Can you play along with a thought experiment with me? I'm not sure how to counter this argument that I thought of whilst playing Devil's Advocate in my mind, and I need help.
There is a twist that I will provide in a subsequent reply, assuming I get a response at all.
Picture a couple, two homosexual males in their 30's. You would consider this completely valid, something that no one has the right to say is wrong, correct? Love is love after all, right?
pic unrelated
>>5265450
I'll play along
right
I don't see anything wrong, given the information that has been provided so far.
>>5265459
Second
>>5265454
>>5265459
>>5265474
Again, playing Devil's Advocate. I thought of this situation and now am questioning myself about what I believe.
Twist: they're siblings. They're two consenting adults. Just so happens they're related.
I thought no one had the right to say it was wrong. Love is love after all, right?
>>5265501
Everyone has right to say whatever they want, but, putting that aside....
I don't think it's wrong only because they're siblings
>>5265501
I don't see a problem with that. I always understood the main reason why incest is bad is because it messes up genetics (which is obviously a non-issue with gay couples).
>>5265507
I thought so too. But it seems like everyone I've asked is still against inter-family relationships, or whatever they'd be called (too tired to think of the correct term), even if they say they're advocating for equality. Last time I checked, excluding certain people isn't actually the definition of equality.
>>5265543
I agree. Another thought popped into my head. What if it were a heterosexual sibling couple? If they don't procreate, then it's not a problem?
I'm glad I'm running into like-minded people here. Maybe I just need to move.
>>5265562
I don't mind even if they procreate. I'm not going to be hurt by some disabled person being born somewhere, and even living as genetically damaged person is better then not being given life in a first place.
Also, I'm not against abortion either.
>>5265572
You're one of the good ones.
Although I do always feel bad about the 'loss' of a potential life through abortion. Sometimes it's the only practical option though. But pulling out is also technically the loss of a potential life. So. Yeah. I think I need sleep lol
>>5265572
Not sure I can agree with you.
>even living as genetically damaged person is better then not being given life in a first place.
It might come off a little strange, but I would rather everyone who was born had an equal chance at living a fully able life. Some things cannot be avoided (random genetic mutations/hormonal imbalances during pregnancy), but I would advocate against screwing your child's chances before they're born. Now, whether or not the parents are siblings or love each other, you do you. As long as nobody gets hurt (without their consent) people can do whatever the fuck they want. I think deliberately procreating in a match that increases risk of a disabled child is deliberately harming the child.
>>5265501
I find it gross but I find faggots gross as well
but I don't think there should be laws against it
tolerating something=/=supporting something
which is something these sjws really need to get through their heads
>come to /lgbt/
>present slippery slope arguments with intention of getting gays to agree that their lifestyle is immoral
you're a pretty sick minded person op
>>5265907
same as smoking or drinking during pregnancy
should people go to jail for drinking during pregnancy?
should they face social stigma and ostracism?
>>5265921
more like
>come to /lgbt/
>present slippery slope arguments with intention of getting gays to agree that their lifestyle is immoral
>people actually agree with it
>commit suicide
>>5266008
yeah ahaha.. that's how it always seems to go, sadly
>>5266005
>should they face social stigma and ostracism?
They already do.
>>5266092
not where I live
>>5266202
>not where I live
Your BFE town nonwithstanding, it is widely looked down upon in our Western society. Many people would agree that it should be illegal. Moot point anyway since one is talking about a potential consequence of a potential action, the other is definitely altering a fetus' genetics.
Everyones a little bit racist, everyones a little bit homophobe, just in general people prejudge.
We should make an effort to see which ones are valid and not but also try not to think less of a person because we dont know who they are
Homosexuality is something lots of people even in young generations grew up learning was bad in some way so its normal for that to be part of the reaction
Should we still speak out and fight against it, yeah. should we defend our shitty actions and attitudes because "its our opinion" or "its what i know" fuck no. those people are as bad as the ones who say shitty things and try to hide behind the first amendment like it somehow doesnt make them a shitty person
>>5265921
>their lifestyle
who are you referring to? the gays or the inbreeders?
>>5265921
actually, I was trying to get people of LGBT-supporting mindsets to understand their own hypocrisy in not accepting all walks of life even though they stand for 'equality'. but now I'm beginning to think that I just happen to live around LGBT people that are hypocrites.
but thanks for projecting your own motives. you are the sick one here.
>>5266230
>the other is definitely altering a fetus' genetics.
This is not inherently bad. You should specify that it is negatively altering its genetics, because genetic alterations occur literally every time a pregnancy happens.
But hold on. I thought a fetus wasn't a human! Can you explain why altering the genetics of a non-human is wrong?
>>5265501
Wrong for heterosexual couples for genetic reasons. Law should be applied equally---> illegal for homos too.
That is the most logical I can think of.
I would personally oppose it on moral grounds though.
>>5267733
>I would personally oppose it on moral grounds though.
Why? You must not agree with the phrase 'love is love' then?
>>5267754
Definitely not.
Beastiality, paedophilia and other degenerate fetishes are not love either.
>>5265501
you're not the first person to make this thread, anon and you sure as hell won't be the last
>>5267718
why the fuck are lgbt people tasked with being the open-minded social warriors of society? why can't you just leave us alone? we just wanna get bfs/gfs/a sex change. you can go screw your sister, anon, we don't care, we just want love like the rest of you.
first of all this is 4chan, even the straights don't care about incest. do you really think we give a shit, either?
>>5267718
>was trying to get people of LGBT-supporting mindsets to understand their own hypocrisy in not accepting all walks of life even though they stand for 'equality'.
Gay people working toward acceptance and equality for themselves is not at all the same thing as "standing for equality" for "all walks of life."
The scenario and twist you presented assumes that since I see nothing wrong with a gay couple in their thirties that I should also somehow be willing and obligated to defend a completely irrelevant topic (incest). This is flawed logic
Surely I can be pro homosexuality and oppose say, beastiality or pedophilia or people who keep peanut butter in the refrigerator.
I am not a proponent of incest. I have no nuanced defense, criticism or even understanding on the subject. If you pressed me I'd say it was probably a bad idea in most cases, like arranged marriages and female circumcision.
It's funny that you should ask us queers of all people to defend a practice most prolifically used by heterosexual royalty historically and biblically.
>>5265450
>You would consider this completely valid, something that no one has the right to say is wrong
I would not consider it wrong, but at the same time I would realize that most people believe it is wrong.
>>5265501
This is a /pol/ tier logical fallacy.
Next you're gonna compare us to pedophiles, animal fuckers and who knows what else.
>>5269785
>Next you're gonna compare us to pedophiles, animal fuckers and who knows what else.
Those are non-consensual. Incest is not.
>>5269788
not all pedo sex is non-con
not all bestiality is non-con either, esp. if you are getting fucked
>>5269788
All that "consent" bullshit is just a rationalized justification of our subconscious resentment of such things.
Even if you can have other arguments against pedo stuff (like, the kids would grow to be mental or something, if they had sex too soon), there is absolutely no sense in protecting the things that serve us as food, clothing and workforce from "rape".
>>5269791
Children and animals CANNOT consent. All sex with them is non-consensual by definition.
>>5269878
you're wrong and you know it
if children cannot consent, then it's okay to make all decisions for them and never asked their opinion, isn't it?
>>5269878
We should start putting animals to prisons for raping each other. I wonder if there's enough prisons for that.
>>5269893
They cannot consent to SEX. And "consent" isn't really about being able to make a decision, it's more about being free from excessive influence. A child may understand what sex is, but they're too powerless to say no to an adult.
>>5269908
So should we put 17 year olds in prison for having sex with other 17 year olds?
>>5269913
children can say no, and they often do
we don't live in middle ages where a child literally couldn't oppose their father under a threat of death
>>5265583
People who aren't born aren't people. Because they don't exist. At least we can't say at this moment in time (given our current technology) that they do.
They aren't missing anything (i.e. potential life) because they aren't alive to miss anything.
>>5269918
Okay, you're a 13 year old girl and your dad insists you have sex with him. What are you supposed to do? Even if you do manage to run away, you can't really get anywhere - he has a car and you don't.
>>5269916
we're not talking about 17 year olds, in most countries this is way above the age of consent
we're talking about 7 year olds
is sex with 7 year old really such a harmful things? even brutal rape is, in child's mind, no different from getting a beating...all the trauma comes from social stigma that this society has created around sex during young age...
>>5269924
I say yes if he's good looking
I say no if he's ugly
kek
nowadays dad's can't do even so much as spank their kids, no to mention beating or rape
>>5269929
A 7 year old has literally no way of resisting sex if you try to force it on them. Not knowing what sex means doesn't prevent it from being traumatizing.
>>5269938
a disabled person has no way of resisting sex either
therefore, we should never have sex with disabled adults, since they can't resist it, so it's always harmful, right?
>>5269924
consent is a thing =/= you can oppose your dad
>>5269950
a 13 year old girl can go to police, or school counselor
tell her dad spanked her
AND HE'S SCREWED
>If they're disabled to that extent, sex should be approached extremely cautiously.
then...you agree that sex with 7 year olds should be approached extremely cautiously too?
>>5269950
You misread my post.
And you don't have to approach it extremely cautiously. You just ask them if they want to. if they say yes, then you don't stop, you proceed, cuz this is what you need. not complicated.
>>5269957
>a 13 year old girl can go to police, or school counselor
>tell her dad spanked her
>AND HE'S SCREWED
Don't you think this would be awfully easy to abuse?
>then...you agree that sex with 7 year olds should be approached extremely cautiously too?
Yes, extremely cautiously.
>>5269962
How is the disabled person to assume you'll stop if they say no?
>>5269972
Because you're their fucking lover ?
This question is stupid.
if "not raping people" is being extremely cautious for you then you have a problem mate
>>5269978
>Because you're their fucking lover ?
That didn't work too good for most rape victims.
>>5269966
>Don't you think this would be awfully easy to abuse?
And it is abused. What sort of world are you living in?
>Yes, extremely cautiously.
Good. Then you're not against pedo sex in all forms. That makes you much better then 99% of the society already.
You see, they hate pedophiles for existing. For most people, pedo isn't a person. It's a monster, and needs to be eliminated.
Not having sex with children is not enough. Being attracted to young people, or even to certain type of beauty in adults, is enough to attract stigma.
Having pictures on your hard drive is enough to be sent to jail.
And there, in jail, hell awaits you. And, even when you leave, you can be sure that your neighbors, journalists and the rest of society will not let you rest. You will always be ostracized, bullied, attacked, hated.
This is what being a pedo is in modern western world.
Twist: they're both dinosaurs.
Noice logic, pal.
>>5269983
this is not relevant to the question, because this happens with normal, not disabled humans too. I fail to see where this extreme caution you are speaking of would apply
>>5270005
What I'm saying is that you can't trust someone just because they're your lover.
>>5269990
So give massive funding for DNA research on them, find the cause, scan for it in all newborns and... eliminate the threat.
Whether they do that through genetic manipulation or abortion is up to them.
>>5265450
Haha. I love puns.
>>5271591
You don't know that.
Why would you need to eradicate trans? They don't present a threat.
>>5269990
If you feel attracted to pre-pubescent children (ie. the legal definition of paedophilia) then you are mentally ill. Flat out. These people need help more than anything. However, acting on those desires is illegal because it harms children whose minds and bodies and not developed enough to consent properly. We have laws against having paedo pics on your computer because of two main reasons: firstly, it encourages paeodophilic behaviour in the viewer if they already have mental attractions towards children and secondly because those pictures will have been obtained via a real life act of abuse to a child.
This is why people hate paeodophiles. I can't agree with them being so loathed by society as an individual- as I say, I think they need genuine psychological help- but the entire concept is so disgusting and monstrous that of course people with oppose it violently. So yes, people will stigmatise you if you find kids sexually attractive because it isn't right and it isn't healthy and it endangers children who could be affected.
Yes, we need to treat the issue of paeodophilia better, but no, we shouldn't be 'accepting' of paedos in any sense. We need to eliminate them as best we can.
>>5271935
people like you is why I sometimes pray for victory of islam
>>5265501
What's wrong with two brothers fucking they can't even reproduce
Stop being so concerned about what other people do on their private time and get a job, /pol/
>>5271798
They present a threat to themselves, and to their countries.
As do drug addicts, suicidal self-cutters, freaks who want them to be cut up and eaten and what else is there on the spectrum of mental illness.
If self harm is normalized and mainstream, humans would simply die out. Or rather, the economy that can support all this decadence would fall, and we go back to pre-civilization times (where any deviation from the norm is simply unacceptable).
>>5272749
Paedo detected.
>>5277176
....so?
>>5277230
So kill yourself.
