<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM told me that they felt different at kindergarten age. They knew, even then, that they were different from the other boys and girls. Now, this is before the ages when a kid becomes sexually aware or curious. How do you explain that away? [/b][/quote] No need to explain it away. I've seen young kids that just delight in teasing and bullying other kids. I've seen it happen to kids from a very young age (4). Everyone is different. Howver, the tendency to engage in a particular activity doesn't JUSTIFY that activity. That's my point. People need to recognize that they have a problem (when they get of age to realize this) and seek therapy or rehabilitation. Homoesexuality is just another such disorder...just that the liberal minds of the world choose to see it as natural.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> In a gay relationship you have something between two consenting adults. In a murder you have one person killing an innocent victim who is now an unwilling participant (sans the Jack Kervorkian files). I don't believe a sane adult could draw a comparison between the two. [/b][/quote] What about a father/son sexual relationship. In such a scenario you would have "something" between two "consenting" adults. Can I draw a comparion between this and the DISEASE that you are defending? The Devil :Cotto-ILLUMINATI: Mr Blue
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> So you made a conscious choice to be a Heterosexual, is that what you're saying? And this happened WHEN, exactly? [/b][/quote] Heterosexuality is the default tendency for sexual animals (sexual reproduction between two different sexes, DUH). No need to make a choice to be heterosexual. :huh: Homosexuality is a perversion: a move away from the norm, therefore it must be questioned....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> When did this come out about Gerald McClelland? What exactly did he do? If it is true that he tortured/killed a dog, then I'm glad he got beaten into a slobbering retard. (And no, Socrates, I'm not getting into a debate with you about animal and human lives, etc. because first and foremost, I DON'T GIVE A FUCK what you think.) Fuck anyone who tortures animals. Another thing I am always wondering is how ANYONE can think that being a homosexual is a choice. Who would choose that lifestyle given the persecution they face? Let me guess what happens with you guys. You're in a pub and a giuy and a girl walk by you. By nature you check out the girl's ass and then the guy's ass and then because you want to be normal and a good Christian and not a sinner, you decide you like the girl's ass more and want to hit it? There's no fucking choice at all with me. I have always been attracted to women and women's features. If you have to make a CHOICE between the sexes then maybe we should wonder about you. [/b][/quote] People make choices every day knowing the consequences, some people simply don't care what society thinks about them. [/b][/quote] So you made a conscious choice to be a Heterosexual, is that what you're saying? And this happened WHEN, exactly? [/b][/quote] When I reached the age of pubery and started liking women. The option is always there for me to date men, I choose not to because I have no desire to. If there is one thing about people that makes them unique is that they all have different interests. You might decide to become a fireman for a living, its not what I want to do but its your choice. That doesn't mean you don't have other choices, you simply choose not to. [/b][/quote] You didn't CHOOSE to like women. It was just who you are. I can't even believe that you're comparing sexuality to career choice.
What use is it arguing with hateful religious zealots? You people believe that GOD gives you a license to hate people different from you. What a bunch of horseshit.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :YeahRight: [/b][/quote] As usual your comeback is weak. If you believe that I said something idiotic, try to refute it....IF YOU CAN? While you're at it refute this: If a person has the NATURAL URGE to kill a person as soon as that person upset them...does this justify murder? If a person has the NATURAL URGE to have sex with his mother (and she was willing also)....does this justify incest? Can the Homosexual gene conspiracy theory be applied to Polygamy, Incest, Pedophilia, Beastility, bisexuality and any other DEVIANT behaviour? I'm waiting Mr Liberal Homosympathizer.... [/b][/quote] I've never brought the "gene" up. :huh: I believe that at some point during very early development these things just form for themselves. Most people are Heterosexual, but some develop a little differently and Homosexuality occurs. Of just about every Gay person I've ever met (all 10 or 15 of 'em ) I have always asked them this question: "When did you first realize you were different?" EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM told me that they felt different at kindergarten age. They knew, even then, that they were different from the other boys and girls. Now, this is before the ages when a kid becomes sexually aware or curious. How do you explain that away? I've never met a gay person who said "Well, I just decided to start sucking cocks for the hell of it when I was 18. I decided I didn't like Pussy anymore" [/b][/quote] Well considering its not exactly accepted by society, you ever think that some of them would rather blame their sexual preference on their genes instead of simply saying that they prefer something that's not the norm and risk ridicule? [/b][/quote] Did you read the FIRST sentence of the post??? None of the people I talked to said anything about a "gay gene". :huh: YOU drew that conclusion
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> What use is it arguing with hateful religious zealots? You people believe that GOD gives you a license to hate people different from you. What a bunch of horseshit. [/b][/quote] Why am I "hateful" just because I disagree with something? Are you "hateful" because you disagree with incest?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> What use is it arguing with hateful religious zealots? You people believe that GOD gives you a license to hate people different from you. What a bunch of horseshit. [/b][/quote] Why am I "hateful" just because I disagree with something? Are you "hateful" because you disagree with incest? [/b][/quote] you're comparing the activity of two Homosexuals with INCEST, for christ's sake!!! You don't see how that's possibly derogatory?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> you're comparing the activity of two Homosexuals with INCEST, for christ's sake!!! You don't see how that's possibly derogatory? [/b][/quote] Homosexuality is a sick perversion! What makes incest worse? :wacko:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> you're comparing the activity of two Homosexuals with INCEST, for christ's sake!!! You don't see how that's possibly derogatory? [/b][/quote] Homosexuality is a sick perversion! What makes incest worse? :wacko: [/b][/quote] It's a "SICK PERVERSION" IN YOUR OPINION!!!! To me, it's a very common occurence that has been happening since the beginning of time and helps control the population. You will NEVER EVER get me to hate gay people no matter how hard you try!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> you're comparing the activity of two Homosexuals with INCEST, for christ's sake!!! You don't see how that's possibly derogatory? [/b][/quote] Homosexuality is a sick perversion! What makes incest worse? :wacko: [/b][/quote] It's a "SICK PERVERSION" IN YOUR OPINION!!!! To me, it's a very common occurence that has been happening since the beginning of time and helps control the population. You will NEVER EVER get me to hate gay people no matter how hard you try! [/b][/quote] Advocates for Incest could say the EXACT SAME THING.....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> What use is it arguing with hateful religious zealots? You people believe that GOD gives you a license to hate people different from you. What a bunch of horseshit. [/b][/quote] Why am I "hateful" just because I disagree with something? Are you "hateful" because you disagree with incest? [/b][/quote] Enough of this crap....the reason that incest is taboo is partly social but likely biological in origin...that is, to avoid inbreeding (and increased health risk in offspring)....No such harmful genetic consequence applies to homosexuality....as for bestiality, paedophilia, rape etc., socially it revolves around consent, biologically it revolves around the importance of sexual maturity and the avoidance of zoonotic diseases respectively....
To me, it's a very common occurence that has been happening since the beginning of time and helps control the population. [/quote] I thought homosexuality is just a sexual preference. :wacko: I can see where you are going with that line of thought, but I'd like to hear it anyway. I'm always open for an interesting point of view.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Enough of this crap....the reason that incest is taboo is partly social but likely biological in origin...that is, to avoid inbreeding (and increased health risk in offspring)....No such harmful genetic consequence applies to homosexuality....as for bestiality, paedophilia, rape etc., socially it revolves around consent, biologically it revolves around the importance of sexual maturity and the avoidance of zoonotic diseases respectively.... [/b][/quote] Muslims marry first cousins ALL THE TIME....I don't see any adverse effects. there are also many cases of siblings getting married and having normal healthy children. The increased health risk is only there if there is a genetic problem in the family to begin with. It is not the mixing of close genes alone that causes it....it's the fact that both sides of the gene pool have the same tendency to a particular disorder making it MORE LIKELY THAN NORMAL for the offspring to have it. But that aside....what about brother/brother incest and father/son incest? No chance of genetic consequence there (and absolutely NO ARGUMENT that you can produce to claim it to be wrong based on your liberal/amoral position). What about polygamy? It doesn't go against consent...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> To me, it's a very common occurence that has been happening since the beginning of time and helps control the population. [/b][/quote] "Population control" is a VERY WEAK AND JUVENILE ARGUMENT when trying the justify the sick perversion that is homosexuality. Wars, famines, homicide, disease...these things help "control the population" also (and from teh beginning of time). Should they all be justified?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :YeahRight: [/b][/quote] As usual your comeback is weak. If you believe that I said something idiotic, try to refute it....IF YOU CAN? While you're at it refute this: If a person has the NATURAL URGE to kill a person as soon as that person upset them...does this justify murder? If a person has the NATURAL URGE to have sex with his mother (and she was willing also)....does this justify incest? Can the Homosexual gene conspiracy theory be applied to Polygamy, Incest, Pedophilia, Beastility, bisexuality and any other DEVIANT behaviour? I'm waiting Mr Liberal Homosympathizer.... [/b][/quote] I've never brought the "gene" up. :huh: I believe that at some point during very early development these things just form for themselves. Most people are Heterosexual, but some develop a little differently and Homosexuality occurs. Of just about every Gay person I've ever met (all 10 or 15 of 'em ) I have always asked them this question: "When did you first realize you were different?" EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM told me that they felt different at kindergarten age. They knew, even then, that they were different from the other boys and girls. Now, this is before the ages when a kid becomes sexually aware or curious. How do you explain that away? I've never met a gay person who said "Well, I just decided to start sucking cocks for the hell of it when I was 18. I decided I didn't like Pussy anymore" [/b][/quote] Well considering its not exactly accepted by society, you ever think that some of them would rather blame their sexual preference on their genes instead of simply saying that they prefer something that's not the norm and risk ridicule? [/b][/quote] Did you read the FIRST sentence of the post??? None of the people I talked to said anything about a "gay gene". :huh: YOU drew that conclusion [/b][/quote] I didn't draw a conclusion, I simply said that by saying they felt that way since kindergarten then they must be trying to imply that they were born that way. Stop getting so defensive, unless you're one of them.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Enough of this crap....the reason that incest is taboo is partly social but likely biological in origin...that is, to avoid inbreeding (and increased health risk in offspring)....No such harmful genetic consequence applies to homosexuality....as for bestiality, paedophilia, rape etc., socially it revolves around consent, biologically it revolves around the importance of sexual maturity and the avoidance of zoonotic diseases respectively.... [/b][/quote] Muslims marry first cousins ALL THE TIME....I don't see any adverse effects. there are also many cases of siblings getting married and having normal healthy children. The increased health risk is only there if there is a genetic problem in the family to begin with. It is not the mixing of close genes alone that causes it....it's the fact that both sides of the gene pool have the same tendency to a particular disorder making it MORE LIKELY THAN NORMAL for the offspring to have it. But that aside....what about brother/brother incest and father/son incest? No chance of genetic consequence there (and absolutely NO ARGUMENT that you can produce to claim it to be wrong based on your liberal/amoral position). What about polygamy? It doesn't go against consent... [/b][/quote] :spadafora: ...in the case of your first point, that is entirely a function of the size of the population in which it may occur..where there is a small population, and a rogue gene (for want of a better term) exists, it increases the likelihood of homozygocity among two people who carry this gene, thus ensuring the gene is passed on....There are other reported and hypothesisd biological consequences I can point out to you if you wish to be schooled further... In the case of the second point, polygamy is practiced in various cultures, it doesnt belong here....with father and son, we have the issue of consent, and cultural notions of what is abusive and disruptive to family stability, NOTe, I did say below the reasons were "partly social" :huh:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :spadafora: ...in the case of your first point, that is entirely a function of the size of the population in which it may occur..where there is a small population, and a rogue gene (for want of a better term) exists, it increases the likelihood of homozygocity among two people who carry this gene, thus ensuring the gene is passed on....There are other reported and hypothesisd biological consequences I can point out to you if you wish to be schooled further... In the case of the second point, polygamy is practiced in various cultures, it doesnt belong here....with father and son, we have the issue of consent, and cultural notions of what is abusive and disruptive to family stability, NOTe, I did say below the reasons were "partly social" :huh: [/b][/quote] With regards to the first paragraph.....blah...blah...blah :YeahRight: I don't care about "homozygocity" and "hypothesisd biological consequences" I can see that you have your encyclopedia and dictionary close at hand. But onto the second paragraph...Suppose it's a father of 50 years of age and a son of 30. Suppose they BOTH have consent. Then what? You can use this :spadafora: emoticon as much as you like, my points still haven't been refuted. Lastly, this issue is not about what is deemed socially acceptable...it is a logical debate as to why we (on either side of the argument) think that it should be acceptable or unacceptable. I don't care what society thinks. If one day it were socially acceptable for Mother and son to marry would you jump on that bandwagon too?
We are all children of incest. I mean, in the beginning... there must have been some type of incest involved otherwise how could the human race have survived? So there goes your "incest is harmful to humans" theory. The prejudices against incestual relationships are cultural, not scientific. Science has nothing to to with it. And the same with homosexuality. Anyways, Socrates is kicking ass here and I'm enjoying the debate. Keep up the good work.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> We are all children of incest. I mean, in the beginning... there must have been some type of incest involved otherwise how could the human race have survived? So there goes your "incest is harmful to humans" theory. The prejudices against incestual relationships are cultural, not scientific. Science has nothing to to with it. And the same with homosexuality. Anyways, Socrates is kicking ass here and I'm enjoying the debate. Keep up the good work. [/b][/quote] Thanks man. And you are absolutely correct, we are all children of incest one way or another...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> paragraph.....blah...blah...blah :YeahRight: I don't care about "homozygocity" and "hypothesisd biological consequences" I can see that you have your encyclopedia and dictionary close at hand. But onto the second paragraph...Suppose it's a father of 50 years of age and a son of 30. Suppose they BOTH have consent. Then what? You can use this :spadafora: emoticon as much as you like, my points still haven't been refuted. Lastly, this issue is not about what is deemed socially acceptable...it is a logical debate as to why we (on either side of the argument) think that it should be acceptable or unacceptable. I don't care what society thinks. If one day it were socially acceptable for Mother and son to marry would you jump on that bandwagon too? [/b][/quote] Dude, if you are not capable of understanding the terminology relevant to the discussion at hand, you just don't belong in this thread. Your arguments are becoming increasingly absurd as you search in vain for some ludicrous scenario which does not fit within the criteria I set out. Find me documentary evidence that shows an incestuous relationship between a father and a son in adulthood, and we will discuss it then. It just doesn't happen. I insist that you ground your arguments in reality. Secondly, I would argue that a lot of society's laws (ie those that span many societies across time) are those which prove evolutionary/biologically adaptive. Certain taboos (mother-son incest) will forever remain so, according to this argument.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I gotta tell you all. When I see gays kissing it turns my stomach. I find it disgusting and vile. However, it does not affect me. Who am I to tell people who to love. It is just stupid. I got news for you idiotic so called Christians. If Jesus were alive, he would hang out with homos, poor people, aids victims, aids patients who got aids from buttfuckign and killer H. Those would be his people. He would probably burn Cathedrals and TV Evangelisists. Jesus was the hero for the losers. Not the fucking corporate prude you idiots hold him out to be. I think Jesus was a cool dude. Too bad you Christians fucked his message up. [/b][/quote] Jesus was the son of God, and with your beliefs, you'll certainly be spending an eternity in Hell. [/b][/quote] Jeez I go away for months and Orion is still as ignorant and uneducated as always....... At least he's consistent.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> We are all children of incest. I mean, in the beginning... there must have been some type of incest involved otherwise how could the human race have survived? So there goes your "incest is harmful to humans" theory. The prejudices against incestual relationships are cultural, not scientific. Science has nothing to to with it. And the same with homosexuality. Anyways, Socrates is kicking ass here and I'm enjoying the debate. Keep up the good work. [/b][/quote] The notion of a first man and woman is simplistic and incorrect. You can reject science all you like but your simpleminded view fails to see how evolution and biology informs cultural practice. Besides, I notice you have little to replace it with. Just as we see in your political rhetoric, you are not capable of dealing with complexity.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Dude, if you are not capable of understanding the terminology relevant to the discussion at hand, you just don't belong in this thread. Your arguments are becoming increasingly absurd as you search in vain for some ludicrous scenario which does not fit within the criteria I set out. Find me documentary evidence that shows an incestuous relationship between a father and a son in adulthood, and we will discuss it then. It just doesn't happen. I insist that you ground your arguments in reality. Secondly, I would argue that a lot of society's laws (ie those that span many societies across time) are those which prove evolutionary/biologically adaptive. Certain taboos (mother-son incest) will forever remain so, according to this argument. [/b][/quote] Salaco, I more than understand the terminolgy, I'm just pointing out the you are using big words to hide the obvious lack of substance in your posts. You haven't refuted anything, you're just adding new "words" to the discussion. Secondly I don't need to find any evidence of such a relationship. The world is full of so many weird people and weird ideologies, practices and ideologies (your views on this thread are evidence of this) that anything is possible and I'm sure that somewhere at sometime this situation (father/son) has happened. but if, for argument sake, it never happened....doesn't make the example irrelevant to the discussion. The hypothetical is OFTEN used in orer to make a point. If you can't deal with the hypothetical, then say so and go back to burying your head in your mothers encyclopedia and tire me no further. You can insist what you want...but I choose to use hypothetical situations for the basis of my arguement and I am not alone in this. If you can accept a homosexual relationsip based on your arguments then you have no reason to reject a relationship between father and son, brother and brother, sister and sister or daughter and mother. You see...once you start down the road of accepting PERVERSIONS AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOUR there is soon no limit as to what you would find acceptable. To your last point: Many things (such as incest) are taboos simply because peole think it immoral. Anyone who claims to have morals about any issue should REJECT the immoral practice of homosexuality. If you, and any other liberal/amoral homosympathizer can reject morality on one issue, they should be able to do it on every issue to remain consistent. If you make your bed you must lie on it...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> We are all children of incest. I mean, in the beginning... there must have been some type of incest involved otherwise how could the human race have survived? So there goes your "incest is harmful to humans" theory. The prejudices against incestual relationships are cultural, not scientific. Science has nothing to to with it. And the same with homosexuality. Anyways, Socrates is kicking ass here and I'm enjoying the debate. Keep up the good work. [/b][/quote] The notion of a first man and woman is simplistic and incorrect. You can reject science all you like but your simpleminded view fails to see how evolution and biology informs cultural practice. Besides, I notice you have little to replace it with. Just as we see in your political rhetoric, you are not capable of dealing with complexity.[/b][/quote] <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The notion of a first man and woman is simplistic and incorrect.[/b][/quote] Really? How so? Surely there must have been a beginning. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> You can reject science all you like but your simpleminded view fails to see how evolution and biology informs cultural practice. [/b][/quote] I wonder what notions of evolution and biology informed the hundred if not thousands of tribes, communities, and societies of all kinds around the planet which made incest illegal in ancient times then. I'm sure the Hebrews must have known a lot about genes and genetically transmitted diseases back over two thousand years ago if they were so careful to prohibit incest in Leviticus. A lot of "science" going on in those tents!!! Also, perhaps the Egyptians didn't know anything about this "science" of yours, since they practiced incest for centuries and nobody ever complained. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Besides, I notice you have little to replace it with. [/b][/quote] There is nothing to replace it with. Your "science" argument is crap, and the only thing that we are left with is the old tired cultural notions that everybody knew already. So far, the only one who seems confused is you. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Just as we see in your political rhetoric, you are not capable of dealing with complexity.[/b][/quote] And what complexity have you advanced so far? Nothing you have said until now has been the bit complex. It may well confuse you, but I have no problem dealing with your "complexities."
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Dude, if you are not capable of understanding the terminology relevant to the discussion at hand, you just don't belong in this thread. Your arguments are becoming increasingly absurd as you search in vain for some ludicrous scenario which does not fit within the criteria I set out. Find me documentary evidence that shows an incestuous relationship between a father and a son in adulthood, and we will discuss it then. It just doesn't happen. I insist that you ground your arguments in reality. Secondly, I would argue that a lot of society's laws (ie those that span many societies across time) are those which prove evolutionary/biologically adaptive. Certain taboos (mother-son incest) will forever remain so, according to this argument. [/b][/quote] Salaco, I more than understand the terminolgy, I'm just pointing out the you are using big words to hide the obvious lack of substance in your posts. You haven't refuted anything, you're just adding new "words" to the discussion. Secondly I don't need to find any evidence of such a relationship. The world is full of so many weird people and weird ideologies, practices and ideologies (your views on this thread are evidence of this) that anything is possible and I'm sure that somewhere at sometime this situation (father/son) has happened. but if, for argument sake, it never happened....doesn't make the example irrelevant to the discussion. The hypothetical is OFTEN used in orer to make a point. If you can't deal with the hypothetical, then say so and go back to burying your head in your mothers encyclopedia and tire me no further. You can insist what you want...but I choose to use hypothetical situations for the basis of my arguement and I am not alone in this. If you can accept a homosexual relationsip based on your arguments then you have no reason to reject a relationship between father and son, brother and brother, sister and sister or daughter and mother. You see...once you start down the road of accepting PERVERSIONS AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOUR there is soon no limit as to what you would find acceptable. To your last point: Many things (such as incest) are taboos simply because peole think it immoral. Anyone who claims to have morals about any issue should REJECT the immoral practice of homosexuality. If you, and any other liberal/amoral homosympathizer can reject morality on one issue, they should be able to do it on every issue to remain consistent. If you make your bed you must lie on it... [/b][/quote] On your first point, I do not see the point of exploring exhaustive possibilities, hypothetical couplings; Secondly, you ignore my social argument. The notion of the family unit is disrupted in the case of sibling (sister-sister, bro-bro) incest, it involves a confusion IMO of family roles which can lead to more damaging forms of incest. You can take that one or leave it, its one "hypothetical" (since you're fond of them) outcome... Your last argument is a circular one; homosexuality is immoral, therefore if one believes in morality, one must reject homosexuality. You provide no reason why people "simply think it (taboos) immoral". Homosexuality does not constitute those things which I have classified as taboo. In many societies, across time, homosexuality has existed and been to varying degrees "accepted".
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I wonder what notions of evolution and biology informed the hundred if not thousands of tribes, communities, and societies of all kinds around the planet which made incest illegal in ancient times then. I'm sure the Hebrews must have known a lot about genes and genetically transmitted diseases back over two thousand years ago if they were so careful to prohibit incest in Leviticus. A lot of "science" going on in those tents!!! Also, perhaps the Egyptians didn't know anything about this "science" of yours, since they practiced incest for centuries and nobody ever complained. There is nothing to replace it with. Your "science" argument is crap, and the only thing that we are left with is the old tired cultural notions that everybody knew already. So far, the only one who seems confused is you. [/b][/quote] Your first argument is ridiculous; are you saying that an evolutionary- / biologically - driven moral code could not have developed because they didn't consciously understand the concept of "evolution"???!!!....How do you think early medicine developed?...according to your notions, without the periodic table, they would have been fucked....As for your Egyptians, we already covered that above when discussing homozygocity vs heterozygocity....keep up.. You dismiss my science arguments as "crap" and then highlight your limitations by failing to provide an alternative. The burden of proof is upon you to present why homosexuality is "immoral", I don't expect a reply anytime soon. :YeahRight:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I wonder what notions of evolution and biology informed the hundred if not thousands of tribes, communities, and societies of all kinds around the planet which made incest illegal in ancient times then. I'm sure the Hebrews must have known a lot about genes and genetically transmitted diseases back over two thousand years ago if they were so careful to prohibit incest in Leviticus. A lot of "science" going on in those tents!!! Also, perhaps the Egyptians didn't know anything about this "science" of yours, since they practiced incest for centuries and nobody ever complained. There is nothing to replace it with. Your "science" argument is crap, and the only thing that we are left with is the old tired cultural notions that everybody knew already. So far, the only one who seems confused is you. [/b][/quote] Your first argument is ridiculous; are you saying that an evolutionary- / biologically - driven moral code could not have developed because they didn't consciously understand the concept of "evolution"???!!!....How do you think early medicine developed?...according to your notions, without the periodic table, they would have been fucked....As for your Egyptians, we already covered that above when discussing homozygocity vs heterozygocity....keep up.. You dismiss my science arguments as "crap" and then highlight your limitations by failing to provide an alternative. The burden of proof is upon you to present why homosexuality is "immoral", I don't expect a reply anytime soon. :YeahRight: [/b][/quote] Because JEEEZUS says it is, Heathen!!! :YeahRight:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I more than understand the terminolgy, I'm just pointing out the you are using big words to hide the obvious lack of substance in your posts. You haven't refuted anything, you're just adding new "words" to the discussion. [/b][/quote] :Oscar after a bodyshot: :Oscar after a bodyshot: :Oscar after a bodyshot:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> [/b][/quote] <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Your first argument is ridiculous; are you saying that an evolutionary- / biologically - driven moral code could not have developed because they didn't consciously understand the concept of "evolution"???!!!....[/b][/quote] Exactly. Anthropologists usually go for the sciological explanations of the origens of the taboo for incest. In order to explain why incest has been proverbially verbotten, they usually support their hypotesis with what they call the Role theory, or the Alliance theory. Not the biological theory since this one makes not much sense and it is not widely accepted. Since you know so much about this subject, and I'm sure you could school us all in this arena, I will not take up your time by explaining the Role Theory advanced by Malinowsky or the Alliance Theory proposed by Levi Strauss. Instead, I will refer to the flimsiness of your Biological Theory that, as I have said before, most antrhopologists reject. Exogamy is a universal phenomenon, but not for biological reasons and this is very visible to the naked eye. If in writing laws that prohibit marriage within brothers and sisters the preoccupation was the possibility of inherited diseases, then surely we should have seen laws that prohibit individuals who suffer from dwarfism, for instance, to marry anyone at all since it is evident that dwarfism is an inheritable trait and this is a well known fact that has been recurrent in the history of many families. There are also other sicknesses that are transmitted such as hemophilia, perhaps dementia, etc, but so far no society has enacted laws that prohibit the union of two strangers in holy matrimony even if the risk of genetically inherited malformations, or deadly diseases of all kinds is a concern to both. The reasons behind this lack of probhibition is simply that most societies in the world cherish the union of a man and a woman and view it as desirable no matter what the risks. Even if your child has a good shot of being born a midget, as long as you are not married to your own sister, you can marry all you want and nobody will say a thing. But if you and your sister are perfectly normal, and have no defective gene that we know of, and want to marry each other... well, then society will quietly say: "no." And the reasons are cultural, not scientific. The so called "scientific reasons" you are basing your arguments on are a new phenomena and have nothing to do with anything that has been traditionally an argument against incest. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>How do you think early medicine developed?...according to your notions, without the periodic table, they would have been fucked....[/b][/quote] You lost me here. What does that have anything to do with what we are talking about? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>As for your Egyptians, we already covered that above when discussing homozygocity vs heterozygocity....keep up..[/b][/quote] Sorry I missed your comments on the Egyptians. But since among Egyptians incest was not only normal, but desirable, how do you explain the fact that they kept doing it for centuries and centuries and never caught on the "scientific fact" that, if we follow your line of reasoning, should have wiped them out after perhaps the first or second generation? How come they did it for so long if incest was soooooo harmful and deadly? Evidently, incest is not that harmful after all. And the reasons we reject it are mostly cultural, not scientific. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>You dismiss my science arguments as "crap" and then highlight your limitations by failing to provide an alternative. [/b][/quote] OK. I have provided an alternative now. Actually, two: the Role Theory, and the Alliance Theory. What do you have to say about that? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The burden of proof is upon you to present why homosexuality is "immoral", I don't expect a reply anytime soon.[/b][/quote] Huh... Salaco? Can you please point out where I said that homosexuality is "immoral?" Thanks.
