Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Two adult brothers in a relationship
Options
Comments
-
personaly coudnt care less,it means the same as any hetro/homo/whatever arrangement to self.
however,the one thing that take issue with in incest in general is the kiddie side as itd be unfair to them to be chosen to be born with abnormalities and no doubt be bullied forever as an inbred child.
have seen the effects of inbreeding in chicks of mine; had got them as hatching eggs from someone who at the time; unknowingly interbreeded,theyre marans-some of them had physical and size abnormalities.
have heard there is inbreeding in the royal family to though dont know if that is just a joke people use.0 -
Sees title, thinks Jedward.0
-
There are many things wrong with this sentence:I just think that society has become so accepting of things today that weren't so accepted 20 years ago.....that boundaries are so pushed beyond limits nowadays.
First, it doesn't make sense. Boundaries and limits are the same thing.
More importantly, it is 'society' (or rather, past societies) that instated these limits in the first place. Humans did not evolve in a world in which incest was already 'wrong'. That idea was created by humans; what is happening over time is not that society has become more accepting of previously admonished ideals; it is that we, as a society are revising our collective position on moral codes instated by older and less enlightened societies, and rightly so.
THAT is the reason why people in this thread are mentioning homosexuality, because without this strive toward enlightened revision of social mores, homosexuality - for example - would still be considered the way it was in the past. Homosexuality in this case is merely an example, which could easily be traded for the views of societies toward women, or people who aren't white.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of the below, completely misinterpreted by Lyaiera:This is exactly why I think this thread is ****ing disgusting. It's all predicated on the idea that homosexual relationships are "icky" but society is ok with them, so why aren't incestuous relationships that are "icky" not ok too. It's mudslinging at it's purest about the supposed degradation of society and what allowing rights for gay people will lead to.
For anyone even a little versed in the topic of gay rights it's blatantly obvious what this thread is. To make it even more obvious it even started out of a thread about gay rights.
There have been multiple comparisons between gay people and incestuous people and while there has never been a valid reason for oppressing homosexuals there have been valid reasons given for not allowing some incestuous relationships. Still, the conversation keeps going back to the idea of it simply being "icky" reinforcing the idea that gay relationships are wrong because they're "icky" too.
This is literally the most disgusting thread I have ever seen in After Hours.
...
It may hint, it may be 'indicative', but it proves nothing. The point is that it is possible for this kind of situation to happen without abuse or neglect being a precursor. Even if it is a single case, it still disproves that theory. Therefore as a theory, it is useless. You can't disagree with something in all cases by speculating that abuse or neglect may have been a precursor.Lyaiera wrote:Of course abuse and neglect comes into it. Let's take it a step further beyond sibling relationships. Let's say a parent and their child enter a relationship when they're both adults (and in this case I'm not talking about long-lost situations.) Would that hint of a normal early relationship between the two people, or would it be indicative of abuse or neglect?
The discussion here is not about legality; it's about social mores, and how society views a relationship of this kind.Lyaiera wrote:And to say you can't stop what is extremely likely to be the result of a damaged upbringing because you can't stop it with non-incestuous relationships is ridiculous. There are a lot of things that should not be legal but simply can't be legislated against because of the impact such legislation would have on broader liberties. This is a very specific scenario where the positive effect is so obvious anf legislating against it is so insignificant in regards to the negative effect that it would be stupid not to do so.
The law is never perfect and has never made claims to do so. The idea that the law isn't perfect is one of the foundations our entire legal system is based on. It is all a balancing act, and on balance legislating against incest is the correct thing.
My point before was that if you think that the sole reason to disagree with this kind of relationship is due to the possibility of abuse or neglect, then why shouldn't that reason be applied to non-incestuous relationships?0 -
It may hint, it may be 'indicative', but it proves nothing. The point is that it is possible for this kind of situation to happen without abuse or neglect being a precursor. Even if it is a single case, it still disproves that theory. Therefore as a theory, it is useless. You can't disagree with something in all cases by speculating that abuse or neglect may have been a precursor.
The discussion here is not about legality; it's about social mores, and how society views a relationship of this kind.
My point before was that if you think that the sole reason to disagree with this kind of relationship is due to the possibility of abuse or neglect, then why shouldn't that reason be applied to non-incestuous relationships?
Your implications are way off. I was one of the first people in both threads to say there are circumstances where I wouldn't have a problem with a incestuous relationship. The whole thread was about whether it should or shouldn't be allowed, I say it shouldn't be allowed but there are circumstances where it is not wrong. The balance of that is that on a societal level legislating against it is has a benefit that vastly outweighs the harm and therefore on a legal level it should be illegal.
You're the person who can't see the difference between the two things, not me.0 -
A remake of "All in the Family"0
-
Advertisement
-
Your implications are way off. I was one of the first people in both threads to say there are circumstances where I wouldn't have a problem with a incestuous relationship.
Ok..? But you took me up on the point regarding abuse and neglect. And I responded on that topic. So do you have a further response in that regard?
Also, what exactly are my implications here? If it's that I'm saying those things about you specifically, then I apologise: read 'you' as 'one'.0 -
Your implications are way off. I was one of the first people in both threads to say there are circumstances where I wouldn't have a problem with a incestuous relationship. The whole thread was about whether it should or shouldn't be allowed, I say it shouldn't be allowed but there are circumstances where it is not wrong. The balance of that is that on a societal level legislating against it is has a benefit that vastly outweighs the harm and therefore on a legal level it should be illegal.
You're the person who can't see the difference between the two things, not me.
If there are circumstances where it is not wrong, why would you agree to it not being allowed on the whole? Also, what I'm trying to uncover here is exactly what the 'benefit' of illegality is and what the 'harm' is (both of illegality and legality).0 -
OP it appears that your only objection to incest between siblings is the fact that between a brother and sister there is a chance that the female will become pregnant and that this ceases to be a problem if both parties are of the same sex. The very same could be said of siblings of the opposite sex where the brother has had a vasectomy, or the sister has had a tubal ligation (her tubes tied). Would you object to an incestual relationship in such a situation?
When children grow up together they go through what is known as reverse sexual implanting which causes people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years of their lives become desensitized to later sexual attraction including children of different genetic parenthood. Children who do not grow up together who first meet as adults can have what is known as genetic sexual attraction. Genetic sexual attraction is very rare between people raised together in early childhood due to a reverse sexual imprinting.0 -
Ok..? But you took me up on the point regarding abuse and neglect. And I responded on that topic. So do you have a further response in that regard?
You said that there are occasions where such a relationship wouldn't be because of neglect and abuse, unless I've missed something in this big aul thread (really I can't remember.) You said even if there's a single case of it not being because of abuse or neglect then that point disproves the theory. First off it doesn't disprove any theory because I specifically said it was indicative, not proof. And second off you said that means that I can't disagree with all incestuous relationships because of that and I never said I disagree with all incestuous relationships, I simply said that incestuous relationships should be illegal. And that brings me onto your second post.If there are circumstances where it is not wrong, why would you agree to it not being allowed on the whole? Also, what I'm trying to uncover here is exactly what the 'benefit' of illegality is and what the 'harm' is (both of illegality and legality).
The benefit of illegality is that a damaging relationship isn't allowed to continue, the harm of illegality is that a perfectly consensual incestuous relationship is stopped.
Many people believe in freedom of speech. However there are limits placed on that in pretty much every country in the world, even the most liberal. In America there are limits placed that prevent or punish slander and libel. This prevents a lot of comedy. Not because there's anything wrong with joking (in fact it's specifically protected) but because some comedy is so close to slander and libel it could be confused for it and the damaging slander and libel could be allowed by hiding under the guise of comedy. Over here hate speech is illegal. Again this is a situation where there is a balance in the law. It impinges on free speech but because the positive effect of the restriction so vastly outweighs the negative it is seens as the correct balance within legislation. And of course countries disagree on these levels of restriction. America would see hate speech as something that is necessary for their free society while Ireland would not.
On the same level I feel that the benefits from restricting incestuous relationships is of such benefit (it prevents relationships stemming from neglect and abuse) that it outweighs the negative (a couple where one or both have not been abused forming a consensual relationship.)0 -
Both incest and homosexuality are grotesque and unnatural. However, a person desiring a relationship with their sibling has the option of seeking another person of the sex/es they are romantically/sexually attracted to. A homosexual on the other hand has no other options to seek romantic/sexual fulfillment other than with their own gender. This's the real difference in my eyes.0
-
Advertisement
-
pathtohome wrote: »Both incest and homosexuality are grotesque and unnatural. However, a person desiring a relationship with their sibling has the option of seeking another person of the sex/es they are romantically/sexually attracted to. A homosexual on the other hand has no other options to seek romantic/sexual fulfillment other than with their own gender. This's the real difference in my eyes.
How one could draw comparisons between incest and homosexuality is what is grotesque.
So you are saying that the only difference from the two is that a gay person has only their own gender to chose from while someone who practices incest can chose from both?
For f*** sake, grow up.0 -
I quoted you and cassi as you both pointed to the notion of abuse or emotional neglect as a likely predicate for a relationship of this nature.You said that there are occasions where such a relationship wouldn't be because of neglect and abuse, unless I've missed something in this big aul thread (really I can't remember.)
cassi in fact went so far as to say:It's well accepted that people who don't form functional adult relationships either physical or not, have been the victims of abuse as children.
I know it's not proof, that's what makes it a theory; we're in agreement here. Also, I have already apologised for making myself unclear, and that 'you' should have been expressed as 'one' - this isn't some kind of personal attack.Lyaiera wrote:You said even if there's a single case of it not being because of abuse or neglect then that point disproves the theory. First off it doesn't disprove any theory because I specifically said it was indicative, not proof. And second off you said that means that I can't disagree with all incestuous relationships because of that and I never said I disagree with all incestuous relationships, I simply said that incestuous relationships should be illegal.Lyaiera wrote:The benefit of illegality is that a damaging relationship isn't allowed to continue, the harm of illegality is that a perfectly consensual incestuous relationship is stopped.
Many people believe in freedom of speech. However there are limits placed on that in pretty much every country in the world, even the most liberal. In America there are limits placed that prevent or punish slander and libel. This prevents a lot of comedy. Not because there's anything wrong with joking (in fact it's specifically protected) but because some comedy is so close to slander and libel it could be confused for it and the damaging slander and libel could be allowed by hiding under the guise of comedy. Over here hate speech is illegal. Again this is a situation where there is a balance in the law. It impinges on free speech but because the positive effect of the restriction so vastly outweighs the negative it is seens as the correct balance within legislation. And of course countries disagree on these levels of restriction. America would see hate speech as something that is necessary for their free society while Ireland would not.
On the same level I feel that the benefits from restricting incestuous relationships is of such benefit (it prevents relationships stemming from neglect and abuse) that it outweighs the negative (a couple where one or both have not been abused forming a consensual relationship.)
In this post you are seemingly suggesting that incestuous relationships should be banned outright, as the negative of destroying the fully-informed consensual relationships is outweighed by the positive of protecting the people who are involved in damaging relationships. (Please do correct me if I have misunderstood)
The problems, as I have been trying to say already are as follows:
1) I think that you believe this would protect the majority, and harm the minority; however, there is no proof to suggest that the damaging relationships are in the majority, only supposition.
2) Many relationships are damaging, regardless of who is involved. However, I believe that you would not find it necessary to impose a legal ban upon relationships in general, for the sake of protecting those who may be damaged. So why apply that logic to incestuous relationships, and not relationships in general. In short, what is the actual difference?
3) Let's say that incestuous relationships should be treated differently, and let's also say that the damaging relationships are in the majority:
Why make it an outright ban, and not instead make provisions for those relationships that are not damaging? Why not treat things on a case-by-case basis in order to be aware of which relationships are damaging and which are not? This is where your 'freedom of speech' argument loses its sense of parity, because you are talking about impinging on free speech, but not illegalising it.0 -
How one could draw comparisons between incest and homosexuality is what is grotesque.
So you are saying that the only difference from the two is that a gay person has only their own gender to chose from while someone who practices incest can chose from both?
For f*** sake, grow up.
Outside of social conditioning, they're not all that different. If they truly are, a single person should be able to come up with a half adequate reason as to why. No one has as of yet.
What I was implying was, like I said, they're are not very different at all in reality, but on a legal level homosexuality is more acceptable than same-sex incest because banning homosexuality infringes on the freedoms of more individuals than banning same-sex incest.0 -
This is where your 'freedom of speech' argument loses its sense of parity, because you are talking about impinging on free speech, but not illegalising it.
If you banned them from having any relationship that would be the case. In fact you are only banning them from having a single relationship. (Or two relationships if they'd happily go out with their other siblings, but then again polygamy is also illegal.)3) Let's say that incestuous relationships should be treated differently, and let's also say that the damaging relationships are in the majority:
Why make it an outright ban, and not instead make provisions for those relationships that are not damaging? Why not treat things on a case-by-case basis in order to be aware of which relationships are damaging and which are not?
If there was a workable, non-onerous solution that allowed for that I'd be all for it.
Edit: It's also interesting how many low-post count, or newly reg'ed accounts have signed up to talk about this in this and the Gay Son & Father thread. I would not at all be surprised if this was a concerted effort by a group of people.0 -
pathtohome wrote: »Both incest and homosexuality are grotesque and unnatural. However, a person desiring a relationship with their sibling has the option of seeking another person of the sex/es they are romantically/sexually attracted to. A homosexual on the other hand has no other options to seek romantic/sexual fulfillment other than with their own gender. This's the real difference in my eyes.
Actually, he/she is saying that someone who practices incest can choose between family or non-family.So you are saying that the only difference from the two is that a gay person has only their own gender to chose from while someone who practices incest can chose from both?
Outside of social conditioning!pathtohome wrote: »Outside of social conditioning, they're not all that different. If they truly are, a single person should be able to come up with a half adequate answer as to why. No one has as of yet.
Before societies, before civilisations, before language, what you had was everybody ****ing everybody!
The idea that homosexuality and incest are 'wrong' or 'unacceptable' - just like the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' in themselves - are purely societal constructs, invented by people who imagined themselves to be sophisticated.
I think what you're saying is: It is likely that there are more homosexuals in the world than there are practitioners of incest, so it seems sensible that the illegality of homosexuality would be first to be revoked, because more people would call for it, but in terms of the initial ban by society, each are equally ridiculous, as they are each essentially examples of a sexual preference. Is that what you mean?pathtohome wrote:What I was implying was, like I said, they're are not very different at all in reality, but on a legal level homosexuality is more acceptable than same-sex incest because banning homosexuality infringes on the freedoms of more individuals than banning same-sex incest.0 -
On the same level I feel that the benefits from restricting incestuous relationships is of such benefit (it prevents relationships stemming from neglect and abuse) that it outweighs the negative (a couple where one or both have not been abused forming a consensual relationship.)
Can you give any solid reasons how an incestuous relationships stemming from neglect and abuse causes future harm? You appear to be scraping the barrel to find ways to convince yourself your conditioned beliefs are fundamentally true.0 -
pathtohome wrote: »Outside of social conditioning, they're not all that different. If they truly are, a single person should be able to come up with a half adequate reason as to why. No one has as of yet.
What I was implying was, like I said, they're are not very different at all in reality, but on a legal level homosexuality is more acceptable than same-sex incest because banning homosexuality infringes on the freedoms of more individuals than banning same-sex incest.
How one could link the two is amazing..
Incest as was pointed out earlier usually has its reasons rooted in family problems such as abuse, unnatural attachments from childhood and in some cases mental deficiencies. You are not born with incest in mind, rather it occurs due to adverse social conditioning.
On the other hand people are born gay, and they cant help it, unlike those who practice incest.0 -
All fair. How do you feel about points 1) and 2) ?If you banned them from having any relationship that would be the case. In fact you are only banning them from having a single relationship. (Or two relationships if they'd happily go out with their other siblings, but then again polygamy is also illegal.)
If there was a workable, non-onerous solution that allowed for that I'd be all for it.0 -
Incest as was pointed out earlier usually has its reasons rooted in family problems such as abuse, unnatural attachments from childhood and in some cases mental deficiencies. You are not born with incest in mind, rather it occurs due to adverse social conditioning.
And, as was pointed out earlier, that is spurious and specious reasoning.0 -
All fair. How do you feel about points 1) and 2) ?
For point 1.) I'm purely going on anecdata, I'm not an expert in the subject but thinking back to what I've read in the media and the like I've heard a fair few cases of supposedly consensual relationships between sibling where it turns out one is abusing the other and it's only after intervention (predicated on the incestuous element) that there's a resolution. I've heard of far less scenarios of long-lost siblings getting together. (However when I have heard of them there's been far more media attention.) If it was shown that the non-abusive relationships were significant I'd go to my answer on point 3.)
For point 2.) As I have said repeatedly the positives of banning the relationship outweigh the negatives of banning it. And again if I was convinced such a restriction was undue and onerous I would go to my answer on point 3.)0 -
Advertisement
-
-
The idea that homosexuality and incest are 'wrong' or 'unacceptable' - just like the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' in themselves - are purely societal constructs, invented by people who imagined themselves to be sophisticated.
I fully agree. I said they are grotesque out of personal opinion. I said homosexuality (same-sex incest included) is unnatural because a penis is biologically designed to fin in a vagina rather than an anus, which is for excretion.I think what you're saying is: It is likely that there are more homosexuals in the world than there are practitioners of incest, so it seems sensible that the illegality of homosexuality would be first to be revoked, because more people would call for it, but in terms of the initial ban by society, each are equally ridiculous, as they are each essentially examples of a sexual preference. Is that what you mean?
All I'm saying is this: homosexuality and same-sex incest are marginally different outside of social conditioning.0 -
Edit: It's also interesting how many low-post count, or newly reg'ed accounts have signed up to talk about this in this and the Gay Son & Father thread. I would not at all be surprised if this was a concerted effort by a group of people.
I think you're being slightly paranoid and hypersensitive. As far as I can see nobody in this thread has said that they disagree with gay rights or believe homosexuality is wrong. Quite the opposite it seems.
Enjoy it for what it is: an interesting, very theoretically and hypothetically based, debate to get people thinking outside their comfort zone and perhaps questioning their beliefs. It's also a good experiment to see if people can apply the logic that they would use to justify one situation to a similar, yet very different situation.0 -
Undiscovered wrote: »I think you're being slightly paranoid and hypersensitive. As far as I can see nobody in this thread has said that they disagree with gay rights or believe homosexuality is wrong. Quite the opposite it seems.
Enjoy it for what it is: an interesting, very theoretically and hypothetically based, debate to get people thinking outside their comfort zone and perhaps questioning their beliefs. It's also a good experiment to see if people can apply the logic that they would use to justify one situation to a similar, yet very different situation.
Ah yes, of course. But even by implying that legalising incestuous relationships is a consequence of legislating for homosexual rights does a lot of damage to the gay rights cause. Probably not for intellectually rigourous reasons, but I generally find that the anti-gay rights movement isn't generally very intellectually rigourous.0 -
Ah yes, of course. But even by implying that legalising incestuous relationships is a consequence of legislating for homosexual rights does a lot of damage to the gay rights cause. Probably not for intellectually rigourous reasons, but I generally find that the anti-gay rights movement isn't generally very intellectually rigourous.
Can you give any solid reasons how an incestuous relationships stemming from neglect and abuse causes future harm?0 -
-
More specious reasoning..! Or else you're trolling.So you agree with incest? I didn't read your earlier posts
The following is a claim with no evidence or proof to support it:Incest[...]usually has its reasons rooted in family problems such as abuse, unnatural attachments from childhood and in some cases mental deficiencies.0 -
Ah yes, of course. But even by implying that legalising incestuous relationships is a consequence of legislating for homosexual rights does a lot of damage to the gay rights cause. Probably not for intellectually rigourous reasons, but I generally find that the anti-gay rights movement isn't generally very intellectually rigourous.
That's a fair point. I can completely understand why the gay rights movement wants to distance itself from incest as much as possible. The logical justification for one does kind of naturally follow on from the other despite the actual circumstances being completely different. As repulsed as I feel about the thought of incest it's impossible to condemn it without violating the same reasoning used to validate homosexuality.
At the same time, the anti's are always going to find some way to debase homosexuality. Better to stay consistent to logical principles at the risk of being tarred by the same brush than to be hypocritical in my opinion.0 -
pathtohome wrote: »Not true. False propaganda like this undermines the gay rights movement.
People ARE born gay.
Id love to have a wife and kids and the rest but I can't..because of the way God made me.
And nothing in my life made me this way. I had a normal Irish up bringing the same as everyone else, surrounded by love and great friends. but I have always been gay..as long as I can remember. I didn't wake up one morning and say "hey think i'll like guys now!" It's always been there...
You don't have a clue man..0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement