[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't know, I don't see any penis going into any butt, so that may be 'unnatural', but it's not like, unnatural-unnatural. That's just humans flying in the sky like god always intended.

It's about as "unnatural" as styrofoam... but it's not as if we conjured styrofoam out of nothingness. It's not as if styrofoam is some abstraction of reality. It is synthesized from "natural" materials.

[anticlimatic]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No. I might not use those words to describe the people, but I certainly would use the word backwards to describe the thinking. Shouldn't people who think "left-handedness is wrong" be described for what they are?

Just out of curiosity-- what about incest, and bestiality? Nothing wrong there either, if it's between two willing creatures who love one another? (all dogs love their master's-- and say the incest couple agrees not to breed, to kill the whole weak-DNA thing). That cringe feeling you're having is a product of social judgements, one that used to be present for homosexuality, and one you will be ostracized for in 20 or so years, when such are accepted as normal, in the same fashion.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just out of curiosity-- what about incest, and bestiality?

What about competitive kite flying and sugar candies?

[anticlimatic]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What about competitive kite flying and sugar candies?

I think sex with competitive kite flying and sugar cookies is wrong, and unhealthy....at least with the cookies. Who knows what kind of bacteria will breed with all that sugar...

[Feral]

Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Just out of curiosity-- what about incest, and bestiality? Nothing wrong there either, if it's between two willing creatures who love one another? (all dogs love their master's-- and say the incest couple agrees not to breed, to kill the whole weak-DNA thing). That cringe feeling you're having is a product of social judgements, one that used to be present for homosexuality, and one you will be ostracized for in 20 or so years, when such are accepted as normal, in the same fashion.

Nope, still not the same thing, or even close.

Bestiality is sex with an animal. No matter how much you try to put words in a dog's mouth, that dog is still not talking, and therefore cannot consent.

Incest is a little tricky. For one, for it to even be considerable, both parties would have to be of a consenting age. From there, who cares, until... they breed.

At that point they are bringing in a third party, who CAN be harmed by their practices, either genealogically, physically, or emotionally. And you won't really know if they would be harmed until it's too late.

Of course, on that same note, there are other things that are legal to do while pregnant that can be harmful to the new third party. They are very much discouraged, but it is legal for a woman to drink and smoke during pregnancy, which could do many of the same things that heavy inbreeding could.

So a draw on that one. A new one for me even, as I've not considered the smoking/drinking harm thing before in relation to incestuous breeding.

In any case, homosexuality is two adults who can consent. Who cares what they do with their junk? Even if they have kids, studies have shown that they don't turn out any more fucked up than kids raised by straight, normal parents (and possibly less even, as homosexuals don't tend to end up with 'oops' babies they don't necessarily want).

If homosexuality is a threat to our civilization, then so is fellatio, cunnilingus, male-on-female sodomy, dry humping, sex toys, pornography, etc etc...

Yet last I checked, pretty much all of those things have been around for thousands of years, and yet civilization has not crumbled at all, it's gone right up and up as usual, waiting for something actually problematic to bring it down.

[larkin]

Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Just out of curiosity-- what about incest, and bestiality? Nothing wrong there either, if it's between two willing creatures who love one another? (all dogs love their master's-- and say the incest couple agrees not to breed, to kill the whole weak-DNA thing). That cringe feeling you're having is a product of social judgements, one that used to be present for homosexuality, and one you will be ostracized for in 20 or so years, when such are accepted as normal, in the same fashion.

Out of curiosity, on what planet would you have to live to not see the difference between having sex with an animal and two consenting adults? What part of the words consenting adults is difficult to understand?

Where does your morality come from, anyway? Not from collective social judgment, one hopes, any more than from magic tablets handed to us from the sky. It's from the social contract, and it's pretty straightforward.

Honestly, being left-handed (which I also am - devil child!) is really the appropriate metaphor. If someone were to routinely point out that being left-handed is "not normal," or compare writing left-handed to bestiality (just as a for instance), it's getting just a touch ridiculous, don't you think? The wheels are coming off.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	<snip incredulous outrage>

I'm not wondering at all. It's completely understandable what's being said. If someone is born with a predisposition to find greater pleasure in sexual release with siblings, or with (conditional on presumption of consent) animals, why is that not ok?

The argument that such desires are "inherently natural" is well established. So now the question becomes if it's between consenting adults (siblings or adult children with either parent) or beasts (lets use a horse, since rape would be difficult to accomplish with either gender) why is that not OK?

It's a pretty simple question. What's the problem?

---------- Post added 03-12-2012 at 05:19 PM ----------

Are you saying Larkin (with your reference to left-handedness) that we should just wait and eventually the forms of incest and beastiality I've described will be viewed as acceptable, once society is less ignorant?

[larkin]

Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not wondering at all. It's completely understandable what's being said. If someone is born with a predisposition to find greater pleasure in sexual release with siblings, or with (conditional on presumption of consent) animals, why is that not ok? The argument that such desires are "inherently natural" is well established. So now the question becomes if it's between consenting adults (siblings or adult children with either parent) or beasts (lets use a horse, since rape would be difficult to accomplish with either gender) why is that not OK? It's a pretty simple question. What's the problem?

Because there is a difference between predisposition and behavior. Some might consider themselves born with a predisposition toward violence. Some to pedophilia. That doesn't justify behavior.

In the old days, the gay community might have felt so attacked that they needed to defend themselves by solely saying "I was born this way so I can't help it." And I've no doubt that some feel as if they were born with such a strong predisposition that they feel like they can't.

But that argument is in no way needed to "justify" homosexuality. There's nothing wrong with it; it need not be justified; in some cases it might be a choice and what is wrong with that?

As a side note, incest between adult children and their parents is whatever it is, assuming it truly did not begin or arise out of a dynamic from childhood. Not something I'm keen to legislate on, anyway. Bestiality absolutely not; animals aren't capable of consent. I won't bother with every other slightly grey situation, but suffice it to say - consent matters.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are you saying Larkin (with your reference to left-handedness) that we should just wait and eventually the forms of incest and beastiality I've described will be viewed as acceptable, once society is less ignorant?

See above re: consent. It is a pretty simple answer, again. The problem is the repeated need to ask what should be obvious.

[Clueless]

I'm really sort of anxious to know your response here. It seems to me that either you've got to admit that if any adult truly desires this sort of sexual relationship, that it's ok and society is simply wrong, or, you've got to say that it's not ok and there's something wrong with the such a desire.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm really sort of anxious to know your response here. It seems to me that either you've got to admit that if any adult truly desires this sort of sexual relationship, that it's ok and society is simply wrong, or, you've got to say that it's not ok and there's something wrong with the such a desire.

Last time: behavior is the problem. Not desire. If the only problem with the behavior is that it makes other people uncomfortable but they're otherwise unaffected, that's other people's problem, and it has nothing to do with the behavior.

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Because there is a difference between predisposition and behavior. Some might consider themselves born with a predisposition toward violence. Some to pedophilia. That doesn't justify behavior. In the old days, the gay community might have felt so attacked that they needed to defend themselves by solely saying "I was born this way so I can't help it." And I've no doubt that some feel as if they were born with such a strong predisposition that they feel like they can't.

I'm completely onboard the consent train (pun intended).

The sticking point for me is two-fold, if some were born with a predisposition it seems that would have to be biology which can often be modified through science. That suggests assistance for pedophiles and necrophiles.

The other issue is, if that were accepted as the case it's hard for me to imagine another human having justification for discrimination. Concern, yes. Empathy, yes. A desire to assist if assistance is wanted, yes. But not reprehension or discrimination which are the social problems that persist.

[INTJRyan]

Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not wondering at all. It's completely understandable what's being said. If someone is born with a predisposition to find greater pleasure in sexual release with siblings, or with (conditional on presumption of consent) animals, why is that not ok? The argument that such desires are "inherently natural" is well established. So now the question becomes if it's between consenting adults (siblings or adult children with either parent) or beasts (lets use a horse, since rape would be difficult to accomplish with either gender) why is that not OK? It's a pretty simple question. What's the problem? ---------- Post added 03-12-2012 at 05:19 PM ---------- Are you saying Larkin (with your reference to left-handedness) that we should just wait and eventually the forms of incest and beastiality I've described will be viewed as acceptable, once society is less ignorant?

It is a simple question that you keep answering: animals can't consent to the marriage contract. Implied consent doesn't work outside of the DUI test context very well, and especially when there is no indication the animal even knows the parameters of the contract (and really, what action could a dog take to show it has consented to the marriage?). As an aside, I don't think anyone really cares if someone marries their horse, I sure don't, but we're referring to concept of marriage as social contract recognized by the state (there's a distinction between a "marriage license" and "marriage.")

Wanna try polygamy next? The state has a rational interest in preventing polygamy for tax and benefit fraud purposes. The state can restrict marriage to two consenting adults to prevent mass sham marriages for the purpose of tax evasion or collecting benefits.

[SShack]

Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is a simple question that you keep answering: animals can't consent to the marriage contract. Implied consent doesn't work outside of the DUI test context very well, and especially when there is no indication the animal even knows the parameters of the contract (and really, what action could a dog take to show it has consented to the marriage?). As an aside, I don't think anyone really cares if someone marries their horse, I sure don't, but we're referring to concept of marriage as social contract recognized by the state (there's a distinction between a "marriage license" and "marriage.") Wanna try polygamy next? The state has a rational interest in preventing polygamy for tax and benefit fraud purposes. The state can restrict marriage to two consenting adults to prevent mass sham marriages for the purpose of tax evasion or collecting benefits.

Well, if the state didn't tie taxes and benefits in to marital status in the first place ... but that's a whole other argument.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The sticking point for me is two-fold, if some were born with a predisposition it seems that would have to be biology which can often be modified through science. That suggests assistance for pedophiles and necrophiles.

If it were wrong. Suggesting it "could be modified" suggests one would want it to be modified if they could, which presupposes that it's wrong in one way or another. If it could be biologically modified, I wouldn't do it, any more than I would get surgery to change which hand I write with.

Pedophiles might. The behavior their desire leads to is wrong. Their decision. I don't care, so long as they don't engage in the behavior. These are not in any way comparable situations.

It's as if some think that the only thing that makes things "right" and "wrong" is because society says so, and if we abandon such a standard soon we'll all be playing the choking game to get our dare bracelets. No, relevant standard is the social contract. Or the moral imperative or golden rule or whatever you want to call it. Again - pretty straightforward.

[INTelliJent]

Animals don't consent to be eaten. Why do they need to consent to sex?

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	<snip for brevity>

I was only speaking with regard to sexuality, not marriage. The marriage question seems painfully obvious to me, and even easier to answer than the sex question.

Why wouldn't any two consenting adults be afforded the same legal priviledges as any other two, with complete disregard for specifics? Who says sex (or love, whatever that is, must be a part of marriage) If two adults wish to "partner up" legally, why shouldn't they be able to do so.

I can make no sense of anything to the contrary.

[dungeonguy88]

I'm kind of puzzled by the whole "destructive" part of that statement. Are homosexual couples introducing explosive ordnance into their foreplay? Are gay relationships out there registering on the Richter scale? Is the thought of individuals of the same gender enjoying each others bodies so alien as to drive the population to madness, well before the Elder Gods have returned?

I'm a bit lost.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Animals don't consent to be eaten. Why do they need to consent to sex?

You're focusing on all the wrong details........

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by SShack To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, if the state didn't tie taxes and benefits in to marital status in the first place ... but that's a whole other argument.

Agreed! Civil unions for any two people that want 'em. Get married wherever you want to, or not.

[INTelliJent]

I love how discussing homosexuality inevitably drags out all other forms of "less popular" sexual arrangements, and those decrying the double standard for homosexuals usually jump on other arbitrary lines in the sand regarding other victimless sexual activities.

Hypocritical position is hypocritical.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I love how discussing homosexuality inevitably drags out all other forms of "less popular" sexual arrangements, and those decrying the double standard for homosexuals usually jump on other arbitrary lines in the sand regarding other victimless sexual activities. Hypocritical position is hypocritical.

More details....... (shakes finger)

[followthehippos]

	Originally Posted by larkin
	behavior is the problem. Not desire.

I'm really not wanting to jump into this conversation, but I do want to discuss this point. I agree with you that there is a significant difference between behavior and desire/predisposition. One is the thought/emotion/craving, the other is the act. If a man has tendencies to kill, he has no right in acting upon that tendency. However, the problem remains within him, even if it never manifests itself through action (perhaps by his willpower). To me, desire is as the pressure of water against a dam, a man can only hold off that which he yearns inside for so long. Is it better to strengthen the dam, or to drain the water? One never resolves the problem, only seeks to develop boundaries around the problem and prevent it from never releasing; the other resolves the problem from the inside out.

Of course, I'm not directly applying this to sexuality. However, the question arises, is homosexuality or any other sexuality inherently wrong? If the answer is no, then what right does society have in obstructing it's expression? If, however it is wrong, shouldn't homosexuality be condemned and controlled/resolved? Perhaps I'm painting in black and white, but I think these are valid points nonetheless.

[INTJRyan]

Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I was only speaking with regard to sexuality, not marriage. The marriage question seems painfully obvious to me, and even easier to answer than the sex question. Why wouldn't any two consenting adults be afforded the same legal priviledges as any other two, with complete disregard for specifics? Who says sex (or love, whatever that is, must be a part of marriage) If two adults wish to "partner up" legally, why shouldn't they be able to do so. I can make no sense of anything to the contrary.

Yeah my bad, I thought you were on the marriage kick. I'm not sure why bestiality is illegal beyond "most people are replused by it." There is no real reason the government should be involved beyond making sure one fucks one's own animals rather than those of Farmer John.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not sure why bestiality is illegal beyond "most people are replused by it."

There's some concern about transspecies disease paths resulting in new epidemics but I don't know how substantial that is. I'd imagine this prohibition predates the germ theory of disease in any event, so I'm inclined to suspect sophistry.

None of that has anything to do with homosexuality though. It's kind of very silly that bestiality and incest or pedophilia arise so
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in these discussions.

[Bevan]

An actual homosexual weighing in here. That's it. Okay. That was rather flippant. What would you like to know? Ask, Tell. I'll be back later.