals, who in many cases are embarrassed by that feeling, and do their best to conquer it or at least not make it obvious. "Homophobic" is a reasonable term to use in that situation, and while it's not something I've ever suffered from or really understood myself, I can sympathise with someone like that, any more than I could sympathise with people who are claustrophobic, even if I don't suffer from that either. I can even have some sympathy with people like that who don't make the effort to cover it or conquer it, if there is a genuine irrational fear there, though admittedly less so.

A lot of people who are supposedly homophobic though don't so much exhibit any signs of an irrational fear as a contempt and even hatred for a minority group who don't, as they see it, conform to the "norm" ... an antipathy for the "other", if you like. They exhibit this in their attitudes, in their words, in their actions, even, in extreme cases, in violence. This group are often racist as well; their antipathy for the "other" is general; in our context here in Ireland, everyone who is not Irish, white, straight, etc. is automatically inferior and to be disdained. They're usually verbal and / or physical bullies, especially as children and teenagers, and many will still exhibit this behaviour in adult life, especially when in a "gang" situation. That this attitude may be the result of their upbringing and socialisation, I accept; it doesn't make it a phobia though nor should we allow them to hide behind that excuse.

Lyaiera

Good point Randy. I believe I am in some way subconciously racist. I think growing up in a country where there were so few people who weren't foreign and of a different race contributed to it. I battle it whenever I feel it rising up in me now and I certainly don't conciously act out on it.

I think a lot of people are the same with homosexuality, in that they do find it strange and offputting but if they're anyway decent people they will fight with it. I don't think they should feel bad about feeling that way, it's a fairly natural reaction because of the society we're in, and I have a lot of respect for someone who does fight those feelings on a rational level. The ability to rationalise against irrational and unwanted feelings is why we are human.

PC CDROM

The young fella who did that video will regret it in the future.

Undiscovered

Completely agree with Scanlas. Even if you feel some kind of a revulsion to the thought of an incestuous relationship you still have no grounds to condemn it. Double standards and hypocrisy. Stop accepting the status quo.

Homosexuality and incest are very different things but many similar principles can be applied when determining the morality of such relationships. I fail to see how any rational person who condones homosexual relationships could condemn incestuous relationships where nobody is getting harmed. (e.g. infertile/homosexual situation)

Madam_X

old_aussie wrote: »

The father can do what ever he likes.

Tough for the son but that's life.

The father can think what he likes (as the lad's father though, he should at least try to open his mind, but maybe he has tried) but nobody can DO what they like.

old_aussie

Madam_X wrote: »

The father can think what he likes (as the lad's father though, he should at least try to open his mind, but maybe he has tried) but nobody can DO what they like.

The father CAN do what he likes and NOT accept the son.

he's doing it right now so there's the fact.

Galwayguy35

I understand that the guy in the video is a poster here, maybe he should tell his dad that posters are discussing him on here so he can come on and give his point of view.

People seem to be passing judgement on the man and he is not here to defend himself.

1ZRed

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I understand that the guy in the video is a poster here, maybe he should tell his dad that posters are discussing him on here so he can come on and give his point of view.

People seem to be passing judgement on the man and he is not here to defend himself.

He guy who posted the video said he couldn't even put credit in his phone so I wouldn't stay waiting around for him to get back to us on this

OldNotWIse

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow you get harassed by "that drunk guy" in bars and this is something that obviously doesnt happen in gay bars. Is this not a form of Hetrophobia ??

What???