K: see this worry about AIDS, STDs, social diseases are a new phenomena. I am old enough to remember
when sex was just sex and no one worried about getting a social disease. This is how morals change.
You get something like AIDS, STDs, and the fear changes the morals. This is part of how morality changes.
We approach sex differently these days then we did in the 70’s and AIDS plays a major reason for this change.
Kropotkin
Okay laugh. They engage in risky sex with many partners and they don’t use protection.
Labeling the behavior immoral may limit the spread of disease. It’s valid approach to morality.
Required? So what? What good does it do after a person is infected? He or she can sue? Great.
My point is that gay sex and promiscuous gay sex is more likely to spread STDs than heterosexual sex. Therefore, it may be reasonable to label it immoral based on health concerns.
One brother can’t get an STD from the other? They can’t spread it to other partners?
No, it’s not, it’s an inductive approach so you shouldn’t use terms like “valid”.
Labeling the behavior immoral would put even more stigma on actions of gay people and compromise on the rights of those who practice safe sex. You can’t require of decent gay couples not to have sex because some of them, the indecent ones, are spreading disease. Blaming person X for actions of unrelated person Y, now that truly is, as Artimas said, laughable.
So then heterosexual sex is also immoral but to a lesser extent? Ridiculous.
You have a very different view of morality than me then. According to me, if both persons consent to sex and one of them WANTS an STD( in a highly unlikely hypothetical scenario), the other isn’t immoral if he proceeds with sex and infects the first person. It’s all about informed consent and not intentionally hurting the other person.
There is a higher chance that your child will get hit by a car if you leave the house, does it make you immoral then when you take your child for a walk outside the house, since you increase its chances of being hit by a car (or any other random accident).
If none of them has it, no.
Just keep in mind that all you’re saying can be applied to heterosexual couples as well.
What world were you born into? When I was born, all the moral rules were in place. It was all based on persons unrelated to me.
Premarital sex … immoral. I had no say in that. 
I’m sure that some people were having ‘responsible premarital sex’ and some were having ‘irresponsible premarital sex’. Loving or not loving. Didn’t make any difference.
I could go thru a long list of immoral behaviors.
Yeah, some nice decent people were inconvenienced by the moral rules.
Nonetheless, those rules served some purpose and when they were put in place, people thought that it was a good idea.
I’m basically saying that this is possible a way of arriving at a morality… this is a possible reasoning. I care less about the result than the logic of the process.
Of course, as soon as you even suggest that gay sex might be immoral then someone blows a gasket. Hilarious. 
K: question. How do you define immoral? What is immoral or moral for that matter?
Here is where you run into trouble. Because everyone has a different idea of moral and immoral.
Whose definition do we take in deciding what is immoral?
Kropotkin
Collectively society does it all the time. Someone convincingly argues that there is some damage to the community from immoral behavior.
The most immoral and dangerous act is murder through civil misbevavior, or murder through immoral acts of war. Everything else is fiddlestics, modeled by prejeducial religious morality masking the envy of older men over their inferior position vis. their sons. Ultimately this bias reduces to matters of ego.
PK,
I think that going by your theory, a father/son or mother/daughter couple having sex or even having marriage, would also be okay to you!
Am i gettting you right?
I just curious to know your limit.
with love,
sanjay
[quote=“zinnat13”]
PK,
I think that going by your theory, a father/son or mother/daughter couple having sex or even having marriage, would also be okay to you!
Am i gettting you right?
I just curious to know your limit.
K: You have to be aware of what I have already said. over 18 and censual and because of
genetics, you can’t have the possibility of offspring because that could track through
society and create real issues. As for the rest, who is god enough to say, this is immoral
and this isn’t and why is something immoral and something else isn’t. The question becomes
what is moral and who decides? Do you get to decide what is immoral? does James?
do I? and what criteria would one use to decide what is moral and immoral?
Kropotkin
James does. 
So, basically you are saying that everything should be allowed if it is consensual and within mature people.
Okay, i got it.
with love,
sanjay
PK would not have problem with it, if the son/daughter is an adult.
What are the possible arguments against?
Ucci typical “thin edge of the wedge” argument? If it’s allowed then bestiality and pedophilia will soon be acceptable.
or
People have a general aversion to incest. A biological instinct that operates even if there is no chance of defective children being produced.
Plus … degeneration of the species.
None of these things would actually be a problem IF, IF, everything ELSE was don’t just right.
But that isn’t going to happen (any time soon).
If that is anything to worry!
with love,
sanjay
Usually the argument is that if we try to control what people do in their bedrooms then we will be living in a police state.
I’m not clear what you are suggesting.
Your argument seems to be that if gay incest is allowed, then eventually everything will be allowed, and even the police will not respect any restrictions placed on them. Is that it?
Or are you saying that in a society where all is permitted, those with a strong and ruthless will, would be in a position to use the police to gain control over society because the populace is too weak, self-centered and undisciplined to oppose them.
James and Sanjay live on a slippery slope, which might be fine if they could provide rational arguments to support their conclusions. Until that time, I wouldn’t pay them much mind.
Phyllo, on the other hand, brings up some good points that were initially introduced to me during a lengthy debate with Ucci. Gay sex, among men at least, seems statistically more dangerous in terms of spreading disease. Of course, those risks can be easily mitigated, which just means that gay sex, like any sex, can be more or less potentially harmful. If done in such a way that risk and harm are successfully mitigated, I see no reason to call the act immoral.
As for incest, I’ve never really been convinced that it’s categorically immoral. I’d like to hear an argument to that effect if anyone has one. I think that if the relationship is consensual and doesn’t lead to procreation, it’s relatively harmless. Maybe an argument can be made about the negative effects this might have on society as a whole, but as long as the sexual acts are kept private, I don’t see why anyone should be concerned.
You’ve been taking quite a bit of shit around here lately, PK. At the very least, I respect your candor.
K: No one can make an argument against sex being immoral without dragging in the bible.
and as far as the diseases goes, that is really not an issue. As far as taking shit, meh, I am a big
boy and I am a philosopher and part of the job description of philosopher is taking shit because
either people don’t understand or they are afraid. That is life in the big city as I like to say.
Kropotkin