What's the connection some individuals make between same-sex relationships and incestuous relationships?

I can imagine that the parallel is the out-of-the standard sexuality. If one practices neither, a differentiation could be seen as nonexistent.

This is not a connection I’ve ever seen made before, but I’d presume that it arises out of the issue of infertility present in both scenarios. A homosexual relationship cannot result in natural offspring, while an incestuous one can result in undesirable, genetically-compromised, offspring. In this way, the only possible offspring in both situations are “unnatural progeny.”

Rick Santorum is a sanctimonious jack ass. And a moron. Don’t take anything he says seriously.

I think it’s just that they want to lump everything that’s “abnormal” (not the nuclear family) into one category, and just say that everything in that abnormal category is similar to everything else in the abnormal category.

It’s laziness at its worst, because it makes people say dumb shit like that. Or they’ll end up bringing other things like bestiality into the mix.

@Sarcasm Oh hell! I hadn’t even thought of that! That opens the door to a whole boatload of other… ah, ahem. Wow. That could turn into quite a list!

Can’t imagine. I never even heard of this foolish notion before.

Because people are narrow-minded and ignorant. Those are the same people who compare it to bestiality.
(Oh… @Sarcasm beat me to it.)

Incest is seen by the vast majority as wrong and disgusting (which it obviously is) By grouping together homosexual relations with something most people find gross and despicable, they create an image of homosexuality as being of the same category, and thus disgusting and unacceptable. People that group incest etc together with homosexuality will probably justify their reasoning by claiming that both sexual relationships cannot bring forth (viable) offspring.
I think people like this are nutjobs, to put it lightly.

People never cease to amaze me. In a negative manner.

They tend to be condemned in the same parts of the Bible, both being examples of sexual immorality.
Somehow, the masses seem to have convinced themselves that the one isn’t bad after all.

@Lve i personally don’t have an issue with incest, incest isn’t obviously wrong. Child abuse and involuntary, non consensual sexual activity, however, is a flagrant human rights abuse and not to be smeared into the other categories of consensual sexual activity by the grubby hands of bigots, with no tolerance for anything other than heterosexuality.

This question was brought up on another thread when I asked the question “how are our feelings against incest justified any more than our feelings about homosexuality.” This question in NO way indicates an attempt to “make a connecton” between incest and homosexuality, and any attempt to allege that it does is a total mistrepresentation of what I said. Mods, please take note.

@CaptainHarley – Thanks for the clarification. I had asked you in the thread to clarify, and I never received a response..

My answer on that thread: “In actuality, I am repulsed and disgusted at familial sex as much as are any of you, but then again I FEEL repulsed by the idea of a homosexual couple having a child together, That is prejudiced thought as a direct result of the way I was raised, and I recognize it as such. Would that society were as understanding of ‘elder sex.’”

@CaptainHarley – I hear you that both familial sex and the idea of a homosexual couple having a child is repulsive to you. By saying this, in a sense, it is like saying they are in the same category – even if they are repulsive for different reasons. Wouldn’t you say?

Not at all. I was raised in an entirely different culture than the one extant today. By recognizing my negative feelings toward things I now find intellectually acceptable, I am forewarned to anticipate them. I would think that sort of honesty is something you would endorse.

@CaptainHarley – <smiles> Of course I appreciate your honesty. I’m just trying to understand why anyone would even use homosexuality and incest in the same thread, let alone the same sentence (as did Santorum and Huckabee). If the idea of homosexuality is repulsive, can’t one simply say, “I find homosexuality repulsive.” Or, if the idea of incest is repulsive, can’t one simply say this and not include homosexuality in the discussion? Speaking about the two within the same discussion under the umbrella of “repulsion” feels out of place. Why does one prompt the mentioning of another, when they are entirely two different things? There must be a connection in one’s brain that would prompt the inclusion of both in a discussion.

You misunderestand. I could as easily have used child abuse, pedophilia, perasty, polygamy, polignany, and even public display of affection as examples. I pulled the idea of homosexuals having a child completely out of thin air. All of the above give rise to feelings of at least semi-disgust, simply because of the culture in which I was raised.

Feelings are things as much as are thoughts, except that feelings are notoriously unreliable for making clear, rational decisions. Feelings should be examined in the light of reason to avoid making mistakes based on irrational responses.

I think many who oppose homosexuality as a “sin” simply group it with other sins such as incest and bestiality. I have heard people from the “sin” camp expostulate that “if we allow homosexual marriage, what’s next? Can I marry my goat or my brother?”

Please do not connect with this illogical thought process. I am simply reporting what I have heard others claim.

@CaptainHarley – I hear you clearly. That’s my point. You easily could have used child abuse, pedophilia, perasty, polygamy, polignany, and even public display of affection as examples, but you chose homosexuality. Why? Why did homosexuality pop into your mind and not the others. Where’s the connection?

Because in the eyes of many people, anything that isn’t normal straight relationships is the same thing. It’s all “deviance” and everyone who participates in anything that isn’t a heterosexual relationship is a “deviant”. It’s all about what’s normal and common vs. what isn’t.

Since the slippery slopers view them all as the same thing, they see them as interconnected and leading to each other, so gay marriage automatically means the next step is bestial marriage and pedophile marriage because anything that isn’t a heterosexual relationship is wrong and they can’t draw the distinctions between them and the reasons why they are different.

Honestly? I have NO idea!

@lynfromnm & @DominicX

You’re unfamiliar with both the previous thread and with my personal thinking on this matter. As far as I am concerned, the only “sin” may very well be in being alive without truly living.

@CaptainHarley

I wasn’t exactly addressing you…

@DominicX

Ok. : )

@DominicX – The Mr. Slippery Slope is the culprit for this sort of thinking?! Hmm, I knew soap on a rope has something to do with it! <being careful not to bend over in the shower>

Who knows Utah? If I had a buck for every dumb thing Pat Robertson said as well. It’s good though because it’s so noteworthy it almost assures that they have no shot at the nomination. Actually I just clicked on @DominicX avatar so I must be gay friendly

@Akiora Given the quality of some of the people I’ve seen walking the streets over the years, I think that in-breeding is actually the least of our problems.

@lillycoyote It’s pretty easy to not take him seriously if you know the Urban Dictionary definition of Santorum

@jerv – GROSS!!!!! re: Urban Dictionary link. ~

They try to connect the two because not very many people will stand up and admit they think incest is best. That’s why the press is all over the lovely couple from the other thread, it’s taboo, it’s got shock value, it inflames people and it sells. If they can connect the two in the minds of people the attempts to keep homosexuality in the closet stand a better chance.

@prolificus Further proof that reality is stranger than fiction. I mean, you can’t make that stuff up!

The physical aspect of both homosexual and incestuous relationships are unnatural.

@beautifulbobby193 Then I guess that the entire animal kingdom (including humans) is unnatural while organized religion and the slaughter of millions is natural.

I am not condoning incest or homosexuality here, merely stating that calling them “unnatural” requires a value judgment that is pretty much unique to humans, and even then, only to a specific sub-set of humanity.I do not consider anything based on societal norms to be a part of nature, especially not those things that other species do engage in.

It is natural for males and females to have sex with each other. It is not natural for siblings to have sex with each other, and it is not natural for homosexuals to have sex with each other. If we all screwed our siblings there would be a much higher rate of birth deficiencies and if we all screwed our own sex we wouldn’t exist at all. Hence such acts are not deemed natural as it is not how God (or nature for better word) intended it.

@captainharley: Just to be clear, I wasn’t addressing you, I was answering the question as posed and providing a reason why many people lump homosexuality with incest. I do not feel it is necessary to refer to another thread in order to answer a straightforward question.

Frankly, I did not read your responses here before I made my response and did not hint, accuse, suggest or otherwise infer that I was describing you.

@lynfromnm

Ok, ok! I just misread your post.

No problem, thank you.

Doing some archeology on Fluther, and digging up an old one in honor of Rick’s flaccid presidential bid.

As much of a jackass as ol’ frothy is, and as much flack as I could take for saying this… in a weird, dickish way, he sort of has a point. There really isn’t that much of a difference if both parties are grown ups, and consensual. Both are “deviant” couplings in the paradigm of monogamous breeders that Republicans would have you believe we exist in. Both have (or have had) strong taboos against them, but are nonetheless engaged in because both parties desire it and have consented to it, for whatever reasons. Nature/nurture: who cares? You want it, everyone involved can and does give consent, and no one is being emotionally or physically harmed. What’s the problem?

Of course, the infertile part of the equation with incestuous couples is very important, if not infertile, then very cautious, with a mutual agreement that a child would not be brought to term. Actually, I’m not sure if that’s enough… really.

But, like it or not, the connection is there. While views on homosexuality have changed drastically in the past 50 years, incest is almost universally reviled, and holds a much stronger “ick” factor and a taboo that probably won’t ever disappear from society. When Rick links the two, he’s making the claim that since incest is self-evidently bad, homosexuality’s similarities must make it bad too. Smartly he recognizes that people would be quicker to agree with the “unnaturalness” of homosexuality, before they’d accept the “naturalness” of incest.

In my life I have met many people with various eccentricities and sexual attitudes. I always try to be open minded, but occasionally (like when someone brings up scat play), my instincts kick in and the “fuck no!” part of my brain starts going off. Incest gets a similar reaction from me, but if people truly are consenting and no one is harmed, there is nothing more to say about it other than my trusty supportive/dismissive quip: “Not my kink.”