Religion PDF: Testing the argument on same-sex communities

Timothy Martinez6 said:But it absolutely works as a way to debunk certain arguments used to legalize same-sex marriage. Both scenarios fall under the exact same logical trap: "if people live together and love one another, we should allow them to marry." If someone relies on that logic to support same-sex marriage, then their consistency—and the actual validity of their argument—is called into question when it comes to the legalization of incest...

Christian Torres3 said:How many real-life examples do you actually have of brothers or sisters wanting to legalize their living situation?

What a f***ing garbage argument.

silvertiger11 said:So, look: you have two people who love each other, live together, and want to make their commitment official under the law. The only actual difference is that one is gay and the other is straight.

Where on earth is the logic that leads anyone to claim this involves incest?
By that ridiculous reasoning, should we just ban marriage for everyone? After all, we might run into a brother and sister who actually want to tie the knot.
The only real connection between these two scenarios is that society chooses to be outraged by both.

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

Elizabeth Price2 said:You can actually have gay incest too🤷

Actually, you can't—because it's strictly illegal and totally taboo in our society. Just like how non-incestuous gay relationships were viewed until a certain point in history. See the connection now?

Anthony Perez9 said:The only reason people keep whining about how same-sex relationships are basically incest is because they’re desperately trying to manufacture some kind of fake disgust toward it. It’s just that tired "it's all the same" logic, along with those other even grosser "comparisons" people try to pull... ☕

Brandon Lopez6 said:Nah.

It's like someone asking if they can debunk the whole "traditional marriage" thing by bringing up incest. I mean, if we put it in the Constitution that marriage equals a man and a woman... where does it actually say anything about being related? 🍿

Timothy Martinez6 said:This opens up a whole mess of questions. Here are a few that are currently stuck in my head:

1) Is the mere possibility of something happening—like developmental issues in a child—enough justification to ban incest and the ability to marry? Should the "right to marriage" be tied to the potential for offspring, or should it be treated as entirely independent of those biological concerns?

2) Following that logic, should we ban marriages between men and women who aren't related by blood if genetic testing shows a high risk of their children having developmental disabilities? Isn't that kind of thing already prohibited in California?

3) What about relatives who are sterile and can't have children? Should they be allowed to marry since there's zero risk of any developmental complications from offspring? And what about incestuous relationships between people of the same sex (like a father and son, or grandmother and grandson)? They can't conceive together either...

dustyranger64 said:Look, setting aside my own weak logic in that last bit of the first point—where I was basically trying to pivot toward how people might twist it against gay marriage—I was just pointing out the main reason incest is banned in most places. It's not always about the act itself. The real kicker is that repeated incestuous relationships spike the inbreeding coefficient, making the long-term genetic fallout way bigger than it looks on the surface.

If you step outside the whole "kids" conversation, there isn't anything inherently wrong with incest. Most people aren't attracted to close relatives not because of shared DNA, but simply because they grew up in such close quarters.
Case in point 1: A brother and sister get separated at birth, grow up totally unaware of each other, meet later, fall in love, and then find out they're siblings. Sick? Yeah. Tough.
Case in point 2: A boy and girl who aren't related grow up in the same house. They see each other like siblings and stay completely asexual toward one another their whole lives; honestly, the mere thought is repulsive to them.

So, there's no double standard per se. But the foundation for making a decision is totally different, and it should be.

Elizabeth Price2 Asks:
When I compare homosexuality to incest, I always focus on the incestuous relationship that cannot result in offspring.

Elizabeth Price2 said:If we’re actually looking at the health implications, it’s an established fact that the gay community is a breeding ground for STDs and AIDS. They aren't even allowed to donate blood.

Elizabeth Price2 said:So, we’re looking at another fascinating case of selective criteria here. It's pure double standards. What’s permitted for one group is strictly forbidden for another.

Christian Torres3 said:How many real-life examples do you actually have of brothers or sisters wanting to legalize their living situation?

What a f***ing garbage argument.

Anthony Perez9 said:The only reason people keep whining about how same-sex relationships are basically incest is because they’re desperately trying to manufacture some kind of fake disgust toward it. It’s just that tired "it's all the same" logic, along with those other even grosser "comparisons" people try to pull... ☕

dustyranger64 said:Look, setting aside my own weak logic in that last bit of the first point—where I was basically trying to pivot toward how people might twist it against gay marriage—I was just pointing out the main reason incest is banned in most places. It's not always about the act itself. The real kicker is that repeated incestuous relationships spike the inbreeding coefficient, making the long-term genetic fallout way bigger than it looks on the surface.

If you step outside the whole "kids" conversation, there isn't anything inherently wrong with incest. Most people aren't attracted to close relatives not because of shared DNA, but simply because they grew up in such close quarters.
Case in point 1: A brother and sister get separated at birth, grow up totally unaware of each other, meet later, fall in love, and then find out they're siblings. Sick? Yeah. Tough.
Case in point 2: A boy and girl who aren't related grow up in the same house. They see each other like siblings and stay completely asexual toward one another their whole lives; honestly, the mere thought is repulsive to them.

So, there's no double standard per se. But the foundation for making a decision is totally different, and it should be.

Timothy Martinez6 said:Personally, I don't know a single couple like that. You might find news stories online about them, sure. But honestly, the number of real-world examples is completely irrelevant. Even if there weren't a single case, we could still debate the principle (like asking, "how would we handle it if such a pair did show up").

Your explanation doesn't fly with me. I'm not interested in appeals to emotion, like disgust; I care about pure logic and consistency.

I wasn't talking about incest itself and its prohibition, but rather the possibility of entering a civil union for people in close blood relation—let's call it an "incestuous marriage." Is there any state that allows that?

As for that main argument against incest or "incestuous marriage," it doesn't even apply to people who physically cannot conceive a child together, so it would be interesting to see what argument is used to prevent marriage in those cases. 🤷

I'll stop here, because this isn't really a discussion about incest. What I'm interested in is testing the consistency of using a specific argument that occasionally surfaces in favor of legalizing same-sex unions. Incest is merely my litmus test for that argument...🙂

Christian Torres3 said:Man, I'd love to see a link to some actual news story about a brother/brother or sister/sister wanting to get married. You claim they exist, so go ahead—show me.

Timothy Martinez6 said:If you were strictly talking about brother/brother or sister/sister, I haven't seen any links like that. I was referring to siblings in general—two people sharing the same mother and/or father, regardless of gender. I specifically know of stories regarding a brother and sister wanting to marry (link)...

Christian Torres3 said:Honestly, I think any further discussion here is just a waste of time.

Elizabeth Price2 said:Look, plenty of folks—myself included—feel a natural gut reaction against same-sex stuff, so nobody needs to try and force anything on anyone in that department.
My main goal when I bring up that comparison is really just to point out how inconsistent some people are being! To me, if you're totally fine with homosexual relationships, then there’s honestly no reason why you wouldn't also be okay with incestuous ones (since they don't result in kids) or even polygamy. You guys set the bar for tolerance so high yourselves! There’s really no logical reason to draw a line in the sand and say, "Okay, this group fits in my circle of tolerance, but that group doesn't."
So why the discrimination? 😁 People just love each other! Why does it matter what they’re doing behind their own four walls? Now you want to go peeking into their bedrooms and deciding who they can or can't be with? I mean... in what actual way are they threatening you or getting in your way? (Seriously, that's the best argument I've ever heard from the pro-gay side, and I truly don't have a sensible comeback for it!) Etc.

Timothy Martinez6 said:The discussion became pointless a long time ago, and my points regarding testing that argument from the original post haven't been refuted. My apologies if I misunderstood you, but the fact that there isn't a case where siblings want to enter a civil marriage doesn't change the core of my argument one bit...

Christian Torres3 said:Take a break from the forums and go read a book for once. Seriously. Read up on the Habsburg dynasty and then maybe you'll realize why bringing up incest is such a weak argument. Hopefully.