Bestiality vs Child Sex vs Homosexuality vs Incest

Which alternative partner sex do you think is the "sickest"?

  • Bestiality

    Votes: 1 6.3%

  • Child Sex

    Votes: 14 87.5%

  • Homosexuality

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Incest

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • Total voters
    16
While some or all of this is unacceptable behaviour to many or most. This is our culture. And we have decided that our morality is better than others morality. I think that is almost universal.

ie a homosexual couple think that those who object to their lifestyle are out of touch, and vice versa.

Similar to what is one mans trash is another mans treasure.

While I don't know of anywhere where beasiality is commonplace or accepted...in various countries and cultures incest and child sex is part of life....as unacceptable as it may be for us. As was indicated before the age of acceptability regarding child sex varies as well. In the US this is a state by state regulated item and some have the age of consent at 16, and unless laws have changed kids can marry younger in some with parental permission.

Wasn't to awful long ago that 'kids' at the age of 12 or 13 were working, living their own lives, getting married...times change.

And as our consciousness changes we expect the world to keep up.

I read a report of a tourist, who traveled extensively in tropical countries... and he indicated that in general the sexual nature of the people in many parts of the world is so different from western culture. The touching, flirting, kissing that goes on in public between all ages all sexes makes your typical western prudish upbringing cringe. Then the limited clothing, and when families and friends are in the privacy of their homes, what is common is more disconcerting that what is seen in public. After years of exposure, his take on the situation was, when you are trapped inside during the monsoon season for weeks at a time, and it is hot, sweltering and humid, and nobody has any clothes on, and you are bored....things happen...and this has developed over centuries...

He was not, and I am not condoning any activity....but Covey's 'seek first to understand' seems to come into play here.
 
Ya know...after watching certain Senators in the United States, and a certain Science teacher for the 8th grade in Alabama do their little song and dance this past week... and the response from the general public being ignored and in fact "dismissed", I'm not surprised at anything. :rolleyes:

It's going to be a hot time in town tonight...
 
I haven't been around much lately, ironically I'm busy planning my wedding which is now less than four months away so life is a little chaotic (re: total anarchy, lol).

I'd have to say that I agree with Lunamoth hole-heartedly. I also believe that this has to do with the ability of the parties involved to consent and whether or not that ability is being handicapped by the other party have some sort of power over them.

Of course my beliefs are biased by my experiences as I think everybodies are. But I can't help but think in situations like this what a homosexual friend of mine said about those that appear homophobic 'thou doth protest too much'. :D
 
lunamoth said:
Second, the only ethical stance or moral position is to allow civil unions for homosexuals. Who has the right to determine that another should face a life without the intamacy that comes from a committed relationship with another? Who has the right to deny practical legal necessities between two people who live together, share all resources and perhaps are also raising children together?


Last time I checked gluttony was also a sin. Do we go around telling obese people that they are bringing down the moral fabric of society?

lunamoth
Click to expand...

Lately? According to the hoopla in the media, yes :eek: :rolleyes:

I find myself in agreement with allowing civil unions between same sex persons. If the law is written to state that same sex partners (regardless and irrelevent of what they may or may not do intimately together), who choose to remain together (for life), share responsibilities of maintaining a household, paying taxes, contributing to the betterment of society and, supporting the union of others as a matter of course (regardless of whether said unions are hetero or homosexual or platonic in nature), then it could work.

I personally think that only a fool would take on more than he could handle (multiple spouses), and believe that would be a serious disruption not only to society as it stands today, but for future generations. In short, the gene pool would become screwed up pretty quickly if left unchecked (one would have to go back 50 years into a person's genealogy just to see if they could consider marrying) :eek:

As far as forcing the church to recognize anything other than the established "marriage" between man and woman, I staunchly disagree. That would be a slug in the gut for every person who ever accepted the precepts of their faith, and the "rules" that applied in order to be part of that faith. That would also be an obvious gross violation of the seperation of church and state (as Jefferson noted it in his papers to the Anibaptists of New England). In short, no faith has to accept that which violates its scriptures and laws. But no faith has the right to supercede Civil law unless said law is immediately detrimental to life and limb of another, and/or is Unconstitutional (as originally intended by the fore fathers). Obviously I do not accept the concept of a "living Constitution"...

I'm not even going to go near the concepts of Bestiality or incest, as the very thought turns my stomach.

As far as same sex couples raising children...we don't have enough "unbiased" data, to make a determination for or against such child rearing. There hasn't really been time to build up analysise based on historical observation.

my thoughts

v/r

Q
 
well... I'm not really adding anything new to this, but... is it really an issue of consent..? or are we just lumping a collection of paraphillias together so we can insult queers ..?

...if a small rednecked farmer chooses to stick his thing into a large cow or horse, I do not have a problem with this, although if he chooses to stick his thing into a dormouse, or a hummingbird, then yes, this for me is a problem, as its causing unneccessary pain and suffering to creatures who have not opted into this practice... reading these posts I have discovered that although it is not my own sexual preference, I do not find the thought of ppl having sex with animals to be so aborrhent after all... I would rather a man went with his dog then attacked a woman, for instance...

so, consent and child sex... well, ppl have been having sex with children for centuries, and paedophiles often use the excuse that the child consented, usually bribed (groomed) into tolerating the sexual advances from adults which causes them unneccessary amounts of suffering.. the statistics are something like- one in seven children experience unwanted sexual attention from adults, and so yes, it it pretty prevalent.. it's considered so abhorrent because they are perceived as being innocents, yet how innocent are child prostitutes in places like Thailand, and as they are consenting to exchange sexual services for money, is having sex with them an immoral act, or is it less immoral because they consent..?

...incest is considered immoral for two reasons, because yes, it increases the risk of bearing children with genetic abnormalities, yet it is also considered immoral because it is not prescribed in our civilised western culture for family members to feel such passionate love towards each other, yet in many cases were children are seperated from their opposite gender parent and then reunite, they have to battle with feelings which are felt as sexual attraction, lust, not love, and it tears ppl up... incest within families is also pretty prevalent, and as a child ur far more likely to be sexually abused by a member of ur immediate family than u are to be kidnapped by a stranger... however, to my mind, if u have say, a brother and a sister, and they both make the decision to have sex, and are rational and mature enough to make this decision, then, what is so wrong with that..?

and then we come onto homosexuality... again, if there is no pain or suffering within these unions, then who can say that these unions are immoral or peverted..? and yes, its great that adam and steve can now become husband and husband, and I'm helping them with the flowers at church when they go to have their union blessed by a decent priest who isn't so foolish as to think these two ppl in love are perverts will go on to molest dogs and small children... homosexuality isn't a paraphillia... it's not "beyond love", just love...

as for love and marriage, and suchlike... originally, women did not consent to marriage.. they were married off usually for money, or to forge allegiances, and women were considered chattel, the possessions of their husbands, and sold off to warm the beds of ppl their fathers wanted to appease... but hey, these rapes were sactioned by the church, and must have been holy and god driven... and as for marriage being a sacred union...lol, marriage isn't a sacred union anymore, its a useful legal tool to further the financial interests of the partnership of two ppl and, obviously, society...

who defines what is sick and what isn't..?

...I have a (ex) friend who works as a psychiatric nurse in a secure hospital... his current girlfriend he met in a bar, and she is a chronic schizophrenic... she is difficult to talk with, creates scenes in public places, she's incoherent half the time and really should be recieving some kind of treatment, yet he believes that she should be free to choose, herself... I find it morally repugnant that a man in his position can have sex with a person who is so evidently psychotic, yet he feels that she consents, and as she consents he can basically do much as he likes... however- she isnt his patient... she's an adult... and no, he hasn't kidnapped her, and she considers herself his girlfriend, yet I find it immoral... I feel he exploits her, and while his public persona might be that of a man in love, privately he involves her in bizzare sexual practises and feeds her psychoactive drugs... lovely ole world, innit..?

catchy title for ur original post though...
 
Let's see... according to some here:


Human and animal: a non-consensual relationship that can result in harm for the animal and possibly the human being (i.e., the animal trying to defend itself)
Adult and child: a non-consensual relationship that often results in psychological and physical damage to the child
Relatives: can be consensual or not, but regardless has a potential possibility for exploitation and genetic issues if the family is predisposed to such
My girlfriend and I: a consensual relationship that is not inherently harmful to either one of us or anyone else

And yet they're all the same.

Right. :rolleyes:
 
Hear hear, Sanguine Dawn!

I agree with you 100%, but you see, in the eyes of those "some," homosexuality is indeed harmful to us - i.e., it harms our immortal soul. And it is also harmful to others because when they see us breaking God's laws with impunity, they might get the idea to break God's laws too, either the same law, or some other law of His, and then society would have total chaos, and you see, it would be all our fault.

I figure my immortal soul is my business, and if I want your help and advice, I'll ask for it. If I do, you do indeed have the moral obligation to point out what you see as mistakes or sins of mine. But until I come to you for your advice about my immortal soul, please, let me live my own life in peace.

And as for harming others, well, if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too? Unless I am putting on a pair of plastic Halloween devil's horns and actively telling people, "C'mon! Sin! It's fun!" I fail to see how I am contributing to society's moral chaos by living my own life and minding my own business.

My 2c.
 
Scarlet Pimpernel said:
Hear hear, Sanguine Dawn!

I agree with you 100%, but you see, in the eyes of those "some," homosexuality is indeed harmful to us - i.e., it harms our immortal soul. And it is also harmful to others because when they see us breaking God's laws with impunity, they might get the idea to break God's laws too, either the same law, or some other law of His, and then society would have total chaos, and you see, it would be all our fault.

I figure my immortal soul is my business, and if I want your help and advice, I'll ask for it. If I do, you do indeed have the moral obligation to point out what you see as mistakes or sins of mine. But until I come to you for your advice about my immortal soul, please, let me live my own life in peace.

And as for harming others, well, if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too? Unless I am putting on a pair of plastic Halloween devil's horns and actively telling people, "C'mon! Sin! It's fun!" I fail to see how I am contributing to society's moral chaos by living my own life and minding my own business.

My 2c.
Click to expand...
Hey Scarlet

I respect you for playing devil's advocate, but if I may cut in, who says that practicing homosexuals are breaking God's laws?

Before people say, The Bilble I would point out that, a. not everyone, not even every Christian, believes we should take The Bible at face value, and b. even people some people who claim to take the Bible at face value reject parts of it.
 
cavalier said:
Hey Scarlet

I respect you for playing devil's advocate, but if I may cut in, who says that practicing homosexuals are breaking God's laws?

Before people say, The Bilble I would point out that, a. not everyone, not even every Christian, believes we should take The Bible at face value, and b. even people some people who claim to take the Bible at face value reject parts of it.
Click to expand...

Reject parts of it? What parts? ooooooh the parts they don't like.... The parts that they would rather be allowed to do? They say there is this god called jah and he is the one who makes the rules... Yet when there is one of his rules that disagrees with their leisure pleasure whatever they say hmm that is in the wrong context or it really means blah or this or that and keep seeking excuses to avoid the laws and rules set by the christian god... yet still want to call themselves christians? Give up the ghost........ I think if you set your faith and loyalty to something you abide by all it's rules... :\
 
17th Angel said:
Reject parts of it? What parts? ooooooh the parts they don't like.... The parts that they would rather be allowed to do? They say there is this god called jah and he is the one who makes the rules... Yet when there is one of his rules that disagrees with their leisure pleasure whatever they say hmm that is in the wrong context or it really means blah or this or that and keep seeking excuses to avoid the laws and rules set by the christian god... yet still want to call themselves christians? Give up the ghost........ I think if you set your faith and loyalty to something you abide by all it's rules... :\
Click to expand...
The second half of your post, you wrote something like this on a different thread, don't remember if I replied, anyway,
Who says the Bible, taken at face value, contains these laws?

I guess your thinking is, if you don't accept the Bible, find another religion. I don't think it's that simple though. I don't see why a Christian should have to take everything in the Bible at face value, and some Christian traditions have sources of authority away from the Bible.
 
cavalier said:
The second half of your post, you wrote something like this on a different thread, don't remember if I replied, anyway,
Who says the Bible, taken at face value, contains these laws?

I guess your thinking is, if you don't accept the Bible, find another religion. I don't think it's that simple though. I don't see why a Christian should have to take everything in the Bible at face value, and some Christian traditions have sources of authority away from the Bible.
Click to expand...


I most likley have said something like that... The reasons I think it should be that way is cause it is supposed to be the word of god.... So why would a christian not take it for what it says? I can't get around that... You have this leader. And a book that is your leaders commands... I just see it as you follow it. *shruggs*

Christian traditions that aren't in the bible? *offers blank look* Such as?
 
Ask a Roman Catholic

Also, despite people's protestations, no body has yet given me a convincing Biblical argument against predestination. I think I am alone at CR in this standpoint though
 
17th Angel said:
I most likley have said something like that... The reasons I think it should be that way is cause it is supposed to be the word of god.... So why would a christian not take it for what it says? I can't get around that... You have this leader. And a book that is your leaders commands... I just see it as you follow it. *shruggs*
Click to expand...

17th Angel, have you ever eaten bacon? Or a cheeseburger? Or worn a polyester-cotton blend? These things are all forbidden by the Bible.
 
Dor, I have read the NT, many times. What about Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." That sounds to me like a case could be made that Christians are still under the Levitical laws.

But if Christians no longer need to follow Levitical laws, then our problem is solved, isn't it? We don't have to worry about homosexuality being forbidden in the OT.
 
Scarlet Pimpernel said:
17th Angel, have you ever eaten bacon? Or a cheeseburger? Or worn a polyester-cotton blend? These things are all forbidden by the Bible.
Click to expand...

Bacon? Ooooooh yes! Cheesburger? mmm mmm! No I don't do polyester... Not because of religion just because of taste, style and money :D

1. Depends on which laws you are refering to....
2. Which of those laws are applicable or still in place.
3. Do -I- Follow the bible.

These factors do come in to account...
 
Scarlet Pimpernel said:
Dor, I have read the NT, many times. What about Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." That sounds to me like a case could be made that Christians are still under the Levitical laws.

But if Christians no longer need to follow Levitical laws, then our problem is solved, isn't it? We don't have to worry about homosexuality being forbidden in the OT.
Click to expand...
Are you Jewish? He did not destroy the law. I am a Gentile grafted on to the Olive Tree by grace I was never under the Jewish law. But do I eat pork no I dont but more for health reasons not cause I will burn in hell or nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top