Father doesn't accept gay son

Scanlas The 2nd

Colmustard wrote: »

randylonghorn wrote: »

Most people grew up.

For most "homophobes" it's not "called correctly". "Homist" would be a more correct term. "Homophobia" was coined in an era when it was far more acceptable to be "homist" and labelling it as a phobia made excuses for it. Unfortunately, the term has never been changed.

A phobia is an irrational internal fear. You are not born with them but develop them. You cannot be born with a fear of rabbits (Leporiphobia) or the number 13 (Triskaidekaphobia), you develop them through personal experience and cultural influences.

So homophobia is not any different, its an internally driven irrational fear driven by personal experience or cultural. It is not a natural part of the make up of man. I find the most acute homophobes are afraid of their own sexuality and that includes the catholic church.

How many so called "homophobes" actually fear gay people, it seems to me they hate gay people not fear.

OldNotWIse

Lyaiera wrote: »

That's debateable seeing as it hasn't been proven one way or another. What difference does it make if it is a choice though?

Well for one thing it's incredibly frustrating to identify as gay and then be told by some stranger on an internet forum that it was a choice. The only person qualified to say whether it was a choice or not is the person themself. Did you choose your gender? Or your ethnicity? Also, looking at some of the posts on here...why woudl anyone in their right mind choose to be gay??? Oh sorry, I forgot, we are not in our right minds :rolleyes:

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

People are quick to judge people for thinking homosexuality is wrong whereas many of these people would think two brothers in a sexual relationship is wrong with the only justification being that it makes them feel uneasy, the very same reason they condemn others for thinking homosexuality is wrong. It's hypocritical.

So if you support A but not B that makes you a hypocrite? What a ridiculous argument, and I'm pretty sure another poster already responded quite well to your pathetic attempt to draw some parallel betwen gay relationships and incest (we all know what you're trying to achive here, its like when people mysteriously raise poitns about HIV or paedophilia - you're just trying to draw parallels)

OldNotWIse

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How many so called "homophobes" actually fear gay people, it seems to me they hate gay people not fear.

Maybe they're born homophobic...it's not their fault

floggg

Bambi wrote: »

my legal history knowledge is woefully inadaquete, tell me how many people have been prosecute for being gay from the 60s onward

The "nobody is prosecuted argument" was used by the State in the ECHR Norris case - it failed. Even if you aren't prosecuted, the threat of it hanging over you is discriminatory and unfair.

Of course there were (and still are) countless ways in which the law discriminates against LGBT people.

floggg

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

People are quick to judge people for thinking homosexuality is wrong whereas many of these people would think two brothers in a sexual relationship is wrong with the only justification being that it makes them feel uneasy, the very same reason they condemn others for thinking homosexuality is wrong. It's hypocritical.

Its not for the same reason actually.

Admittedly, the homosexual incestuous relationship doesn't raise the same concerns as heterosexual incestuous relationships due to the fact there is no risk of serious reproduction and the resulting risks involved to the child due to lack of genetic diversity. I wonder how many such relationships there are though.

However, the "Westermarck Effect" seems to show that there is a natural innate aversion to incestuous relationships to some degree. i would presume that this is an evolutionary trait to ensure genetic diversity, and would suspect it is common throughout the animal kingdom as nature

floggg

WhiteRoses wrote: »

If conceiving babies was the only reason people have sex, then surely infertile couples shouldn't be allowed? After all, no children can result from the relationship?

Or two older people, where the woman is past the menopause, would that not be the same? Your argument is seriously flawed. If children were the only people had sex then there'd be no reason for birth control.

I think the more relevant point to be made here is that the advent of readily contraception available contraception has rendered the "marriage is for procreation" argument moot.

Now, a married couple has the choice not to have children if they don't want to. It can therefore no longer be said that the state recognises marriage solely for its reproductive role as the state in fact permits and facilitate married couples in choosing not to reproduce.

Roadtrippin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Well for one thing it's incredibly frustrating to identify as gay and then be told by some stranger on an internet forum that it was a choice. The only person qualified to say whether it was a choice or not is the person themself. Did you choose your gender? Or your ethnicity? Also, looking at some of the posts on here...why woudl anyone in their right mind choose to be gay??? Oh sorry, I forgot, we are not in our right minds :rolleyes:

I agree. It wouldn't make a difference to me if someone chose to be gay but I believe that this is rarely the case.
The majority of LGBT people face quite a few dilemmas and difficulties before and after coming out and I don't think anyone chooses this. If it was like that, wouldn't most choose the path of least resistance? Why would anyone choose a life where to this day you face prejudice and discrimination in some cases? The only logical reason I see is because your sexual orientation is NOT a choice.

floggg

Bambi wrote: »

Nah, stop trying to rationalise this, there's wearing a mask as part of a costume and then there's wearing a mask so you won't be recognised, and I saw both on the day.

it's amazing that you had the time to ask each of them their motivation for wearing the mask while driving by.

How slowly do you drive?

Cienciano

bp1989 wrote: »

I'm gay AND ginger. What do I do?!

Start with getting a full wax "downstairs"

Millicent

Bambi wrote: »

Ooooh yes it is

Eh, no it's not. To what town, region, or area is "full of" colloquial?

old hippy

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How many so called "homophobes" actually fear gay people, it seems to me they hate gay people not fear.

Or fear themselves

1ZRed

bp1989 wrote: »

I'm gay AND ginger. What do I do?!

Looks like we've got another red hot flamer around here....

Scanlas The 2nd

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Lyaiera wrote: »

That's debateable seeing as it hasn't been proven one way or another. What difference does it make if it is a choice though?

Well for one thing it's incredibly frustrating to identify as gay and then be told by some stranger on an internet forum that it was a choice. The only person qualified to say whether it was a choice or not is the person themself. Did you choose your gender? Or your ethnicity? Also, looking at some of the posts on here...why woudl anyone in their right mind choose to be gay??? Oh sorry, I forgot, we are not in our right minds :rolleyes:

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

People are quick to judge people for thinking homosexuality is wrong whereas many of these people would think two brothers in a sexual relationship is wrong with the only justification being that it makes them feel uneasy, the very same reason they condemn others for thinking homosexuality is wrong. It's hypocritical.

So if you support A but not B that makes you a hypocrite? What a ridiculous argument, and I'm pretty sure another poster already responded quite well to your pathetic attempt to draw some parallel betwen gay relationships and incest (we all know what you're trying to achive here, its like when people mysteriously raise poitns about HIV or paedophilia - you're just trying to draw parallels)

Judging "homophobes" for "fearing" gay people simply because of instinctive feelings is hypocritical if you yourself don't accept say two adult brothers having sex merely because it " doesn't feel right".

If that is enough justification against two brothers having sex why can't it be enough justification against homosexuals.

Dyr

Millicent wrote: »

Eh, no it's not. To what town, region, or area is "full of" colloquial?

My town, If I report that town "is full of" spanish students I do not mean that there is no space in the city centre due to an influx of spanish students. I don't even mean that the majority of people to be found in the city centre are spanish students. I'm merely remarking on the large amount of spanish students that I've encountered.

old hippy

I haven't the time nor willpower to read through the entire thread - have we had the incest/paedo/bestiality stuff yet? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Colmustard

old hippy wrote: »

I haven't the time nor willpower to read through the entire thread - have we had the incest/paedo/bestiality stuff yet? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yeah had it all and it was put by those people as if it was original thought and never said before. These threads can be exhausting by their pure repetitiveness.

old hippy

Colmustard wrote: »

Yeah had it all and it was put by those people as if it was original thought and never said before. These threads can be exhausting by their pure repetitiveness.

OldNotWIse

Cienciano wrote: »

Start with getting a full wax "downstairs"

Why?

OldNotWIse

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Judging "homophobes" for "fearing" gay people simply because of instinctive feelings is hypocritical if you yourself don't accept say two adult brothers having sex merely because it " doesn't feel right".

If that is enough justification against two brothers having sex why can't it be enough justification against homosexuals.

Let's face it people - the poster won't be able to sleep until all the gays put their hands up and say, "yes yes brotherly incest is normal and fine and sure we have to support it because after all we are different and therefore have some weird obligation to accept incest!!"

randylonghorn

Colmustard wrote: »

A phobia is an irrational internal fear. You are not born with them but develop them. You cannot be born with a fear of rabbits (Leporiphobia) or the number 13 (Triskaidekaphobia), you develop them through personal experience and cultural influences.

So homophobia is not any different, its an internally driven irrational fear driven by personal experience or cultural. It is not a natural part of the make up of man. I find the most acute homophobes are afraid of their own sexuality and that includes the catholic church.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How many so called "homophobes" actually fear gay people, it seems to me they hate gay people not fear.

Thanks, Scanlas, that was pretty much my point.

Colmustard

randylonghorn wrote: »

Thanks, Scanlas, that was pretty much my point.

They hate gay people, but why.

Scanlas The 2nd

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Judging "homophobes" for "fearing" gay people simply because of instinctive feelings is hypocritical if you yourself don't accept say two adult brothers having sex merely because it " doesn't feel right".

If that is enough justification against two brothers having sex why can't it be enough justification against homosexuals.

Let's face it people - the poster won't be able to sleep until all the gays put their hands up and say, "yes yes brotherly incest is normal and fine and sure we have to support it because after all we are different and therefore have some weird obligation to accept incest!!"

Translation you want to see the world however you want even if it is unjustified and your logic makes no sense, much like those who can't reasonably explain why they have such a problem with homosexuals. They basically don't like homosexuals because it feels wrong and you don't like adult brothers having sex because it feels wrong. It's a common theme throughout history, feel an instinctive intolerance and and try mash together some logic afterwards to justify your feelings. Hitler did it with the Jews to name just one example.

efb

Ah Godwin

Colmustard

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Translation you want to see the world however you want even if it is unjustified and your logic makes no sense, much like those who can't reasonably explain why they have such a problem with homosexuals. They basically don't like homosexuals because it feels wrong and you don't like adult brothers having sex because it feels wrong. It's a common theme throughout history, feel an instinctive intolerance and and try mash together some logic afterwards to justify your feelings. Hitler did it with the Jews to name just one example.

But its not a common theme in history, one of histories great romances was Alexander the great and Bagois (the persian boy) another was The emperor Hadrian and Antinous. The Greek and Roman armies marched on it as did Saladins. Its only in the late Christian era when it became taboo.

If you think in evolutionary terms gay men should not be hated, they just leave more totty for the "real men" and they are never a threat to a man's wife, sister or daughter.

So its a cultural thing which still lingers. I find the most vile and violent homophobes are usually troubled by their sexuality.

pragmatic1

Colmustard wrote: »

But its not a common theme in history, one of histories great romances was Alexander the great and Bagois (the persian boy) another was The emperor Hadrian and Antinous. The Greek and Roman armies marched on it as did Saladins. Its only in the late Christian era when it became taboo.

If you think in evolutionary terms gay men should not be hated, they just leave more totty for the "real men" and they are never a threat to a man's wife, sister or daughter.

So its a cultural thing which still lingers. I find the most vile and violent homophobes are usually troubled by their sexuality.

Fairly common in most ancient societies. Ancient Ireland included.

Madam_X

One of my best friend's dad wasn't comfortable about his son (my friend) coming out - born in the '40s in rural Ireland, it's not difficult to see where he's coming from. This was alien stuff to him - I guess he envisioned a lad who'd be into the hurling (not saying gay people can't be into hurling) etc like he was.
But he didn't give him any hassle - just let him live his life. There tension there though, the two dont engage much.

OldNotWIse

Deleted User wrote: »

Classing Bars as straight bars. You know you dont have sex in these bars ? ?

The trouble is caused by the straight guy/creep that goes into the bar harassing lesbians. So what your saying is, this does not happen to girls in normal bars ??

Funny you feel the need to point out that straight people dont have sex in straight bars, yet some people here think its ok to refer to gay men "going at it" in bars. Let's just be clear about one thing, very few people have sex in bars, and any who do (be they straight or gay) clearly have very little class.

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.

OldNotWIse

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Translation you want to see the world however you want even if it is unjustified and your logic makes no sense, much like those who can't reasonably explain why they have such a problem with homosexuals. They basically don't like homosexuals because it feels wrong and you don't like adult brothers having sex because it feels wrong. It's a common theme throughout history, feel an instinctive intolerance and and try mash together some logic afterwards to justify your feelings. Hitler did it with the Jews to name just one example.

What does this even mean? "Mash together logic"?? Really? You're accusing me of "mashing logic" and yet you need to parp on about brothers sleeping together to substantiate your views on 10% of our population?


Also, a phobia is a fear of something, it is not simply sitting at your keyboard saying things like, "oh this gay thing just feels wrong".

AEDIC

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What does this even mean? "Mash together logic"?? Really? You're accusing me of "mashing logic" and yet you need to parp on about brothers sleeping together to substantiate your views on 10% of our population?


Also, a phobia is a fear of something, it is not simply sitting at your keyboard saying things like, "oh this gay thing just feels wrong".

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.

Colmustard

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.

But they gave their specific phobia,,Homophobia, which means they are afraid of the homosexual with-in, internal homophobia if you like.

AEDIC

Colmustard wrote: »

But they gave their specific phobia,,Homophobia, which means they are afraid of the homosexual with-in, internal homophobia if you like.

Nontheless, irrational and by definition, not easy to rationalise or explain.

Dont want to be accused of drawing ridiculous parallels here but psychologically it is no different than people having a phobia about pidgeons or buttons.

Colmustard

AEDIC wrote: »

Nontheless, irrational and by definition, not easy to rationalise or explain.

Dont want to be accused of drawing ridiculous parallels here but psychologically it is no different than people having a phobia about pidgeons or buttons.

That is how it works, inside you have a fear, you don't know why you have that fear, so your brain looks for an explanation and it finds one. If that pattern repeats and goes into a loop you have a conditioned response to lets say feathers, then you have a phobia of feathers.

The same goes for frustrations you look for an explanation and you find one, in say racism.

The brain is an explanation and anticipating machine.

floggg

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Judging "homophobes" for "fearing" gay people simply because of instinctive feelings is hypocritical if you yourself don't accept say two adult brothers having sex merely because it " doesn't feel right".

If that is enough justification against two brothers having sex why can't it be enough justification against homosexuals.

Let's face it people - the poster won't be able to sleep until all the gays put their hands up and say, "yes yes brotherly incest is normal and fine and sure we have to support it because after all we are different and therefore have some weird obligation to accept incest!!"

Translation you want to see the world however you want even if it is unjustified and your logic makes no sense, much like those who can't reasonably explain why they have such a problem with homosexuals. They basically don't like homosexuals because it feels wrong and you don't like adult brothers having sex because it feels wrong. It's a common theme throughout history, feel an instinctive intolerance and and try mash together some logic afterwards to justify your feelings. Hitler did it with the Jews to name just one example.

Actually there are quite simple evolutionary reasons why people have an aversion to incest - sexual reproduction necessitates genetic diversity. The lack of genetic diversity leads to genetic abnormalities, birth defects and weakness to disease. This is common to nearly all animals who sexually reproduce.

While I am no expert I would be pretty sure all animals therefore evolve strategies to endure genetic diversity - one of which I would guess is the Westermarck effect I referred to previously. this is believed to produce a natural innate aversion to incest.

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.

So I don't think simply as a matter of logic the same principles apply to (homosexual) incest and homosexuality generally. To only focus on the "ick" factor ignores the reality of human sexuality.

PS -there is no comparable innate aversion to homosexuality generally to my knowledge. Little children aren't born homophobic, they are taught it.

And to constantly link homosexuality and incest is offensive in my book. There are vast differences between the two - homosexuality exists naturally in many species. Incest is something evolution and nature discourage for good reason.

OldNotWIse

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.

Its not about whether I am comfortable or not (in fact my main two gripes are simply - I would like to be able to have a few drinks in a pub with my girlfriend without drunken, straight men hitting on one or both of us, inviting us for threesomes and telling us we dont know what we are missing and two, I do not appreciate someone who doesn't even know me telling me that I chose to be gay. I would hardly call this "looking for an explanation that I am comfortable with" - I simply want to be left alone. Live and let live etc.

Colmustard

floggg wrote: »

Actually there are quite simple evolutionary reasons why people have an aversion to incest - sexual reproduction necessitates genetic diversity. The lack of genetic diversity leads to genetic abnormalities, birth defects and weakness to disease. This is common to nearly all animals who sexually reproduce.

While I am no expert I would be pretty sure all animals therefore evolve strategies to endure genetic diversity - one of which I would guess is the Westermarck effect I referred to previously. this is believed to produce a natural innate aversion to incest.

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.

So I don't think simply as a matter of logic the same principles apply to (homosexual) incest and homosexuality generally. To only focus on the "ick" factor ignores the reality of human sexuality.

PS -there is no comparable innate aversion to homosexuality generally to my knowledge. Little children aren't born homophobic, they are taught it.

And to constantly link homosexuality and incest is offensive in my book. There are vast differences between the two - homosexuality exists naturally in many species. Incest is something evolution and nature discourage for good reason.

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.

AEDIC

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Its not about whether I am comfortable or not (in fact my main two gripes are simply - I would like to be able to have a few drinks in a pub with my girlfriend without drunken, straight men hitting on one or both of us, inviting us for threesomes and telling us we dont know what we are missing and two, I do not appreciate someone who doesn't even know me telling me that I chose to be gay. I would hardly call this "looking for an explanation that I am comfortable with" - I simply want to be left alone. Live and let live etc.

My post was in direct response to you posting this

'Also, a phobia is a fear of something, it is not simply sitting at your keyboard saying things like, "oh this gay thing just feels wrong".'

and in possibly a ham fisted way it was trying to explain that actually, people saying that 'oh this gay thing just feels wrong' could be entirely logical as their phobia is irrational, and not easy for them to express to others in any other terms.

People telling you that you chose to be gay comes out of a lack of understanding, not a phobia imho.

floggg

Colmustard wrote: »

[

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.

You could go further and say that in fact reproduction is one of the main reasons not to have sex!

OldNotWIse

AEDIC wrote: »

My post was in direct response to you posting this

'Also, a phobia is a fear of something, it is not simply sitting at your keyboard saying things like, "oh this gay thing just feels wrong".'

and in possibly a ham fisted way it was trying to explain that actually, people saying that 'oh this gay thing just feels wrong' could be entirely logical as their phobia is irrational, and not easy for them to express to others in any other terms.

People telling you that you chose to be gay comes out of a lack of understanding, not a phobia imho.

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.

dttq

willmunny1990 wrote: »

The following video is of an Irish lad that has come out gay. He goes into detail (towards the end of the clip) about his father not accepting it.

Although I'm not gay, I have a lot of sympathy for those that are discriminated for being gay. I'm hopeful that these backward attitudes (demonstrated in the clip above) can be eradicated from society.

But I fear that these attitudes are all too prevalent and there will never be peace for gays.

The response from this man's father, and how he can be so dismissive, disgusts me. And I don't buy this ''ignorant culchie'' attitude. It's a disgrace and a huge problem in Ireland IMO.

Even today in this more enlightened century, there is a huge stigma attached to homosexuality, and many - particulary those from older generations hold onto the antiquated notion that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, when all scientific and psychiatric evidence points the contrary. Unfortunately we still have a long way to go regarding our acceptance of homosexual men and women within society, there are still many unchangeable and unflinching neanderthals whose ignorance would be as hard to overcome and reform, as it would be to get blood from a stone, and this young man should just get on with his life, regardless of what any regressive individuals thinks of him, or homosexuality itself.

Colmustard

dttq wrote: »

Even today in this more enlightened century, there is a huge stigma attached to homosexuality, and many - particulary those from older generations hold onto the antiquated notion that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, when all scientific and psychiatric evidence points the contrary. Unfortunately we still have a long way to go regarding our acceptance of homosexual men and women within society, there are still many unchangeable and unflinching neanderthals whose ignorance would be as hard to overcome and reform, as it would be to get blood from a stone, and this young man should just get on with his life, regardless of what any regressive individuals thinks of him, or homosexuality itself.

That's harsh. Homosexuality was only made legal in Ireland in 1993, civil partnership was only allowed last year, there is still no gay marriage. That is sudden change. To expect the older generation to take all this in in that space of time is asking a lot. There was no public awareness or education about sexuality in their time because it was a sin against god and the acts of perverts, puffs, queers, fags, shirt-lifters and on and on.

All we can do is hope for is this generation knows better and I believe it does.

Scanlas The 2nd

floggg wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Judging "homophobes" for "fearing" gay people simply because of instinctive feelings is hypocritical if you yourself don't accept say two adult brothers having sex merely because it " doesn't feel right".

If that is enough justification against two brothers having sex why can't it be enough justification against homosexuals.

Let's face it people - the poster won't be able to sleep until all the gays put their hands up and say, "yes yes brotherly incest is normal and fine and sure we have to support it because after all we are different and therefore have some weird obligation to accept incest!!"

Translation you want to see the world however you want even if it is unjustified and your logic makes no sense, much like those who can't reasonably explain why they have such a problem with homosexuals. They basically don't like homosexuals because it feels wrong and you don't like adult brothers having sex because it feels wrong. It's a common theme throughout history, feel an instinctive intolerance and and try mash together some logic afterwards to justify your feelings. Hitler did it with the Jews to name just one example.

Actually there are quite simple evolutionary reasons why people have an aversion to incest - sexual reproduction necessitates genetic diversity. The lack of genetic diversity leads to genetic abnormalities, birth defects and weakness to disease. This is common to nearly all animals who sexually reproduce.

While I am no expert I would be pretty sure all animals therefore evolve strategies to endure genetic diversity - one of which I would guess is the Westermarck effect I referred to previously. this is believed to produce a natural innate aversion to incest.

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.

So I don't think simply as a matter of logic the same principles apply to (homosexual) incest and homosexuality generally. To only focus on the "ick" factor ignores the reality of human sexuality.

PS -there is no comparable innate aversion to homosexuality generally to my knowledge. Little children aren't born homophobic, they are taught it.

And to constantly link homosexuality and incest is offensive in my book. There are vast differences between the two - homosexuality exists naturally in many species. Incest is something evolution and nature discourage for good reason.

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.

Martyn1989

Who has cheese sandwiches on Christmas day?

Lyaiera

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.

Stop trying to equate homosexual relationships with incestuous relationships. There's no clear link, it's purely you throwing crap hoping to cloud the situation. It's been outlined a number of times where the danger in incestuous relationships are, good, logical reasons have been given and you've ignored them. You're not interested in people's rights at all, you're purely interested in denigrating any attempt at a progressive outlook. You might as well be a member of Coir.

old_aussie

The father can do what ever he likes.

Tough for the son but that's life.

ixoy

old_aussie wrote: »

The father can do what ever he likes.

Tough for the son but that's life.

Would you feel the same for you if your father had a similar attitude for something that you had no control of?

Scanlas The 2nd

Lyaiera 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.

Stop trying to equate homosexual relationships with incestuous relationships. There's no clear link, it's purely you throwing crap hoping to cloud the situation. It's been outlined a number of times where the danger in incestuous relationships are, good, logical reasons have been given and you've ignored them. You're not interested in people's rights at all, you're purely interested in denigrating any attempt at a progressive outlook. You might as well be a member of Coir.

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.

floggg

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.

For the sake of full disclosure, and so I don't misunderstand your argument here, would you mind actually stating what it is?

Are you saying brother on brother love is acceptable? Or that homosexual non-incestuous love is unacceptable? Or just that there is an ick factor to both (for some people) but if we accept one we must accept the other and vice versa?

I ask because it's hard to know whether you are trying to twist things to suit an agenda or not (I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt).

Also, your rape implication is contrived at best and is distorting my point. i never said if it happens in nature its ok. I made the point that there is a legitimate evolutionary reason why humans have an aversion to incest. There is no such equivalent to homosexuality.

Therefore, it's fallacious to argue that there is no logical distinction between "homophobia" (which as popularly used covers more than "fear" but also intolerance, hatred, prejudice, even if that's wider than a traditional phobia) and an aversion to incest.

Indeed, while there are evolutionary reasons why we would be against incest, many evolutionary scientists have put forward theories why evolution would encourage homosexuality (there's a good Richard Dawkins clip on youtube, but I'm in work and can't be arsed finding it).

Again, without knowing your stand on the issue (and not wanting to impute one) I can't say if you are misunderstanding my point or just deliberately distorting it.

But to extrapolate from my argument that I support (or logically should support) rape is a rather huge leap.

PS - if you want to get technical, it wouldn't be clear if "rape" as we know it can occur in nature, as I doubt most animals have the mental capacity for consent as humans, or the same type of sexual behavioral patterns. Again, this isn't my field, but for most animals sex is a chemical thing - it occurs when the females are in heat or during a defined sexual breeding period. Few if any animals engage in sex for recreation in the same way we do (bonobos are one, but I don't know if there is much evidence of rape).

Either way though, the issue of rape is irrelevant to my point, which is that an aversion to incest is not comparable to homophobia.

Scanlas The 2nd

floggg 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.

For the sake of full disclosure, and so I don't misunderstand your argument here, would you mind actually stating what it is?

Are you saying brother on brother love is acceptable? Or that homosexual non-incestuous love is unacceptable? Or just that there is an ick factor to both (for some people) but if we accept one we must accept the other and vice versa?

I ask because it's hard to know whether you are trying to twist things to suit an agenda or not (I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt).

Also, your rape implication is contrived at best and is distorting my point. i never said if it happens in nature its ok. I made the point that there is a legitimate evolutionary reason why humans have an aversion to incest. There is no such equivalent to homosexuality.

Therefore, it's fallacious to argue that there is no logical distinction between "homophobia" (which as popularly used covers more than "fear" but also intolerance, hatred, prejudice, even if that's wider than a traditional phobia) and an aversion to incest.

Indeed, while there are evolutionary reasons why we would be against incest, many evolutionary scientists have put forward theories why evolution would encourage homosexuality (there's a good Richard Dawkins clip on youtube, but I'm in work and can't be arsed finding it).

Again, without knowing your stand on the issue (and not wanting to impute one) I can't say if you are misunderstanding my point or just deliberately distorting it.

But to extrapolate from my argument that I support (or logically should support) rape is a rather huge leap.

PS - if you want to get technical, it wouldn't be clear if "rape" as we know it can occur in nature, as I doubt most animals have the mental capacity for consent as humans, or the same type of sexual behavioral patterns. Again, this isn't my field, but for most animals sex is a chemical thing - it occurs when the females are in heat or during a defined sexual breeding period. Few if any animals engage in sex for recreation in the same way we do (bonobos are one, but I don't know if there is much evidence of rape).

Either way though, the issue of rape is irrelevant to my point, which is that an aversion to incest is not comparable to homophobia.

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.

Lyaiera

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.

floggg

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

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.

Again, this is the fallacy of your argument. The two just aren't comparable.

Nobody is born with a sexual attraction to their brother. You are not born with a sexual attraction to any particular person. You are born with a sexual attraction to a particular gender (or all genders). You get to choose however you act upon those attractions with.

A sexual attraction is a controllable feeling. E.g. If I was strongly sexually attracted to my sister's boyfriend, I could elect not to sleep with him if I wanted, no matter how strong the attraction.

Sexual orientation is not controllable.

If you are arguing on the ground of logical consistency, then you are not comparing like with like.

Also, can you actually point to any examples of homosexual incest? Your really arguing for a rather contrived point, which is most likley also mainly hypothetical.