Homosexuality & Overall Sexual Deviance

[Rker]

On my way to my first class today, a mysterious old man handed me a flyer with the following paragraph printed on it:

Members of our group have debated many homosexuals over the years and we are stunned at how many of them take this inconsistent stance in practice: It is okay to "discriminate" against sexual deviants like people who have sex in public and incestuous people, even if these deviants are consenting adults and even if they aren’t hurting anyone; but it is NOT okay to "discriminate" against homosexuals. They try to rationalize this untenable position by saying things like "Exhibitionists offend people." We point out that tens of millions of Americans and several billion people around the world are offended by homosexual activity. For some odd reason homosexuals think they can judge other sexually aberrant people but that straights can’t judge homosexuals.

What are your opinions on this paragraph? If homosexuals can attain legal rights to marry one another and adopt children in a given area, does that mean that incestuous couples should be given those same rights?

If you'd like to read the entire flyer online first, a link to a download of it is titled "The Uncensored Truth About Homosexuality" on this page: www.home60515.com/19.html

[jmejia1187]

Incestuous relationships are not genetically optimal.

[Ryan]

By that logic jmejia, neither are homosexual ones. But in all honesty, if you do not like being judged for your actions - then you are far from allowed to take part in the judging of others' actions. Plain and simple.

It's not right for either group to discriminate - its not right for any group to discriminate - it is not right to discriminate.

[Nakor]

Incestuous reproduction can lead to serious problems in the offspring, homosexuality merely doesn't result in offspring. You could make an argument for protected incestuous sex, but I would worry about the possibility of an accidental pregnancy.

Public sex acts or nudity can be, among other things, harmful to the minds of youths. It's feasible that we could develop as a culture to a point where we could totally tune out public sex going on around us, but we're certainly not there now, nor is there any particular reason to believe that's a path our species will take. This does not compare at all to homosexuality unless the homosexuals are also having sex in public.

Arguing that if exhibitionism and incest are disallowed so should homosexuality be is basically a non sequitur; the latter does not follow from the former.

[Jake]

Apr 27, 2010 0:23:26 GMT -5 Nakor said:

Incestuous reproduction can lead to serious problems in the offspring, homosexuality merely doesn't result in offspring. You could make an argument for protected incestuous sex, but I would worry about the possibility of an accidental pregnancy.

Public sex acts or nudity can be, among other things, harmful to the minds of youths. It's feasible that we could develop as a culture to a point where we could totally tune out public sex going on around us, but we're certainly not there now, nor is there any particular reason to believe that's a path our species will take. This does not compare at all to homosexuality unless the homosexuals are also having sex in public.

Arguing that if exhibitionism and incest are disallowed so should homosexuality be is basically a non sequitur; the latter does not follow from the former.

Nakor has basically got it down well. Incest often causes genetic problems with offspring, while public sex acts is bad to be watched by youths and others easily offended. Homosexuals only really offend homophobes.

[RabbitWho]

Apr 27, 2010 0:23:26 GMT -5 Nakor said:

but I would worry about the possibility of an accidental pregnancy.
.

There are plenty of surgeries that make this biologically impossible.

Your constitution says people have the right to be happy, so let them be happy so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights.

Brothers and sisters, cousins, whatever.. their buisness.. (ewwww factor irrelevant)
but parents and adult children no, not because it is wrong (though it does seem very wrong, that is irrelevant) but because of course harm comes to the son/daughter. It has to psychologically. I'm sure everyone can see why and I wouldn't need to argue this point (already it's making me nauseous)


We can't take what is "morally wrong" into account when making these decisions.. some religious magazine polled it's readers which was more wrong: "Starting a war"
or "wearing lipstick to church on Sunday" plus a list of many other things, and wearing lipstick to church was near the top while starting a war was near the bottom.
My point is: What actualy causes harm doesn't even have to come into moral considerations. Of course it CAN, but it doesn't have to.

[brumagem]

It's wrong to discriminate for irrelevant reasons (like homosexuality) but sometimes is very necessary to keep an orderly society (in the case of felons).

If sex/marriage is consensual and doesn't include minors, there's naught to be done. An Oedipus has every right to be an Oedipus (murder withstanding). A homosexual has every right to be a homosexual.

If there have been definitive studies proving inbred children have more adverse birth and growth defects, there should be a law in place to prevent that (marriage withstanding)

[Jake]

Oh, and I forgot to mention the fact that 6% of people in my country are openly homosexual. I expect the number of people who have regular public sex or incest is much lower.

[jmejia1187]

Apr 28, 2010 13:11:53 GMT -5 Jake said:

Oh, and I forgot to mention the fact that 6% of people in my country are openly homosexual. I expect the number of people who have regular public sex or incest is much lower.

Public sex... like in public, or sex outside?

Does sex in the woods count?
<.<, >.>

Am I a sexual deviant?

[Jake]

Apr 28, 2010 13:21:24 GMT -5 @jmejia1187 said:

Apr 28, 2010 13:11:53 GMT -5 Jake said:

Oh, and I forgot to mention the fact that 6% of people in my country are openly homosexual. I expect the number of people who have regular public sex or incest is much lower.

Public sex... like in public, or sex outside?

Does sex in the woods count?
<.<, >.>

Am I a sexual deviant?

Hmmm.....well I guess it's probably legally defined as "public" but not the type that would be as frowned upon as going into the middle of loads of people!

[zAkAtAk]

Apr 28, 2010 13:21:24 GMT -5 @jmejia1187 said:

Apr 28, 2010 13:11:53 GMT -5 Jake said:

Oh, and I forgot to mention the fact that 6% of people in my country are openly homosexual. I expect the number of people who have regular public sex or incest is much lower.

Public sex... like in public, or sex outside?

Does sex in the woods count?
<.<, >.>

Am I a sexual deviant?

its fun

[thejourney]

if you want to have sex in public feel free but dont be upset when you see that shirt on the internet

[Danielle]

Actually, birth defects[physical or biological] in incestuous relationships are about the same as they are in relationships where the parents are not related. You only start to actually notice problems when the blood line is crossed multiple times through multiple generations.

[FranticProdigy]

You shouldn't have the right to take rights from homosexuals, just as you shouldn't have the right to take rights of blacks.

[speakmouthwords]

Incestuous couples have an alternative they do not feel wildly uncomfortable with.