The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Gil

It ain't easy sometimes but it is what we have been commanded to do by Jesus. "Love your neighbor as yourself".

Isn't tyrany grand :roll

 

[milefile]

I didnt know it was possible to use the terms morallity and decensitize in the same paragraph when speaking about present day society, LOL,.......... j/k

Interesting. Care to elaborate?

I did not state that it had to be a Judeo-Christian morality, only that there needed to be morality.

A morality is a standard of judgement. It enables us to know what is right and wrong. So, Thus and such is sin because my chosen standard leaves no other possible interpretation. It goes back to the more general decisions I mentioned above. If one decides in advance that they are Christian and are going to follow the morality laid out in the Bible then many decisions have already been made. And that is only one way to be moral.

Others may take a more case-by-case approach. Some people are more relativistic about it, i.e. “this would be wrong in certain situations but not others.” The notion of “just war (as in justified)” shows how even Christianity does it.

And others may be as absolute and rigid as Christians, but see things from a different perspective, hence look to a different standard of judgment… existentialists, for example. The details, nuances, and implications of Christian, or any, moral standards go beyond the scope of this discussion.

In talking about sin, God knows your heart (Man is not judged by their deeds alone). Lets use a example that I can personally relate with. Being married, I have made a decision to be commited to my wife. Lusting other woman (man she's hot) is a natural feeling. I can choose to either entertain that thought, or dismiss the thought and work on not letting those thoughts to enter my mind. I choose to not let those thoughts entertain my conscience, and being a guy, it's something that I'm constantly working on. Let's face it, most guys are horndogs. To throw some psychology into the mix, our actions are preceeded by a thought first. If I continue to entertain such thoughts, it will just be a matter of time before I'm cheating on my wife. I believe the same is true in regards to our current topic. Am I lying to myself by dening my natural feelings? No I am not, I am choosing a lifestyle, and I'm sticking with it.

This sounds like you are saying one can will away sin. I don’t know. Can you? If a man is gay, in his heart, and has known it for a long time, but lives what the Christian god approves as a moral life, yet suffers through continual feelings of dissatisfaction with life because he has not yet become strong enough to be himself (yes, biased wording), is that a sin? And if so, should he go to a priest? A counselor? Can someone cure him of his gayness? This line of thinking implies that homosexuality is an affliction that should be overcome, that it can be willed away.

First of all I don’t think gayness is an affliction. Second, I think Christianity over emphasizes free will… or maybe it just misunderstands it. For starters calling it free will is redundant.

As far as choosing a lifestyle… yeah. I agree wholeheartedly. Bi-sexuals are the ones I have a problem with. They’re just greedy and excessive. But the sin is decadence, not bisexuality.

Just because it is a feeling, does not make it morally acceptable. We can minimize it if we like, we can desensitize ourselves so that it doesn't bother us.

There are countless morals that are extinct and seen as superstition now. In their time they were useful. Once they had outlived that usefulness they became a joke. This is the biggest problem I have with a lot of Christian morality. They perceive the world through two thousand year old eyes. Christianity is at a crisis stage and probably has been for a hundred years. It has no coherent identity and clings to arbitrary rules excavated from the bible, rules that seem to have no meaningful context anymore. This can be called desensitization. Or it can be called growth. The notion that Christianity automatically takes precedence over every other religion that preceded it, including Judaism, is simply a bias that every religion has used to maintain itself. There is much more to Christianity than Jesus. It is a means of control, it is a way to maintain a status quo long past it’s prime, a power mechanism. And one of it’s great tricks is to make people think it represents some eternal truth. People have been tricked by far less elaborate and collaborative schemes.

Everything turns out to be an error, eventually. Everything.

As a society, we are choosing to move that line of morality as we see fit, I just personally hold myself to a different standard of living and a different set of moral standards.

So you are moving it back to where you see fit. The essence of what you are doing is no different, just the aesthetics. Of course we choose what we prefer. You prefer Christian morality and I have the utmost respect for that. You hold yourself to a higher standard and that can only be admirable. And the notion that what you have chosen for yourself is best for you is totally reasonable. But accusing people of “sin” because they have chosen differently than you is divisive and judgmental and has failed over and over again throughout history. Moral standards wax and wane, come into being and die. In the past homosexuality was normal, moral. In certain part of the world sex with women is seen as a necessary evil and homosexuality is common. For them all sex is highly ritualized and regulated and in that sense, is more moralized than Christian sex.

The fact is, until our children can become of age to think for themselves, to make their own conclusions, it is our job to raise them as we see fit. Once they are of age where they can decide or question their moral actions, then that is where we must step out and let them make their own journey. In the case of education of religion vs. "My parents are gay" is a huge difference.

Example: Let's say at age 12 they can decide "This christian God is not for me." On the other hand, at age 12 they are forced with the knowlege of "My parents are gay, they knew they were gay but decided to adopt(or some other means) without my consent, and I will never be able to decide otherwise."

I hope you can see the differnece. As birth children, they have no choice who their parents are...it just happens, it's the merricle of life.

These are two fundimentally different aspects of life that are far from being able to be compared. Now if the approach was to teach the child that homosexuality was OK, then we could have a comparison, but that is not the issue here. The child would have no normal example of relationships to use when starting his/her own family.

[edited] I am making the assumption that we both have the same idea of a normal relationship. If not, then we have different definitions of normal.

I thought the idea was Love. Whether a relationship is good or bad hinges on that solely. Nothing else matters. To evaluate a relationship on the basis of the participants genitalia is petty. Once again it boils down to the biology of the lovers. A good lesson for the world at large is to Love and respect each other, whatever the differences are. But we are not yet capable. I also believe it is institutions like Christianity (and Islam) that make this impossible.

To judge and deny it, and then claim to love the judged is not only dishonest but smug and elitist. It is a claim and nothing more. And I doubt Jesus would approve. This is where I can no longer stomach Christianity… it’s inherent hypocrisy.

You need to re-read post #58 and then re-read my first post re: Gen 19. The stuff down toward the bottom of that post...
Then accuse us of being ready to Turn out our own children/family.
I lost a cousin to AIDS about 5 years ago. We accepted and loved him. We nurtured him till the day he died. We didn't love his lifestyle, but we loved him.

Please explain how it is that you have separated him from his lifestyle? Would you not consider Christianity as irrevocably woven into your being? For that reason it is part of you, or defines you completely. Yet you won’t concede that something else can do the same thing. People are as they do. Decisions are actions. By condemning homosexuality you have done something. Christians like to say their god knows their heart. Does that mean you can sit in front of the TV and ignore your wife for years and years then turn around and say “but I love her in my heart.” Hearts pump blood. Actions define people.

If you love someone but not love their lifestyle, then what is it that you love about them?

If for some reason you have to put the care of you daughters into the custody of someone else and your choice was a straight couple or a gay couple, while all other aspects were equal, who would you choose and why?

Tough isn't it?

This is an unfair hypothetical question that adds nothing to the discussion. “All other aspects were equal”? Are you kidding? Where does this ever occur? That is a rhetorical game and can’t be taken seriously. I can’t think of any times when a decision boils down to one and only one consideration. But then I am not a Christian either.

My definition of Normal relationships are two heterolsexual adults sharing a life together. Gay relationships are not normal. As far as the norm goes, I would say gay or not, disfuntional families seem to be the normal in our current society.

Again, I never said that a christian family is normal, but rather a heterolsexual parents of a family is.

Even families that are not Christians, per se, represent Christian morals. That is what makes them normal. Christian morals are the fabric of western civilization. The Roman Catholic church, the one many Christians scoff at and view as a bunch of voodoo crap can be thanked for the fact that Judeo Christian morals are the foundation of our society. But that is changing all the time. Obviously some people are scared by it and resist. But the fact of the matter is we will all die and be replaced by people who will develop humanity and contribute to it’s evolution.

Some animals evolved wings for flying, teeth for attacking, limbs for climbing. But Humans? We evolved ideas for living. Our evolution is no longer dictated by biology. Our bodies are practically superfluous already; they are an accessory. We make the world conform to us rather than the other way around. Physical evolution for humans is now controlled by humans, as is the evolution of consciousness. In this totally synthetic world sexuality is redefined and takes on different meaning. It’s usefulness as a procreative tool in a technological world is quaint, at best. Our bodies do not mean what they once did, for that reason everything having to do with it (ideas) changes. There will always be those who cling to the past. But they all fade together. Our lifetime will be filled with conflict over things that will be taken for granted in the future, homosexuality being only one.

Gays adopting…
Meh… It’s hard for me to understand how this instinct to love and nurture a child can come out of gay love. But it happens and will continue more and more whether I understand it or not. The cool part is I have no need to understand it. I do think a child is better off with a gay couple than in a foster home or an ophanage.

Lesbian porn…
Has it’s uses I guess….

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by milefile
Interesting. Care to elaborate?

First, we need to destingush the two (my interpretations). Morality is preasure put on a person's consience(sp?). The consience is driven my what is 'moraly' correct. But who or what determines what is moraly correct? It's kinda like the use of the term "normal". It's impossible to generalize using these terms due to there lack of consistancy. The same goes for decensitizing. It's a term used by radicals (for lack of a better term) to exagerate there point of view.

It only frustrates me to read these words because it shows (JMO) a lack of open-mindedness.

Originally posted by milefile
Lesbian porn…
Has it’s uses I guess….

you betchya 👍

 

[Gil]

On the question: If you love someone, but not their lifestyle, What is it you love about them?
First, we knew the inherent dangers of his lifestyle. That did not keep him from having a home to come back to when the world got to be to much to bear.
If you have a child that constantly, lies or steals, or whatever, is that child not still your flesh and blood?
The ACTION is what you don't approve of. You still love the child, right?

Also, what is it about the Bible that doesn't cover today's situations?
Is it now ok to kill?, steal, bear false witness against your neighbor?
Is it wrong to love your neighbor as you love yourself?
Is it wrong to be accountable for your actions, whether good or bad?
I wasn't born in Missouri, but I do have a "show me" sensibility.
Show me where the Bible is wrong. Show me where it doesn't fit with today's culture. Show me undisputably. The Bible says in the book of Hebrews that "God is the same yesterday, today and forever." I take that to mean that the Bible continues to be relevant.
IN your case, you don't believe in Christianity, or the Bible. So arguing the validity of the Bible with you is waste of time. Since I believe the Bible, arguing its invalidity with me...same situation.
As with Duke, you and I will have to agree to disagree. You can indeed be a good person and not believe in God or the tenets of Christianity. But most of what is considered "acceptable, moral behavior" was first outlined in the Bible.

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
First, we need to destingush the two (my interpretations). Morality is preasure put on a person's consience(sp?). The consience is driven my what is 'moraly' correct. But who or what determines what is moraly correct? It's kinda like the use of the term "normal". It's impossible to generalize using these terms due to there lack of consistancy. The same goes for decensitizing. It's a term used by radicals (for lack of a better term) to exagerate there point of view.

It only frustrates me to read these words because it shows (JMO) a lack of open-mindedness.




you betchya 👍

What in the world are you talking about? To address your post from the bottom up, decensitizing is a occurance of the human persecptions. Take the first time you watch Freddy Krugger (or any other horror), is it as scary now as it was back then? It's like building a tolerance to a drug. The more you take to get the desired effect, over time, your doses have to increase to attain the same results. What is the term "normal"? The term refers to the norm or a characteristic of an object, body, or collective that shows consistancey over time. A normal way of life for me is probably different than a normal way of life for you. Maybe inconsistancy is your consistancy in your life, and that's normal to you. And ahhh, morality....the bitter sweetness of life. It can bind us or liberate us. If we look at Self-Morals, we can see that as an individual, we have decided to set limits and guidelines of which to live by. There are many different influences of our morals, but I think can be summed by our environment whatever that might be. There are schools of thought that there is ultimate truth in the universe. For now, I let my God determine what is right and what is wrong, and thus build my moral threads in my conscience. With that knowlege that I have attained from my parents, peers, the Bible, and God I make decisions to either maintain my life within the moral fabrics that I have choosen to adopt or I choose to go against them. Eitherway, those morals are still a driving force of who I am today. So here it is in a very personal and raw format. Lets say I do something that is (occording to what I know) morally wrong. I feel guilty because I know what I did was wrong. I ask Jesus for forgiveness, because in my heart I feel it was wrong. If I am honest with Him, He is just and faithful to forgive me of that sin. The guilt is removed, and the burden I was carrying is gone.

Sorry this is extreem off topic here, but it is a spin off of the original topic, is Homosexuallity Morally wrong, and according to who's morals?

 

[Red Eye Racer]

that's why there called opinions,. you got yours, I got mine,... but don't tell me I got it wrong,.... that's just contradictory (for lack of a better term)......

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Gil
On the question: If you love someone, but not their lifestyle, What is it you love about them?
First, we knew the inherent dangers of his lifestyle.

Is this meant to imply that AIDS is a gay disease?

The ACTION is what you don't approve of. You still love the child, right?

Christians do not seem to be in agreement on this. I read that god knows your heart and does not judge by actions alone. Then you say it's actions that are unacceptable or not. Personally I think people have more secrets than anyone knows. They are secrets after all.

Is it now ok to kill?, steal...

Of course not. And Christianity does not own these morals. They are universal, accross the board, morals in every corner of the globe, and were before Christianity.

(Is it okay to) bear false witness against your neighbor?

Maybe. It depends.

Is it wrong to love your neighbor as you love yourself?

In many cases, yes, it is. This "love of neighbor" is one of the most Christian morals. It is extended to "love your enemies" even! It's absurd. My neighbor is a pain in the ass. They don't take care of anything, are totally inconsiderate of the nieghborhood, are mean and neglectful of their kids, and hostile. I do not love them. Nor do I hate them. Either would take more effort than they deserve. I am just annoyed by them.

Forgiveness falls into this category, too. Forgiveness is overrated. Some people deserve forgiveness. Other's do not. It's my choice. When I see an old man who has held a grudge for fifty years I actually admire his tenacity. When people forgive it is often out of wearyness and not any spiritual perogative.

I choose whom to love, who is worthy of my love... and I have chosen wrong a few times, too. That's how we learn. And if we choose whom to love with wisdom and experience we will not have much forgiving to do.

Nobody benefits from indescriminate, unconditional love.

Is it wrong to be accountable for your actions, whether good or bad?[/QUOTE
Nobody needs to do this. It just happens. We are all accountable.

Show me where the Bible is wrong. Show me where it doesn't fit with today's culture.

As far as sexual morality goes, the Bible is way off. The perceived benefits of it are a matter of opinion. I'll clarify that in a minute.

The Bible says in the book of Hebrews that "God is the same yesterday, today and forever." I take that to mean that the Bible continues to be relevant.

To my mind, anything that is the same forever simply can't have being because the fundemental character of being is growth. Only Life grows. Only Life dies. God does niether.

But most of what is considered "acceptable, moral behavior" was first outlined in the Bible.

Ever heard of Hamurabi's law? (I may have misspelled that) Most of the morals in Christianity predate it by hundreds to thousands of years. Only a couple are unique to Christianity, "enemy/neighbor love" being one. Christianity took the practicality out of morals and made them an ideal.

My morality is based on reasons, on purpose, and on growth or benefit. These are my standards of judgment. I need reasons to do or not do things. I need to have a purpose in whatever I do. And it must somehow benefit me or something I care about, make life better in some small or big way, which is enhancement or growth, beneficial. If one or more of these things are not fulfilled it is pointless, superfluous. And that is immoral. My morality is the morality of necessity.

Christianity has a negative definition of moral. Do not do this and do not do that, and you are good. And that is a drag on life. It makes arbitrary judgments like saying homosexuality is evil when such evaluations are so unecessary to begin with.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by milefile


Christianity has a negative definition of moral. Do not do this and do not do that, and you are good. And that is a drag on life. It makes arbitrary judgments like saying homosexuality is evil when such evaluations are so unecessary to begin with.

Your my hero I've been looking for those words since this topic started.

 

[AltF8]

Wow...deep thread.

I've made my vote, and I'll do a little bit of backing it up - without referring to any other post's content.

I used to think that gays were horribly sick people that are no better than animals or nasty criminals. They deserved to be shot for all I cared. This was because of my upbringing. I was raised as a Christian. I was taught to feel that way. My step-father is a terribly prejudiced person. He was taught to feel that way by the church.

Now, I am an atheist and I fully accept the gay lifestyle. I was able to toss aside my brainwashing and grow up. I see gays/lesbians as people who have made a choice. As long as they aren't trying to push that lifestyle on me (like oh so many Christians), I think that they should be allowed to practice whatever sexual preferences they might have.

Now, to quote Michael McKean as Mr. Green in the 1985 movie Clue, "I'm going to go home and sleep with my wife!"



(Of course, all those married guys out there know I'm full of it...)

 

[Gil]

Originally posted by milefile
Is this meant to imply that AIDS is a gay disease?


Christians do not seem to be in agreement on this. I read that god knows your heart and does not judge by actions alone. Then you say it's actions that are unacceptable or not. Personally I think people have more secrets than anyone knows. They are secrets after all.



Of course not. And Christianity does not own these morals. They are universal, accross the board, morals in every corner of the globe, and were before Christianity.


Maybe. It depends.


In many cases, yes, it is. This "love of neighbor" is one of the most Christian morals. It is extended to "love your enemies" even! It's absurd. My neighbor is a pain in the ass. They don't take care of anything, are totally inconsiderate of the nieghborhood, are mean and neglectful of their kids, and hostile. I do not love them. Nor do I hate them. Either would take more effort than they deserve. I am just annoyed by them.

Forgiveness falls into this category, too. Forgiveness is overrated. Some people deserve forgiveness. Other's do not. It's my choice. When I see an old man who has held a grudge for fifty years I actually admire his tenacity. When people forgive it is often out of wearyness and not any spiritual perogative.

I choose whom to love, who is worthy of my love... and I have chosen wrong a few times, too. That's how we learn. And if we choose whom to love with wisdom and experience we will not have much forgiving to do.

Nobody benefits from indescriminate, unconditional love.



As far as sexual morality goes, the Bible is way off. The perceived benefits of it are a matter of opinion. I'll clarify that in a minute.


To my mind, anything that is the same forever simply can't have being because the fundemental character of being is growth. Only Life grows. Only Life dies. God does niether.


Ever heard of Hamurabi's law? (I may have misspelled that) Most of the morals in Christianity predate it by hundreds to thousands of years. Only a couple are unique to Christianity, "enemy/neighbor love" being one. Christianity took the practicality out of morals and made them an ideal.

My morality is based on reasons, on purpose, and on growth or benefit. These are my standards of judgment. I need reasons to do or not do things. I need to have a purpose in whatever I do. And it must somehow benefit me or something I care about, make life better in some small or big way, which is enhancement or growth, beneficial. If one or more of these things are not fulfilled it is pointless, superfluous. And that is immoral. My morality is the morality of necessity.

Christianity has a negative definition of moral. Do not do this and do not do that, and you are good. And that is a drag on life. It makes arbitrary judgments like saying homosexuality is evil when such evaluations are so unecessary to begin with.

From the top. AIDS is not the exclusive domain of Gay people. It is caused by sexual promiscuity linked with ignorance. Ignorance of how to protect yourself and your partner. As the number of people you have unprotected sex with expands, the chances for contracting HIV also expand exponentially. Because, in theory, you have had sex with every person your partner has.
So, as the Bible comdemns promiscuity, and, it happens to be a safer way to live, I teach my kids to avoid promiscuious behavior.

You are correct God knows your heart. That is not my domain, so I can't judge it. You have plenty of secrets from me and every other person you know. You have none from God.

Now, as for as morality being universal, if you believe the Bible as an account of "the haps" from the beginning, then it is indeed the origin of the tenets of most accepted morality. Since you don't accept the Bible the point is moot, and we are back to agreeing to disagree. Though we have had some durn intellectually stimulating "conversation".

Lying on your neighbor, (bearing false witness) even if (s)he is an a**hole, is wrong. You set up a chain of revenge. I watch my back, but I prefer to have the knowledge that no one is expressly out to deal me some "payback".

Unconditional love and forgiveness are not for the benefit of the person that has done you wrong. Both are much more for you. If you let go of what ever the issue is, it doesn't keep coming back to bug you in the middle of the nite with how you "should have dealt with that bas****".

Yes, you do sometimes get burned doing right by everyone. But as an experiment: let someone out onto the road in traffic sometime when it's really busy. If you follow them long enough, they will do the same. It's a little thing but, I believe that anyone can be a jerk, it takes a bit of character to be nice, especially, when you don't feel like it, or don't like the person your being nice to.
It will come back to you. This may reflect good karma, or fate. Either way, it's good stuff coming back to me, instead of crap.

The Bible is way off in sexual morality, how?
Don't sleep with your buddy's wife?
Don't screw wild or domestic animals?
In the sanctity of marriage, don't screw your wife's sister, mother, father?
As for homosexuality: If you believe the Bible (I know that you don't) I refer you back to Lev. 20:13. It don't get any clearer.

You look at God being the same today, tomorrow, and forever as a limitation. IMHO, I see it as being above the way we think, and reason. Isaiah 58 hits that.

I'm sorry I'm not familiar with Hamurabi. I guess I have to do some more studying.

Most of what I do falls into your "morality of neccessity." However, I do what I do within the limits Biblical principles.

Lastly (thank God: this thread is contributing greatly to my carpal tunnel.) The Bible is not all about Don't do this, Don't do that, don't do the other. There are a lot of do's also. See the Entire New Testamant. But pay special attention to the books of James, Hebrews, and I & II Corinthians.

 

[epic]

If homosexuality was suppose to be than we would all have reproducing organs and etc...and then there would be a different version of the Bible titled : "Adam and Steve" instead of Adam and Eve.

Some people are just soooo confused

 

[rjensen11]

Originally posted by milefile
The Roman Catholic church, the one many Christians scoff at and view as a bunch of voodoo crap can be thanked for the fact that Judeo Christian morals are the foundation of our society.

Those bastards, mocking the Catholic Church!

 

[Pako]

neon_duke:

While we're on the subject, what about two brothers or two sisters having sexual relations? According to everything I've heard so far supporting homosexuality, this lifestyle should also be acceptable.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Pako
neon_duke:

While we're on the subject, what about two brothers or two sisters having sexual relations? According to everything I've heard so far supporting homosexuality, this lifestyle should also be acceptable.

What?! That's ridiculous. Homosexuality and incest are hardly the same.

Please elaborate what you've seen here that justifies incest.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Their not even in the same ball park,... BUT,.. is it wrong? Well,... I think it's more discusting than homosexuality, but I'm not one to say people can't do it.

 

[milefile]

Throughout history incest has always been taboo, in all societies. This is not the case with homosexuality.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Pako
While we're on the subject, what about two brothers or two sisters having sexual relations? According to everything I've heard so far supporting homosexuality, this lifestyle should also be acceptable.

Homosexual incest at least eliminates the possibility of recessive genetic problems in any offspring of the union. This is the fundamental reason that incest has been considered taboo throughout history, particularly between brothers and sisters (who share 100% of their genetic makeup, not 50% as is the case in parent/child incest).

However, offspring aside, incest does not bind the family unit into its society, because the members are not going out to pair with members of other family units. This is a secondary, social reason why incest is considered taboo in 99.9% of all societies throughout history.

I fail to see how you can relate incest in any form to 'normal' homosexual sex. Can you please explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
99.9% of all societies throughout history.

I'm curious which .1% didn't call it taboo.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Homosexual incest at least eliminates the possibility of recessive genetic problems in any offspring of the union. This is the fundamental reason that incest has been considered taboo throughout history, particularly between brothers and sisters (who share 100% of their genetic makeup, not 50% as is the case in parent/child incest).

?

This is a mis-conception (pardon the pun, ROFL). Incest does not create "freak's",... it has recently been proven otherwise. I'd find the documentation, but I don't have time to search at work.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
This is a mis-conception (pardon the pun, ROFL). Incest does not create "freak's",... it has recently been proven otherwise. I'd find the documentation, but I don't have time to search at work.

Research European monarchies. It doesn't create freaks right off. But incest consolidates the gene pool. This is bad because the key to biological success is genetic diversity. Genetic disease, including mental illness, and all around physiological weakness is the result. Freakishness aside, it is still bad for the species.

 

[Duke]

Correct. No, the children of incest are not guaranteed to be freaks. However, their genetic diversity is weakened, with the corresponding decline in physical and mental properties over generations.

Also, since siblings share the same genetic makeup 100%, if they have a dangerous recessive gene, it will manifest in the offspring because there is no dominant positive gene to overcome it. That, for instance, is why hemophilia (among other things) was such a problem among European monarchies, as milefile suggests

 

[DGB454]

Originally posted by milefile
What?! That's ridiculous. Homosexuality and incest are hardly the same.

Please elaborate what you've seen here that justifies incest.

If you would have said that homosexuality was ok 20 years ago people would have looked at you in disgust where now it's acceptable or at the very least politically incorrect to not to accept it. In 20 years do you think poeple would look at you in disgust when you bring up incest? How about petifiles? Beastiality?
Who's to say that some people weren't born with a gene that makes them love animals?

We are like the frog in the boiling pot of water.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by DGB454
If you would have said that homosexuality was ok 20 years ago people would have looked at you in disgust where now it's acceptable or at the very least politically incorrect to not to accept it. In 20 years do you think poeple would look at you in disgust when you bring up incest? How about petifiles? Beastiality?
Who's to say that some people weren't born with a gene that makes them love animals?

We are like the frog in the boiling pot of water.

Although the "times change" perspective works in many situations, this isn't one of them. Homosexuality has come into, and out of, favor many times throughout history; our time in history happens to be one of the most intolerant yet.

But there has been no time during which incest has been accepted. The only exceptions to this are monarchies which are just that, exceptions; and it's no coincidence that monarchies are a thing of the past.

I doubt incest will ever be accepted...

Can you picture it? An Incest Pride Parade down Polk St. in San Francisco... brothers and sisters making out and feeling eachother up chanting "Where here, we're related, get used to it!"... brandishing their derranged, deformed, sicky offspring like some surreal nightmare.

Nah... I just don't see it happening.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by DGB454 If you would have said that homosexuality was ok 20 years ago people would have looked at you in disgust where now it's acceptable or at the very least politically incorrect to not to accept it.

If you're discussing whitebread 1950s America (try 40 years ago, not 20), you would have been correct, to some extent. That was also the time of 'Commie Pinkos', institutionalized racial discrimination in the South, McCarthy, and other not-so-wonderful facets of the American experience. Nonetheless, homosexuality has never been held with the same instant revulsion that incest has been, and with good reason. Also, it's already been shown in this thread that there are cultures throughout history that have embraced or at least accepted homosexuality as a normal part of human society, going back at least 2500 years to the ancient Greeks.

In 20 years do you think poeple would look at you in disgust when you bring up incest? How about petifiles? Beastiality?
Who's to say that some people weren't born with a gene that makes them love animals?

I think, given 3000 years of recorded history, that incest, bestiality, and pedophilia are not going to become acceptable any time soon just because of a failure to toe the strict Biblical line in the second half of the 20th Century.

It may well be that certain people are born with the gene of pedophilia or bestiality. That, however, is different from homosexuality. Homosexuality isn't acceptable just because 'they can't help it', it is acceptable because it is consentual. Two gay adults can freely choose to engage in sex together, or not, as they see fit.

That's totally different from a pedophillic or bestial sex, where one person is in total power and the other party is a helpless victim. You're deliberatley being blind if you refuse to see that.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke


I think, given 3000 years of recorded history... pedophilia (is) not going to become acceptable any time soon just because of a failure to toe the strict Biblical line in the second half of the 20th Century.

Actually, what we call pedophilia, has been widely accepted at different times in Western history. Ancient Greece is one right off the top of my head. In many places, even today, the maxim "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" is a given.

 

[Duke]

I'm defining 'pedophilia' as 'sex with someone who has not physically matured', not as something more akin to statutory rape. The ancient Greeks did indeedd have the concept of 'elder' and 'beloved youth', but the youth in question was at least physically mature (albiet substantially younger than the elder.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
I'm defining 'pedophilia' as 'sex with someone who has not physically matured', not as something more akin to statutory rape. The ancient Greeks did indeedd have the concept of 'elder' and 'beloved youth', but the youth in question was at least physically mature (albiet substantially younger than the elder.

A society in Paupa New Guinnea practices institutionalized pedophilia. The same society where homosexuality is the norm and hetero sex is ritualized for procreation only. During the 50 weeks a year the men are separated from the women, the boys perform oral sex on the men (they may do more but I can't be sure). They believe that semen is what makes boys men and they must get it (consume and incorporate) this way. Also, if two boys are caught being sexual without men, they are punished as thieves trying to steal the other boys' life force. That's their morality.

Of course I'm glad I wasn't raised in that world. But these people will never know anyting different... unless some Christian missionaries show up to tell them they are evil.

But by and large, in developed areas of the world Children are protected from sexuality, in America to a pathological degree.

There is a book called The History of Sexuality by the French philosopher Michelle Foucault. Using the "archeological" or "subterranian" approach to historical investigation he lays bare the origins and effects of sexual morality. It's in three volumes and I've only read the first, although I may finish some day. One thing that became questionable about sexual morality in what I read was this hyper-protection of children from sex... as if the slightest knowledge of it is somehow harmful. He goes even deeper with his questioning and I wouldn't dare repeat it here, what with all these right wing kooks floating around. But in earlier ages, even on the American frontier, children were much wiser about sex than they are today. Interesting that there were less problems then, too. If you live in one room and have a kid, where the hell else are you going to do it? I think adults hide sexulaity and sexual behavior from children because if pressed to explain they would come up short and know it. It's for the adults' convenience, nothing more.

 

[DGB454]

Originally posted by neon_duke
If you're discussing whitebread 1950s America (try 40 years ago, not 20), you would have been correct, to some extent.

No I did mean 20 years ago. I remember 20 years ago and I remember the reaction most of us had towards homosexuality.
We laughed about them...we would call each other names like queer and fagot as a put down. Try that now and most people would be upset because the names are degrading to a group of people. I'm not condoning either. I'm just giving you an example of how quickly our views change.


Don't be suprised if pedophilia makes a strong push in the next 20.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by DGB454
No I did mean 20 years ago. I remember 20 years ago and I remember the reaction most of us had towards homosexuality.
We laughed about them...we would call each other names like queer and fagot as a put down. Try that now and most people would be upset because the names are degrading to a group of people. I'm not condoning either. I'm just giving you an example of how quickly our views change.

Our views have changed. But go listen to those who are the same ages we were twenty years ago and you still hear a lot of the same stuff.

Don't be suprised if pedophilia makes a strong push in the next 20.

I won't be.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by DGB454


Don't be suprised if pedophilia makes a strong push in the next 20.

There's a fairly substancial difference between "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed",... AND,.... "old enough to pee, old enough for me." What one are you refering to? (got that's sick )