Homosexuality (relation to Incest)

No I don't think there is anything wrong with incest. Just because the idea does not appeal to me does not give the right say that it can't appeal to anyone else. As long as both parties are adults who know what they are getting into then its none of my business and no one else's concern what they choose to do together. Although there is a chance that a child might be born with no major birth defects I would think it irresponsible of the parents for even risking it.
 
Again, we cannot go on a basis of "if you don't harm others, you can do whatever you want"; that is not society. There is no order or structure in place. There is no way to develop culture and tradition when there is no such thing as culture or tradition.
 
Norsefire said:
Again, we cannot go on a basis of "if you don't harm others, you can do whatever you want"; that is not society. There is no order or structure in place. There is no way to develop culture and tradition when there is no such thing as culture or tradition.
Click to expand...

Culture: songs, festivals, dances, music, art, games.
Traditions: holidays, songs, rituals....etc.

You can have traditions and they willb ones that people love.

Is it a threat to the national song if people sing other songs in their apartments with other consenting adults?

Not doing harm is a great way to decide whether a certain act should be made illegal or not.
 
Simon Anders said:
Culture: songs, festivals, dances, music, art, games.
Traditions: holidays, songs, rituals....etc.

You can have traditions and they willb ones that people love.

Is it a threat to the national song if people sing other songs in their apartments with other consenting adults?

Not doing harm is a great way to decide whether a certain act should be made illegal or not.
Click to expand...

There is no common ground among the people; no common cultural, ethical, religious, or moral ground among the people. Therefore, society is without a proper structure.

I am not necessarily opposed to homosexuality because I find it wrong, as much as because it simply won't fit in any real modern society. Every civilization, like it or not, was heterosexual.
 
Orleander said:
But I hold the same reason for any couple with a genetic disorder.
Click to expand...

But how do you get to decide genetic disorder? Everyone's got defects. Should women over 35 be disallowed from having children, due to increased chances trisomy?
Etc.
 
Norsefire said:
I am not necessarily opposed to homosexuality because I find it wrong, as much as because it simply won't fit in any real modern society. Every civilization, like it or not, was heterosexual.
Click to expand...

Except for the Classical period....
 
Norsefire said:
Again, we cannot go on a basis of "if you don't harm others, you can do whatever you want"; that is not society. There is no order or structure in place. There is no way to develop culture and tradition when there is no such thing as culture or tradition.
Click to expand...

For the most part that's how society seems to roll. Most laws are in place to prevent people from hurting others. Traditions usually develop because people want them to take place. You shouldn't force people to follow a tradition they think is stupid, but the majority will so why do you care what those people think.
 
CutsieMarie89 said:
For the most part that's how society seems to roll. Most laws are in place to prevent people from hurting others. Traditions usually develop because people want them to take place. You shouldn't force people to follow a tradition they think is stupid, but the majority will so why do you care what those people think.
Click to expand...

That's how law seems to roll, but society does not. Notice how American society does not take kindly to atheists and homosexuals, for instance, even though they aren't illegal.
 
Norsefire said:
That's how law seems to roll, but society does not. Notice how American society does not take kindly to atheists and homosexuals, for instance, even though they aren't illegal.
Click to expand...

Also notice how we don't take kindly to brown people or Muslims, but they're not illegal.
 
Orleander said:
I can think of a reason they shouldn't have kids. But I hold the same reason for any couple with a genetic disorder. Its selfish and they are putting their wants before the health of their child. They can adopt same as a gay couple.
Click to expand...
As genetic testing improves, I'll wager we'll reach a point where most every couple will find they carry genes for bad things. Heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimers, schizophrenia. It could be that all disease has a genetic component.

So you might want to amend your statement somewhat. Just how serious must the genetic disorder be and how high must the chances of passing it on be before you consider a couple immoral for having children?

If you found out that you carried a gene that gave your children a 40% chance of dying of a heart attack by age 50, would it be immoral to have children?

Did you ever see Gattaca? It presents a future in which most children are made in a test tube, all the best genes from their parents go into them. All the "worst" ones are left out. Of course, anyone born without the benefits of this custom genome is considered "invalid":
In an unspecified near future time frame, genetic engineering has altered the course of society. Genetic engineering is employed to remove all major defects when conceiving. Upon birth, each new-born baby is given a Genetic Quotient (G.Q.) that details their potential risk areas, including heart issues and susceptibility to diseases. Some couples still ignore the genetic engineering of children and instead go for a “faith birth” – one where potential defects in the baby are left to chance. Unfortunately, these “faith” children now grow up in a world where their genetic pedigree significantly reduces their opportunities. A surveillance society is now in place where people are divided into having either “valid” and “in-valid” status. Highly sought after jobs are only available to those with “valid” status, while “in-valids” are left to handle the menial tasks of society.

Ethan Hawke plays a flawed “faith birth” named Vincent Freeman who dreams of becoming an astronaut. Vincent is particularly flawed, and is predicted to have a 99% chance of heart failure by age 30. All but the most menial jobs are out of reach for “de-gene-erits” like Vincent, and he is told by both is parents and his genetically engineered brother to lower his expectations. But Vincent decides to defy the odds. Vincent seeks out shady characters in the underclass who put him in contact with wheel chair-bound Jerome (Jude Law), a person with an almost perfect GQ score, who broke his back in a car accident. Jerome agrees to give Vincent urine and blood samples so that he can assume Jerome’s identity and bypass the security measures in place at Gattaca, the huge aerospace corporation. http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/movie/decade/1990-1999/gattaca/
Click to expand...
 
madanthonywayne said:
As genetic testing improves, I'll wager we'll reach a point where most every couple will find they carry genes for bad things. Heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimers, schizophrenia. It could be that all disease has a genetic component....:
Click to expand...

genetic testing is the main reason I think people would be selfish to have a child. They test to see if they carry the gene and if their spouse does. If both of them do, its incredibly selfish to take the risk with their child's health. Adopt.
What's wrong with adopting?
 
orleander his point was what do you concider to be a risk worth not having kids?

Is deefness enough? alot of deef people dont actually concider this a disability but rather a way in to a select culture. I have even herd of parents HOPING there kid will be deef
 
I don't think you die from deafness.
I suppose anything that results in a child's death. Not an adults, a childs.
 
hmmm, now for a tough 2 questions
1) what do you concider to be a child:p (ok that one is a little nit picky)
2) what do you concider to be a high enough risk?

For instance what if your doctor said you had a 1% chance of a child of yours getting lukemia?
5%
10%
20%
25%
50%
ect

where do you say the risk is to great? especially when you take into acount that even if that child develops lukemia there is a significant chance it can be treated
 
why?

all they want is what everyone wants, for there kids to be like them. To them deefness isnt a disability its, a culture that none of us can share in. There is nothing wrong with that
 
Asguard said:
why?

all they want is what everyone wants, for there kids to be like them. To them deefness isnt a disability its, a culture that none of us can share in. There is nothing wrong with that
Click to expand...

:confused::bugeye: ok.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top