Bestiality vs Child Sex vs Homosexuality vs Incest

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

It's a good point - and, call me a cynic - but here in the UK I've tended to view marriage more as a tax arrangement, than anything else. If you're already in a strong relationship, all the marriage certificate does is change you tax status.

2c.

Yes I agree. The government should have no say what marriage is. It should be up to the people or community to decide what marriage is. There maybe some homosexuals that believe marriage is only between members of the same sex. This is why there shouldn't be any tax benefits or no government endorsed idea on what marriage is.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

I take you are one of those radical socialistic "liberals" who contradict themselves when they claim that homosexuality is so different from incest.

*Yawns* Ad hominem.

Quickly, homosexuality is the sexual attraction to a memebr of your gender. Incest is a sexual attraction to member of your close family. If you can't spot the difference I'll shout it for you. A RELATIONSHIP CAN BE INCESTUOUS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT IS HOMOSEXUAL.

Originally Posted by silverbackman

To you incest is "sick", correct?

Where did I say that?

I find incest and homosexuality to be equally distasteful; the idea of having sex with a male or a mamber of my family of any gender completely disturbs me. So, no I didn't separate them as moral issues, as you should probably have grasped from the post immediately before the one you quoted.

Originally Posted by silverbackman

This is a very good atheistic quote

Yeah, it's a beauty.

Originally Posted by silverbackman

But this quote can be applied to many things

Crikey.

Originally Posted by silverbackman

I am not saying I am against homosexuality. Do whatever you like is what I think as long as both partners consenting adults.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Originally Posted by silverbackman

Since you are atheist, I hope you can see the equal contradiction here in sexuality and traditional religions.

You're rambling....

Originally Posted by silverbackman

And yes, incest is common in nature. If you deny that just pushing your homosexual rights agenda you are being quite bigoted here.

Guilty, I push my homosexual rights agenda at every opportunity. I for one believe equality is for all people. How you manage to equate that to bigotry is beyond me.

Anyway, you actually said:

"incest is as common in nature as homosexuality"

When I said 'really?' I was hoping you might have some means of substantiating that claim. The same goes for these two statements:

"Homosexuality in a certain animal population usually results into massive population decline"

"Incest is actually as common in human cultures as homosexuality"

Since you offered complete piffle to back your claims I am going to resort to the opinion that you simlpy made them up

Originally Posted by silverbackman

So what? What is your point? I know people who cringe at the idea of having sex with a human instead of a four-legged mammal. There are some serial killers that cringe at the idea of having sex with anything but a dead person's carcass (as with many serial killers.

You've made my point. There are people who find all sorts abominable, and so affording rights based on what we judge to be tasteful is unethical if we have consenting adults of sound mind.

[Quahom1]

There were some options left off of the poll:

extramarital affairs
multiple spouses
self gratification
monogomous relationships
marriage
abstenance


hmmm......

[Faithfulservant]

I attended a rally and the same analogy was used. Here goes.

Once upon a time homosexuality was "disgusting" and deemed an illness. it was on the same level as bestiality and incest.

years later its not disgusting.. now its accepted as consentual and normal... Now two consenting homosexuals want the right to be married..so they are afforded all the rights of heterosexual married couples... Ok so thats allowed..

Next step.. two consenting first cousins.. Its not quite as acceptable as homosexuality....yet.... but they are adults and have the right to do what they want in the privacy of their homes.. Well now they want the right to get married so they can have the same rights afforded married couples... Ok well the same idea.. they are both consenting adults they must be allowed the same rights as homosexuals and heterosexual couples. Ok so thats allowed.

Next step... a man walks in with his beloved pet and asks for the same rights as others.. Now you might think that Im being silly now and insulting gay ppl by putting them in this same catergory..but this happens more than is spoken its just not acceptable in todays society.. just like homosexuality once was. Bestiality is a sickness and these people feel they are in love and have relations with animals...Homosexuality was once considered a sickness..

Well the next step on this poll is child sex..... same concept.

The concern is the moral health of our society. Biblically we are on a moral decline equivalent with Sodom and Gomorrah and the days of Noah.. which according to the bible is an indication of the endtimes..

The Rally I attended was called May Day for Marriage. It was a calling of people to stand up for the sanctity of marriage as given by God during creation. That we not sit back and allow one of our holiest and oldest decrees given by God to be trivialized into a civil right allowed by anyone who wants it. It is believed that God gives two ppl into marriage.. its not a ceremony performed by MAN... but GOD.

This is a very controversial subject and one that usually becomes heated. I dont think its possible to discuss this without it becoming personal for someone. I want to say that Im not attacking anyones sexual preference.. Im just stating what analogy was used and where it was used at.

[lunamoth]

I have only 2 little pennies for this thread.

First penny, the various sexual partnerships discussed are not all equivalent at all. A lot of the pairings (or multiplings) are between unbalanced levels of consent or power, i.e., between an adult and a child or animal. Further along these lines, in the case of polygamy, once again the partnership even if among 'consenting' adults is one of unequal power. It creates a situation of competition within a family for love, attention, and material resources.

Second, the only ethical stance or moral position is to allow civil unions for homosexuals. Who has the right to determine that another should face a life without the intamacy that comes from a committed relationship with another? Who has the right to deny practical legal necessities between two people who live together, share all resources and perhaps are also raising children together?

If on the one hand you believe that promiscuity is bad, leading to spread of diseases as well as moral decline as various partners are easily discarded for the next better conquest, then the only compassionate position is to respect two people's desire to have a legal monogamous relationship. You say that that is against your morals, to have two people of the same gender in a legally recognized relationship, with all the responsibilites that go along with that? You are essentially then saying to them that it is better to be promiscous, in fact it is what you expect.

Last time I checked gluttony was also a sin. Do we go around telling obese people that they are bringing down the moral fabric of society?

lunamoth

[wil]

While some or all of this is unacceptable behaviour to many or most. This is our culture. And we have decided that our morality is better than others morality. I think that is almost universal.

ie a homosexual couple think that those who object to their lifestyle are out of touch, and vice versa.

Similar to what is one mans trash is another mans treasure.

While I don't know of anywhere where beasiality is commonplace or accepted...in various countries and cultures incest and child sex is part of life....as unacceptable as it may be for us. As was indicated before the age of acceptability regarding child sex varies as well. In the US this is a state by state regulated item and some have the age of consent at 16, and unless laws have changed kids can marry younger in some with parental permission.

Wasn't to awful long ago that 'kids' at the age of 12 or 13 were working, living their own lives, getting married...times change.

And as our consciousness changes we expect the world to keep up.

I read a report of a tourist, who traveled extensively in tropical countries... and he indicated that in general the sexual nature of the people in many parts of the world is so different from western culture. The touching, flirting, kissing that goes on in public between all ages all sexes makes your typical western prudish upbringing cringe. Then the limited clothing, and when families and friends are in the privacy of their homes, what is common is more disconcerting that what is seen in public. After years of exposure, his take on the situation was, when you are trapped inside during the monsoon season for weeks at a time, and it is hot, sweltering and humid, and nobody has any clothes on, and you are bored....things happen...and this has developed over centuries...

He was not, and I am not condoning any activity....but Covey's 'seek first to understand' seems to come into play here.

[Quahom1]

Ya know...after watching certain Senators in the United States, and a certain Science teacher for the 8th grade in Alabama do their little song and dance this past week... and the response from the general public being ignored and in fact "dismissed", I'm not surprised at anything.

It's going to be a hot time in town tonight...

[InquisitiveInHalifax]

I haven't been around much lately, ironically I'm busy planning my wedding which is now less than four months away so life is a little chaotic (re: total anarchy, lol).

I'd have to say that I agree with Lunamoth hole-heartedly. I also believe that this has to do with the ability of the parties involved to consent and whether or not that ability is being handicapped by the other party have some sort of power over them.

Of course my beliefs are biased by my experiences as I think everybodies are. But I can't help but think in situations like this what a homosexual friend of mine said about those that appear homophobic 'thou doth protest too much'.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Second, the only ethical stance or moral position is to allow civil unions for homosexuals. Who has the right to determine that another should face a life without the intamacy that comes from a committed relationship with another? Who has the right to deny practical legal necessities between two people who live together, share all resources and perhaps are also raising children together?


Last time I checked gluttony was also a sin. Do we go around telling obese people that they are bringing down the moral fabric of society?

lunamoth

Lately? According to the hoopla in the media, yes

I find myself in agreement with allowing civil unions between same sex persons. If the law is written to state that same sex partners (regardless and irrelevent of what they may or may not do intimately together), who choose to remain together (for life), share responsibilities of maintaining a household, paying taxes, contributing to the betterment of society and, supporting the union of others as a matter of course (regardless of whether said unions are hetero or homosexual or platonic in nature), then it could work.

I personally think that only a fool would take on more than he could handle (multiple spouses), and believe that would be a serious disruption not only to society as it stands today, but for future generations. In short, the gene pool would become screwed up pretty quickly if left unchecked (one would have to go back 50 years into a person's genealogy just to see if they could consider marrying)

As far as forcing the church to recognize anything other than the established "marriage" between man and woman, I staunchly disagree. That would be a slug in the gut for every person who ever accepted the precepts of their faith, and the "rules" that applied in order to be part of that faith. That would also be an obvious gross violation of the seperation of church and state (as Jefferson noted it in his papers to the Anibaptists of New England). In short, no faith has to accept that which violates its scriptures and laws. But no faith has the right to supercede Civil law unless said law is immediately detrimental to life and limb of another, and/or is Unconstitutional (as originally intended by the fore fathers). Obviously I do not accept the concept of a "living Constitution"...

I'm not even going to go near the concepts of Bestiality or incest, as the very thought turns my stomach.

As far as same sex couples raising children...we don't have enough "unbiased" data, to make a determination for or against such child rearing. There hasn't really been time to build up analysise based on historical observation.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[17th Angel]

You need an "all of the above" They are all as equally as you put "sick".

[Francis king]

well... I'm not really adding anything new to this, but... is it really an issue of consent..? or are we just lumping a collection of paraphillias together so we can insult queers ..?

...if a small rednecked farmer chooses to stick his thing into a large cow or horse, I do not have a problem with this, although if he chooses to stick his thing into a dormouse, or a hummingbird, then yes, this for me is a problem, as its causing unneccessary pain and suffering to creatures who have not opted into this practice... reading these posts I have discovered that although it is not my own sexual preference, I do not find the thought of ppl having sex with animals to be so aborrhent after all... I would rather a man went with his dog then attacked a woman, for instance...

so, consent and child sex... well, ppl have been having sex with children for centuries, and paedophiles often use the excuse that the child consented, usually bribed (groomed) into tolerating the sexual advances from adults which causes them unneccessary amounts of suffering.. the statistics are something like- one in seven children experience unwanted sexual attention from adults, and so yes, it it pretty prevalent.. it's considered so abhorrent because they are perceived as being innocents, yet how innocent are child prostitutes in places like Thailand, and as they are consenting to exchange sexual services for money, is having sex with them an immoral act, or is it less immoral because they consent..?

...incest is considered immoral for two reasons, because yes, it increases the risk of bearing children with genetic abnormalities, yet it is also considered immoral because it is not prescribed in our civilised western culture for family members to feel such passionate love towards each other, yet in many cases were children are seperated from their opposite gender parent and then reunite, they have to battle with feelings which are felt as sexual attraction, lust, not love, and it tears ppl up... incest within families is also pretty prevalent, and as a child ur far more likely to be sexually abused by a member of ur immediate family than u are to be kidnapped by a stranger... however, to my mind, if u have say, a brother and a sister, and they both make the decision to have sex, and are rational and mature enough to make this decision, then, what is so wrong with that..?

and then we come onto homosexuality... again, if there is no pain or suffering within these unions, then who can say that these unions are immoral or peverted..? and yes, its great that adam and steve can now become husband and husband, and I'm helping them with the flowers at church when they go to have their union blessed by a decent priest who isn't so foolish as to think these two ppl in love are perverts will go on to molest dogs and small children... homosexuality isn't a paraphillia... it's not "beyond love", just love...

as for love and marriage, and suchlike... originally, women did not consent to marriage.. they were married off usually for money, or to forge allegiances, and women were considered chattel, the possessions of their husbands, and sold off to warm the beds of ppl their fathers wanted to appease... but hey, these rapes were sactioned by the church, and must have been holy and god driven... and as for marriage being a sacred union...lol, marriage isn't a sacred union anymore, its a useful legal tool to further the financial interests of the partnership of two ppl and, obviously, society...

who defines what is sick and what isn't..?

...I have a (ex) friend who works as a psychiatric nurse in a secure hospital... his current girlfriend he met in a bar, and she is a chronic schizophrenic... she is difficult to talk with, creates scenes in public places, she's incoherent half the time and really should be recieving some kind of treatment, yet he believes that she should be free to choose, herself... I find it morally repugnant that a man in his position can have sex with a person who is so evidently psychotic, yet he feels that she consents, and as she consents he can basically do much as he likes... however- she isnt his patient... she's an adult... and no, he hasn't kidnapped her, and she considers herself his girlfriend, yet I find it immoral... I feel he exploits her, and while his public persona might be that of a man in love, privately he involves her in bizzare sexual practises and feeds her psychoactive drugs... lovely ole world, innit..?

catchy title for ur original post though...

[Sanguine Dawn]

Let's see... according to some here:


Human and animal: a non-consensual relationship that can result in harm for the animal and possibly the human being (i.e., the animal trying to defend itself)
Adult and child: a non-consensual relationship that often results in psychological and physical damage to the child
Relatives: can be consensual or not, but regardless has a potential possibility for exploitation and genetic issues if the family is predisposed to such
My girlfriend and I: a consensual relationship that is not inherently harmful to either one of us or anyone else

And yet they're all the same.

Right.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Hear hear, Sanguine Dawn!

I agree with you 100%, but you see, in the eyes of those "some," homosexuality is indeed harmful to us - i.e., it harms our immortal soul. And it is also harmful to others because when they see us breaking God's laws with impunity, they might get the idea to break God's laws too, either the same law, or some other law of His, and then society would have total chaos, and you see, it would be all our fault.

I figure my immortal soul is my business, and if I want your help and advice, I'll ask for it. If I do, you do indeed have the moral obligation to point out what you see as mistakes or sins of mine. But until I come to you for your advice about my immortal soul, please, let me live my own life in peace.

And as for harming others, well, if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too? Unless I am putting on a pair of plastic Halloween devil's horns and actively telling people, "C'mon! Sin! It's fun!" I fail to see how I am contributing to society's moral chaos by living my own life and minding my own business.

My 2c.

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

Hear hear, Sanguine Dawn!

I agree with you 100%, but you see, in the eyes of those "some," homosexuality is indeed harmful to us - i.e., it harms our immortal soul. And it is also harmful to others because when they see us breaking God's laws with impunity, they might get the idea to break God's laws too, either the same law, or some other law of His, and then society would have total chaos, and you see, it would be all our fault.

I figure my immortal soul is my business, and if I want your help and advice, I'll ask for it. If I do, you do indeed have the moral obligation to point out what you see as mistakes or sins of mine. But until I come to you for your advice about my immortal soul, please, let me live my own life in peace.

And as for harming others, well, if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too? Unless I am putting on a pair of plastic Halloween devil's horns and actively telling people, "C'mon! Sin! It's fun!" I fail to see how I am contributing to society's moral chaos by living my own life and minding my own business.

My 2c.

Hey Scarlet

I respect you for playing devil's advocate, but if I may cut in, who says that practicing homosexuals are breaking God's laws?

Before people say, The Bilble I would point out that, a. not everyone, not even every Christian, believes we should take The Bible at face value, and b. even people some people who claim to take the Bible at face value reject parts of it.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by cavalier

Hey Scarlet

I respect you for playing devil's advocate, but if I may cut in, who says that practicing homosexuals are breaking God's laws?

Before people say, The Bilble I would point out that, a. not everyone, not even every Christian, believes we should take The Bible at face value, and b. even people some people who claim to take the Bible at face value reject parts of it.

Reject parts of it? What parts? ooooooh the parts they don't like.... The parts that they would rather be allowed to do? They say there is this god called jah and he is the one who makes the rules... Yet when there is one of his rules that disagrees with their leisure pleasure whatever they say hmm that is in the wrong context or it really means blah or this or that and keep seeking excuses to avoid the laws and rules set by the christian god... yet still want to call themselves christians? Give up the ghost........ I think if you set your faith and loyalty to something you abide by all it's rules... :\