You've Won.

[Tiassa]

Let me know if it helps

This has nothing to do with consent but rather the claims of creation

Well, what you seem to be overlooking is that after it is established that God creates people as such, we still have laws which regard individuals. God may well have made someone who likes dogs or children, but the reason homosexual conduct is considered acceptable is that all parties are consenting.

You did, after all, write:

• Why show prejudice and pass judgements against sexual behavior's that aren't acceptable by society.

and

• Therefore, should these people be rejected by society& penalized by our hypocritical law's?

and

• I ask you, What gives society the right to look down upon certain deviant sexual behaviors and condone others?

and

• Who gives law maker's the right to punish people for not desiring what society has deemed acceptable?

These are all taken from your topic post.

Issues of consent are the answer to the questions you've posed.

We do not punish people for being offensive to God. That is between God and the person.

We do, however, punish people for hurting others and contributing to the harm of others. For this reason, having sex with children, or even viewing pictures of people having sex with children, is considered unacceptable. The crime is in harming someone.

It's a simple division. If God exists as described by the Bible, then God will deal with those sins against his will. Nonetheless, we humans must find ways of strengthening our species, and the elimination of needless harm is one of those ways. Hence, we choose to protect people from unnecessary harm.

And that's why it's illegal to have sex with a child.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Walker]

I agree with you that these behavior's aren't good for society however homosexuals claim to be created gay why can't pedafilian's, those who practice bestalism, and incest? This is a creation issue not what the law consider's harmful to a society.

First off, I don't know any homosexuals who claim that they were without choice, that "god created them gay"...and I know my fair share of homosexuals. As far as whether or not they are gay in nature/origin, it doesn't matter. Two homosexual adults engaging in consensual, desired intercourse is not an injury to a person, or to society. Child molesters are. That is the distinction, even though you seem bent on ignoring it.

People who are comfortable with the statement that god "created homosexuals gay", the idea that they are gay by nature, but who also believe that sexual misconduct (i.e. child molestation) are justified. This is because something that hurts no one is easy to accept as natural/god's plan, whereas something that hurts others and is destructive by nature is not. Molesting children is destructive and evil. Having gay sex is not.

Also, I don't know who these "pedafilian's" are, but if they're anything like pedophiles, then it's clear that they are distinct from homosexuals in terms of their morality for the above reasons.

Like "pedafilian's", bestalism is not a word.

 

[Lady]

In order to establish that God created sexual deviant behaviors we must prove it before accepting it as fact. And we do have the resource's to investigate creation claims. As mentioned before anyone can use God as an excuse for a behavior, therefore, we can't in good conscious punish people for their DNA make-up, despite if it is an " acceptable behavior" or not. For this reason it is important for science to prove or dissprove claims before society accepts rumors as truths. At this moment scientist have not proven homosexuality,pedophilia,incest or bestiality to be linked to gene's. It is safe to say that perhaps it is wiser to wait on science before spreading rumors.

Out of hundred's of documents, I download one that makes no defiant claims of creation. The scientist or rather confused.




By Claudine Chamberlain
ABCNEWS.com
April 22 — It’s a seemingly endless debate: Why are some people attracted to the opposite sex, while others are drawn to their own gender? Thanks to new research published today, that question just got even harder to answer.
____A team of researchers at the University of Western Ontario in Canada has found no evidence of the so-called “gay gene,” directly contradicting studies from 1993 and ’95 that pinpointed a specific genetic marker on the X chromosome linked to homosexuality in men.
____ Whether genes play a part in sexual orientation has long been a hot button topic for people who support or oppose gay rights. If gays and lesbians are biologically predisposed to homosexuality — through their genes or some other way — that makes for a stronger case against discrimination.
____ That’s why the gay community welcomed the 1993 study by biologist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute. Hamer found that in 40 pairs of gay brothers, 33 had the same set of DNA sequences in a region of the chromosome called Xq28.
Dueling Studies
Attempting to replicate those findings, Ontario neurologist George Rice examined the DNA of 52 pairs of gay brothers, and found that their Xq28 sequences were no more similar than what might be expected from sheer chance.
____ Rice’s results appear in today’s edition of the journal Science.
____ “What we have here is a scientific controversy,” says Michael Bailey, a Northwestern University psychologist who has studied homosexuality in twins. The latest research effort “is a good study and it certainly raises questions about whether Hamer was right, but I don’t think it proves him wrong either.”
____ That’s because both studies were relatively small, and because specific genes are difficult to find. “A definitive study,” says Bailey, “would entail substantially larger numbers of people.”
Maybe the Gene Is Elsewhere
Rice himself doesn’t discount the idea of a genetic link to homosexuality. He just doesn’t think Xq28 is the spot. “The search for genetic factors in homosexuality should continue,” he says, adding that he’s currently searching for other genes that could be linked to sexuality.
____ But Hamer stands by his earlier findings, especially since two subsequent studies (one of which has not yet been published), found the same thing. “All this proves is that not every case of homosexuality is because of Xq28,” he asserts. “I expect we’ll find that many genes are involved. One of them will be on Xq28.”

Biological Links to Homosexuality
1991: Northwestern University's Michael Bailey and others find greater homosexual correlation among identical twins than fraternal.
1991: Salk Institute’s Simon LeVay discovers that a tiny section of the hypothalamus in the brain is smaller in gay men than in straight men.
1992: Laura Allen and Richard Gorski of the University of California at Los Angeles discover that a section of the fibers connecting the right and left hemispheres of the brain is one-third larger in gay men than straight men.
1993: National Cancer Institute’s Dean Hamer study finds possible location of “gay gene” on the X chromosome, inherited from mothers.
1995: Geneticists Shang-Ding Zhang and Ward Odenwald of the National Institutes of Health discover that a single transplanted gene can cause fruit flies to display homosexual behavior.
1995: Hamer repeats his 1993 findings with a follow-up study.

____ Twin studies, like those done by Bailey, have fueled the search for such genes. In 1991, he studied the twin brothers of gay men and found that 52 percent of identical twins were also gay, while only 22 percent of fraternal twins were. Among women, 48 percent of identical twins were also lesbian, while the rate dropped to 16 percent for fraternal twins.
____ As with all twin studies, a greater similarity among identical twins usually indicates a genetic link. But because the connection wasn’t 100 percent, researchers know that genes aren’t the whole picture. Environment — family, friends, society — could also be an important influence.
Does It Really Matter?
Gene or no gene, gay rights groups maintain that what “causes” homosexuality isn’t really important. “The vast majority of gay people will tell you that same-sex orientation is an innate part of who you are and is not changeable,” says David Smith, a spokesperson for Human Rights Campaign. “But in the final analysis, is really shouldn’t matter. Public policy should treat all people equally and fairly.”
____ Conservative groups, on the other hand, say Rice’s study proves that homosexuality is a learned, chosen behavior that doesn’t deserve legal protection.
____ “Dean Hamer’s study has been used by gay activists for years,” says Yvette Cantu, policy analyst for the Family Research Council. “We’re saying you can’t grant someone special minority status for something that’s just a sexual behavior, a choice.”
____ For now, though, the scientific debate is far from over. Sex, says Hamer, “is one of the most interesting things we do. And biologically, it’s the most important thing we do.” That’s why we’ll always wonder why some people do it differently than others.

 

[Lady]

Originally posted by Walker
First off, I don't know any homosexuals who claim that they were without choice, that "god created them gay"...and I know my fair share of homosexuals. As far as whether or not they are gay in nature/origin, it doesn't matter. Two homosexual adults engaging in consensual, desired intercourse is not an injury to a person, or to society. Child molesters are. That is the distinction, even though you seem bent on ignoring it.

People who are comfortable with the statement that god "created homosexuals gay", the idea that they are gay by nature, but who also believe that sexual misconduct (i.e. child molestation) are justified. This is because something that hurts no one is easy to accept as natural/god's plan, whereas something that hurts others and is destructive by nature is not. Molesting children is destructive and evil. Having gay sex is not.

Also, I don't know who these "pedafilian's" are, but if they're anything like pedophiles, then it's clear that they are distinct from homosexuals in terms of their morality for the above reasons.

Like "pedafilian's", bestalism is not a word.

Next time I'll use spell check.........Despite if society finds homosexuality harmless.........doesn't answer whether homosexuals should claim creation rather than choice. So I ask you?

 

[Walker]

You're ignoring the point of everything i'm saying. By lumping homosexuality into the category of sexually deviant behavior without looking at the evidence that indicates that it is NOT sexual deviance, you are discrediting yourself.

You further discredit yourself by not knowing the terms that identify the behaviors to which you refer. Your posts are founded in ignorance, which you continually back up by not even using correct terminology. So far you've said nothing to support the idea that homosexuals are, in fact, sexual deviants.

.........Is gay sex with children harmful? There's been alot of that going around.

This argument is stupid. It isn't even a valid argument, since men molesting boys is still molestation. Just as you wouldn't refer to consensual heterosexual or homosexual sex as rape, nor can molestation be identified as consensual sex with children. To try to equate homosexuality with child-fondling is ridiculous.

 

[Frencheneesz]

I just want to say that predjudice and discrimination has NOTHING to do with weather or not a person can "help it". It is about believing steriotypes - thinking one group of people are alike just because they fall into the same group.

Most steriotypes are partially true, and some are even mostly true.

For some reason, Religious people seem to think that God is all good and no bad. What!? Not only are good and bad opinions (what is good for one is not good for another), but he disobeyed many of his own polocies: thou shalt not kill. Of course, since god said it, god is the only one not incorperated in "thou", kinda hypocritical. And if he is all powerful, why did he create people that would turn "evil"?

These are question that are answered in ways that noone exept the answerer can understand, or is ignored. Like other people on this forum have said, why believe in god when there is no evidence? Of course, YOU may think there is evidence, but it is not evidence that is logical or can be expressed in words.....

Religion has been used to kill and stunt more people than molestation and abuse ever will.

 

[Tiassa]

Good point, Walker

Like "pedafilian's", bestalism is not a word.

What's funny about that is that I read your sentence wrong the first time, and so I thought, "Then why do we keep using the word?" So I went and looked up bestialism (as opposed to bestalism), and it turns out that according to American Heritage Dictionary, there is no such word as bestialism. So I looked up bestial, and sure enough, there is no reference whatever to sexual gratification between humans and animals.

Curious. Anyway, here's the American Heritage definition of bestial, provided via Sherlock 3:

SYLLABICATION:
bes·tial
PRONUNCIATION:
b
s
ch
l, b
s
-
ADJECTIVE:
1. Beastly. 2. Marked by brutality or depravity. 3. Lacking in intelligence or reason; subhuman.
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin b
sti
lis, from Latin b
stia, beast.
OTHER FORMS:
bes
tial·ly —ADVERB

and the Roget's Thesaurus entry:

ADJECTIVE:
Showing or suggesting a disposition to be violently destructive without scruple or restraint: barbarous, cruel, fell2, feral, ferocious, fierce, inhuman, savage, truculent, vicious, wolfish. See KIND.

So while I read you wrong the first time, it turns out you have a point even in the erroneous context I perceived. A very flexible point, indeed, good Walker.

Nonetheless, I'm now left with a head-scratcher: What is the word to describe sexual gratification involving humans and animals?

At any rate, I'm obviously rambling.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[EvilPoet]

bestiality n : sexual activity between a person and
an animal [syn: zooerastia, zooerasty]

pedophilia n : The act or fantasy on the part of an
adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or
children.

pedofile n : an adult who is sexually attracted
to children

Source:
Dictionary.com

 

[EvilPoet]

The Babel fish ...

Originally posted by goofyfish
Er, no. There is no God.

"The Babel fish," said The Hichhicker's Guide to the Galaxy
quietly, "is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest
thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy recieved not
from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all
unconscious mental frquencies from this brainwave energy to
nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a
telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought
frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers
of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all
of this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly
understand anything said to you in any form of language. The
speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix
which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything
so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance
that some thinkers have choosen to see it as a final and clinching
proof of the nonexistance of God.
"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I
exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
nothing.'
" 'But', says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It
could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so
therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promply
vanishes in a puff of logic.
" 'Oh that was easy,' says Man, and goes on to prove that black
is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
"Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of
dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a
small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-
selling book, Well That about Wraps It Up for God.
"Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all
barriers to communication between different races and cultures,
has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the
history of creation."

-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Walker]

Trust a guy like EvilPoet,
when asked about a term,
to already know it.

I'll be holding a reading/signing after the conference. Thanks, everybody.

 

[EvilPoet]

Question ...

Is the use of the word guy meant to indicate EvilPoet's
gender? Do you think EvilPoet is male?

Trust a guy like EvilPoet

If so, this is not a true statement. Please note for the record
that EvilPoet's gender is female.

 

[Walker]

Note to self: please substitute "gal" for "guy" when refering to EvilPoet during tonight's reading (particularly during the Sonnets and the Ode to EvilPoet).

Note to self 2: fire editor.

 

[Lady]

Originally posted by Walker
You're ignoring the point of everything i'm saying. By lumping homosexuality into the category of sexually deviant behavior without looking at the evidence that indicates that it is NOT sexual deviance, you are discrediting yourself.








* Are homosexuals created Gay ? This is the question?



This argument is stupid. It isn't even a valid argument, since men molesting boys is still molestation. Just as you wouldn't refer to consensual heterosexual or homosexual sex as rape, nor can molestation be identified as consensual sex with children. To try to equate homosexuality with child-fondling is ridiculous.

* This was meant as sarcasm and to point out that homosexual behavior is not neccesarily good for society(punking the nation)

* I'm assuming because you believe it is accepted by society it is not sexual deviance(right?)


ou further discredit yourself by not knowing the terms that identify the behaviors to which you refer. Your posts are founded in ignorance, which you continually back up by not even using correct terminology. So far you've said nothing to support the idea that homosexuals are, in fact, sexual deviants.



* Who needs spell check with you around?

 

[Tiassa]

Various

Fencheneesz--

Interesting post ... good post. (Thank you.)

Walker

Is it me or does something strange seem to be afoot.

Oh, do you happen to have blue eyes? If so, you're a deviant. (Okay, see the next section that's not to you.)

Lady

It has occurred to me to ask when and why statistical deviation becomes moral deviation. So ....

•_For what reasons, under what conditions, or to what purpose is a statistical deviation converted to a moral deviation?

But I am wondering what questions are left to answer for you and why. You seem to be disturbed by the notion that yes, God, as such, created homosexuals as they are, and you further seem disturbed by the notion that issues of consent are the basis of accepting homosexuality and rejecting child rape.

I mean, I'm hardly out to stop anyone else from answering, but in the meantime, what do you find so unsatisfactory about issues of consent?

Should we, then, just presume that you wish to say what you want to say, get it out of your system, and then deal with life? We'll be happy to sit back and let you rant for a while, and we'll even be happy to pretend it isn't there if you'd like. And when you're ready to discuss the issues you raise, you can let us know.

Point being, I'm puzzled by your present behavior; you seem to be upset that there are answers to offer to your questions. Furthermore, your focus on genes in your ABC News post is not entirely correct. Given that a person with female anatomy can still bear the XY chromosome (which results in a male), it is obvious that other factors are at play.

However, I think the best answer to the question so far is, literally, that God did not create homosexuals because people believe in God despite scientific proof. Now, that proof is the same as the proof you've implied, that a lack of evidence in an unfinished exploration is somehow conclusive. So I'm wondering why, without a God, Christians still foolishly advocate God's will? The notion of people being created as they are comes from the fact that Christians (especially in the US) have abused other identifiable groupings within the US. Once Christians stop seeking to separate what they don't like from God's kingdom, the issue of whether one is created by God as they are goes away.

But since people believe in God despite the scientific evidence, I'm left wondering where the religious folk get off claiming God made anything, much less failed to make anything. And since there is no God, I find it curious that people believe in a Devil or Satan despite scientific proof. So it would seem that homosexuals, for instance, simply are, since there is no God to create them that way and no Devil to tempt them to sin, and, in fact, no sin to declare (as there is no God to sin against).

That's the problem with basing moral or ethical schemes on a God despite scientific evidence indicating that there is no God.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[EvilPoet]

Originally posted by Lady
homosexual behavior is not neccesarily
good for society(punking the nation)

In what way is it not good? How is homosexuality punking the nation?

 

[Lady]

Originally posted by EvilPoet
In what way is it not good? How is homosexuality punking the nation?

what way is it good? Take a look around

 

[Lady]

Re: Various

Originally posted by tiassa
Fencheneesz--

Interesting post ... good post. (Thank you.)

Walker

Is it me or does something strange seem to be afoot.

Oh, do you happen to have blue eyes? If so, you're a deviant. (Okay, see the next section that's not to you.)

Lady

It has occurred to me to ask when and why statistical deviation becomes moral deviation. So ....

•_For what reasons, under what conditions, or to what purpose is a statistical deviation converted to a moral deviation?

But I am wondering what questions are left to answer for you and why. You seem to be disturbed by the notion that yes, God, as such, created homosexuals as they are, and you further seem disturbed by the notion that issues of consent are the basis of accepting homosexuality and rejecting child rape.

I mean, I'm hardly out to stop anyone else from answering, but in the meantime, what do you find so unsatisfactory about issues of consent?

Should we, then, just presume that you wish to say what you want to say, get it out of your system, and then deal with life? We'll be happy to sit back and let you rant for a while, and we'll even be happy to pretend it isn't there if you'd like. And when you're ready to discuss the issues you raise, you can let us know.

Point being, I'm puzzled by your present behavior; you seem to be upset that there are answers to offer to your questions. Furthermore, your focus on genes in your ABC News post is not entirely correct. Given that a person with female anatomy can still bear the XY chromosome (which results in a male), it is obvious that other factors are at play.

However, I think the best answer to the question so far is, literally, that God did not create homosexuals because people believe in God despite scientific proof. Now, that proof is the same as the proof you've implied, that a lack of evidence in an unfinished exploration is somehow conclusive. So I'm wondering why, without a God, Christians still foolishly advocate God's will? The notion of people being created as they are comes from the fact that Christians (especially in the US) have abused other identifiable groupings within the US. Once Christians stop seeking to separate what they don't like from God's kingdom, the issue of whether one is created by God as they are goes away.

But since people believe in God despite the scientific evidence, I'm left wondering where the religious folk get off claiming God made anything, much less failed to make anything. And since there is no God, I find it curious that people believe in a Devil or Satan despite scientific proof. So it would seem that homosexuals, for instance, simply are, since there is no God to create them that way and no Devil to tempt them to sin, and, in fact, no sin to declare (as there is no God to sin against).

That's the problem with basing moral or ethical schemes on a God despite scientific evidence indicating that there is no God.

thanx,
Tiassa

Yet the homosexual community wants us to belive God created them Gay.

 

[EvilPoet]

Originally posted by Lady
what way is it good? Take a look around

I have a dear friend who is gay. He makes me feel better when
I feel bad. He makes me laugh when I feel like crying. He also
makes my youngest daughter feel better when she is sad. I could
go on and on but I think you get the point. He makes the world a
better place in my opinion, that's how. Or is that not a good
enough reason for you?


When I do take a look around, it scares me and pisses me off, I
often feel alone. My gay friend is the one I turn to for comfort and
vice versa. I believe they call that---> friendship? To me that is
the most precious thing of all and without it the world is a very
empty place. I know this because I have been without friends
(real friends) many times in my life.

 

[Tiassa]

You forgot about statistical and moral deviations, Lady

Yet the homosexual community wants us to belive God created them Gay.

You still don't understand it, do you? When the Christian persecutors cease their aggressive attempts to divide out various portions of humanity from God's will, the targets of that wrath will cease worrying about their place in Christian theology. In the meantime, the fight is on because Christians choose that it should be so. Those Christians who disagree with the Christian persecutors ought to lend more voice and effort to protecting what is right. But since people (A) choose to have a problem with homosexuality, and (B) choose to believe that events in the Universe can defy God's will, such points need to be answered. Those points are the basis of Christian-derived persecution of gays. It seems very petty and narrow to me, when viewing the alleged logic of the Christian persecutors, that the all-powerful God should have so little say in those things which He blesses and creates.

God has forcibly "corrected" His mistakes in the Bible before. The episode of the Tower of Babel shows God causing people to speak in foreign tongues, thus fracturing human harmony and setting nations as such against one another.

God can choose to eliminate whatever aspect of humanity makes homosexuality desirable. Yet God does not. God thus, for whatever reasons, wills that homosexuals should exist, and, having such knowledge, continues to commission the creation of human beings who are unsatisfactory to His own expressed standards. (Note: every human born is created by God to be unsatisfactory to His own standards. After all, Christians do believe that people need to be redeemed through Christ, insofar as they are even born; while many Christians I know try to deflect that little point, none can provide any real answer as to when sin enters the human soul.)

I don't understand why you're so irritated at people who are responding to aggression with communication. Would it be better, then, if all homosexuals just came together and tried to murder all Christians? The historical precedent of Christians murdering people for all sorts of silly differences of opinion is quite thick. What does it matter if a gay person says he or she was created homosexual by God? I'm willing to bet you any currency you would like that the assertion must first exist that homosexuals are outside God's creation, defiant of God's will, and choosing arbitrarily to sin against God. Gays would be best left to dwell those issues in quiet conscience; the Bible itself might speak to them, but the people who believe it and set the conventional meaning of what those words say utterly fails by proxy of its utter lack of human compassion. There is no compassion in persecution. And faced with a choice of either talking it out or taking to the streets in defense of their rights, gays generally choose talk. And when you cut right into the rhetoric, to assert that God does not create people to be homosexual is borderline blasphemy. It has the natural effect of implying that something happens in the Universe that is not according to His Will, or that something is created without His Blessing.

Be as spontaneous as you want. Be as good as you want. Be as wicked as you want, it doesn't matter. Such is what God planned for you, and such is the manner in which God has implemented you.

The easiest way around it is to admit that God isn't all-powerful, but that sort of kills any authority to establish that the Bible deserves any consideration in the legislative and electoral arenas.

The reasons people continue to debate whether or not homosexuality is created by God is simply that it was more important to certain Christian persecutors to win their earthly crusade against homosexuality than it was to respect the words in the Bible.

• For what reasons, under what conditions, or to what purpose is a statistical deviation converted to a moral deviation?

(I thought I'd ask again, since you chose to not consider it the first time.)

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Lady]

Bias Laws

Upon the revelation of sexual idenity many homosexuals proclaim the notion of creation for their behavior. While intentially or not such claims opens the gate way for other alternative sexual behaviors. True enough, homosexual behavior is considered a consentual lifestyle by society. However, the creation theory, scientist hasn't back it up. As I mentioned before those who practice pedofilian,bestalism, and incest could easily make the same unfounded claims. Simiply put, just because society accepts homosexualiy as creation(unfounded) doesn't mean their isn't a gene for the other's as well. Despite the consentual issue, laws would have to be changed or modified to ensure equality and fair treatment of all people, and we can't in good conscious hold people accountable for their DNA make-up. For this reason it would be wise to wait on science.


* I have listed a couple of arguments that pedofilians, bestalist,and those who enjoy incest could make without the potent argument of creation. Feel free to play the prosecutor.

This is poorly put together so bear with me,


Incest:


* Incest is forbidden due to the chances of producing a retarded child.(right? wrong?)



Defense: If law makers genuinely cared for the well being of a child ciggaretts & alcohol which is know to cause:

* Low birth weight * Premature birth

* Undeveloped lungs *slow learners

* stunt growth * Death

* Nicotine & Carbon Monoxide(gas that comes out of car's exhaust pipe) are posions that prevent child from getting food & oxgen.

* Fetal Alcohol effects: * Central nervous
system damage

(1) learning disabilities * Death
(2) hyperactivity
(3) Memory or Attention deficient
(4) inablity to manage anger
(5) poor judgement
(6) difficulties with problem solving


*** Does not the incestous consenting couple take the same risk as the smoking or drinking parent(while pregnant) However, while incest is forbidden alcohol and ciggaretts merely warn. Should not the law hold both parties responsible for actions which endanger the welfare of a child?




Defense: If law maker's genuinely cared for the well being of a child abortion would be against the law. Except for the cases of rape and high risk pregnacies, which puts the mother's life in danger,many fetus are normal developing babies,which are aborted, due to unwanted pregnacies, that can be prevented.


*** Babies are expendable so what does it matter if the incestous consentual couple aborts their retarded child.




Pedofilian:




Pedofilian is forbidden in order to protect underage children from sexual relations with adults(right? wrong?)



Defense: If law maker's genuinely care for children celebrity's such as Woody Allen, R. Kelly, and Michael Jackson(to name a few) shouldn't be able to use wealth to avoid prision. In situations where parent's give consent to adults to have illegal sex with their children should they be locked up as well?(R.Kelly case)

Defense: If law maker's genuinely cared for our children, so called holy men accused of pedofilia, would be under the prision.




*** Is the poor pedofilian being discriminated against due to his lack of funds? Or perhaps because he doesn't wear a coller and go by the title of Father, Rabbi, or reverend?

p.s. The creation theory could help the religious pedofilian greatly




Bestalism:



* Bestalism is forbidden because animals can't consent to sex (right? wrong?)





Defense: If law maker's genuinely cared for animals:

* We wouldn't slaughter them to fill our bellies
* Obtain hunting licenses to shoot & kill them
* Capture them from natural enviroment and put them in cages


*** Did you ever ask an animal if it wanted to be eaten? Did it answer?
Did you ever ask an animal if it wanted to be hunted and killed? Did
it answer?
Did you ever ask an animal if it wanted to be taken from its home
and put in a cage for our pleasure? Did it answer?


So why do lawmaker's suddenly start caring and expect animals to
miraculously answer when asked for sex?