Incest and Gay Love.

[yuujirou]

Originally Posted by SSJup81

But it wouldn't be consensual. The animal isn't consenting to something like that, and we as humans wouldn't even know if they did. I'm shocked anyone wouldn't consider something like that being anything but rape...since it'd definitely be forced. *Shudders at the thought of anyone going with an animal*

then again, aren't their some animals that start it first? ._.
think i read somewhere of this young lass that taught her dog how to eat her out >.>'''
or something like that
>.>

[MMM]

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

You are absolutely right about it being about the children and not some selfish need of the parent.
So if adoption is about the children, why give them to a homosexual couple?
It's been argued plenty of times that a real upbringing for children is given by both the mother and father. Giving those children to a homosexual household is giving them a disadvantage more than anything.

Which would be better for a child? A middle-upper class lesbian couple with a a large and loving home, or a lower class married man and woman where both the parents work full time and may not have the time and money to give the child the lesbian couple has?

Which gives the child more of a "disadvantage"?

[ivi0nk3y]

Originally Posted by MMM

I can make you change your mind that you believe homosexuality is wrong, and I wouldn't dare try. But I am not going to say raping an animal, larger than you or not, is the same as consentual sex between two adults. Just because an animal doesn't trample you doesn't mean it is giving consent.

Do you really believe relations between a man and a man is closer to relations between a man and a sheep than it is between a man and a woman?

You are missing the point again. I am talking about the sexual aspect. Yes in that aspect, sex is sex, whoever you have it with. The only acceptable form of sex is that between man and woman, in my eyes. This of course doesn't mean that you can just go out and have sex with any woman you want, without thinking of consequences or upholding your own modesty. Even that sex, in my eyes, is a sacred thing and should NOT be abused.
As i've argued before, a relation can be upheld without sex coming into it.
You can love a person and if you truly do love someone, sex won't ever be an issue. Just being in the vicinity of that person is enough.
Sex is only an issue because we are so overloaded with sexual imagery everyday. The "sexual revolution" has made so many people more confused about themselves than anything. I'd say the majority of males are pretty horney 24/7. Its hard to get away from it.
Not everyone falls unconditionally in love with people though and this is also why sex is an issue a lot of the time. I can say this having experienced quite a strong unconditional love for someone myself (no it wasn't a he). I couldn't begin to describe it to anyone but if anyone even felt what I did for a bit, they'd understand that sex was indeed nothing in the face of that feeling. The only thing I can compare to it would be how a parent loves a child. It's something too pure and only a sick f*ck would even try to mix sex into that equation.
I dunno, perhaps i've digressed but those points are all related in my head.
Please try to change my mind about homosexuality though. I'm up for that challenge.

ps. btw MMM, how would you get consent from an animal, hypothetically speaking >.> I'd say not being trampled was a pretty big "affirmative" to the nature of that consent.

Originally Posted by MMM

Which would be better for a child? A middle-upper class lesbian couple with a a large and loving home, or a lower class married man and woman where both the parents work full time and may not have the time and money to give the child the lesbian couple has?

Which gives the child more of a "disadvantage"?

Out of the hundreds of different permutations and combinations of couples, you give me two choices?
Those two choices both contain hopelessly selfish couples.
I would say, this is why they check for the suitability of a home before giving them children to foster

Originally Posted by yuujirou

then again, aren't their some animals that start it first? ._.
think i read somewhere of this young lass that taught her dog how to eat her out >.>'''
or something like that
>.>

Lots of urban legends, (and i'm sure truths in some cases) about that sort of thing.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

You are missing the point again. I am talking about the sexual aspect. Yes in that aspect, sex is sex, whoever you have it with. The only acceptable form of sex is that between man and woman, in my eyes. This of course doesn't mean that you can just go out and have sex with any woman you want, without thinking of consequences or upholding your own modesty. Even that sex, in my eyes, is a sacred thing and should NOT be abused.
As i've argued before, a relation can be upheld without sex coming into it.
You can love a person and if you truly do love someone, sex won't ever be an issue. Just being in the vicinity of that person is enough.
Sex is only an issue because we are so overloaded with sexual imagery everyday. The "sexual revolution" has made so many people more confused about themselves than anything. I'd say the majority of males are pretty horney 24/7. Its hard to get away from it.
Not everyone falls unconditionally in love with people though and this is also why sex is an issue a lot of the time. I can say this having experienced quite a strong unconditional love for someone myself (no it wasn't a he). I couldn't begin to describe it to anyone but if anyone even felt what I did for a bit, they'd understand that sex was indeed nothing in the face of that feeling. The only thing I can compare to it would be how a parent loves a child. It's something too pure and only a sick f*ck would even try to mix sex into that equation.
I dunno, perhaps i've digressed but those points are all related in my head.
Please try to change my mind about homosexuality though. I'm up for that challenge.

ps. btw MMM, how would you get consent from an animal, hypothetically speaking >.> I'd say not being trampled was a pretty big "affirmative" to the nature of that consent.



Out of the hundreds of different permutations and combinations of couples, you give me two choices?
Those two choices both contain hopelessly selfish couples.
I would say, this is why they check for the suitability of a home before giving them children to foster

Wow. I really did miss the point because I was talking about how having sex with an animal isn't the same as consentual sex between adults, and you are talking about love.

And you can't get consent from an animal. That's why is is animal abuse. I think this part of the topic has gone on too long, and I don't think I have anything to add.

I love it when you are given a realistic hypothetical situation you can't answer the question. YOU are the one that said being placed in a home with a gay couple gives adopted childred "disadvantages". I gave you two potential couples wanting to adopt and ask "Which gives the child more disadvantages?" Why is that so difficult?

I can answer for myself. If I could choose, I would choose a loving and financially stable gay couple to be my adopted parents long before a financially struggling and time constrained man and woman. Any day of the week.

How is the financially stable lesbian couple "hopelessly selfish"?

I am not going to change your mind about homosexuality, ivi, so I wouldn't be so silly as to even try.

[ivi0nk3y]

Originally Posted by MMM

And you can't get consent from an animal. That's why is is animal abuse. I think this part of the topic has gone on too long, and I don't think I have anything to add.

Ok so you have nothing to add but I do. Whether consent is given or not is irrelevant. The fact that sex goes on and a person feels those urges makes that person partial to that type of sexuality. Therefore that person can a) use will power and over power those urges. b) go ahead with them.
It is a choice.

Originally Posted by MMM

Wow. I really did miss the point because I was talking about how having sex with an animal isn't the same as consentual sex between adults, and you are talking about love.

Talking about relations means you have something like love. Any real relationship is based on more than just sex. I am talking about people not needing to have sex with the same gender. They can be friends and leave it at that, if they want to follow certain principles. They can overcome their urges and fall in love with the opposite gender. Love has nothing to do with sexuality.
This is why it is valid to compare different types of sexual behaviour to homosexuality and use the same arguments, since ultimately it is a choice of what you want to do depending on what principles you follow.
Really they can do what they want but I am arguing from my perspective.

Originally Posted by MMM

I love it when you are given a realistic hypothetical situation you can't answer the question. YOU are the one that said being placed in a home with a gay couple gives adopted childred "disadvantages". I gave you two potential couples wanting to adopt and ask "Which gives the child more disadvantages?" Why is that so difficult?

I can answer for myself. If I could choose, I would choose a loving and financially stable gay couple to be my adopted parents long before a financially struggling and time constrained man and woman. Any day of the week.

What do you mean I didn't want to answer the question and it's difficult. Wasn't it obvious that I thought none of the choices you mentioned are acceptable? Are you saying those types of couples are the only ones that exist in this world?
This is why I said that obviously the suitability of a family is assessed before they are given care of a child. If both of those couples are unsuitable, the child wouldn't be given them!
The question you've posed is done so it can satisfy your own point. It has nothing to do with a real world situation, which is what i'm referring to.

Originally Posted by MMM

How is the financially stable lesbian couple "hopelessly selfish"?

It is hopelessly selfish because they chose to be partners in a way where they can not naturally conceive. Why should they be given the care of children just to satisfy their maternal longings?
The child needs a father and a mother and therefore it is hopelessly selfish of homosexual couples to expect to have children as well as be in the relationship of their choosing.

Originally Posted by MMM

I am not going to change your mind about homosexuality, ivi, so I wouldn't be so silly as to even try.

Oh, I thought you were going to try

[matt19261]

Originally Posted by MMM

You are telling me that nature and biology had no influence on your choice to be heterosexual. You were sex-neutral until one day you decided you wanted to be straight? How old were you when you made your choice?

I knew I liked girls from as long as I can remember. I don't remember at the age of 6 or 7 choosing to be straight. I do remember I liked girls though, but I didn't know why.

So our genes don't have any influence on our destiny. Free will determines if we are gay or straight? Alcoholic or not? Get diabetes or cancer or not?

So your argument is that most humans are illogical? If that were true, why aren't most humans gay?

No BODY forces anyone to be gay or straight. Not even the individual person. Why would they?

It's fine to say people are illogical and make stupid choices. People drink too much. People smoke too much. People take drugs and have unprotected sex.

But the problem with your logic is that all those choices derive pleasure. Drinking gets you drunk. Drugs make you feel good.

But that logic doesn't work with homosexuality. Gays are the minority, so why would you limit your potential dating pool from half the population to 10% of that? What is the BENEFIT that choice gives you? None. Humans might be illogical, but they don't make choices that have no obvious benefit. I don't drive my car into street poles or walk on the train tracks or drink toilet water. No one does by choice. There is no benefit.

how can two straight people produce a gay child, doesn't make sense??/
if wat ur saying is true then everybody should be straight, but that's obviously not true so it's a personal choice

[yuujirou]

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

It is hopelessly selfish because they chose to be partners in a way where they can not naturally conceive. Why should they be given the care of children just to satisfy their maternal longings?
The child needs a father and a mother and therefore it is hopelessly selfish of homosexual couples to expect to have children as well as be in therelationship of their choosing.



Oh, I thought you were going to try

i think that should be up to the child too decide.
I believe that we as humans need something or someone to be able to fall back on. The reason why we choose our parents to be the ones to fall back on is because they are the ones who gave birth too us, and are most probable too take care of us....
what i'm trying to say is that children do not necessarily need a FATHER and a MOTHER to be raised properly. How many children grew up dandy w/ foster parents? or w/ a single mom? or single father???
(the only bad thing about being raised by one parent is that that one parent can't handle all the responsibilities alone)
>.>'
and what's wrong with a homosexual couple adopting a child to satisfy their maternal longings??
isn't that the main reason why ANY couple adopts a child in the first place?
because they can't have children of their own.
(i know this girl who can't have kids because of a miscarriage =.= so i suppose they're going to be forced to adopt or something x.x'' )

and...it should be a mutual benefit.
The child gains parents to raise him/her
The parents sasisfy their maternal longings
all is well

[MMM]

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

So you have nothing to add but I do. Whether consent is given or not is irrelevant. The fact that sex goes on and a person feels those urges makes that person partial to that type of sexuality. Therefore that person can a) use will power and over power those urges. b) go ahead with them.
It is a choice.

I don't have the power to will myself from being heterosexual. I could try as hard as I want, I will never find men sexually attractive, but maybe I am a weak individual.

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

Talking about relations means you have something like love. Any real relationship is based on more than just sex. I am talking about people not needing to have sex with the same gender. They can be friends and leave it at that, if they want to follow certain principles. They can overcome their urges and fall in love with the opposite gender. Love has nothing to do with sexuality.

I agree. Love has nothing to do with sexuality.

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

This is why it is valid to compare different types of sexual behaviour to homosexuality and use the same arguments, since ultimately it is a choice of what you want to do depending on what principles you follow.
Really they can do what they want but I am arguing from my perspective.

Again, I didn't choose my sexuality, it chose me. I am impressed that people have the ability to switch around what sexually stimulates them. Only girls for me.

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

What do you mean I didn't want to answer the question and it's difficult. Wasn't it obvious that I thought none of the choices you mentioned are acceptable? Are you saying those types of couples are the only ones that exist in this world?

Hypothetical. That's all. But let's say Yes. There is one homeless child and two couples in the world that can take care of him, and you are the one that gets to choose. Which would you choose? Which couple gives the child less "disadvangtages". This is the third chance I am giving you to answer what is a relatively simple question. Or do you let the baby live on the streets?

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

This is why I said that obviously the suitability of a family is assessed before they are given care of a child. If both of those couples are unsuitable, the child wouldn't be given them!

The question you've posed is done so it can satisfy your own point. It has nothing to do with a real world situation, which is what i'm referring to.

I think it could be a very real world situation. And I'd like to see you explain to a child why he can't live an a big secure house with a loving family and financial security simply because his parents would be a mom and a mom, not a mom and a dad.

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

It is hopelessly selfish because they chose to be partners in a way where they can not naturally conceive. Why should they be given the care of children just to satisfy their maternal longings?
The child needs a father and a mother and therefore it is hopelessly selfish of homosexual couples to expect to have children as well as be in the relationship of their choosing.

There's that choice word again. So I ask the question that couldn't be answered before. If two women wanted to be mothers, why would they CHOOSE a lifestyle where they couldn't procreate?

[TalnSG]

Originally Posted by matt19261

how can two straight people produce a gay child, doesn't make sense??/
if wat ur saying is true then everybody should be straight, but that's obviously not true so it's a personal choice

Arrgghh! And to think I had begun to believe the next generation was smarter than my own.

Recessive genes show up in humans on a regular basis (in this case one influencing sexual orientation). They are recessive, not extinct! Maybe some of you should acquaint yourselves with Kinsey's scale of human sexuality that postulates orientation is a range, not an absolute. Then again that might really scare some people.

There are people who actually do choose a gay lifestyle, but they are not homosexual. it is extremely rare and usually very temporary. Often its a result of having been abused by the opposite sex and adopting it as a refuge. But then they discover that doesn't solve the emotional trauma that still needs to be dealt with. Unfortunately, those who would like find another reason to condemn the gay community use this abberrant example to warp the image of gays.

[MissMisa]

Originally Posted by yuujirou

i think that should be up to the child too decide.
I believe that we as humans need something or someone to be able to fall back on. The reason why we choose our parents to be the ones to fall back on is because they are the ones who gave birth too us, and are most probable too take care of us....
what i'm trying to say is that children do not necessarily need a FATHER and a MOTHER to be raised properly. How many children grew up dandy w/ foster parents? or w/ a single mom? or single father???
(the only bad thing about being raised by one parent is that that one parent can't handle all the responsibilities alone)
>.>'
and what's wrong with a homosexual couple adopting a child to satisfy their maternal longings??
isn't that the main reason why ANY couple adopts a child in the first place?
because they can't have children of their own.
(i know this girl who can't have kids because of a miscarriage =.= so i suppose they're going to be forced to adopt or something x.x'' )

and...it should be a mutual benefit.
The child gains parents to raise him/her
The parents sasisfy their maternal longings
all is well

What if the child is too young to decide for him/herself?

I may want to adopt when I'm older, if I decide I want children, not because I have maternal instints [not at my age!] but because there are already enough children sitting in orphanages without me making more. I might aswell give them a good home! Plus you don't have to go through all that pregnancy rubbish, ughhhh.