Gay twin brothers having sex: Right or wrong?

[Sequencellariot]

Hey I'm not judging anyone. I'm just saying engaging in sexual acts with your family is fucking disgusting. That's my opinion, I'm entitled to it, and it ain't hurting anyone, so there. I see no point in comparing this to being gay, as if just because I'm gay I'm to never again think certain consensual human behaviors are gross. I think fisting is fucking gross as well. These views are not bigoted nor are they narrow-minded, they're opinions in my mind. I don't have to think incest is okay, and I'm not going to think it's okay, because I don't think it's okay.

 

[hotatlboi]

Hey I'm not judging anyone. I'm just saying engaging in sexual acts with your family is fucking disgusting. That's my opinion, I'm entitled to it, and it ain't hurting anyone, so there. I see no point in comparing this to being gay, as if just because I'm gay I'm to never again think certain consensual human behaviors are gross. I think fisting is fucking gross as well. These views are not bigoted nor are they narrow-minded, they're opinions in my mind. I don't have to think incest is okay, and I'm not going to think it's okay, because I don't think it's okay.

No, I'm not disputing that you can consider it gross if you want.

I was referring more to the belief others expressed that it was immoral because they considered it gross (or they thought it was the wrong choice or whatever).

i.e. "I don't like it, so it is inherently wrong."

I think when you say that, you are not only saying it is gross but you are saying you have the right to tell other people how they should regard it, and I don't think that is correct for actions that harm no one and don't affect you at all.

 

[Sequencellariot]

The concepts of what is right, wrong, moral, and immoral are subjective, hence why you two are arguing over them. Some people don't think right and wrong exist at all, but rather believe that what is, simply is. Words and concepts such as these lose all meaning and value when everyone tries to define them according to their own beliefs rather than having a universal understanding. Ie, "Everyone's morals are different!" Okay so the concept of morality is pointless now since it has no universal meaning and instead is specific to each person. So I guess it just comes down opinion. It's wrong according to some people's definition, and it's not wrong according to yours. But what is wrong? We don't even know anymore because everyone wants to make it a relative concept.

 

[hotatlboi]

***I*** think incest/twincest IS gross, disgusting, immoral, sick...and all those other words some here are taking uber offense to and foolishly comparing to what a homophobe would say about gay sex, etc., etc.

Why is it foolish?

I can't tell you how many times I've heard homophobes describe gay people as "gross, disgusting, immoral, sick...and all those other words". That's EXACTLY how they see it.

And like gay sex, incest (again between two adults where there isn't any kind of mental exploitation going on) harms no one and does not affect the person seeing it as gross in any way.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, I'm not disputing that you can consider it gross if you want.

I was referring more to the belief others expressed that it was immoral because they considered it gross (or they thought it was the wrong choice or whatever).

i.e. "I don't like it, so it is inherently wrong."

I think when you say that, you are not only saying it is gross but you are saying you have the right to tell other people how they should regard it, and I don't think that is correct for actions that harm no one and don't affect you at all.

Quite so.

The distinction between morality based on personal reactions and that based on reason is important.

Morality based on reason rests on the fact of self-ownership. That's the only sensible basis for societal morals in a pluralistic society.

 

[Kulindahr]

The concepts of what is right, wrong, moral, and immoral are subjective, hence why you two are arguing over them. Some people don't think right and wrong exist at all, but rather believe that what is, simply is. Words and concepts such as these lose all meaning and value when everyone tries to define them according to their own beliefs rather than having a universal understanding. Ie, "Everyone's morals are different!" Okay so the concept of morality is pointless now since it has no universal meaning and instead is specific to each person. So I guess it just comes down opinion. It's wrong according to some people's definition, and it's not wrong according to yours. But what is wrong? We don't even know anymore because everyone wants to make it a relative concept.

A variety of differing personal morals does not invalidate morals altogether. A foundational moral code can be derived rationally from the fact of self-ownership.

In short, what that gives you is the "Golden Rule", to do unto others after the fashion you would have them do unto you. The logical connection is that if I want my self-ownership respected, I have to respect everyone else's.

So while a person may hold a personal moral standard that public nudity is wrong, they must respect my belief that it is a matter of freedom of expression; if they come to a beach where I've already ditched my clothes and am building a giant sandcastle, they must either tolerate it or move on -- and similarly, if I show up at a beach where people are all clothed, it's encumbent on me to ask all those within a reasonable distance if it's okay if I enjoy nature au naturale.

Where personal morals end, however, is at basic rights. No one can tell others who they can associate with; that's a violation of self-ownership. So you can marry whom you please, and anyone telling you different, whether neighbor or legislator, is behaving immorally -- which means that every last person who voted for Prop. 8 in California, and those who sent money to support it, was in that instance immoral.

Concerning the topic of the thread, any who have declared that it is immoral for these two guys to do as they please is declaring a personal value -- and if they assert that people should be banned from doing such things, they are being immoral.

 

[Sequencellariot]

I think it's foolish to expect a person to think incest is fine just because that person also thinks MSM is fine or is gay. The two are entirely different and thus it is possible for one person to feel differently about each of them.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard homophobes describe gay people as "gross, disgusting, immoral, sick...and all those other words". That's EXACTLY how they see it.

I'm not judging people here I'm just judging actions...

 

[Sequencellariot]

A variety of differing personal morals does not invalidate morals altogether. A foundational moral code can be derived rationally from the fact of self-ownership.

In short, what that gives you is the "Golden Rule", to do unto others after the fashion you would have them do unto you. The logical connection is that if I want my self-ownership respected, I have to respect everyone else's.

So while a person may hold a personal moral standard that public nudity is wrong, they must respect my belief that it is a matter of freedom of expression; if they come to a beach where I've already ditched my clothes and am building a giant sandcastle, they must either tolerate it or move on -- and similarly, if I show up at a beach where people are all clothed, it's encumbent on me to ask all those within a reasonable distance if it's okay if I enjoy nature au naturale.

Where personal morals end, however, is at basic rights. No one can tell others who they can associate with; that's a violation of self-ownership. So you can marry whom you please, and anyone telling you different, whether neighbor or legislator, is behaving immorally -- which means that every last person who voted for Prop. 8 in California, and those who sent money to support it, was in that instance immoral.

Concerning the topic of the thread, any who have declared that it is immoral for these two guys to do as they please is declaring a personal value -- and if they assert that people should be banned from doing such things, they are being immoral.

This is your interpretation of the concept of morality. People have different beliefs on morality. It's subjective.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is your interpretation of the concept of morality. People have different beliefs on morality. It's subjective.

What I gave is the only rational position on morality. It is derived by reason, and is not subjective.

Most moral systems make no claim to rationality; those are all subjective, because at root they're based on someone's feelings. Religious morality is subjective, since it tends to be like a plate filled at a smorgasbord.

 

[Sequencellariot]

What I gave is the only rational position on morality. It is derived by reason, and is not subjective.

Everything in that post was your personal view on morality. You don't understand subjectivity and opinion.

 

[Kulindahr]

Everything in that post was your personal view on morality. You don't understand subjectivity and opinion.

No, it wasn't. It was logically derived from the basic fact of our existence.

Your refusal to see that it is a rational proposition subject to rational tests is subjective, but the morality I derived is not. There are no elements of personal input or feelings; there is only logic.

 

[AUmatty]

It's hot because they're both smokin' hot, but once you look back and realize they're brothers...

Moral or immoral, it's just fuckin weird.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's hot because they're both smokin' hot, but once you look back and realize they're brothers...

Moral or immoral, it's just fuckin weird.

Weird is a good description!

 

[sokker]

This thread is usless without pics.

 

[hotb0d]

This thread is usless without pics.

A pic of the twins is in the OP thread. As for the video....I have no idea but if I can get my hand on it, I am SOOO going to watch it.

 

[Kulindahr]

This thread is usless without pics.

There's a link to some somewhere early in the thread.