I've chosen not to belive in sexuality anymore.

[fraroc]

Seperation between sexualities is like segragation to me. Its not right! Were all human beings!

That's why I've chosen not to belive in sexual boundaries anymore. In my mind's eye, theres no gay or straight. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if a man finds beauty in another man or a woman to another woman, who the HELL are we to judge?!

Why can't more people realize this?!!

[HystericalParoxysm]

Well, that's all well and good for you, but plenty of the rest of the world still believes in sexual boundaries - even if they themselves are not subject to them, or they fudge the lines a bit. Pretty sure a gay man who is only attracted to other men wouldn't really welcome being told there are no sexual boundaries and no such thing as gay or straight - just as a straight man (or woman) can be attracted to who he or she prefers.

Sure, it'd be great if folks didn't judge others' sexuality, but that doesn't require tearing down "gay" and "straight" as if they don't exist. They do - the lines may be a little wobbly for some people, and of course there's "bisexual" and "pansexual" and whatever else as well, but they're useful labels for someone to apply to themselves when they think it fits.

Besides, it's not really just about finding beauty in someone else, but wanting to get naked and press their warm squishy bits together - I'm know a -lot- of straight women who appreciate the beauty in other women without necessarily wanting to go to a clam bake, if ya know what I mean.

[fraroc]

I'm know a -lot- of straight women who appreciate the beauty in other women without necessarily wanting to go to a clam bake, if ya know what I mean.

I definatly see what your saying here...I'm that way too, for example, I've always admired actor Hugh Jackman, very handsome guy. He's also a very nice guy and I would love to meet him one day! And yet, I'm sexually attracted to WOMEN.

[Sapphires]

I think people can believe or practice what they like, if they don't try force what they do/think upon others. I have nothing against gay/lesbian people, (or straight people for that matter) I think more people need to realise that, no matter how they express their fondness/attraction/desire for someone else, that's their choice, and not someone else's to comment on or criticise. The world has become very cynical towards this, and I find it ridiculous.

[wickedblue]

The problem isn't with the label, it's with the people that use those labels to judge others, restrict their rights, and put them into a box. Not all gay people are alike nor bisexual people all alike any more than all straight people are alike.

Sexual preference is an important part of who we are but it is not our entire identity. We are so much more complex creatures than that.

With that said, I understand the reaction. There is a part of me that still is not comfortable identifying myself as bisexual because I feel compelled to follow it up with a disclaimer about how I'm monogamous and not flaky because the stereotype of bisexual people is so prevalent and damaging that I feel the impulse to defend myself before I become subjected to attacks on my character.

[kiwi_tea]

The problem is: There appears to be a vague, but definite, biological underpinning for sexuality.

Shall we just conveniently ignore an entire corner of biology because you want to live without labels?

Edit Moreover, gay people are a minority. To ignore labels and ignore any spectrum of sexuality isn't just denialism, it will only punish homosexuals. I know a gay kid who has exactly this attitude and he almost only ever ends up with crushes of heterosexual men as a consequence of there being... ...well... ...many times more heterosexual than homosexual men in his life - that's a recipe for misery. Imagine an endless stream of rejection and sometimes disgust. One can only hope he grows out of such denialism, or accidentally gets a crush on someone in the gay/bi minorities.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

"sexuality" encompasses more than just heterosexuals and homosexuals. youre also talking about zoophilia, pedophilia, necrophilia, and all those other unsavory orientations. you cant honestly be suggesting that it would be a super idea to ignore that kind of stuff. id sooner sit next to a homophobe than a "furry", pedophile, or necrophiliac. i reserve the right to cast disdain in their direction.
granted, i hate very few individuals, and never for their preferences alone. but i do reserve the right to be revolted by those preferences which i could never find tolerable.
it would be overstepping your boundaries to decide how someone should feel about any one thing, so i'll leave it there.

[Mistermook]

Is this a debate?

[Shadowside]

Is this a debate?

I suppose if it is, the topic is "Does heterosexuality/homosexuality exist?" Because "does sexuality exist?" seems like a nonsensical question, unless someone wants to provide a definition of sexuality that would make sense to debate.

*shrugs* I'm not entirely sure if I understand the point of OP's original statement. There seems to be some point about being able to appreciate beautiful people of both genders without wanting to have sex with them (which I comprehend; of course it's possible), but I'm not sure exactly how it relates to the original point OP wanted to make.

Even if you believe sexuality is a fluid range rather than, say, a pie chart with exactly 3 divisions (homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual), not everyone's going to be directly at the center. Some people will lean more towards one end of the range than the other, meaning they're going to fall into a category that people would label straight or gay.

*still shrugs* I'm not really sure what the debate is. I'm pro-gay-rights, as is everyone in this thread, (and I think I'll take the liberty of assuming everybody's anti-necrophilia and anti-pedophilia, too.) ;)

I think that people should feel free to express themselves and demonstrate their love for their loved ones without fear of repercussions.

SuicidiaParadisia: I'm pretty sure OP was just thinking along the gender preference line of things, not about fetishes, although I'd be interested to see their response to your post.

[Oaktree]

I think what you are looking for would be better achieved by reaching social acceptance of people of various sexualities, rather than by abolishing the distinction between various sexualities. There is no quick and easy way to make such a social change, but, in the end, it is probably the better way to go about things.

As kiwi_tea has pointed out, people need to be able to advertise what they are looking for in a mate, particularly when they are in a sexual minority, because, otherwise, it could be extremely difficult to find someone. Further, simply abolishing the categorization would not abolish negativity toward those of different orientations. Whether there was a word for it or not, those who fall into the minority in terms of sexuality would still have noticeably different taste. Some people have negative attitudes toward those who fall outside the 'norm' (by this I mean those who are not in the majority, as homosexuality is perfectly natural and common enough that I think it could otherwise be considered normal). If we simply got rid of the label for those who fall outside the norm, it wouldn't take away the discrimination. What needs to happen is for society to learn to truly accept some preferences/behaviors/etc. that are not of the majority.

Further, as you say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but it is conceivable that a person's sex could be part of the criteria for beauty. Men and women tend to look somewhat different from each other. It may be that a person feels attracted to some quality that is typically only found in one sex or the other.

And finally, there are different ways of appreciating beauty. Just like what HP mentioned, I can often find another woman beautiful, but that doesn't mean that I want to have sex with her. I simply find the idea of sex with a woman boring. I appreciate men in a different way. I don't know if I would use the word 'beautiful' to describe most of the men I find appealing, but I would say that they are sexually attractive. I couldn't say why humans are capable of different sorts of aesthetic appreciation, considering that appreciation of a sexual partner is probably the most key in terms of evolutionary success, but I can say, for what it worth, from anecdotal evidence that people can find a person beautiful without desiring that person sexually.

[Sapphires]

This made me think in a whole new way. Thanks I guess :)
Base Line: Discrimination because of sexuality is wrong.

[Shoosh Malooka]

It's good to be tolerant of the sexuality of others, but if we embrace everything then THIS will become ordinary:

I had to remove these images because they were replaced by a picture of hairy testicles in an egg cup with the message "hotlinking, it's what's for dinner."

[fraroc]

It's good to be tolerant of the sexuality of others, but if we embrace everything then THIS will become ordinary:

http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f3/274405d1306096941-wtf-japan-crazy-japanese-show_022.jpg
http://www.jwz.org/images/08-01-2003-alod.jpg

Then let them! It may be weird, but who are we to judge?!

[fluttershy]

:luff: I think everyone should be free to choose who they want to be with; incest is okay too :beer: . The only boundary that I stand by is age - like relationships with minors and stuff - I'm sorry but that I find that to be very wrong.

[CleoSombra]

Seperation between sexualities is like segragation to me. Its not right! Were all human beings!

That's why I've chosen not to belive in sexual boundaries anymore. In my mind's eye, theres no gay or straight. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if a man finds beauty in another man or a woman to another woman, who the HELL are we to judge?!

Why can't more people realize this?!!

Just something to mull over:

If labels are just labels and all they do is lead to segregation and discrimination . . . why do you continue to see men as men and women as women? Aren't we all just human beings?

Labels have a function in our society. They're not a horrible thing - it's just that when we hold beliefs that result in discrimination and prejudice, that's when it becomes a problem. There's nothing wrong with saying someone is blonde when they're blonde and brunette when they're brunette - the problem comes in when we define people only by certain traits or make those characteristics defining parts of who they are.

[Ledgo]

I completely disagree. Choose not to believe in sexuality, and you'll soon realize there is much more to sexuality than just homosexual, hetero, and bisexual. There are more things like pedophilia, beastiality, and urolagnia. Of course, then you can possibly involve pyschosexual development, preferences, things of all nature. So, even though I feel you may be a little bit misinformed on the "sexuality" aspect, I can pretty much agree gender preference should not be frowned upon. But I feel sexuality goes far beyond that.

Then let them! It may be weird, but who are we to judge?!

Here is my issue with the pictures-If you try to make that ordinary, what about those who don't choose to accept that as ordinary? You create a negative stereotype to an extent and in the end create more tension. If you're trying to get people to accept something like gender preference, you have to present it in a tolerable, moderated fashion.

[kiwi_tea]

It's good to be tolerant of the sexuality of others, but if we embrace everything then THIS will become ordinary:

(pics)

A sense of humour? God forbid!

[paksetti]

Why can't more people realize this?!!

Choose not to believe in sexuality, and you'll soon realize there is much more to sexuality than just homosexual, hetero, and bisexual.

This. What's with this air of superiority?

I'm a lesbian, but I tend to think certain dudes are quite sexy. Hoh yeah, I went there. Breakin' social boundaries all up in this mug.

But, I still label myself as a lesbian. (I did it up there). I suppose I could get intimate with a dude. *shrug*. It could happen.

I like chicks. I've got a girlfriend, and I feel comfortable using the word "lesbian", so I do. Who are you to imply I'm blind to the glorious truth of no sexuality?

[fraroc]

But however, I personally belive that Zoophilia,Incest fantasies, and that other stuff are all fetishes, not sexual orientations.

But when Pedophilia comes into the mix......oh boy thats a WHOLE different ball game. Pedophilia is a mental disorder, as sad as it is. It has to be related to paranoia and schitznophrenia....


And this whole thing with "conversion therapy" The catholic church taught me that God created "homosexuality" as a way for humans to be more diverse like blue eyed people and brown eyed people. So I was taught that homosexuality is not a sin, but trying to change what God made you is a sin. Catholics do tend to be more tolerant and understanding of LGBT people unlike other Christian churches. (thats probably why protestant and baptist churches hate us)

[HystericalParoxysm]

"It has to be related to paranoia and schitznophrenia...."

Um. I don't think those disorders mean what you think they mean. They have nothing to do with sexual deviancy, and honestly, I think this line of conversation is going to get ugly fast, especially as schizophrenia is remarkably common in the population and can be quite mild - in fact, I'm pretty sure we've had discussions where at least 3-4 of our members have discussed their treatments for schizophrenia.

So let's please drop that line of discussion as it is A) false and B) will likely be considered insulting toward folks dealing with real mental illness that has nothing to do with wanting to get sexual with children.

Thanks.

[Ledgo]

But however, I personally belive that Zoophilia,Incest fantasies, and that other stuff are all fetishes, not sexual orientations.

But when Pedophilia comes into the mix......oh boy thats a WHOLE different ball game. Pedophilia is a mental disorder, as sad as it is. It has to be related to paranoia and schitznophrenia....


And this whole thing with "conversion therapy" The catholic church taught me that God created "homosexuality" as a way for humans to be more diverse like blue eyed people and brown eyed people. So I was taught that homosexuality is not a sin, but trying to change what God made you is a sin. Catholics do tend to be more tolerant and understanding of LGBT people unlike other Christian churches. (thats probably why protestant and baptist churches hate us)

I don't know if I could consider those fetishes. As an example, if someone decided to purely be dedicated to zoophilia, is that a fetish or a sexuality?

I feel if you decide what you sexually are attracted to, you make a sexuality, which is not bad at all. I think of fetishes as side dishes to the main course. If you like to be spanked, it's a fetish. If you are only sexually attracted to a certain race, I feel it's part of your sexuality. Which I stress once more is not a bad thing, it's completely fine to think like that.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

But however, I personally belive that Zoophilia,Incest fantasies, and that other stuff are all fetishes, not sexual orientations.

well okay, lets compare and contrast these "fetishes" and "sexualities"--

hetersexuals: attracted to the opposite sex. do not find anything else sexually appealing in that base way.
homosexuals: attracted to the same sex. do not find anything else sexually appealing in that base way.
bisexuals: attracted to both sexes.
pedophiles: cant get "it" up for adults. meditates on children to achieve sexual arousal.
necrophiliacs: ive never heard of one that also "did" live people, of any sex or age.
zoophiliacs: sexually attracted to animals. typically sees themselves as an animal and thus isnt into "human parts".

see a pattern here?
something like BDSM i'd consider to be a "fetish" because the root act is still male/female female/female male/male attraction. thats to say if a goat pulled out a whip it probably wouldnt be too sexy for that person.
or erotic asphyxiation. that is still stemmed from male/male female/female male/female sexual interaction. fetish; the side-dish, whereas the main course would be the actual sexuality.
in any case, your original question i took to mean that sexuality (all things sexual that make up sexuality) is really just one big thing and there shouldnt be any lines to differentiate/discriminate. i beg to differ. i think theres a damn good reason we dont blur/ignore the boundaries of sexual acts. i think everyone should have enough self-awareness to be able to stand up for what they enjoy and denounce what they dont enjoy.

granted that the acts are between two consenting adult human beings, there shouldnt be a reason to be worried about what your neighbor does in relation to what you do. the only thing im really getting at here is that drawing the line is good, its okay, its encouraged, so long as you arent impeding on two adult humans' playtime.

sorry if this post seems convoluted, i just feel that sexuality is a much bigger thing than just "mainstream" eroticism.

[Julieryc]

The catholic church taught me that God created "homosexuality" as a way for humans to be more diverse like blue eyed people and brown eyed people. So I was taught that homosexuality is not a sin, but trying to change what God made you is a sin. Catholics do tend to be more tolerant and understanding of LGBT people unlike other Christian churches. (thats probably why protestant and baptist churches hate us)

Erm...I don't know what Catholic Church you belong to, but the official Catechism of the Catholic Church states that homosexuals are "intrinsically disordered" and that homosexual acts are sinful. While you can find liberal Church officials and liberal Catholics who believe otherwise, official Church belief is exactly the opposite of what you just stated, and Catholic theologians who argue otherwise tend to get stripped of their official authority and get into trouble. Catholics are DEFINITELY less tolerant than their Anglican/Episcopalian cousins; the main branch of the Anglican Church has allowed the ordination of openly gay clergy, which is more than Catholicism has ever done. (Conservative Anglican/Episcopalians disagree, and some have talked to the Catholic Church about reconciling with them because of official Catholicism's intolerance of homosexuality.) Also, sadly enough, some conservative Catholics seem to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, which is completely wrong.

Also, aside from fundamentalist Evangelical/Baptist churches and extreme Seventh-Day Adventists (some of whom believe that the Pope is literally the Antichrist), most Protestants and Baptists don't hate Catholics.

Edit: BTW, I was raised Catholic, but my beliefs are probably more in tune with liberal Episcopalians, at least on social issues. I'm pro-married clergy, female clergy, and gay clergy, pro-gay-marriage (and pro-contraception, morning-after-pill, and a loooot of other things that Catholicism officially believes are wrong.)

[Rawra]

It's not segregation... It's the same with separation between races.

Catholics do tend to be more tolerant and understanding of LGBT people unlike other Christian churches. (thats probably why protestant and baptist churches hate us)

As far as I know, the Orthodox church doesn't forbid homosexuality at all, I haven't heard of anything related to it. Also, Orthodoxes are as tolerant as Catholics, if not even more, so... :faceslap:

[Ledgo]

I like chicks. I've got a girlfriend, and I feel comfortable using the word "lesbian", so I do. Who are you to imply I'm blind to the glorious truth of no sexuality?

Where did I imply that to you? Better yet, where did I say you're blind for choosing not to see sexual preference?

[Shadowside]

Erm...the Orthodox Church agrees with the Catholic Church on homosexuality.

Not the best source, but Wikipedia's good enough for me right now: "The Orthodox Church has been consistent in condemning acts of homosexuality...Official statements from the Church's hierarchy continue to be consistent in terms of the traditional position that homosexual behavior is sinful and thus damaging to the human person, and that homosexual temptation is a subject for ascetic struggle."

They also believe that "Men and women with homosexual feelings and emotions...who still want to justify their behavior may not participate in the Church’s sacramental mysteries" and suggest that "Assistance is to be given to those who deal with persons of homosexual orientation in order to help them with their thoughts, feelings and actions in regard to homosexuality." There is dissent within the Church, but the official position is just as intolerant as Catholicism.

[Julieryc]

FWIW, Shadowside is right, whether The Creeper means the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox churches. (I think the differences between the first two, at least, are more administrative than anything, though I could be wrong about that; definitely not as well-versed in Eastern Orthodox tradition as Catholic.)

Links backing me up:
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101 (Which lumps in homosexuality with adultery and "abusive sexual practice"!)
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Homosexuality (Is Orthodox Wikipedia better than regular Wikipedia?)
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/hopko_homosexual_christian.htm

Oh, and also, the person who said they were okay with incest: WTF?!

[Arisuka]

To me, the world's perception of different sexual labels has always been very hard to understand (not in a rational but emotional, gut feel-level). It's hard to explain, but I have always seen being gay/straight (and everything between) as the same bigger picture. Call it sexuality or whatever, but to me, it's all the same thing. Also, I think this will be the way it'll be perceived in the future (possibly very, very distant future by the looks of it, but still).

[fraroc]

Erm...I don't know what Catholic Church you belong to, but the official Catechism of the Catholic Church states that homosexuals are "intrinsically disordered" and that homosexual acts are sinful. While you can find liberal Church officials and liberal Catholics who believe otherwise, official Church belief is exactly the opposite of what you just stated, and Catholic theologians who argue otherwise tend to get stripped of their official authority and get into trouble. Catholics are DEFINITELY less tolerant than their Anglican/Episcopalian cousins; the main branch of the Anglican Church has allowed the ordination of openly gay clergy, which is more than Catholicism has ever done. (Conservative Anglican/Episcopalians disagree, and some have talked to the Catholic Church about reconciling with them because of official Catholicism's intolerance of homosexuality.) Also, sadly enough, some conservative Catholics seem to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, which is completely wrong.

Also, aside from fundamentalist Evangelical/Baptist churches and extreme Seventh-Day Adventists (some of whom believe that the Pope is literally the Antichrist), most Protestants and Baptists don't hate Catholics.

Edit: BTW, I was raised Catholic, but my beliefs are probably more in tune with liberal Episcopalians, at least on social issues. I'm pro-married clergy, female clergy, and gay clergy, pro-gay-marriage (and pro-contraception, morning-after-pill, and a loooot of other things that Catholicism officially believes are wrong.)

I went to a Catholic school and they make it VERY clear that homosexuals do NOT go to hell and that God loves everyone regardless of what they do.

[kiwi_tea]

I went to a Catholic school and they make it VERY clear that homosexuals do NOT go to hell and that God loves everyone regardless of what they do.

In terms of Catholic canon, I believe it's certainly true that homosexuality is not a *worse* sin than others, but the Vatican is clear in its stance that homosexuality is a sin - a "disordered" act.

More likely your school took the liberal attitude and simply ignored the brain-dead idiot in the funny hat who pretends his ego is the voice of a god.

[Julieryc]

In terms of Catholic canon, I believe it's certainly true that homosexuality is not a *worse* sin than others, but the Vatican is clear in its stance that homosexuality is a sin - a "disordered" act.


Yup. Also, the one thing the Catholic Church isn't going to do is say "you're going to hell if..." because it's believed that no one knows the mind of God and thus we can't definitively say who's saved and who's damned. I believe somewhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church there's a statement to the effect of "we don't actually know if there's anyone in Hell." (This might bring up the subject of limbo, but I think Church teaching's been getting iffy on that for the last several centuries.)

FWIW, I always found it interesting that I was raised Catholic, went to catechism and was confirmed, had an interest in reading and studying religion...and didn't find out until two years ago that several conferences of bishops disagreed with the pope over birth control and several other issues. I had individual catechism teachers who would express liberal opinions, but it was always made very clear to us that this wasn't the official Church line and that the more conservative nuns really didn't approve of what they were saying.

[fraroc]

Yeah, My religion teacher (who wasnt a nun, but a theology major) had told us that we dont really know if anyone is in Hell and that God's love for all life is so great that he can forgive all sins, no matter how bad.

[scorpio31]

This appears to be a topic that continues to go on and on...and I have an idea why because it will go on.. until the end of time. In any case, I personally think that it is inappropriate to openly discuss your opinion about anyone's sexuality, especially, if it is not harmful to others.

But that's just me!

[rcranger9]

This appears to be a topic that continues to go on and on...and I have an idea why because it will go on.. until the end of time. In any case, I personally think that it is inappropriate to openly discuss your opinion about anyone's sexuality, especially, if it is not harmful to others.

But that's just me!


Why is it inappropriate? People are entitled to their opinions as long as they don't impose it on others.



Personally, I don't care what anyone says about me. They try to insult me about my sexuality (bi) and I just thank them and walk away. It leaves them REALLY confused and annoyed. :p

[simbalena]

Oh, and also, the person who said they were okay with incest: WTF?!

As long as it is between two consenting adults, there was no grooming or manipulation involved and they won't have children, it is kind of hard to argue against it even though it feels inherently wrong.

[TheEndIsNigh]

As long as it is between two consenting adults, there was no grooming or manipulation involved and they won't have children, it is kind of hard to argue against it even though it feels inherently wrong.

Hmm, in my household we were raised with the wisdom that what we as humans consider "right" and "decent" is in many cases infidel. Incest is disgusting.

If you condone incest, you are also condoning:
1. Genetic Mutation!
2. Messed Up Family Trees! I mean c'mon, even in the Sims 3 it's considered a glitch when your mom is your sister...

What you support is a reflection of what you are. Just like looking in a mirror.

[whiterider]

Well, simbalena did specify "and they won't have children", so genetic mutations and messed up family shrubs would be unlikely to result from such a situation.

[unalisaa]

What you support is a reflection of what you are. Just like looking in a mirror.
Ooh, I'm a consensual lover!

[Nekowolf]

"What you support is a reflection of what you are. Just like looking in a mirror. "

That... really makes no sense. I support gay marriage, but I'm not gay. I support legalization of marijuana, but I don't smoke it. I support abortion rights, but I'm not a woman and can never give children.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Um, yeah, what Nekowolf said. I support gay marriage, but I'm a woman married to a man. I support legalization of marijuana, but I don't smoke it (anymore). I support abortion rights, even though I don't think I could ever have one myself. I support veterans' rights even though I've never served, never would serve, and don't really agree with a lot of what is done regarding foreign policy. I support workers' rights even though I'm a SAHM.

And, fwiw, I support the rights of two consensual adults to do what they're going to do in the privacy of their own home - even if they're related. I'd rather they not have children, but I'd also rather people with debilitating genetic diseases not have children either - but we don't outlaw those folks having children even though they have just as much chance (or greater) of having children with serious physical disabilities... There's a lot of issues with incest regarding power, control, interpersonal relationships - but at the same time, we don't outlaw people in co-dependent self-destructive relationships which may be just as damaging. And I support this, even though I would never be in a relationship with anyone I'm related to.

[rcranger9]

You rarely get mutated genes from one generation of incest. It's usually the 3rd or 4th one where genes have time to get damaged. It happened all the time in noble families in the medieval times so they could keep their money in the family instead of giving it to another family as a dowry.

[fraroc]

You rarely get mutated genes from one generation of incest. It's usually the 3rd or 4th one where genes have time to get damaged. It happened all the time in noble families in the medieval times so they could keep their money in the family instead of giving it to another family as a dowry.

Yeah, but look at King Charles II of Spain. He came out extremley screwed up because of the intermarriage.

And besides I NEVER said that Incest was alright, I just pointed out that to me, its a fetish, not a sexual orientation.

[kiwi_tea]

Anyone care to point out the sheer amount of room for abuse of power there is in incestual relationships? Aunts, uncles, mums, dads, grandparents have a lot of authority over their descendants. Older siblings have a lot of power over younger ones, as well. Family structures yield a lot of room for incest to be an entrapment, and an expression of abuse.

It's more than just a matter of the biological issues that make incest socially problematic. Consent is very questionable in many cases.

Homosexuality isn't nearly so problematic, and safe sexual practice massively lowers the risk of disease. I'm gay, 26, and I've never had an STI. Nor has my 25-year-old husband. And we have an open marriage, within certain rather strict boundaries, so it's not like we don't have sex with other people. Disease spreads among gay people who have no support, no good education, who are disenfranchised, sometimes self-destructive, and willing to take stupid risks. The higher risk of HIV in the gay community has an awful lot more to do with the discrimination against gay people than to do with the slightly higher transmission risks associated with anal sex. Which is, I might add, not a sex act unique to homosexuals.

And as whiterider points out, gay women have the LOWEST rates of many STIs, including HIV.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Yes, there's a lot of abuse of power possible - there's also a lot of abuse of power possible in a lot of other relationships that consenting adults have. I don't particularly like it and don't think it's a good idea, but if grownups want to do it, then I don't think it should be something that the law gets involved with.

It might be a good idea to split off this sub-discussion into its own thread, since it's only sort of tangentially-related to the main topic.

[Julieryc]

You rarely get mutated genes from one generation of incest. It's usually the 3rd or 4th one where genes have time to get damaged. It happened all the time in noble families in the medieval times so they could keep their money in the family instead of giving it to another family as a dowry.

That's because it's usually something like cousin-cousin marriage in medieval times. I'm fine with first-cousin marriages, which doesn't increase the risk all that much, but brother-sister reproduction = BIG NO, especially from a genetics standpoint. Each human carries something like 8 recessive lethal alleles; brothers and sisters would be very likely to carry the same ones, along with God knows how many serious deleterious recessive alleles.

That said, I can't imagine that this is an issue anyone has to address IRL in modern times; the natural taboo against it is very strong, not to mention the research showing that humans tend to be attracted to people with different HLA haplotypes (where siblings tend to be closer matches.)

[TheEndIsNigh]

"What you support is a reflection of what you are. Just like looking in a mirror. "

That... really makes no sense. I support gay marriage, but I'm not gay. I support legalization of marijuana, but I don't smoke it. I support abortion rights, but I'm not a woman and can never give children.

No, what it means is that you condone destructive behaviors because you are a destructive person, whether you seek to understand this or not is your prerogative.

It is all the same:

A woman who allows her daughter to be sexually abused by her father, is just as bad as actually abusing the girl herself.

[Julieryc]

No, what it means is that you condone destructive behaviors because you are a destructive person, whether you seek to understand this or not is your prerogative.

It is all the same:

A woman who allows her daughter to be sexually abused by her father, is just as bad as actually abusing the girl herself.

Just wondering...why did someone find this funny? I'm not seeing how it could be interpreted as humorous. *feeling like I am missing something* :(

[wickedblue]

TheEndIsNigh: You can really knock it off. Your comments are rude, judgmental, hateful and just plain ignorant.

Supporting people's rights to participate in LEGAL activities and other activities that may not be legal but do not hurt anyone* is not even in the same class as someone having knowledge of and allowing the abuse of a minor child to continue.

*Activities may hurt the participants but if the participants are consenting adults, it's their business if they choose to do something that is harmful to only themselves.

[TheEndIsNigh]

Supporting people's rights to participate in LEGAL activities and other activities that may not be legal but do not hurt anyone* is not even in the same class as someone having knowledge of and allowing the abuse of a minor child to continue.

I fail to see how my diction is any more acerbic than that of the average poster, especially since the lot of you seem to be ganging up on me for not joining the libertarian party.


But to reply to your post:

According to your logic, we as a species should not strive to help those who consume gas (yes, I have heard of such a thing) for the sake of pleasure. He simply enjoyed the taste of vehicular motor oils, but it was destroying his own esophagus.

We should just leave this man alone and tell him that consuming gas is a healthy expression of who he is, and he should take pride in it. Who cares if he lives or dies, at least he's happy...

To me that is the epitome of ignorance and selfishness. It is the symptom of a dying species...

And per your philosophy, many people did feel this way about my neighbor until he eventually died of stomach cancer. In their mind, he was happy, and if his body is happy, his mind is happy--why rain on his parade? Mind you, I was a child in those days and could do nothing to better this issue, if I possibly could...

[scorpio31]

Why is it inappropriate? People are entitled to their opinions as long as they don't impose it on others.



Personally, I don't care what anyone says about me. They try to insult me about my sexuality (bi) and I just thank them and walk away. It leaves them REALLY confused and annoyed. :p

You are absolutely right, people are entitled to their own personal opinions if they don't impose it on others. I only find it inappropriate when things such as race, religion and sexuality are openly discussed.

I also find that there are more open topics based on ones sexuality because most can get away with it, but I still find it just as inappropriate.

[wickedblue]

TheEndIsNigh: No one brought politics into this and you are not being ganged up on. You are in a debate thread. Where we debate things.

Your reply to my post tells me that the point flew right over your head. You compared the sexual abuse of a child to activities between consenting adults as if they were even in the same league. Hint: they are not.

In case it isn't immediately obvious to you why these are not the same thing, allow me to elaborate. A child can not give informed consent. Adults are responsible for the protection and well-being of a child that is not of legal age to give informed consent.
Adults have reached the age of being able to give informed consent.

One can certainly have opinions on what other adults choose to do and can certainly intervene if it is appropriate to do so but it is certainly not okay to discriminate against a class of people because you disagree with their choices. And there is certainly a way to show concern for a loved one that is self-destructing without being judgmental or hateful. But you cannot force them to do it your way because you think it's better for them. People do have a right to live their life the way they want so long as it is not interfering with others' rights.

[scorpio31]

You rarely get mutated genes from one generation of incest. It's usually the 3rd or 4th one where genes have time to get damaged. It happened all the time in noble families in the medieval times so they could keep their money in the family instead of giving it to another family as a dowry.
The world has changed a lot since the medieval times; many were living way beyond 100 years in biblical times, so it is a stretch to compare our generation to theirs.
Also, the 1st and 2nd generation genetics have a greater risk of damage because the blood line is much closer.

[kiwi_tea]

many were living way beyond 100 years in biblical times

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v54/walruskeeper/facepalmtransformer.jpg

[Shadowside]

Just wondering...why did someone find this funny? I'm not seeing how it could be interpreted as humorous. *feeling like I am missing something* :(

Julieryc, TheEndIsNigh compared child sexual abuse to consenting homosexual sex. I think that TheEndIsNigh's stupidity in trying to imply they're equivalent is the funny part. :)

[Julieryc]

The world has changed a lot since the medieval times; many were living way beyond 100 years in biblical times, so it is a stretch to compare our generation to theirs.
Also, the 1st and 2nd generation genetics have a greater risk of damage because the blood line is much closer.

Also, medieval times do not equal Biblical times. Also, re: the word "generation": I do not think that word means what you think it means.


many were living way beyond 100 years in biblical times,


Only if you're a Biblical literalist...which I think makes you unique in this thread, and a very small minority in the forum. (In which case I'd ask you your opinions on Noah's Ark as a possible example of early quantum state phenomenon, but I think I'd get warned for trolling.)

PS. Thanks for explaining, Shadow. I was looking for something more funny and less sad.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Julieryc - "(In which case I'd ask you your opinions on Noah's Ark as a possible example of early quantum state phenomenon, but I think I'd get warned for trolling.)"

... Now you've got to post that just because it sounds hilariously fascinating, and I really love quantum physics.

[Julieryc]

It's actually a Firefly reference: one of the characters, Book, is a Shepherd (basically a nondenominational Christian minister) comes into the room to see another character, River, tearing up his Bible, scribbling in it, and generally making a big mess of things. River is a mentally disturbed seventeen-year-old genius, and they have the following conversation:

Book: What are we up to, sweetheart?
River: Fixing your Bible.
Book: I, um...(looks alarmed) What?
River: Bible's broken. Contradictions, false logistics - doesn't make sense.
Book: No, no. You-you-you can't...
River: So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem.
Book: Really?
River: We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal on the same boat.

So if the other poster is going to take the Bible literally...well, they've got some 'splainin to do. ;)

[TheEndIsNigh]

One can certainly have opinions on what other adults choose to do and can certainly intervene if it is appropriate to do so but it is certainly not okay to discriminate against a class of people because you disagree with their choices. And there is certainly a way to show concern for a loved one that is self-destructing without being judgmental or hateful. But you cannot force them to do it your way because you think it's better for them. People do have a right to live their life the way they want so long as it is not interfering with others' rights.

Who has insinuated that homosexuals should be forced not to forgo sexual interaction with each other? Certainly it was not I--I simply stated that these individuals need to be made aware of how dangerous their many sex acts are. If they choose to continue harming themselves and ignore scientific opinion, so be it...

Secondly, how am I being hateful or judgmental? Have I ever once used homophobic language in any of my posts? Have I once stated that homosexual men should be murdered or tortured? Have I ever stated that heterosexuals are perfect and beyond reproach (when many of them are actually quite the opposite)?

No. I simply stated that allowance and acceptance of homosexual behavior as beneficial to the species will do more harm than good...

Julieryc, TheEndIsNigh compared child sexual abuse to consenting homosexual sex. I think that TheEndIsNigh's stupidity in trying to imply they're equivalent is the funny part. :)

Stupidity on who's terms? From my perspective, a person who resorts to ad holmium attacks to feel better about their status as a homosexual is quite the buffoon....

[wickedblue]

I didn't say anything about homosexuals in this thread. I think you are getting this topic confused with the other topic you're trolling and in that thread, actually yes you did say that homosexuals should not have sex with each other. I think your argument boiled down to: but it's icky poo and butts. Or something.

In this thread, however, you compared the abuse of a minor child to acts between two consenting adults and I was arguing that those are not the same thing.

There's a lot more to homophobia than the suggestion that homosexual people be murdered or tortured. To quote a classic: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[TRIriana]

Certainly it was not I--I simply stated that these individuals need to be made aware of how dangerous their many sex acts are

May I take this moment to enquire as to what sexual acts homosexuals take part in that heterosexual couples cannot? Considering you do seem to be stuck on the point of butt sex = eww, I'm just wondering if it's just this sex act that you're hung up on, as being so dangerous.

[Julieryc]

From my perspective, a person who resorts to ad holmium attacks to feel better about their status as a homosexual is quite the buffoon....

I know I said I'd stop feeding the troll, but I can't resist one last post...

An ad hominem attack is what you're attempting to refer to. An ad holmium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmium) attack would be something else entirely. Might involve magnets or solid-state lasers... :cylon:

[rcranger9]

Who has insinuated that homosexuals should be forced not to forgo sexual interaction with each other? Certainly it was not I--I simply stated that these individuals need to be made aware of how dangerous their many sex acts are. If they choose to continue harming themselves and ignore scientific opinion, so be it...

Secondly, how am I being hateful or judgmental? Have I ever once used homophobic language in any of my posts? Have I once stated that homosexual men should be murdered or tortured? Have I ever stated that heterosexuals are perfect and beyond reproach (when many of them are actually quite the opposite)?

No. I simply stated that allowance and acceptance of homosexual behavior as beneficial to the species will do more harm than good...



Stupidity on who's terms? From my perspective, a person who resorts to ad holmium attacks to feel better about their status as a homosexual is quite the buffoon....



Actually, it can be quite beneficial. If more people are homosexual, that means less people will reproduce, which means that the population of the world will stop growing at an alarming rate. Also more kids will be adopted from orphanages.

[Nekowolf]

*skipping ahead cause I really don't feel much like reading*

"No. I simply stated that allowance and acceptance of homosexual behavior as beneficial to the species will do more harm than good..."

Another sentence that makes no sense. How could it possible be harmful? The only way it could be harmful would be out of prejudice, which you are instigating by saying acceptance is harmful, therefore, homosexuality should not be accepted which is... prejudice. Homosexuality in general is indifferent. Now if a whole species was homosexual, that might lead to issues. But that's a whole different ship, as it's not going to happen, and if it does, it would be due to that species evolutionary course, and the other sex will somehow compensate through its evolution.

But anyway, how is toleration or accepting homosexuals harmful? It doesn't do anything of ill-effect, instead, it leads to a greater peace among the populace, as well as granting homosexuals equal rights which are always good. To say it's harmful is ludicrous.

[Ledgo]

May I take this moment to enquire as to what sexual acts homosexuals take part in that heterosexual couples cannot? Considering you do seem to be stuck on the point of butt sex = eww, I'm just wondering if it's just this sex act that you're hung up on, as being so dangerous.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l33/Ledgo/buttsecks43951pl6.jpg

[Tempscire]

Actually, it can be quite beneficial. If more people are homosexual, that means less people will reproduce, which means that the population of the world will stop growing at an alarming rate. Also more kids will be adopted from orphanages.
Yep. There's more to life than straightforward reproduction, and non-reproducing members can prove very useful to the health and longevity of the overall species.

[mmamm80]

Well, that's all well and good for you, but plenty of the rest of the world still believes in sexual boundaries - even if they themselves are not subject to them, or they fudge the lines a bit. Pretty sure a gay man who is only attracted to other men wouldn't really welcome being told there are no sexual boundaries and no such thing as gay or straight - just as a straight man (or woman) can be attracted to who he or she prefers.

Sure, it'd be great if folks didn't judge others' sexuality, but that doesn't require tearing down "gay" and "straight" as if they don't exist. They do - the lines may be a little wobbly for some people, and of course there's "bisexual" and "pansexual" and whatever else as well, but they're useful labels for someone to apply to themselves when they think it fits.

Besides, it's not really just about finding beauty in someone else, but wanting to get naked and press their warm squishy bits together - I'm know a -lot- of straight women who appreciate the beauty in other women without necessarily wanting to go to a clam bake, if ya know what I mean.

I agree! If we didn't have labels, how would we know who to hate and who to like?

[katy perry]

The world has changed a lot since the medieval times; many were living way beyond 100 years in biblical times, so it is a stretch to compare our generation to theirs.
Also, the 1st and 2nd generation genetics have a greater risk of damage because the blood line is much closer.

You HAVE been drinking brake fluid. People only lived to like 40 in biblical times :lol: :lol: :lol:

[maxon]

You HAVE been drinking brake fluid. People only lived to like 40 in biblical times :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yeah, that post puzzled me too. How, if people were living longer, and this might be taken as a sign of better health, can cousin marriage then be a problem? It makes no sense. I think brake fluid might explain it.

A small point (and I am sorry but I do like to be anal about these things) - people in biblical and medieval times lived just fine beyond 40. People on average lived till about forty. It doesn't mean that everyone got to 40 and thought 'oooh, that's it for me folks' and keeled over. Infant mortality was very (very, very) high - this drags down the average age at which people died (considerably). It's likely there were a lot of 40, 50 and 60 year olds knocking about. I'm not saying they led great, healthy, active, long-lived lives, but, y'know, that's how averages work.

[SpookyOkyBatGirl]

This is my theory. I'm not gay, straight or bisexual. I am not falling in love with the appearance or gender of the person. I fell in love with who that person is.