Morality or how I learned to accept gay incest.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

this thread is the offshoot of the cultural Marxist thread.
One point made was about gay incest, yep, gay incest.
I don’t make this shit up, I just report.
anyway, it was said that by accepting gay incest, we are dragging
the world into a “cesspool if debauchery”. I think a discussion along
these lines will help clear up some matters.

The basic point is morality as conceived by conservatives is what is immoral yesterday,
is immoral today and will be immoral tomorrow. Their idea of morality is fixed, static,
immovable. But the fact is morality shifts with time. What is immoral yesterday is moral today
and might be immoral tomorrow or moral tomorrow, I have no way of knowing. Morals are not
fixed, static, immovable. They are flexible, shifting, swaying, moving in time.
What has been considered to be moral yesterday is not today and we best understand this.
We see this in so many different ways. We can see this in the height of women’s dresses.
At one time, a women was considered immoral if her dress was above the ankle. If you could
see her ankle, she was loose and immoral. This has change, (just a bit). We have a different
idea of morals than those in the 1890’s and 1900’s. This change shows the shifting of morality.
What was moral for the Greeks and what was moral for the Romans were different. different
places and different times have different morals. This shows us that the conservative idea that
morality is fixed is wrong. Acts considered one day to be immoral, may or may not be considered
moral today. This feeling that we are moving into a cesspool of debauchery by not banning
gay incest is simply the feeling that morality is fixed and constant. It is not.

PS: the reason incest is frowned upon is simply genetics. We know as the ancients knew,
that breeding within the family creates genetic flaws within the family. that is the whole
ban on incest. It creates genetic flaws in people which carried on could damage society.
There is no other reason for this feeling against incest. So in fact, gay incest doesn’t have
this issue of creating genetics flaws in procreation. I just don’t think they can procreate and
create a genetic flaw.

Kropotkin

2

If morality is constantly changing, then how do you figure out what is moral now?

What is the basis of morality?

What reasoning is used to arrive at a morality?

3

and we reach the 64,000 dollar question. This was the whole point to Nietzsche. How to create
a morality without reference to traditional morality which is based on god. Just about everything
N. wrote was to about this creation of a morality without god.

Kropotkin

4

Genetic maladies is not the only reason.

What happens if several businesses do nothing but conduct business with each other?
Economic stagnation unto annihilation.

Homosexuality and incest are both promoted (along with a great many other things) solely for the intent of genetic annihilation. And due to the very definition of a “sin”, are known to be sins.

5

Wow, just, wow…

Proof that atheists completely lack sense of morality, responsibility, consequences, perversion, and debauchery.

Kropotkin, what level will you sink to next??

6

Pedophilia and cannibalism … coming up next, right here on Earth after these commercials. Stay tuned.

7

K: as I said in a earlier post in another thread, I think that 18 and censual is the standard
necessary. So if you are 18 and consent, what you do in your bedroom is all right by me.
Now let us look at pedophilia, which is adults with children and I have given my answer as
18 and censual, so is pedophilia about censual and 18? Nope. So, no I don’t condone
pedophilia. I don’t see how anyone in their right mind consents to being cannibalize,
so I doubt that is an issue. 18 and censual. You must be of age and consent, otherwise no.

Kropotkin

8

PK, you deserve no less than Nobel Prize for spreading liberalism.

Your post kept me thinking for a while. I am still trying to judge many things on this basis. That gave me two conclusions.

Firstly, i do not think that you mean it. You are just pretending. I can expect a young person to say all this, but not a 55 year old person.

Secondly, if i am wrong about you, The situation is far more serious than i am assuming.

Either you have to be an exceptional case, but If you represent even only 20% of the people’s mindset in US, across all sections, it is sure that US, as we know it today, will not be there merely in two or three more decades.

There is no way that a country can survive with this mindset. It has no option but to dissipate shortly. This decease will spread like anything and will respect no boundries whatsoever, and kept going untill the complete choas would not be created. Then, anything can happen. The most possibility is of US becoming complete and official police state like Singapore; The rule of Baton.

I sincerly hope that day will not come.

with love,
sanjay

9

What if, hypothetically, what you do in your bedroom ends up annihilating your society and possibly all of the human species?

I know that you, in your little mind, think that such isn’t possible. But that is why I said “hypothetically”. So back to my question, “IF such acts really did, by some strange chain of events, really lead to such atrocity, would you still say that it is no one else’s business?”

Try for once to be honest.

10

PK, you deserve no less than Nobel Prize for spreading liberalism.

Your post kept me thinking for a while. I am still trying to judge many things on this basis. That gave me two conclusions.

Firstly, i do not think that you mean it. You are just pretending. I can expect a young person to say all this, but not a 55 year old person.

Secondly, if i am wrong about you, The situation is far more serious than i am assuming.

Either you have to be an exceptional case, but If you represent even only 20% of the people’s mindset in US, across all sections, it is sure that US, as we know it today, will not be there merely in two or three more decades.

There is no way that a country can survive with this mindset. It has no option but to dissipate shortly. This decease will spread like anything and will respect no boundries whatsoever, and kept going untill the complete choas would not be created. Then, anything can happen. The most possibility is of US becoming complete and official police state like Singapore; The rule of Baton.

I sincerly hope that day will not come.

K: as my aim was really to provoke thought, I am glad to have provoke you to thought.
I do actually mean what I say. I don’t see any difference between watching man/women sex,
women/women sex, man/man sex or gay incest. The bottom line is, it is still sex, regardless
of who is participating, (remember 18 and censual) If you stop and think about it for a moment
and not just gut reaction, you will see this, sex is just sex is just sex. On which standard can I say
how any particular sex is wrong and some particular sex is right? How would you judge such a matter?
which morality do you judge which sex is the “proper” sex and which sex is bringing about
the end of the world? I for one, can’t judge on which standard is the right standard?

Now I have no idea of where I stand in the midst of liberals mindset. I cannot speak for liberalism as is.
I am just speaking for myself and any of us can only speak for ourselves. We don’t represent anything
more than one individual person, I don’t represent atheist, Americans, whites, Californians, or
liberals or any other group. I simply speak for me as it should be.

Kropotkin

11

K: as I said in a earlier post in another thread, I think that 18 and censual is the standard
necessary. So if you are 18 and consent, what you do in your bedroom is all right by me.
[/quote]
What if, hypothetically, what you do in your bedroom ends up annihilating your society and possibly all of the human species?

J: I know that you, in your little mind, think that such isn’t possible. But that is why I said “hypothetically”. So back to my question, “IF such acts really did, by some strange chain of events, really lead to such atrocity, would you still say that it is no one else’s business?”

Try for once to be honest.
[/quote]
K: as I have stated before I have little, well actually no interest in hypotheticals.
I am interested in what is, not what may or may not be, in some possible reality.

Kropotkin

12

I didn’t ask you what you are interested in. I ask you a relevant question concerning the topic.

As you stated on the Anti-Atheist thread, you “don’t know and don’t care” yet at the same time profess certainty of, and proselytize what “should be” or what “is”.

Try gaining a bit of integrity and Answer the question.

13

K: you are mixing my answer. I said as far as the universe being created, I don’t really care how the universe
was created. there is no god, doesn’t effect that part at all.
I think the problem is you all have mix and match things. The creation of the universe can be
accounted for without resort to god or any metaphysical event. I can simply say, the universe
began in the big bang and the story rolled on to the galaxies and solar systems and earth and
evolution without resorting to god. I don’t really care how the universe began
because I don’t think we will ever know exactly what was before the big bang.
As I suggested, perhaps an osculating big bang which ever so often blows up.
and this in no way affect how one views god. god doesn’t exist. and now what?

Kropotkin

14

Setting standards:
You could approach it from the health direction. Homosexual men tend to engage in unprotected sex with a large number of partners, so there is a risk of spreading STDs. Therefore it should be labeled as immoral.

Then you could argue that lesbian incest is okay because STD transmission is much less likely.

But if it’s okay for women and not men, then someone will complain about gender bias and we would need to allow both ‘to be fair’. And you are back at health concerns.

NOTE : Please don’t jump on me for ‘having stereotypical opinions about gay sex’. I have stats which I can link if I have to.

15

If I am to “think” about it and you are to “inspire thought”, then ANSWER the questions.

YOU are the one who is NOT thinking about it, but rather proselytizing, preaching, without thought nor questions (just as Ucci has been accusing you for months, if not years).

There ARE viable, rational reasons behind those morals that you don’t care about. But you have to THINK in order to see them. But instead of doing the thinking that you insist on only others doing, you PREACH and PROMOTE what you want to be true, regardless of thought.

16

So an act can be called immoral if it is possible that it results in somebody being hurt despite the fact that both parties consented and were fully aware of the risk? I call bullshit. What others do under consent, as long as they’re informed about the possible consequences, and hurt nobody else, is not your business.

17

That’s naive. Sometimes people do not inform partners. Other times they do not know that they have a disease.

18

So what you’re proposing is for heterosexual women to rape (forcibly have sex with, without consent) gay males in order to reproduce and avoid annihilating the society and human species?

Being gay isn’t something you can choose or change, the same way you can’t choose to be or change being heterosexual. Perhaps hormonal injections would slightly influence it, but from what I’ve seen people retain their sexuality completely.

If you agree with me that gay males shouldn’t be raped and don’t choose their own sexuality, what purpose then does forbidding them from having sex serve other than attempting to control their lives and deny them pleasure because of bigotry and perhaps even jealousy. It’s interesting how many popular figures that openly oppose homosexuality turn out to be gay, it’s called the Ted Haggard syndrome I think :laughing:

19

Ok, first of all, would it also be immoral if it were a heterosexual couple and f.e. the male wasn’t telling the female he has a disease. Does it mean that heterosexual sex is also immoral?

Once again, I call bullshit. People are required to inform the other party, if they don’t it means the other party can claim they were denied information and therefore were incapable to give consent to having sex with somebody with a disease. It can happen in heterosexual couples too, so I really don’t see your point, of course the one intentionally trying to spread a disease is acting immorally, but it’s not because he’s gay.

Notice how you must make up a new scenario and add further details to the situation, worse thing is they don’t even support your argument since they’re unrelated.

The twincest brothers aren’t spreading diseases to anybody. They’re two people who love each other and have consensual sex. The problem for bigots is that they also happen to be gay and brothers. There has been a case of a man and a woman meeting, dating for years in a serious relationship and they were about to marry (or married already) and found out that they are brother and sister. It didn’t change anything between them.

20

Don’t care what people do in bed, man with man, woman with woman, man with woman… Doesn’t bother me, unless they try pushing it onto me.

That mention of men not using protection and spreading STD’s and is immoral is completely laughable, in fact I did laugh, thanks. That has to do with them liking the same sex right? How about it has to do with they aren’t knowledgeable of safety/health and not aware they have a disease in the first place.