Posted: 11 June 2009 at 5:41pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by PhoeniXof_Hades
Originally posted by chal_phek_mat
If you tend to apply moral clauses to things then incest and homosexuality have been taboo under centuries of morals and both should be out of bounds
Being a taboo in the past does not equate to being morally repugnant. Women, too, were not allowed to get out of their house, or do anything they wish; all their rights were suppressed by the men, and any women attempting to change these old, traditional systems were considered transgressor, and was considered a s a 'taboo' for a women to even do anything without her husband's/father's permission. Of course, just because feminism was tabooed in the past doesn't mean it is still tabooed [in this present society] (yeah, on many cultures/societies it still is, but that doesn't mean it is amoral for a women to fight for her and women rights). Keeping and torturing slaves, too, was seen as a morally righteous deed, (and hence not tabooed) but of course we know it isn't.
Feminism has nothing to do with this topic whatsoever, Trace back history, Women had the rights(I know hard to swallow), they either chose not to enforce it or were taken away by some interpretation, You had Queens ruling countries, empires, half the world even before this so-called Feminist movement. I am sorry even educated women of today's feminist generation hide behind the pillow of Husband/Father's disapproval, that is plain cowardice.
But traceback any culture,you will find homosexuality and Incest was morally repugnant and a taboo,read any historical account, any of those incedents have been marked with disapproval by the society
Incest had been prevalent in many cultures, and hence not tabooed in their way of life; so will you be supporting incest, then, saying it wasn't a "taboo" in the past? If anything, incest was way less tabooed in the past, than it is now.
Originally posted by chal_phek_mat
Science and researches can be moulded to justify either POV
Not really so. Science doesn't work that way. Yes, people does deviate a scientific theory (it no longer is remaining science when they deviate it and add their own agendas to it, like the NAARTH does) to fill their needs, but that does not mean that the science is what is being moulded to fit anyones POV.
You perhaps just look at the research and go by it, perhaps you should research who paid for the scientific studies in such matters, what were their leanings and you will generally find the scientific results match their leanings
Again I repeat my position here for this debate
If you beleive relationships between consenting adults is their choice, then you should accept Incest and Homosexuality, If you tend to apply moral clauses to consenting adults then both Homosexuality and Incest are as unacceptable, since those are the moral standards coming through history of mankind's cultures
Can you state your position here?
Do you beleive what happens between two consenting adults should be governed by the rules of the society(sometimes also referred to morals or laws), currently few societies allow homosexuality and most dont allow Incest?
You beleive in what happens in two(or more) consenting adults is their choice, but it is only applicable to Homosexuality
We cant have a debate if you agree with my stated position here, if you want to debate on nuances and semantics, sorry I dont do that