Religion PDF: Testing the argument on same-sex communities

George Sanders37 said:Could someone—clearly more informed than I am—explain why there’s such a persistent attempt to draw parallels between homosexuality and incest?🤷😕

Timothy Martinez6 said:I have two questions for those in charge who might actually give me an answer.

On the thread "Questions regarding homosexuality from social and religious perspectives" (over on Religion), there’s a recurring argument used to support legalizing same-sex unions that goes something like this: "The fact that people live together and love one another should be enough reason to allow them to enter into civil marriage." To test the logic of that specific argument, I brought up the case of incest and asked if we should also allow such unions since those individuals can also live together and love one another. My goal was simply to see if we are being consistent with this reasoning or if we are applying double standards. My response was that I am forbidden from using an "incest parallel" for same-sex unions—which earned me a ban—yet I am supposedly allowed to use a "polyamory parallel."

Since I haven't received a clear or logical explanation as to why an incest comparison is off-limits while polyamory is acceptable—especially when both serve to test the validity of the same argument supporting same-sex legalization—I would like a more precise clarification...

Furthermore, since I was directed to try this line of questioning over on Politics, I want to know if I am permitted to test arguments there using similar parallels (if they arise)? Or am I just going to get banned there too?

Basically, I just want to know if we're being consistent with this logic or if we're just dealing with a double standard.

Timothy Martinez6 said:I have two questions for those in charge who might actually give me an answer.

On the thread "Questions regarding homosexuality from social and religious perspectives" (over on Religion), there’s a recurring argument used to support legalizing same-sex unions that goes something like this: "The fact that people live together and love one another should be enough reason to allow them to enter into civil marriage." To test the logic of that specific argument, I brought up the case of incest and asked if we should also allow such unions since those individuals can also live together and love one another. My goal was simply to see if we are being consistent with this reasoning or if we are applying double standards. My response was that I am forbidden from using an "incest parallel" for same-sex unions—which earned me a ban—yet I am supposedly allowed to use a "polyamory parallel."

Since I haven't received a clear or logical explanation as to why an incest comparison is off-limits while polyamory is acceptable—especially when both serve to test the validity of the same argument supporting same-sex legalization—I would like a more precise clarification...

Furthermore, since I was directed to try this line of questioning over on Politics, I want to know if I am permitted to test arguments there using similar parallels (if they arise)? Or am I just going to get banned there too?

Sam Alvarez4 said:I am speaking strictly for myself.

If I say, "The fact that people live together and love one another should be enough to allow them to enter into a civil marriage," I am inherently assuming we are talking about consenting adults who share no close blood relation.
The latter—incest—would only cross a person's mind if they had a truly warped psyche.

Elizabeth Price2 said:Okay, listen, for some people, an "a priori" assumption also implies we're talking about straight couples, too!

And regarding that "warped psyche" thing—well, back in the day (like, up until 1978 or whenever), homosexuality was actually officially labeled as having a warped psyche, and honestly, plenty of people still see it that way today. 🤷

Anyway, from what I gather, on the Politics and Religion forum, it's forbidden to draw parallels between incest and homosexuality. So, I'm curious—if we can't talk about it there, where on earth *can* we actually have a civilized debate or argue the point? Like, over on the FBI forum 😕
?

steelskipper5 said:Look, if we could actually discuss this in a rational, argued, and civilized way, then the "argument" wouldn't be banned in the first place. ☕

steelskipper5 said:Look, if we could actually discuss this in a rational, argued, and civilized way, then the "argument" wouldn't be banned in the first place. ☕

rustydrifter10 said:Is that what those Religion moderators told you?

coppersailor28 said:A beautiful example of a rational, argued, and civilized counterargument...

So, it is possible after all.

rustydrifter10 said:Can we have an actual, reasoned debate here? Of course we can! As long as we stick to the topic at hand, follow the PDF guidelines, and respect the rules of the forum, there's absolutely no reason why we can't dive deep into a real discussion.

Look, I really need to get this off my chest because I can't stop thinking about it. We need to talk about the whole issue surrounding how certain social shifts will Encourage incest. It’s one of those topics that just hits a nerve, you know? It feels like we're heading down a path where the traditional boundaries that hold a society together are being completely ignored. Honestly, it's unsettling to think about how much things are changing. Look, there's already a dedicated thread under the Religion section for this kind of thing, so honestly, it feels pretty out of place to shove it into a discussion about homosexuality.

Elizabeth Price2 said:Okay, listen, for some people, an "a priori" assumption also implies we're talking about straight couples, too!

And regarding that "warped psyche" thing—well, back in the day (like, up until 1978 or whenever), homosexuality was actually officially labeled as having a warped psyche, and honestly, plenty of people still see it that way today. 🤷

Anyway, from what I gather, on the Politics and Religion forum, it's forbidden to draw parallels between incest and homosexuality. So, I'm curious—if we can't talk about it there, where on earth *can* we actually have a civilized debate or argue the point? Like, over on the FBI forum 😕
?

Elizabeth Price2 said:Okay, listen, for some people, an "a priori" assumption also implies we're talking about straight couples, too!

And regarding that "warped psyche" thing—well, back in the day (like, up until 1978 or whenever), homosexuality was actually officially labeled as having a warped psyche, and honestly, plenty of people still see it that way today. 🤷

Anyway, from what I gather, on the Politics and Religion forum, it's forbidden to draw parallels between incest and homosexuality. So, I'm curious—if we can't talk about it there, where on earth *can* we actually have a civilized debate or argue the point? Like, over on the FBI forum 😕
?

rustydrifter10 said:Is that what those Religion moderators told you?

Peter Phillips32 said:Look, individual arguments don't really work in a vacuum; you need a whole bunch of them working together to build a coherent case for any thesis.

Tearing an argument out of its context like that is a textbook way to trigger a slippery slope.
Plus, all the actual arguments against incest completely dismantle the very premise you're latching onto, so you can't even use it to push for incest.

Basically, I just want to know if we're being consistent with this logic or if we're just dealing with a double standard.

Consistency isn't the only yardstick used to measure if an argument holds water, and when you rip a single point out of its original setting, you really ought to handle it with some care—you shouldn't just recklessly shrink the entire criteria down to one solitary metric, especially one that obviously makes the argument fall apart.

Peter Phillips32 said:Look, individual arguments don't really work in a vacuum; you need a whole bunch of them working together to build a coherent case for any thesis.

Tearing an argument out of its context like that is a textbook way to trigger a slippery slope.
Plus, all the actual arguments against incest completely dismantle the very premise you're latching onto, so you can't even use it to push for incest.

Basically, I just want to know if we're being consistent with this logic or if we're just dealing with a double standard.

Consistency isn't the only yardstick used to measure if an argument holds water, and when you rip a single point out of its original setting, you really ought to handle it with some care—you shouldn't just recklessly shrink the entire criteria down to one solitary metric, especially one that obviously makes the argument fall apart.

rustydrifter10 said:Can we have an actual, reasoned debate here? Of course we can! As long as we stick to the topic at hand, follow the PDF guidelines, and respect the rules of the forum, there's absolutely no reason why we can't dive deep into a real discussion.

Look, I really need to get this off my chest because I can't stop thinking about it. We need to talk about the whole issue surrounding how certain social shifts will Encourage incest. It’s one of those topics that just hits a nerve, you know? It feels like we're heading down a path where the traditional boundaries that hold a society together are being completely ignored. Honestly, it's unsettling to think about how much things are changing. Look, there's already a dedicated thread under the Religion section for this kind of thing, so honestly, it feels pretty out of place to shove it into a discussion about homosexuality.

coppersailor28 said:It’s impossible. Drawing parallels between homosexuality and incest just proves the person doing it is either intellectually incapable of handling a real debate... or they’re just being a provocateur.

Give me one example of such a parallel. Apparently, you think they exist.

Timothy Martinez6 said:But what happens when you use an example like incest just to test a specific argument being used to support legalizing same-sex unions, exactly like I laid out in my opening post? In that case, it makes zero sense to debate this under the topic of incest... it only belongs where that specific argument is actually being used to push for same-sex marriage...

If that's the rule, then fine, it’s the rule. I just wish someone would provide a single shred of a logical explanation for it...

dustyranger64 said:Even if you could somehow use that logic just to test consistency, it still doesn't hold water. Incest is banned because of the high inbreeding coefficient—basically, the massive risk of developmental issues or birth defects in kids. That's a factor that just doesn't apply to same-sex couples.

since incest is prohibited

dustyranger64 said:Even if you could somehow use that logic just to test consistency, it still doesn't hold water. Incest is banned because of the high inbreeding coefficient—basically, the massive risk of developmental issues or birth defects in kids. That's a factor that just doesn't apply to same-sex couples.

rustydrifter10 said:Comparing homosexuality to incest isn't a valid argument because the two things have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

It's pretty hard to see how an incest example could serve as a way to argue for the legalization of same-sex unions, since they are two completely different issues, and even the law treats them in totally different ways.