Gay Rights?

[Iamforever]

The "word" issue is important,in a way.Not for practical reasons, but at least for "semantics".
The gay community rightfully asks for "equal rights".Well "equal rights" means having the same right as any other couple,like to get married for instance.If the State does not allow them to get married,but comes up with a different "word-institution" for that type of recognized union,then you don't exactly have "equal" rights,you have "different" rights.And the State is saying that "gay union is ok,but of a different kind".
Personaly i'm ok with that,but then again,i'm not gay,so i don't know how it feels to asks for equality and end up with "something like that,but not quiet".I can't talk on other people's behalf.

What I would like to say though,after I've made my position clear on the issue, is something else.
The pro-gay marriage is based on the argument that two consenting adults have the right to live as they please.No objection on that one,not from my part.My question is:How far can this go?
For instance:Are two brothers going to have the right to get married? Adults, consenting, then why not? They won't have kids,so it's not a problem.This way,incest could be legalized.
And if two gay brothers have the right to get married, why not a brother and a sister?Consenting adults...
And what about polygamy? If three persons want to live together and legalize their union,why shouldn't they be allowed to? And I'm not talking about some guy having two wives that ignore the existance of the other one,that's cheating.I'm talking of a three-way marriage,where all three sign the papers,and they are all married to each other.
And this could go on and on.
I don't have an answer to that question,where exactly the State draws the line and says "stop".But if gay marriage is made legal (and I think it should be), then how could the State say "no" to something else,when it's based on the "two (or more) consenting adults choosing their own lifestyle" argument?
Any thoughts?

im just going to shoot down your incest marriage theory. incest is illegal. being gay is not. this is why family marriage will never be accepted.

 

[Imagine]

I'm quite sure being gay was "illegal" (law being fairly ad hoc) a few hundred years ago too. That it is or isn't illegal is not an argument for why it is good/bad or shouldn't be changed.

Actually, what's so terrible about incest anyway? If, for example, a brother and sister wants to have (safe) sex, how is it anyone elses business? I don't really care what people do as long as everyone involved is okay with it (and those not involved can go get stuffed as far as I'm concerned), which includes pretty much anything I think you can mention. If I want to marry a guy, two women or my own sister (and no, I'm not planning to do either of those things), and you have a problem with it, I don't see why something that is quite obviously your problem should become my problem.

 

[toast_king]

I think incest is frowned upon because if siblings have a child, it's likely to be retarded. As far as I know, anyway.

 

[drdeath67]

I think incest is frowned upon because if siblings have a child, it's likely to be retarded. As far as I know, anyway.

That and it's fucking sick!

 

[Iamforever]

Actually, what's so terrible about incest anyway?

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

just the thought makes me cringe.

 

[Roughneck]

I think incest is frowned upon because if siblings have a child, it's likely to be retarded. As far as I know, anyway.

Siblings having kids doesn't automatically make it more likely to be retarded.

It just reduces genetic diversity. That's all.

It cuts both ways - greater chances of a genetic trait being passed on --- good or bad. If certain people have the genetics to make them more resistant to cancer (for example), it's advantageous to "in breed". On the other hand, if certain people carry the genes for hemophilia (for example), in breeding increases the chances of hemophillia occuring with birth of a male child.

Many cultures around the world actually consider "close breeding" to be the norm - ostensibily because they wish to keep "unknown" entities out of a known gene pool.

Contextually, evolutionists argue that having a wide and varied gene pool ensures that natural selection will not significantly affect or kill off decimate entire sections of the population.


cheers,

 

[Roughneck]

By the way:

If you believe in Adam and Eve - we are all the end results of incest.


cheers,

 

[Iamforever]

By the way:

If you believe in Adam and Eve - we are all the end results of incest.


cheers,

i am not religious, so i dont.

 

[drdeath67]

Hey fellas....I think we have gone :2offtopic

 

[Aces&Jacks]

General rules

1. The following subjects are in NO WAY allowed on the Freeones Message Board and people who start and/or participate in such a thread will be banned immediately:

- Child Pornography or any discussions of underage models/girls.

- Racial Discrimination

- Beastiality

- Incest

- Sexual Assualt. Rape, or any way of staged rape discussions are not welcome here. Saying that the models knew what they came for does not help you at all.

 

[Roughneck]

General rules

1. The following subjects are in NO WAY allowed on the Freeones Message Board and people who start and/or participate in such a thread will be banned immediately:

- Child Pornography or any discussions of underage models/girls.

- Racial Discrimination

- Beastiality

- Incest

- Sexual Assualt. Rape, or any way of staged rape discussions are not welcome here. Saying that the models knew what they came for does not help you at all.

Whoops! Roge-O Mr. Moderator.

*ahem* Yes, Gay Rights - not a problem with me.

cheers,

 

[Imagine]

I think incest is frowned upon because if siblings have a child, it's likely to be retarded. As far as I know, anyway.

Incest really only becomes an issue in a closed system with a small gene pool. As far as I know, it will only be a problem if there are bad genes to start with (which is an issue regardless of family relations between the two parents) or if is done over several generations. Two healthy albeit related people having a child shouldn't automatically or even likely result in some sort of defect. The widespread belief that this is the case, I would chalk mostly up to propaganda and misunderstandings. Didn't you know masturbating makes you go blind?

However, genes is hardly an issue if we're talking about safe sex.

That and it's fucking sick!

just the thought makes me cringe.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. Quite frankly, I'm inclined to agree with you. However, that still does not answer my question: how is it any of your business? I can think of a lot of things I would consider "fucking sick" and makes me cringe that are legal. Therefore, I exercise my right not to get myself involved in any of it, rather than bitching and moaning so that those that do like it are not allowed to do it, despite not hurting anyone.

Some people think being gay is sick/immoral/blah blah. Should we make it illegal? I say no, because it doesn't matter to me what you do in bed (or in the shower, livingroom, kitchen or whatever floats your boat). You can marry and sleep with whoever and as many as you want as far as I care. There are some issues, like for example, I am undecided about gay people adopting. That involves a third person who didn't get a choice in the matter. It's not really about what's wrong with the parents, but rather what's wrong with society. I'd rather not see some poor kid getting bullied at school or treated badly by the moral police/religious nutjobs because he or she had gay parents and no choice in the matter.

 

[Imagine]

Mmkay... Bit harsh, but fair enough. I'll leave the family matters for another day.

 

[buzus]

Gay marriage is about society accepting some taboos,accepting that some things that used to be considered "sick,perverted,illegal",and so on, can now be part of society,without being chased and discriminated.
I didn't pronounce myself in favour of incest.HELL NO!
I just asked myself where gay marriage can lead.Because there is always a "next step".everything leads to something else.
it's a simple question:Would two brothers be allowed to get married?
Would three consenting adults be allowed to legalize their union??
I only wonder where society draws the line.
It's a simple question I ask myself.
I said it before:I think gay couples should be allowed to get married.
i just like to think beyond that,what is next?

What is legal and what is illegal is just a question of the society's phase.In many countries,even western "civilized" states,there are laws (even inactive ones) against homosexuality.There are places where a simple (woman to man) blowjob is illegal.Let's not get into the "legal-illegal" issue,because it has no point.
Hell,pornography is illegal in a lot of countries,we don't seem to think it's bad...

 

[Perilypos]

No. They are under the line of normality - let them stay there and be respected as human beings with their dignity but don't allow them to bend the line according to their complexes.

 

[D-rock]

Actually lack of genetic diversity will dramatically increase the chances of deformities, retardation, and other abnormalities even if the genes that create them appear to be strong and appear to have nothing wrong with them. It isn't just about not having a wide selection of genes to evolve the survival of the fittest over long periods of time there is also immediate consequences. Also when something has a bad gene it is usually masked by the dominant one from the other parent in its offspring. But if both genes are the same (25% chance for each gene in closely related animals of same generation) then it will get passed on. Almost everything probably has some defective genes and things like aging and pollution will only give it more over time. So it would end up with at least around 25% of all the bad genes being passed where otherwise they would just get dominated by the healthy of the pair in a normal situation, unless the offspring is extremely unlucky and both of it's parents just coincidently have the same bad gene, which is unlikely unless closely genetically related. Maybe that animal gets lucky and the genes that are defective aren't that important, then again maybe not. That is why a lot of mutt dogs are smarter today than the purebred ones that have been line breed to get certain characteristics. With dogs, cows, and other animals you can get away with that because the trait their looking for (size, speed, milk production, ect...) will overweigh the negatives, and also because they don't have higher brain functions to begin with. So nobody really notices or cares if some cows get a little dumber than they were before when they just will be eating in a year or two. People, especially Americans, have still screwed up a lot of breeds of dogs doing just that though. I can see the dangers of things like that however.

As far as polygamy I don't have a problem with that. Why should I? It can probably even be argued that it is unconstitutional to ban it in this country even though a very old Supreme Court ruling said (wrongly IMO) they could do it and forced a hand of a lot of state courts that thought it was wrong. What you have to be careful about polygamy is the fact that there will be people that use it to cheat over the tax code and manipulate the legal status of it and other things for their advantage. That however is not the fault of polygamy, it's the fault of the people that can't write the laws good enough to make sure things like that don’t happen.

I don't have any problem with two adults choice to do for themselves. I'm of the philosophy that unless you are hurting or infringing on others in a significantly direct way you should be able to do what you want.

 

[Imagine]

There are kids being beaten and neglected and dealing drugs in the streets...

And those parents shouldn't have kids either. Unfortunately, it's somewhat difficult to control natural pregnancies, but adoption is a lot easier. If a couple that would likely do that wants to adopts, then by all means, turn them down. My primary concern is for that of the child.
But hey, if you want to implement some sort of license for having children and have a realistic way to enforce it, I'm all for that. The child doesn't get a choice, the least we can do is make sure it stands a reasonable chance of not being disappointed.

The statistics have showed with no doubts that a child of a gay couple or single gay parent is no more likely to be gay than a child of a straight couple. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are determined before birth, and many of both are actually at least slightly bisexual, and slide slightly from one "polarity" to the other or however you want to see it, during the course of their lives.

Who exactly said they'd turn gay?

 

[Roughneck]

Hi Imagine,

But hey, if you want to implement some sort of license for having children and have a realistic way to enforce it, I'm all for that. The child doesn't get a choice, the least we can do is make sure it stands a reasonable chance of not being disappointed.

I read your posts with interest.
However:

license for having children and have a realistic way to enforce it, I'm all for that.

Even assuming that this was true and possible - I'd be completely against it.

I realise that the child doesn't get a choice under which "kind" of life s/he is born under.

But I for one, am VERY opposed to grant authority to someone else the power to "license" any kind of childmaking.


cheers,

 

[georges]

Dude... oh man... jeez... listen, trust me on this. Trust me. I like you, you're a good guy, you mean very very very well. But you have some very hamrful views that you don't realize are harmful and outdated and you just need to recognize that and then consider rethinking them.

You just said that being gay is a chemical imbalance. Really. Isn't being gay just... er... being attracted to members of the same sex? Hmmm. Isn't having a chemical imbalance er... a mental or physical disorder? So you're basically saying... those people are born that way. Chemical imbalance. Just like any other mental or physical disability that people are born with. They're not normal, doesn't mean we shouldn't hate them?

I assure you this has nothing to do with chemical imbalances. 15% of people are born gay. Simple. Always has been, always will be. It may be a little more. Yet more still are bisexual. More people are gay than left handed. Is left handed a disorder. No. It's that simple. I'm not picking on you... this thread in general makes me mad. Sorry. You're my friend, we're tight as far as I'm concerned (no, not like that... well, okay, I am... haha)



Only difference is sexual preference. Yes. Right. Some view it as wrong: they can mind their own business. It's a personal preference.

Why would you knock someone out for hitting on you? You could always say "I'm not gay" or take it as a compliment, or tease them like I do it's so much fun, feels like I'm getting even with all the girls who just tease me hehe, don't you think knocking someone the fuck out because they hit on you is a bit... er...extreme and er... shows some signs of the aforementioned homophobia?

I'm not saying you are, I'm just discussing your words. If you are, who cares. Maybe most of us are homophobic to a point. Scared of what we don't know, or what some of us don't understand. It's normal. But it will be a better world once we all get over it.

Fox

Your words are almost the same than Nightfly. Your socialist/communist views are sickening. Can you categorize something that is not in the norm as normal? I can't.
Do you honestely think that the mariage being gays or dykes is a real mariage? No, it isn't. A socialist mayor who officialized a gay mariage was prosecuted in a trial because gay mariage isn't recognized in France. Mariage usually happens between a man and a woman. Sexual reproduction happens between a man and a woman not between two men or two women.
Sexuality is generally revealed at 16-17 years old where you know towards who you have a sexual preference.
And wtf have left handedness has to do with being gay? Stupid argument. I am ambidextrous and I know left handed people who have brains and fine taste in women, so what's your point with left handed people?
You didn't take in consideration the aspect when it comes to educate the kid, he will have two fathers but no mother. So, that is very wrong.
I think passing something that is not in the norm as normal is definitely going against morals. You don't understand that people are bored of the hippie-pinko views and that by tolerating what is not normal, we have seen our moral values downgraded and discipline and respect to older people disappearing. I don't want to see some values disappearing and for me hippie pinko views/ideals have no place in our society.

just my opinion

regards

georges

 

[georges]

You just did compare them. How could you not when you phrase it like that.

And as for murderers, rapists and child molesters having equal rights THEY DO.

Equal right to life (in some states), equal right to an attorney, equal right to a psychiatrist, equal right to a fair trial, equal right to serve jail time for their crimes, as any of the rest of us. Being a social outcast, a murderer, or any kind of fringe group whatsoever does not in anyway jeopardize the HUMAN rights we ALL enjoy as part of the free west. Or so it goes.

Murderers, rapists and terrorists desserve a bullet in the head. Who has blood on his hands has to end in death. It is really time to stop victimizing criminals.