Forums | MacLife

i can hate salads when i'm 12, but like them when i'm 23.  and i guarantee you that i hated salads when i was 10, i wasn't "supressing" my feelings about salads.

Are you sure it was the salad you hated, or was it just the way your's was being tossed.

And what is the obsession with meat anyway?

Hold the phone... I think I'm seeing a pattern developing in NokX's post.

I think there are some pretty good arguments against legalizing incestuous marriages in this thread. I'll put Tallgeese's and Blueboy's in my top 2.

Anyway, the main reason I started this thread was because I'm sick of all the anti-gay-marriage arguments that are based around the idea of "if we legalize gay marriage, then we should legalize incest and pedophilia blah blah blah...." I figured that through debate we'd either find out that yes, we should legalize incestuous marriages, or we'd get down to the obvious difference between homosexuality (as a way of being) and incest (as a way of acting) and thereby decide that incestuous marriages shouldn't be legalized. Not all of that has been accomplished, but hopefully we can put an end to this particular piece of bad thinking around here. (I know, wishful thinking.)

I think there are some pretty good arguments against legalizing incestuous marriages in this thread. I'll put Tallgeese's and Blueboy's in my top 2.

Anyway, the main reason I started this thread was because I'm sick of all the anti-gay-marriage arguments that are based around the idea of "if we legalize gay marriage, then we should legalize incest and pedophilia blah blah blah...." I figured that through debate we'd either find out that yes, we should legalize incestuous marriages, or we'd get down to the obvious difference between homosexuality (as a way of being) and incest (as a way of acting) and thereby decide that incestuous marriages shouldn't be legalized. Not all of that has been accomplished, but hopefully we can put an end to this particular piece of bad thinking around here. (I know, wishful thinking.)

Thanks for rootin' for the little people

yea, let's run down the list of things to do...

heterosexual couple - consenting
homosexual couple - consenting
hetero/homosexual 3+ - consenting
pedophilia - consent impossible
rape - consent impossible
polygamy - consent possible, however societies that allow it tend to be very patriarchal and women tend to accept it even if they don't want to
incest - consent doubtful, given intra-family power dynamics
bestiality - consent doubtful

Correction:
pedophilia - LEGAL consent impossible (opening the pandora's box of who defines "age of consent" and when)

I'm not talking about the law, which would be child/statutory rape/sodomy. I'm talking about ACUTAL pedophilia, which is attraction to children who are incapable of consent.

I honestly believe that children do not have the mental and emotional capability of truly consenting.

Humanity, as a whole, would NEVER, EVER suddenly BECOME gay! And stop reproducing! Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? It would never happen!

Wouldn't that mean (technically), that homosexuals need heterosexuals to reproduce in order to ensure their (homosexual's) survival?

I post it as a serious question.
sd

Blankly, I would say yes.
However, recent technological and biological innovations could make that question a whole 'nother can of worms.

Blankly, I would say yes.
However, recent technological and biological innovations could make that question a whole 'nother can of worms.

Good point. And that 'nother can of worms could happen down the road, or not.

It's an interesting thought (at least to me) about survival. I do think it's possible there is a gene for homosexuality (which means it's not necessarily a choice), but the gene needs to be reproduced. Maybe it's either by heterosexuals or by bisexuals (or a combination thereof).

Anyway--back to the topic of incest: I consider it disgusting.
sd

It's an interesting thought (at least to me) about survival. I do think it's possible there is a gene for homosexuality (which means it's not necessarily a choice), but the gene needs to be reproduced. Maybe it's either by heterosexuals or by bisexuals (or a combination thereof).

It could be a recessive trait, like blonde hair.  A couple with brown hair could have a child with blonde hair, should they both carry the recessive gene.  It isn't expressed in the parents, because dark hair is a dominant trait.  So, perhaps the "gay gene" is recessive, a person could carry both, but heterosexuality could be more dominant (or maybe that would make them bi...  )  I do know several other homosexuals who have homosexual blood relatives, myself included.  Not scientific evidence mind you, but interesting.

I wonder how much research as been done re: incest.  Probably wouldn't be too easy identifying research subjects - still a major taboo that many wouldn't want to admit to.

Here we go again with the old "recessive gene" stuff...

Once again, I must point out that the quality of a gene has nothing to do with whether it is recessive or not often. There are dominant genes that are lethal, and there are recessive genes that are quite good. Six toes, and six fingers is dominant. There is a dominant gene that causes blindness. I think even Tay Sachs disease and sickle cell anemia are dominant, but I'm not sure.

Heterosexism dictates that if there is a gene for homosexual attraction, that it must be recessive, because homosexuality/homosexual attraction is inferior to heterosexuality/heterosexual attraction.

People may not fit into little boxes based on a single "sexual orientation gene." There may be a combination of genes that determine where someone falls on the continuum between "heterosexual and homosexual."

Sexual orientation may be determined by a combination of genetics and environment, and that combination may be very elusive and complicated.

Homosexuals are people who prefer the same sex, but they are not incapable of reproduction and some animals actually have shown that same-sex parents can increase the chances of their adopted children's survival. And, it may be a bad thing for all people to reproduce. Perhaps homosexuality is a very good thing because it helps to reduce unwanted pregnancy, and overpopulation... Some societies promoted homosexuality among adolescents so they would have an outlet for their strong sexual urges while not facing the problem of unwanted pregnancy and social committment.

It's also possible for homosexual sex to be compatible with heterosexual reproduction. Homosexual couples might adopt the children of a woman who died in a village, or raise surplus children. Or, they might form a partnership with both a member of the same sex and one of the opposite sex. In general, however, the pair bond is seen as the strongest. But, it's also true that infidelity is extremely common.

Etc. etc.

Heterosexism dictates that if there is a gene for homosexual attraction, that it must be recessive, because homosexuality/homosexual attraction is inferior to heterosexuality/heterosexual attraction.

Actually... recessive genes aren't what you would really call inferior.  If blonde hair, blue eyed people reproduce only with other blonde hair blue eyed people they will ONLY produce offspring of blonde hair and blue eyes.  That's not really inferior because it is stable and produces no deviations.  Pretty remarkable for all intensive purposes.  On the other hand..  2 people with brown eyes and brown hair can get together and produce a good multitude of children that don't have brown eyes and/or brown hair.  It's not really superior in the respect that the outcome is NOT assured to be the same every time.

Genetics is pretty nifty..  And yes, you're right, XYZ, if homosexualty was a genetic trait then it would be recessive because it continously pops up in history... And recessive genes are very difficult to breed out since it only takes one dominant gene in the pair to produce the dominant effect.

From a purely envioronmental standpoint on the whole sexual orientation subject tho...  Deviation from sexual orientation which results in procreation of the species usually occurs when there is an over population of the species. Why?  Because there is a lack of need to reproduce and in the case of human beings.. that's when there are more tendencies towards the whole pleasure of the act rather than the act for the sake of what it is meant to do in nature - reproduction.  This kind of behaviour has been noted in other species during overpopulation.

Now.. you can say it could (you don't know for sure) be because of genetics, or environmental (overpopulation) impact.  The bottom line is that it IS what PLEASES your senses, right?  Some say this kind of thing is part of what seperates human beings from everything else on this planet - we do things not because it favours the best interest of the species but because it gives us some kind of personal pleasure.  Doing drugs doesn't do anything positive for the species, any other animal would avoid drugs if it didn't provide some life necessity... but us, no, a large group of our species do drugs simply because they find some pleasure in what the drug does to them.  Women get together sexually with other women, and men with men because they find it pleasing to their senses.. These acts  certainly do not favour the species in terms of procreation and survival of the species (although some could argue that it does serve in the best interest of the survival of the fittest of the species.. who knows.. speculation again.. no one will know for another 500 years minimum.. ).

Unfortunatly... because doing what most pleases your senses is usually considered and referred to as choice.. I know a ton of people are just going to downright disqualify and/or get peeved right about now.. Eventho it takes a real person to realize that straight people find heterosexual behaviour to be the most pleasing to them... just like homosexuals find homosexual behaviour to be most pleasing to them...

Oh well...

What I don't like is:
Since natural procreation is not possible by same sex relationships.. I do not believe that it is the best interest of the child for same sex partners to raise adopted children.  In other words.. if the child is not the offspring of your sperm or your ovary, you don't raise it because you don't have the genetic connection to that child to truely understand what they're going to be like.. their personality, looks, tendencies, health.. Basically, there is no history there.  Of course, I tend to feel this way about adoption in general anyhow.. altho I understand that with people pounding like rabbits, totally unable to control themselves for some stupid reason - adoption is a necessary thing to take care of the children instead of some peice of trash letting their own child starve because they never wanted it in the first place! grrr  The need for adoption in our society is brought on by mostly by people refusing to accept the consquences for having their fun.  As is most abortions with regards to those that occur because of rape or needed because the life of the woman is at risk.

So same sex couples should not be able to adopt children?  What about single parents?

What to do with parentless children?  Leave them in institutional care until they're 18?

:?:

Oh my God.  You...

You...there is no word for it.  Feelings do not change, you smurfing moron.  Why the hell would gay people continue to be gay if they could?

It's people like you, not us, that the world could do without.

because they feel like it...  the same reason i feel like getting chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla.

are you really that dense to think that feelings don't change?  really?

Oh dear god.

First of all, let me say this:  Shad, you have a twisted idea about who puts their children up for adoption.  There are many MANY more reasons for putting children up for adoption besides having smurf-bunnies for parents.  I know many adopted people and several people who have adopted and NONE of them are from smurf-bunny farms.

That being said, ANYONE WHO IS WILLING can raise a child who is not of their genes.  My boss, one of the nicest people I have ever met, is an adopted person.  He's a nice person because his parents were nice people.

And I only have one question for the people who are against gay marriage:  how is that any skin off your ass?

In every internet post, letter to the editor, interview or OP-ED piece I've seen or heard from people who are against such a thing, not ONE of them can answer that question legitimately.  They don't like it just because they don't like it.  There is NO logic in their arguments.  All of their "marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN" rhetoric is bullsmurf.