Incest

Madmartigan · Post by **Madmartigan** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:15 am

Incest- The game the whole family can play!

chewyman · Post by **chewyman** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:26 am

Madmartigan wrote:Incest- The game the whole family can play!

You're a horrible, horrible person!

Anarchist · Post by **Anarchist** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:34 am

chewyman wrote:
Anarchist wrote:we are all related, keep mixing the blood and eventually we will adapt into perfection or into stagnation.
(incest is not the major cause of birth defects)
Any marriage that isnt out of love I would not support, any marriage that is out of love I would.

( I find it funny that the morality police are set against it, yet their religion states that we originate from two people)
I'm against incest and I'm agnostic. Kind of ruins your 'joke' right there don't it?

What about bestiality love? Or hell, even necrophiliac love? I find it funny that liberals and necrophiliacs are so closely related.

As for incest being an uncommon cause of birth defects, I agree. But then again, you aren't taking into account the fact that incest is very uncommon in most parts of the world.

Incest doesn't mean having it off with somebody that was last related to you 10 000 generations earlier. To suggest that we will either evolve into perfection or stagnation is similarly impossible. I suggest you actually read something on evolution before spouting this crap.

No, not really (are you a member of the morality police?)
If they can get consent who am I to deny Ms. piggy love?

Your suggesting that if incest were to become more common that it would become the major cause of birth defects?(could, but I guess balanced for now)
Incest means breeding with a directly related relative(aka mixing blood with close blood) To suggest that our blood wont eventually have mixed with 100% of the population is ludicrious, while the effect it would have and how long it would take are all relative.

What would happen if your blood was mixed with an equal percentage of all other blood? (esentially everyone spitting into a glass and mixing together, whose DNA would it be?) you take me literally when I stated "perfection" so why not use "whole" instead. Forgive me if I did not check my message for political correctness or including thoughts not relating to incest at all.

chewyman · Post by **chewyman** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:44 am

Anarchist wrote:No, not really (are you a member of the morality police?)

Well I'm against heroine, incest, polygamy and a whole spate of similar things. I assumed that made me one, since it wouldn't be the first time it's been suggested.

Anarchist wrote:If they can get consent who am I to deny Ms. piggy love?

The sad thing is that I honestly cannot go anywhere with this. If you are willing to say that man and pig should be able to get married then there is really nothing left for me to say. Your views are so far removed from that of the general public and so extreme that... well blah! *head explodes*

Anarchist wrote:Your suggesting that if incest were to become more common that it would become the major cause of birth defects?(could, but I guess balanced for now)

Which is why it needs to remain illegal.

Anarchist wrote:Incest means breeding with a directly related relative(aka mixing blood with close blood) To suggest that our blood wont eventually have mixed with 100% of the population is ludicrious, while the effect it would have and how long it would take are all relative.

What the hell? How do you justify that? New family shoots are born every time a family has a second (or higher) child. There is absolutely no chance of having incest with all of this unlimited supply of new potential partners.

Anarchist wrote:What would happen if your blood was mixed with an equal percentage of all other blood? (esentially everyone spitting into a glass and mixing together, whose DNA would it be?) you take me literally when I stated "perfection" so why not use "whole" instead. Forgive me if I did not check my message for political correctness or including thoughts not relating to incest at all.

You mean other than the fact that you would die? It would be everybody's DNA. DNA doesn't just combine, there are highly complex processes that allow this to happen during reproduction. Just throwing people's DNA together would result in a pile of DNA, but each strand would remain separate. Where are you going with this??

Anarchist · Post by **Anarchist** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:07 am

chewyman wrote:
Anarchist wrote:No, not really (are you a member of the morality police?)
Well I'm against heroine, incest, polygamy and a whole spate of similar things. I assumed that made me one, since it wouldn't be the first time it's been suggested.

Morality police believe its their job to enforce gods will on others

chewyman wrote:
Anarchist wrote:If they can get consent who am I to deny Ms. piggy love?
The sad thing is that I honestly cannot go anywhere with this. If you are willing to say that man and pig should be able to get married then there is really nothing left for me to say. Your views are so far removed from that of the general public and so extreme that... well blah! *head explodes*

Your mixing subjects, If a Pig and A man love eachother... Im saying while I dissagree with the act itself, I do not have the authority to seperate their devotion to one another.

chewyman wrote:
Anarchist wrote:Your suggesting that if incest were to become more common that it would become the major cause of birth defects?(could, but I guess balanced for now)
Which is why it needs to remain illegal.

thats why it should not be done, not why it should be condemned.

chewyman wrote:
Anarchist wrote:Incest means breeding with a directly related relative(aka mixing blood with close blood) To suggest that our blood wont eventually have mixed with 100% of the population is ludicrious, while the effect it would have and how long it would take are all relative.
What the hell? How do you justify that? New family shoots are born every time a family has a second (or higher) child. There is absolutely no chance of having incest with all of this unlimited supply of new potential partners.

Not incest, mixing blood(cells,atoms whatever)
Second child? Meaning if everyone only has one child per couple we wouldnt have these "new shoots" Sounds to me like your suggesting that when a couple has a second(or higher) child a miracle happens and it breaks itself off from its bloodline and any links it may hold to its parents?

chewyman wrote:
Anarchist wrote:What would happen if your blood was mixed with an equal percentage of all other blood? (esentially everyone spitting into a glass and mixing together, whose DNA would it be?) you take me literally when I stated "perfection" so why not use "whole" instead. Forgive me if I did not check my message for political correctness or including thoughts not relating to incest at all.
You mean other than the fact that you would die? It would be everybody's DNA. DNA doesn't just combine, there are highly complex processes that allow this to happen during reproduction. Just throwing people's DNA together would result in a pile of DNA, but each strand would remain separate. Where are you going with this??

Ive given the most primitive examples I can, Im not sure how to explain all the worlds waters contained in one glass without sounding even more insane.

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:09 am

How come you two always have debates? it's nice and all, but it doesn't change ones opinions.

Anarchist · Post by **Anarchist** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:14 am

how do you know that?
I often change my opinion if the better arguement is delivered, I learn something every time.

Whether to be more rational, or burn my local church to the ground.

chewyman · Post by **chewyman** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:19 am

How come you two always have debates? it's nice and all, but it doesn't change ones opinions.

Because it's fun and we do actually come to agreements on some issues. Besides, I'm the only active neo-liberal economic right winger that isn't a member of the Jesus Freaks, somebody has to get that view point across and it may as well be me.

Morality police believe its their job to enforce gods will on others

Well then I guess that's not me.

Your mixing subjects, If a Pig and A man love eachother... Im saying while I dissagree with the act itself, I do not have the authority to seperate their devotion to one another.

Of course you don't, neither do I. Society however does have this authority, and as members of society we are therefore responsible for influencing what society views as right and wrong.

thats why it should not be done, not why it should be condemned.

If something that should not be done is done then it should be condemned. Your just splitting hairs here.

Not incest, mixing blood(cells,atoms whatever)
Second child? Meaning if everyone only has one child per couple we wouldnt have these "new shoots" Sounds to me like your suggesting that when a couple has a second(or higher) child a miracle happens and it breaks itself off from its bloodline and any links it may hold to its parents?

If everybody only has one child then we will actually be losing these shoots and the population will decrease. It takes one man and one woman to create a new human being, if two people only have one child before they die then they have just joined two shoots (their own) into one (their child's). If however, those two shoots (the parents') form two or more new shoots (children's) then the number of shoots is either maintained or increased. Hope that makes some more sense.[/quote]

Anarchist · Post by **Anarchist** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:44 am

Of course you don't, neither do I. Society however does have this authority, and as members of society we are therefore responsible for influencing what society views as right and wrong.

Responsible-Yes Capable- No
Society is just an angry mob full of emotion and little understanding, judgemental like a child who often feels sorry for his actions after calming down. To use your arguement earlier you have no rights for its of the greatest interest to society(even if it holds limited deprement to it.)
I would imagine that you approve of girls preforming pornography since society has deemed it acceptable? ( I personally dont approve nor condemn it)

If something that should not be done is done then it should be condemned. Your just splitting hairs here.

No im not, its difference in logic. A woman should not sell herself on the grounds that its degrading,shes better then that.(Education) She should not be punished for it especially since the only one suffering because of it is herself.

If everybody only has one child then we will actually be losing these shoots and the population will decrease. It takes one man and one woman to create a new human being, if two people only have one child before they die then they have just joined two shoots (their own) into one (their child's). If however, those two shoots (the parents') form two or more new shoots (children's) then the number of shoots is either maintained or increased. Hope that makes some more sense.

I believe so, though it holds more ground in mathematics then it does in hereditary?
2 x 2 x 2 vs 2=1+1=2=1

chewyman · Post by **chewyman** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:55 am

Anarchist wrote:Responsible-Yes Capable- No
Society is just an angry mob full of emotion and little understanding, judgemental like a child who often feels sorry for his actions after calming down. To use your arguement earlier you have no rights for its of the greatest interest to society(even if it holds limited deprement to it.)
I would imagine that you approve of girls preforming pornography since society has deemed it acceptable? ( I personally dont approve nor condemn it)

That's why there is representative democracy. Democracy is unstable and representation is undemocratic. Representative democracy is the best mixture of democracy and stability available to us. As for girls and pornography, no I don't approve. If it's a woman then while I don't approve, I can accept it, although it would depend on the type of pornography, no bestiality for example.

Anarchist wrote:No im not, its difference in logic. A woman should not sell herself on the grounds that its degrading,shes better then that.(Education) She should not be punished for it especially since the only one suffering because of it is herself.

Fair point. But in the case of incest there is no distinction. It's all to do with the level of wrong, prostitution being a lesser wrong than incest.

Anarchist wrote:I believe so, though it holds more ground in mathematics then it does in hereditary?
2 x 2 x 2 vs 2=1+1=2=1

Guh, I dropped maths in year 11, please drop the formula stuff.

Anarchist · Post by **Anarchist** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:23 am

chewyman wrote:
Anarchist wrote:Responsible-Yes Capable- No
Society is just an angry mob full of emotion and little understanding, judgemental like a child who often feels sorry for his actions after calming down. To use your arguement earlier you have no rights for its of the greatest interest to society(even if it holds limited deprement to it.)
I would imagine that you approve of girls preforming pornography since society has deemed it acceptable? ( I personally dont approve nor condemn it)
That's why there is representative democracy. Democracy is unstable and representation is undemocratic. Representative democracy is the best mixture of democracy and stability available to us. As for girls and pornography, no I don't approve. If it's a woman then while I don't approve, I can accept it, although it would depend on the type of pornography, no bestiality for example.

I would prefer a socialised democrasy over a capitalist one, would we both agree that theres room for improvement regardless?
Ofcourse I would rather look at A hot chick over some hairy dude, still doesnt make the one more appropriate then the other. Since neither of us have chosen to banish pornography. Would your approach be to illegalise "unacceptable" forms, or choose to simply keep your disgust to yourself?

chewyman wrote:
Anarchist wrote:No im not, its difference in logic. A woman should not sell herself on the grounds that its degrading,shes better then that.(Education) She should not be punished for it especially since the only one suffering because of it is herself.
Fair point. But in the case of incest there is no distinction. It's all to do with the level of wrong, prostitution being a lesser wrong than incest.

I dissagree while prostitution being illegal creates other problems, the act itself includes its own individual risks and baggage. Incest has its own baggage, while being different from prostitution. Social prejudice aside, you run the risk of having to provide for a disabled offspring. Neither is worse then the other, some just offend us more.
(This is a leaving it in gods hands approach by the way.)

chewyman wrote:
Anarchist wrote:I believe so, though it holds more ground in mathematics then it does in hereditary?
2 x 2 x 2 vs 2=1+1=2=1
Guh, I dropped maths in year 11, please drop the formula stuff.

(dropped out ASAP-hate formulas aswell)
meaning couples have one child per person(causing population to rise)
Vs.
Each couple forming a pair 2=1 set of genes/1 child(causing population to decrease at a stable rate)

Does each parents' contributing gene get included with every offspring they produce? YES. Will that Gene get passed down throughout the ages,mixing with further genes? YES.

chewyman · Post by **chewyman** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:58 am

Anarchist wrote:I would prefer a socialised democrasy over a capitalist one, would we both agree that theres room for improvement regardless?
Ofcourse I would rather look at A hot chick over some hairy dude, still doesnt make the one more appropriate then the other. Since neither of us have chosen to banish pornography. Would your approach be to illegalise "unacceptable" forms, or choose to simply keep your disgust to yourself?

Well I definitely wouldn't prefer a socialist system, but we can agree that there are always possible improvements to be made. I suspect we will disagree on exactly what those improvements would be though.

As for pornography, I would base it around sex laws. For example, as I am opposed to homosexuality I believe that homosexual sex should be illegal in porn. However, blow jobs, foot fetishes etc are legal and so pornography depicting them should also be legal. The reason that I cannot simply "keep [my] disgust to [myself]" is because pornography desensitises people to illegal acts.

Anarchist wrote:I dissagree while prostitution being illegal creates other problems, the act itself includes its own individual risks and baggage. Incest has its own baggage, while being different from prostitution. Social prejudice aside, you run the risk of having to provide for a disabled offspring. Neither is worse then the other, some just offend us more.
(This is a leaving it in gods hands approach by the way.)

I'm not a fan of prostitution, I'm just hesitant towards taking steps to ban it completely. Such a law would never be enforceable, regardless of the harshness of penalties. The idea that nothing is good or bad once again forgets morals. What offends us is, in my opinion, what we use to determine exactly what is right and what is wrong.

Anarchist wrote:Does each parents' contributing gene get included with every offspring they produce? YES. Will that Gene get passed down throughout the ages,mixing with further genes? YES.

One similar gene is not incest. It's an unnaturally high concentration of the same genes. Also, children don't get identical chromosomes to that of their parent's. There is a process (whose name escapes me) whereby the chromosomes criss-cross and genes are swapped. Each chromosome is therefore unique, which is one of the factors that leads to such a great deal of genetic diversity.

Aegnor · Post by **Aegnor** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:14 am

chewyman wrote:
For example, as I am opposed to homosexuality I believe that homosexual sex should be illegal in porn. However, blow jobs, foot fetishes etc are legal and so pornography depicting them should also be legal. The reason that I cannot simply "keep [my] disgust to [myself]" is because pornography desensitises people to illegal acts.

May I ask why you are opposed to homosexuality? You said that you are not a member of the Jesus Freaks so I can assume you don't do it out of respect to the bible.

Anarchist · Post by **Anarchist** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:14 am

chewyman wrote:
Anarchist wrote:I would prefer a socialised democrasy over a capitalist one, would we both agree that theres room for improvement regardless?
Ofcourse I would rather look at A hot chick over some hairy dude, still doesnt make the one more appropriate then the other. Since neither of us have chosen to banish pornography. Would your approach be to illegalise "unacceptable" forms, or choose to simply keep your disgust to yourself?
Well I definitely wouldn't prefer a socialist system, but we can agree that there are always possible improvements to be made. I suspect we will disagree on exactly what those improvements would be though.

As for pornography, I would base it around sex laws. For example, as I am opposed to homosexuality I believe that homosexual sex should be illegal in porn. However, blow jobs, foot fetishes etc are legal and so pornography depicting them should also be legal. The reason that I cannot simply "keep [my] disgust to [myself]" is because pornography desensitises people to illegal acts.

Oh yes, im sure we will disagree.
Pornography; all of that is subjective, you cant make laws with rules like that or else we will need lawyers for all the loopholes.(making more laws to fix them) Pornography desensitises to crime? Sounds like a rough exageration. Pornography may desensitise us to immoral acts(disagree) or nudity. However seeing pornography has in no way made me more supportive of it, only less shy. Also Seeing a woman in a BDSM show has made me no more tolerant of women being held down and raped(possibly even less tolerant)

chewyman wrote:
Anarchist wrote:I dissagree while prostitution being illegal creates other problems, the act itself includes its own individual risks and baggage. Incest has its own baggage, while being different from prostitution. Social prejudice aside, you run the risk of having to provide for a disabled offspring. Neither is worse then the other, some just offend us more.
(This is a leaving it in gods hands approach by the way.)
I'm not a fan of prostitution, I'm just hesitant towards taking steps to ban it completely. Such a law would never be enforceable, regardless of the harshness of penalties. The idea that nothing is good or bad once again forgets morals. What offends us is, in my opinion, what we use to determine exactly what is right and what is wrong.

No laws are enforcable(completely), only defendable after the fact. Safety and Control are an illusion. However morality is subjective, I find it bad that the homosexuals are discriminated against, you find it good to deny their very existence(they will never go away) I never said that nothing is good nor bad, I said everything has consequences. Why should we add more consequences?

If anything we should be more devoted to finding the right people are punished.
A soldier now is killing in Iraq, He has seen things you wont even see in movies. He has nightmares and headaches, followed by a dependancy on anti-psychotic drugs. Did he choose to go there? Should he be the one punished for murder? Are we less sensetive to what hes going through because we dont see whats happening? If we were to see all the victims from Bushes war "Iraqi freedom" would we grow sensetive to it(or the opposite?) would we demand that Bush is punished or demand our pound of flesh from the soldiers for commiting the deeds they were forced to do? Its ok, what im describing is legal(wheres your moral radar when you need it...)
Consequence should be our scale of right and wrong(karma) after all being offended is a scale of our insecurities

On genetics, I do believe some tributes(genes) stand out more then others, however I do believe that all will remain receded into the background

Tazeyo · Post by **Tazeyo** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:34 am

Incest is ok, I guess. It always happens.
If you want to have sexual relations with your sister or bro. Go right ahead.
I accept it to the level that it's safe though, not done to have a new generation arise.

chewyman · Post by **chewyman** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:25 am

Aegnor wrote:May I ask why you are opposed to homosexuality? You said that you are not a member of the Jesus Freaks so I can assume you don't do it out of respect to the bible.

Sigh, I was really hoping to keep this as a separate issue but I'm happy to answer your question anyway. I first want to make a qualification. I am in no way against homosexuals, two of my best friends are gay. My opposition is solely to the act of homosexuality itself.

Homosexuality is unnatural. I say this not because of any religious underpinnings but because of the undeniable facts of our physiology. Men have penises that are designed to be inserted into a woman's vagina etc etc. Men were not designed to insert their penis into a man's anus and the anus was not designed to accept the introduction of foreign objects. Homo Sapiens have evolved as mammals who choose a life partner of the opposite sex. Obviously our increased intelligence has meant that sexual attraction is no longer the sole factor behind a relationship, and that is why many marriages now fail. Homosexuality is just as unnatural as bestiality.

I concede that there are genes that may predispose somebody to being homosexual. I also concede that there are events in early life that may prompt homosexuality. However, these are not the be all and end all causes. Homosexuality is, in essence, a psychological disorder (and was considered one in America's medical profession until relatively recently, when gay protesters demanded it be removed because it was not politically correct). How many other psychological disorders can you think of that have been removed due to political correctness? People aren't born alcoholics and they don't choose to become them. The desire for alcohol or homosexuality is acquired and strengthened by habituation and conditioning, not conscious choice. Homosexuals need help, just like paranoid schizophrenics and alcoholic.

Diseases such as HIV/AIDS spread primarily through the homosexual population. Infected bisexuals then proceed to have sexual intercourse with heterosexuals and the diseases spread. Now this isn't to say that HIV/AIDS and other STI's cannot be contracted in other ways, obviously they can. The fact of the matter is, however, that HIV/AIDS would not be as prevalent as it is in today's society if not for homosexuality. Sodomy is associated with much higher risks of STI transmission (including hepatitis and AIDS) than vaginal or oral sex. Anal sex is also closely associated with fecal incontinence and anal carcinoma. There are plenty of suppository drugs specifically inserted into a patient's anus because that area readily absorbs just about anything. The risk isn't just to the person being sodomised, there is also a greater risk of cervical and penile cancers.

Hope this helps Aegnor. I fully appreciate that I will now get yelled at by a plethora of liberals and the politically correct and that this thread will be completely hijacked. I apologise in advance to anyone that wished to continue this debate on incest.

chewyman · Post by **chewyman** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:38 am

Anarchist wrote:Pornography; all of that is subjective, you cant make laws with rules like that or else we will need lawyers for all the loopholes.(making more laws to fix them) Pornography desensitises to crime? Sounds like a rough exageration. Pornography may desensitise us to immoral acts(disagree) or nudity. However seeing pornography has in no way made me more supportive of it, only less shy. Also Seeing a woman in a BDSM show has made me no more tolerant of women being held down and raped(possibly even less tolerant)

I see no problem with such a law. It's a lot easier to enforce than private sexual intercourse since there is video footage. Pornography does desensitise, it's an inescapable fact. So does almost anything we watch on television. Remember when you first saw somebody tortured in a movie? That was plain nasty, a lot of people feel like throwing up. Watch those movies enough and you can acclimatise to anything.

Anarchist wrote:No laws are enforcable(completely), only defendable after the fact. Safety and Control are an illusion. However morality is subjective, I find it bad that the homosexuals are discriminated against, you find it good to deny their very existence(they will never go away) I never said that nothing is good nor bad, I said everything has consequences. Why should we add more consequences?

The threat of punishment post crime is the best method available to society to prevent crimes. Granted it doesn't always work, every single person guilty of a crime is evidence of that. But what are the other options? A world in which people are imprisoned for what they might do in the future based on their genetic imprint? I do not deny the existence of homosexuals, why you would even suggest this is beyond me. If I oppose homosexuality then clearly I must believe that homosexual people do exist. To just say that there are already consequences is very degage of you but interference is sometimes necessary. We've all heard the famous phrase: 'all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing'. The point here being that the universe can't just be left alone to follow its own path. We have the ability to change our destinies and we should harness that ability.

Anarchist wrote:If anything we should be more devoted to finding the right people are punished.
A soldier now is killing in Iraq, He has seen things you wont even see in movies. He has nightmares and headaches, followed by a dependancy on anti-psychotic drugs. Did he choose to go there? Should he be the one punished for murder? Are we less sensetive to what hes going through because we dont see whats happening? If we were to see all the victims from Bushes war "Iraqi freedom" would we grow sensetive to it(or the opposite?) would we demand that Bush is punished or demand our pound of flesh from the soldiers for commiting the deeds they were forced to do? Its ok, what im describing is legal(wheres your moral radar when you need it...)
Consequence should be our scale of right and wrong(karma) after all being offended is a scale of our insecurities

I'm really, really struggling to see the connection between Operation: Iraqi Freedom and incest???

EDIT: actually I'm completely failing to see the connection of any of this to incest anymore

Tazeyo · Post by **Tazeyo** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:38 am

Homosexuality has always existed. So, I would just say some people are homosexuals and some aren't. I wouldn't call it wrong either.
For example the ancient Greeks were as gay as they come, but they chose to be homosexuals since they believed true love cannot be achieved between a man and a woman. It's not really in the genes, nor is it a mental disease. Can it be cured? What should be cured?

Now anal sex. That can happen in any type of relation, be it homosexual or heterosexual. I'm saying that these things can happen anywhere, not only the homosexual community. Also women can be homosexual too and they don't have penises. Most of this isn't really good to prove why you don't accept homosexuality.

Diseases? What happens, happens. Nothing can be done about that anymore.

I'd just like to point at least those out.

mr. incrediball · Post by **mr. incrediball** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:50 am

unriggable wrote:
Stopper wrote:It's still common in many cultures today. And it isn't illegal in the UK.
Pack your bags patricia! We're going to England!

i think mr. stopper was talkin about cousins.

siblings is completely illegal.

Tazeyo · Post by **Tazeyo** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:52 am

mr. incrediball wrote:
siblings is completely illegal.

"Oh yes, that really turns me on. Isn't that right sis?"

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:14 am

chewyman wrote:
Aegnor wrote:May I ask why you are opposed to homosexuality? You said that you are not a member of the Jesus Freaks so I can assume you don't do it out of respect to the bible.
Sigh, I was really hoping to keep this as a separate issue but I'm happy to answer your question anyway. I first want to make a qualification. I am in no way against homosexuals, two of my best friends are gay. My opposition is solely to the act of homosexuality itself.

Homosexuality is unnatural. I say this not because of any religious underpinnings but because of the undeniable facts of our physiology. Men have penises that are designed to be inserted into a woman's vagina etc etc. Men were not designed to insert their penis into a man's anus and the anus was not designed to accept the introduction of foreign objects. Homo Sapiens have evolved as mammals who choose a life partner of the opposite sex. Obviously our increased intelligence has meant that sexual attraction is no longer the sole factor behind a relationship, and that is why many marriages now fail. Homosexuality is just as unnatural as bestiality.

I concede that there are genes that may predispose somebody to being homosexual. I also concede that there are events in early life that may prompt homosexuality. However, these are not the be all and end all causes. Homosexuality is, in essence, a psychological disorder (and was considered one in America's medical profession until relatively recently, when gay protesters demanded it be removed because it was not politically correct). How many other psychological disorders can you think of that have been removed due to political correctness? People aren't born alcoholics and they don't choose to become them. The desire for alcohol or homosexuality is acquired and strengthened by habituation and conditioning, not conscious choice. Homosexuals need help, just like paranoid schizophrenics and alcoholic.

Diseases such as HIV/AIDS spread primarily through the homosexual population. Infected bisexuals then proceed to have sexual intercourse with heterosexuals and the diseases spread. Now this isn't to say that HIV/AIDS and other STI's cannot be contracted in other ways, obviously they can. The fact of the matter is, however, that HIV/AIDS would not be as prevalent as it is in today's society if not for homosexuality. Sodomy is associated with much higher risks of STI transmission (including hepatitis and AIDS) than vaginal or oral sex. Anal sex is also closely associated with fecal incontinence and anal carcinoma. There are plenty of suppository drugs specifically inserted into a patient's anus because that area readily absorbs just about anything. The risk isn't just to the person being sodomised, there is also a greater risk of cervical and penile cancers.

Many heterosexual couples have anal sex, many homosexual couples do not. Are lesbians OK in your book? Do you decline blowjobs, because mouths weren't designed to do that? You can catch some nasty shit that way, too...
Also, do you really mean to compare homosexuality (i think you mean anal sex really) with bestiality and alcoholism? With interspecies sex and drug addiction? On what basis do you make these comparisons?
And how does the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa tally with your theories about homosexuality (i think you mean anal sex really) being the cause and the driving factor? is everyone in africa a bummer?

yours,

a politically correct liberal

chewyman · Post by **chewyman** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:07 am

Sorry, I didn't see this post until just then. I initially thought to just PM you this, but eventually decided that I may as well let anybody interested read it.

heavycola wrote:Many heterosexual couples have anal sex, many homosexual couples do not.

It has been suggested that acts of sodomy between a man and a woman are similarly linked to hidden homosexual desires. As psychology progresses there will be better ways to treat such problems and psychologists already have quite a good success rate at turning homosexuals into heterosexuals.

heavycola wrote:Are lesbians OK in your book?

For porn? Hell yes.

But seriously, homosexuality of any kind is unnatural for all the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post. Sodomy just so happens to have many medical problems associated with it and so I mentioned them.

heavycola wrote:Do you decline blowjobs, because mouths weren't designed to do that?

Incorrect. There are actually nerve glands inside a woman's mouth that are specifically designed to react when semen enters the mouth, through pre-cum and ejaculation. This explains why some women get a sense of physical pleasure while performing oral sex. Such nerves do not exist inside the anus for either gender. Concerning cunnilingus, foreplay is usually necessary to prepare women for sexual intercourse. The tongue and fingers are very good at stimulating the release of natural lubricants.

heavycola wrote:You can catch some nasty shit that way, too...

You can also catch STI's from penile-vaginal intercourse. When I brought up possible STI's (and cancer), which can be the result of sodomy I was intending it only to support the key preposition within my post; that homosexuality is unnatural.

heavycola wrote:Also, do you really mean to compare homosexuality (i think you mean anal sex really) with bestiality and alcoholism? With interspecies sex and drug addiction? On what basis do you make these comparisons?

Separate comparisons. Homosexuality is similar to bestiality because it is unnatural sexual intercourse and anyone who voluntarily commits the act has a mental illness (which I also compared to paranoid schizophrenia if you remember). Homosexuality is similar to alcoholism because people do not choose to become homosexuals or alcoholics. People become homosexuals or alcoholics because of habituation and/or conditioning. Both are addictions that can be treated through proper therapy.

heavycola wrote:And how does the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa tally with your theories about homosexuality (i think you mean anal sex really) being the cause and the driving factor? is everyone in africa a bummer?

Scientists currently believe that HIV/AIDS came to humans through a type of monkey in Africa. Now how that transfer came to be nobody can really say; it may have been bestiality, open blood wounds, a monkey bite etc. I'm not saying that HIV/AIDS is a punishment from God inflicted upon the homosexual community, because obviously heterosexuals are infected as well as newly born children who are born with the virus. However, the fact remains that the virus initially spread throughout homosexual communities, due primarily to the ease in which it is contracted through sodomy (you'll note that lesbians have a far lower chance of contracting HIV/AIDS than gays). Bisexuals, not knowing that they were HIV positive returned to their partners and so the virus spread to the heterosexual community (although there were obviously other ways in which this also happened, eg used syringes).

heavycola wrote:yours,

a politically correct liberal

Hope that answers your questions.

alex_white101 · Post by **alex_white101** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:17 am

that was all very nicely put, and ive never heard of homosexuality being ''cured'' are you sure this is the case? surely that also implies that through a bit of therapy a hetrosexual person could be made homosexual. i dont think this is the case, im 100% sure i could never be pushed into becoming gay no matter how much therapy i had.........

chewyman · Post by **chewyman** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:39 am

alex_white101 wrote:that was all very nicely put, and ive never heard of homosexuality being ''cured'' are you sure this is the case? surely that also implies that through a bit of therapy a hetrosexual person could be made homosexual. i dont think this is the case, im 100% sure i could never be pushed into becoming gay no matter how much therapy i had.........

It's all just part of behaviour modification therapy, nothing really new in that. Conditioning is a natural phenomenon that we have all been affected by. Psychologists are getting better and better at harnessing this natural phenomenon, in just the same way as scientists are getting better at enhancing our immune systems through a variety of drugs. Gerald Davison's 'playboy therapy' is one technique you can research, however it has met with a lot of opposition because it works on negative instead of positive reinforcement. Unfortunately, the majority of these programs are presently run by the moral majority.

Technically it would also be possible to turn a straight man gay, just like it is possible to make a normal person schizophrenic, or depressed. This however would be morally reprehensible and there are numerous psychology boards that would prevent such a study from occurring. The difference between making a gay man straight and a straight man gay is exactly the same as making a schizophrenic healthy and a healthy person schizophrenic.

You would be surprised as to the strength of conditioning on your life. I'm sure you feel that you would never become a person's obedient slave either. You've probably heard of how a hostage can fall in love with his/her kidnapper? Slavery can work in exactly the same way.

alex_white101 · Post by **alex_white101** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:42 am

I still think what you are suggesting is not as exact and easy/simple as you are making out. tho whole hostage thing i imagine happens maybe 1% of the time. i get the impression you think people can be manipulated everytime you want too. whereas i think it will have very limited sucsess and only happen a tiny percentage of the time........

Incest

Which option is closest to your view?