Anathema Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Nav, suppose you're presented with the opportunity of "executing" a gay person without any risk of getting caught, would you pull the trigger? Or are you just a brat with a big mouth?(Can somebody quote this for me please? Nav has me on his blocklist.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Don't feed the Nav, Earthnuker... But anyway, you asked him a good question, so I'll make sure he sees it:Nav, suppose you're presented with the opportunity of "executing" a gay person without any risk of getting caught, would you pull the trigger? Or are you just a brat with a big mouth?(Can somebody quote this for me please? Nav has me on his blocklist.)Besides that, there's also one more thing that I wanted to talk about: child adoption by gay couples. I have mixed opinions about this. On the one hand, it's their right to want to have a child. On the other hand, we also need to think about the good of the child. Growing up with two fathers and no mother can cause severe psychological trauma. Not to mention the fact that he (or she) will most likely be hated and bullied by all the other kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Well, as far as evolution goes, homosexual activity has been noted and recorded amongst animals. The most likely reason for its occurence is the fact that the individuals questioned will not be competing for females and not doing 'characteristically' male things, and are less likely to be killed if any particular group suffered something affecting male activities - most notably if, for example, a troupe of apes suffers a servere military defeat, or if competition among males killed too many, the only remaning males awill be the ones who stayed behind because of their generally non-macho behaviour. They will then be used by the females to continue the group, and their genotype, albeit recessive, will continue."Why is homosexuality any better than consentual sex between a brother and a sister?"I suggest a slightly different stance. Sexual acts should only be performed with intent to procreate - i.e., at most, only a very few times in a person's life. This applies for anyone. Fratriphilia is outlawed because of the high risk of producing children with harmful double-recessives. Hence, brothers and sisters should not make any such acts at all. Likewise, there is no reason for members of the same gender to try such things, since no child is possible.Marriage, conjunction, civil union, whatever you wish to call it, is therefore fair enough - each wants to legally commit themselves to each other, ensuring the other's well-being if one suffers something untoward. For is it not that heterosexual love should be vastly more than the act of sex? Likewise, do remember, Nav among others, that 'gay' love should not thought of as simply concerned with physical pleasure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 I'm curious were these homosexual activities in animals actually two animals enjoying sex together or was it just one being dominant over the other? Does anyone have a link to one of the studies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timenn Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Well, I know that bonobo monkeys have sex which everyone, males and females. They do that to solve disagreements.And they do it very often btw, because they aren't very fertile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 I didn't know apes practice warfare ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Nema, marriage doesn't always need to be involved with recreation or procreation. We've grown to the point where making babies is not that much of a necessity, provided there are still those who are making them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Why does it have to be religious reasons, Nav? Can't you think of anything better than half-baked dogmatic egotistical garbage? Religion is a load of rat droppings anyway. While we're on the subject, what evidence do you have for insulting Kinsey like that?I wonder if he'll see that? I think I'm on his block list... ... ;DApes are close to humans, of course they practice warfare. ;)The difference is that the losing 'tribe' is sometimes eaten. A custom that is sadly neglected in human circles...I think we should give making babies a break anyway. There's far too many of the smelly, expensive little whiners around at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nampigai Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Nav? Can't you think Now you're being too demanding DustScout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quoudam72 Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 I didn't know apes practice warfare ???Earthnuker hence the term "guerrilla warfare". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aes Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Going back to the original post in this topic (because I had a somewhat coherent formulation of my opinion back then before overloading my poor non-mentat mind trying to encompass all that were added), I would say that, yes, a form of marriage should be allowed for homosexuals. I would even go as far as to say it's fine to call it "marriage", as multiple religions (not just christianity which seems to be what everyone has been referring to thus far) use the term, invalidating any copyright a religion could claim to the word.That being said, a state that allows homosexuals to marry should also provide a way for them to do so (getting married at town hall for instance) as to not impose said law on the religious system of any recognized faith. I don't beleive it is any religions right to tell those who do not follow it what they can do any more than the government of any given country has a right to tell a faith how to conduct its rituals. I might not subscribe to the quasi-psychologic spiritual mumbo-jumbo most religious preachers throw at me, but I recognize that it is their right to beleive as they do. Just as it's the right as citizens of my country for those two men over there *points* to grope at one another, regardless of how uneasy it makes the rest of us pseudo-bigots feel about it. Those little freedoms to do as we will as long as it causes noone harm is the entire point in living in a supposedly free country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 I'm just going by what I've seen on the wildlife programmes, read in various books... I'd thought it was fairly common knowledge."Nema, marriage doesn't always need to be involved with recreation or procreation. We've grown to the point where making babies is not that much of a necessity, provided there are still those who are making them"I agree: Marriage (and whatever you want to call the equivalent version that we are talking about) is about love and committment; it is a prerequisite of procreation, of coursel, but that does not mean that (nowadays at least) procreation is its goal. And that is all well and good. But personally, I would increase the 'age of consent' and require stiff penalties and so forth to protect against... misbehaviour in such matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 'Age of consent' being what exactly? Remove 18 and put a higher age on it for legal sexual activity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 "Remove 18 and put a higher age on it for legal sexual activity?"I was intending to say "at least as far as 18, perhaps older", since in the UK, it's only 16, and in parts of the continent, even worse!And, of course, deviation from a marriage would have to be punishable. It's time people learnt that a committment is a permanent obligation.This applies for moth heterosexuals and homosexuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quoudam72 Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 ??? Nema I am surprised at the statement concerning marriage by you. That is almost borderline totalitarian thinking. How can people made to be faithful that should not be the concern of the state or government. Society at large does frown apon unfatifulness but what your asking that is just extreme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Wow, didn't know it was 16 in the UK! You'd get thrown in jail if you tried it with a 16-year-old in the US! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nampigai Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 in Denmark it's 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurlyPIG Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 In my province it's 14 I think... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exatreide Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 in russia it is to, and you can order them off the internet, not that I would know anything about that...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowzeewee Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 Can someone define why "homosexuality" is not allowed in christianity?I know some other religions defile that too but why?If you tried sex with someone below 16 here,you can get jailed,fined or even caned... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 Up here in Scotland it's 16 whether you're straight or not but I thought in England for gay people it was still 17? Maybe I'm not very up to date... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Harkonnen Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 I think that it should be illegall to be gay like it used to be in the good old days. ah those where the times :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HasimirFenring Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 Ah yes harkonnen... The good old days where gays were just put to death like the bible says ::)... Regardless of whether one has anything against gay marriages, I don't think anyone has the right to try and force thier own personal morals on others Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dune_trooper360 Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 I don't see why people should be put to death if they are gay, to me the whole thing about killing somone just because of they they are, or how they see things is rong, it's like killing a black guy because he is black. and where in the bible does it say that gays should be put to death? tell me exactly what it says because I have never read that part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quoudam72 Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 Not that I agree with the statement but in the Old Testement (OT) in the Book of Deuteronomy (fifth book of the Pentateuch) correct me if I am wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.