lonebadger6 said:Well, before I sign off, and since it didn't occur to me to head over to Religion, Social Issues, or Politics—where I’d probably end up jumping out a window given how people act on both sides over there—here’s my quick take on what the OP asked...
No matter how right you are, that you’ve got every right to ask this without getting banned, those distinctions between the two types of relationships definitely exist, regardless of how shaky the definition you mentioned might be...
Not that it matters which comes first:
1. Incest is illegal. I'm talking about the actual sexual act itself, not just marriage. Homosexuality hasn't been a criminal issue for ages. Trying to draw a parallel between a felony (which is how the US handles incest) and granting rights to people who are already in a legal relationship just doesn't really hold water...
2. "Incest" is such a massive, sweeping term. What you’re actually talking about—something that should be perfectly legal to discuss openly—is something like a relationship between siblings. But people rarely make that distinction. A parent-child dynamic, which happens more often than sibling stuff, is a whole different beast because one person is inherently dependent on the other, and the situation often involves elements of pedophilia or the sexual exploitation of a minor due to that power imbalance...
Look, in the context you're laying out, what you're saying just doesn't track at all—it makes zero sense! But honestly, that’s exactly where the kicker is: why is incest strictly off-limits while homosexuality is being pushed so hard now (even though, let's be real, that used to be illegal too)? To me, it feels like someone—heaven knows whose agenda or motives are driving this—just decided to draw a line in the sand at a totally nonsensical spot. They basically just said, "Okay, homosexuality is fine, but other sexual deviations? Hard pass." (And hey, I've got more to say about this later in the post!)
Laura Harris8 said:Honestly, the whole debate over whether incest should be allowed isn't even the point; people just throw it out there as a way to call the "against" side inconsistent. The guy who started this thread already made it clear why he’s asking.
You often hear the "against" crowd say things like, "They love each other, they're happy, and they aren't hurting anyone." Then, they use that exact logic to drag incest or polygamy into the conversation. It’s a classic move: "Well, if those two love each other and aren't hurting anyone, why wouldn't they allow *this*?" It sounds perfectly logical on the surface, doesn't it?
But let's be real—that’s a pretty hollow argument. Why? Because you could flip the script and use the same logic against the "pro" side. You see people arguing that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples rather than same-sex couples specifically because the former can contribute to continuing the species. But hey, polygamous or even incestuous unions could technically be productive in that regard too, right? So, shouldn't the same question be applied to them?
Look, everyone has their own personal boundaries and moral limits. That's just how humans work. But if we are sitting here debating the merits of homosexuality, why on earth should someone feel forced to defend their stance on polygamy just to prove they're being "consistent"? What is there to prove?
In my view, bringing up these comparisons just deconstructs the actual discussion and shifts the focus toward things that don't even matter. You aren't going to reach any meaningful conclusion by going down that rabbit hole.
Look, I’ve already laid this out for you—my whole thing isn't even about reproduction or being "pro" or "anti" homosexuality. It’s about being consistent! You can't play the big-shot liberal role, preaching all this tolerance and being pro-homosexuality, while simultaneously drawing the line at incest. That just doesn't add up—it’s pure hypocrisy, plain and simple. Or maybe we’re all just waiting for the wind to shift? Like, maybe one day the mainstream media and the folks in Washington will decide that incest is actually "progressive" and start pushing it as something positive? And then everyone will just flip their stance because suddenly it’s "in" and "trendy"? And if you don't fall in line with that, you're labeled as primitive or intolerant? It’s wild, honestly.
Exactly! Honestly, I feel like a massive chunk of the people siding with the "AGAINST" crowd are only doing it because it's trendy—like, there's zero actual logic behind it. They just follow the herd. Someone basically whispered in their ear that being against it makes them look progressive and civilized, you know? And then they've been fed this whole stereotype that anyone on the "FOR" side is just some uneducated, primitive thug or a total wreck—basically a caricature of a low-life—and boom, that’s how they distance themselves from actually thinking things through. It's wild!
So, why am I personally against homosexuality? Honestly—it’s because I view it as a disorder, just another type of sexual deviation. To me, it sits right up there with things like incest or polygamy.
So, okay... transgender people (I'm not even sure if that's the right way to put it, my bad!). I honestly just cannot wrap my head around how anyone can look at someone else and say, "Yeah, it’s totally fine and completely normal that you don't feel comfortable in your assigned gender and want to be something else." Like, seriously? They go through all of it—hormone treatments, surgeries, and basically everything else imaginable. I am trying *so* hard here to figure out how someone looking in from the outside can find this acceptable—and where exactly should our tolerance as a society end? Where do we need to draw the line and say, "Okay, this is fine, but this is where we stop"? Why? And what does "tolerance" even actually mean anyway? 😁
Just look at how things play out in the Netherlands, for example. And hey, look, I’m not calling it hypocrisy—it’s actually just being consistent, and honestly, props to them for that. But here's the kicker for all you folks who are totally fine with homosexuality and don't see anything wrong with it: would you be down to follow the Netherlands' lead to the absolute extreme? Like, are you all for gradually lowering the legal age of consent? Or maybe even legalizing public sex? I mean, heck, maybe they even have incest legalized too (I did a quick Google search and—lo and behold—it looks like they might!):
From what I've been seeing in this debate so far, it feels like a lot of people on the "AGAINST" side have this massive mental block. They won't even try to look at the bigger picture or consider different angles; they just flat-out refuse to draw any comparison between homosexuality and other deviations... man, I honestly have no clue why it's like that. 🤷