Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Yes there is a reason for sexual conflict. Dad is already in a marriage with mom. So the kid comes along and steals mom from dad. There wasn't sexual conclict between the siblings, now that is introduced through incest. None of these issues apply to gay marriage. These are diversions.

There isn't sexual conflict between random strangers, until there was sexual attraction then it appeared. Same for homosexuality, no jealous boyfriends without boyfriends.

Trying to pin a problem like rejection and jealousy onto one particular type of relationship is foolish, it is as wide as human interaction. Can you find a problem that is unique to incest?

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

The onus is on the person making the claim that it's similar to drug addiction. I can't prove a negative.

Everyone understands the burden of proof until it's on them

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

If they wanted to, they'd just do it. Praying extra hard and hoping for a vision or miracle suggests utter desperation when all else has failed by someone who wants to be straight. Having to bad mouth and negatively generalize about gay people, as such so-called conversion programs do also isn't logical.

So if they could de-homosexualize themselves they would, therefore it must be involuntary and immutable?

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

"Powerful" is subjective. Clearly it has many straight allies as well.

So you admit it not only is powerful but has allies too

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

"Really? We're going to argue over that?

There is no argument to be had. The definition homosexual always applies the definition gay doesnt always

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

"Gays are statistically less than heterosexuals.

Homosexuals by definition are always sexually deviant

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

"Yes, because there isn't any kind of logical reason.

So responding on a debate forum is not a logical reason?
You do realise this is a debate forum and not a homosexual bulletin board dont you

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

"No. I can show where marriage is gay. I can show where it doesn't involve raising children.

I can show you where it involves infidelity but that was not the reason why it was created.
There are always deviances from the norm

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

"It should be presumed that people are included in society if no logical reason can be given why not.

Then you would agree to incestuous and polygamous marriages..well done

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

"Yes there is a reason for sexual conflict. Dad is already in a marriage with mom. So the kid comes along and steals mom from dad. There wasn't sexual conclict between the siblings, now that is introduced through incest. None of these issues apply to gay marriage. These are diversions.

Not in a relationship with a sister, aunt or divorced parent.Why should a relationship with a sister be seen as sexual conflict?
I find this risible coming from someone who advocates families consisting of two fathers with no mother( or vice versa) with only one of the parents having children sharing their dna. You want to change the very fabric of the nuclear family but find reasons why others cannot.
The homosexual family is a disfunctional one at the outset

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

"You think at all?

Yes and I think you are being bitchy



Just becaues you say so? That's just your prejudice and bias speaking without a reason given.[/QUOTE]
Ive given reasons. This family has the potential to be sexually exclusive with children that share both the parents dna and has both a male and female role model.Homosexuals marriages are a default disfunctional .

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

"Again with the focus on sex acts. Straight people perform the same acts. Who is to say there is a singular purpose for each of our body parts? There are clearly many uses.

Deviant sex acts define homosexuals..get over it. Clearly some body parts evolved for certain purposes and some humans with a deviant bent have found other uses

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

"Why is your penis in vagina between two unrelated people who have children, the golden standard? Yet you'd never let me get away with saying two gay men or women are the golden standard. Making analogies between things because there are fewer in numbers, when there are other differences and issues involved, is a faulty analogy. It means only if you are the sexual majority do you have rights. This would mean many activities or "lifestyles" heterosexuals are involved in would preclude them from having equal rights as well.

You have equal rights . You can practise homosexual acts to your hearts content..its not illegal.
You want legal marriage without including other sexual deviants thus suppressing their ' rights'

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

"No, I've given my reasons and logic on that issue.

Your reasons are illogical and bias

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

"I could say heterosexual relationships are equal to polygamy and incest, because there are some similarities, if I'm not considering the differences and issues involved. Polygamy certainly involves putting a penis in a vagina and kids, and not two or more penises. It's been marriage until relatively recently, historically.

Polygamy and incest are alternative lifestyles equal to homosexual lifestyles

Originally Posted by gansao

Homosexuals by definition are always sexually deviant

Deviant sex acts define homosexuals..get over it. Clearly some body parts evolved for certain purposes and some humans with a deviant bent have found other uses

Polygamy and incest are alternative lifestyles equal to homosexual lifestyles

having sex with a hole in the wall as you do is also depraved and of course abnormal. What do you get when you cross a ganso with a wall ?? you Poms are the masters of perversion, must be all that Victorian heritage of sexual repression.

incest a lifestyle ??

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

having sex with a hole in the wall as you do is also depraved and of course abnormal. What do you get when you cross a ganso with a wall ?? you Poms are the masters of perversion, must be all that Victorian heritage of sexual repression.

incest a lifestyle ??

Strange you should say this but Chileans do have an anal sex culture and Australian tend to intefere with sheep so you must fit right in pricolo

Originally Posted by Easyrider

Dennis Jerningan was a practicing homosexual. Not only was he supernaturally set free, but today he is married and has nine children. The miraculous explodes whenever he leads worship! He says, "Nothing is impossible for God!"

Here's his testimony:

Sid Roth - It's Supernatural Messianic Vision: Dennis Jernigan

Homosexuals are loathe to admit that other homosexuals can be set free by the power of God but here's a prime example.

I think its wonderful that amongst the 70,000,000+ (1%) gay people on earth you have found some who manage to rewire themselves.

This assumes that ALL people are wired exactly the same which seems like ... well ... an exaggeration at best.

For me personally if I were able to convince myself that your God in all his wrathful, loving, murderous way existed then yes ANYTHING from that point is possible.

Unfortunately that is not going to happen as I am a Christian who converted to Agnosticism. Perhaps I should count this as being miraculous as well?

Originally Posted by Freedom

There isn't sexual conflict between random strangers, until there was sexual attraction then it appeared. Same for homosexuality, no jealous boyfriends without boyfriends.

Incest is bringing this sexual conflict and tension into the family, where it hadn't existed before, in fact was a sanctuary from such things of unconditional, non-sexual, love between family members. It's changing the family in a different way than the genitals of the spouses or parents(as in the case of same-sex involve same genitals).

Originally Posted by Freedom

So if they could de-homosexualize themselves they would, therefore it must be involuntary and immutable?

I'd tend to think yes.

Originally Posted by gansao

So you admit it not only is powerful but has allies too?

It's not really the issue, as anti-gay groups are great and very well funded.

Originally Posted by gansao

There is no argument to be had. The definition homosexual always applies the definition gay doesnt always

OK.

Originally Posted by gansao

Homosexuals by definition are always sexually deviant

Then the term deviant also has other definitions. It's statistically deviant, but isn't generally considered that way by social morals.

Originally Posted by gansao

So responding on a debate forum is not a logical reason?

It depends on whether or not you respond with logic and reason.

Originally Posted by gansao

I can show you where it involves infidelity but that was not the reason why it was created.

Lol, I'm talking about places where it was defined to include gay couples. The reason would be to include gay couples.

Originally Posted by gansao

Then you would agree to incestuous and polygamous marriages..well done

No, for the reasons I've given on incest. Also, on polygamy, I have to disagree from a woman's equality perspective. Don't deliberately misrepresent my arguments, please and thank you. You have yet to give a logical reason for the issue at hand, which is the exclusion of gay couples from marriage or anything else in society.

Originally Posted by gansao

Not in a relationship with a sister, aunt or divorced parent.Why should a relationship with a sister be seen as sexual conflict?

It does introduce sexual tension and conflict concerning the inter-relationships, where it hadn't existed before(obviously where there had been a non-sexual relationship with a parent or sexual conflict between siblings). See my reply to Freedom above. It's a different debate, a different type of change to family which gays aren't asking for.

Originally Posted by gansao

I find this risible coming from someone who advocates families consisting of two fathers with no mother( or vice versa) with only one of the parents having children sharing their dna. You want to change the very fabric of the nuclear family but find reasons why others cannot.

How about dealing with these other reasons and the other debate concerning incest on a different forum or at least showing how it's a substantially similar debate to gay issues?

Originally Posted by gansao

The homosexual family is a disfunctional one at the outset

No it's not. Where do you get that? Sometimes they share DNA, sometimes not.

Originally Posted by gansao

Ive given reasons. This family has the potential to be sexually exclusive with children that share both the parents dna and has both a male and female role model.

And it has the potential to create much sexual tension and conflict, within that changed definition of family from a non-sexual one, to a sexualized one in all those inter-relationships. So I'm guessing you are arguing for incest, or is your purpose just a diversion? I'm arguing for homosexuality which doesn't include those issues.

Originally Posted by gansao

Homosexuals marriages are a default disfunctional .

Studies show same-sex families function just fine.

Originally Posted by gansao

Deviant sex acts define homosexuals..get over it.

No, it doesn't. It's the same acts. Same-sex couples and gay people are not the majority. You get over what two men are doing, if you don't want to do it.

Originally Posted by gansao

Clearly some body parts evolved for certain purposes and some humans with a deviant bent have found other uses

You're using deviant too subjectively again.

Originally Posted by gansao

You have equal rights . You can practise homosexual acts to your hearts content..its not illegal.
You want legal marriage without including other sexual deviants thus suppressing their ' rights'

You could include heterosexuals who put their things in other areas under your definition of deviant, and they are allowed to marry.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Incest is bringing this sexual conflict and tension into the family, where it hadn't existed before, in fact was a sanctuary from such things of unconditional, non-sexual, love between family members. It's changing the family in a different way than the genitals of the spouses or parents(as in the case of same-sex involve same genitals).

Before homosexuality there would be no sexual conflict between friends of the same gender, is this true or not?

While I know I am speaking in the hypothetical you are assuming dynamics in incestuous relationships which are not logical necessities and do not logically follow. A sexual relationship in the family does not necessitate the cessation of love of any other part of the family. Sex is sex and love is love. I have long believed romantic love is merely the combination of sexual attraction and emotional love. That while a sexual relationship may foster love, love qua love almost never fosters a sexual relationship except in so far as trust is common between people who love each other.

i.e. sexual attraction is the motivator of sexual relationships and someone you love is considered both by society and your own fears as the appropriate partner.

When you say 'non-sexual' love I consider that the only kind, further I do not think any true love is unconditional in fact it's very conditional, the greater the love the more conditional. That is why I love those I know more than those I don't and the more I know them the more I love them, and I know none better than my family. No true love is contingent on sexual relations or harmed by them (again except in so far as the represent a violation of trust).

Friends love each other, liking a person is a distinctly distant emotion compared to love and I think it's fairly common to have someone other than your family whom you loved but had no sexual attraction to.

In each case that you have asserted some emotional problem with incest you have assumed another problem that also exists in normal relations. Jealousy, adultery, abuse... take this hypothetical loving parents have twin boy and girl, they get into an incestuous relationship with each other well after puberty, it never involves the parents.

There is no adultery, there is no one to be jealous or jealous of, there is no abuse. Add another sibling but this one has no interest in a sexual relationship and there is no jealousy, or the third sibling is included. Still no jealousy, adultery, abuse. In another case one of the parents dies and thus there is no competition between parent and child.

In another case the parents are alive but they there is no fear of competition and no jealousy.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

I'd tend to think yes.

Does this not apply to any sexual deviation?

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Studies show same-sex families function just fine.

Should studies required before something is legal or before it is illegal?

You think this stuff about other deviations is irrelevant, but inconsistency in your position is not irrelevant, it's not ad hominem 'you to', it's not slippery slope. You make the general objective case and you accept the consequences of that case and if you do not others will and have a right to question whether you believe the case yourself.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Before homosexuality there would be no sexual conflict between friends of the same gender, is this true or not?

And before heterosexuality there would be no sexual conflict between friends of different gender. We're talking about relationships of family.

Originally Posted by Freedom

While I know I am speaking in the hypothetical you are assuming dynamics in incestuous relationships which are not logical necessities and do not logically follow.

Yes, it's logically likely to happen.

Originally Posted by Freedom

A sexual relationship in the family does not necessitate the cessation of love of any other part of the family. Sex is sex and love is love. I have long believed romantic love is merely the combination of sexual attraction and emotional love. That while a sexual relationship may foster love, love qua love almost never fosters a sexual relationship except in so far as trust is common between people who love each other.

i.e. sexual attraction is the motivator of sexual relationships and someone you love is considered both by society and your own fears as the appropriate partner.

A sexual relationship with a family member clearly does change the dynamic and the type of love. We agree there is a difference between sexual romantic love and other love.

Originally Posted by Freedom

When you say 'non-sexual' love I consider that the only kind,

Yet you just said you believe romantic love combines sexual attraction and emotional love, so it's not the only kind of love.

Originally Posted by Freedom

further I do not think any true love is unconditional in fact it's very conditional, the greater the love the more conditional. That is why I love those I know more than those I don't and the more I know them the more I love them, and I know none better than my family. No true love is contingent on sexual relations or harmed by them (again except in so far as the represent a violation of trust).

So you recognize a difference involving the love of family. Sexual relations can be part of another kind of love and yes harm that love, as may other things, depending on the type of love.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Friends love each other, liking a person is a distinctly distant emotion compared to love and I think it's fairly common to have someone other than your family whom you loved but had no sexual attraction to.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Freedom

In each case that you have asserted some emotional problem with incest you have assumed another problem that also exists in normal relations. Jealousy, adultery, abuse...

Yes, it does and now there's a very real potential of bringing these things into the family itself.

Originally Posted by Freedom

take this hypothetical loving parents have twin boy and girl, they get into an incestuous relationship with each other well after puberty, it never involves the parents.

There is no adultery, there is no one to be jealous or jealous of, there is no abuse. Add another sibling but this one has no interest in a sexual relationship and there is no jealousy, or the third sibling is included. Still no jealousy, adultery, abuse. In another case one of the parents dies and thus there is no competition between parent and child.

Those are some cases of incest, clearly far from representing all expressions of incest. Homosexuality never involves any of this.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Does this not apply to any sexual deviation?

To any sexuality you may as well ask? I don't know. These were the cases we were dealing with.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Should studies required before something is legal or before it is illegal?

Some sort of logic should be. I couldn't see any as to why gays shouldn't have equal rights to straights and I mentioned the studies in addition.

Originally Posted by Freedom

You think this stuff about other deviations is irrelevant,

It's a diversion.

Originally Posted by Freedom

but inconsistency in your position is not irrelevant,

There's no inconsitency. I'm saying there are different questions raised to society and to family relations raised by incest which are not raised by homosexuality(assuming the hypothetical that the incest issue comes to debate).

Originally Posted by Freedom

it's not ad hominem 'you to', it's not slippery slope.

For sure it's neither.

Originally Posted by Freedom

You make the general objective case and you accept the consequences of that case and if you do not others will and have a right to question whether you believe the case yourself.

Yes, agreed.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

And before heterosexuality there would be no sexual conflict between friends of different gender. We're talking about relationships of family.

Exactly, that is why it is silly to condemn sexual behavior based on social factors it adds, those factors are obvious corollaries and it's hardly possible to make generalizations for every situation especially given little to no knowledge. One of the things that bothers people about homosexuals is that they imagine that when they meet one they will be 'checking them out' they normally don't have to worry about sending the wrong signals with their own gender and they do not appreciate the added pressure. This of course disappears as they get to know the homosexual, and it's ignorant to condemn homosexuality based on your lack of imagination on how to communicate things you aren't used to communicating.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Yes, it's logically likely to happen.

Likely on a global scale? Of course, there are thousands of adulteries and jealous rages every week across this planet, a few more aren't going to bring the society down.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

A sexual relationship with a family member clearly does change the dynamic and the type of love. We agree there is a difference between sexual romantic love and other love.

A lot of things change the dynamic in families. Divorce has been known to be terribly detrimental for thousands of years, and hard data continues to support this ancient knowledge; yet no body seems to be willing to outlaw divorce. What we do not agree on is the exclusivity of sexual 'love' and 'other' love. Love does not need to be dependent on sex, nor sex on love.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Yet you just said you believe romantic love combines sexual attraction and emotional love, so it's not the only kind of love.

If you would stop and examine what you sense as sexual attraction you will notice a wide range of thoughts and feelings, it's not just one emotion or one urge. It's obviously a complex system of some sort. I use the term romantic love as it is commonly used, I think it's a misnomer if intended to describe a new emotion distinct from either love or sexual attraction. It's merely the particular colour of emotion that one feels when one is both sexually attracted and loving.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

So you recognize a difference involving the love of family.

No I don't, I think the love of family is strongest because you know your family the best. Only rivaled in magnitude by love of life partner because as the name implies you know them very well too. I do not think that you can feel the same strength of love for a sexual partner even if you do love them until you have been with them for many years.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Sexual relations can be part of another kind of love and yes harm that love, as may other things, depending on the type of love.

.... If it's a so called "other kind" how would harming this "other love" harm "family love"?

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Yes, it does and now there's a very real potential of bringing these things into the family itself.

They can already be brought into the family, spouses commit adultery, siblings are often jealous of boy/girl friends, and abuse can and does happen. You may say it is worse if it happens without some outside party to blame, but it's not your place to magically assess the stability and propriety of situations which are too diverse to imagine in general terms.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Those are some cases of incest, clearly far from representing all expressions of incest.

One is enough to invalidate a rule.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Homosexuality never involves any of this.

Homosexuality never involves jealousy, adultery, or abuse?!

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

To any sexuality you may as well ask? I don't know. These were the cases we were dealing with.

My question and your answer did not deal with any cases. A general question on a conclusion given certain premises was asked and answered. The premises did not mention the sexuality or any specific cases of sexuality. Are you saying your answer would change? and if so why?

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Some sort of logic should be. I couldn't see any as to why gays shouldn't have equal rights to straights and I mentioned the studies in addition.

Logic concluding what?

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

It's a diversion.

That's an excuse.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

There's no inconsitency. I'm saying there are different questions raised to society and to family relations raised by incest which are not raised by homosexuality(assuming the hypothetical that the incest issue comes to debate).

The questions are irrelevant, the important thing is the theory of sexual ethics that allows homosexuality. What is it, what does it conclude, is it consistent? Other deviations are important because they test the consistency of the theory, hiding from applying one's theory of sexual ethics completely indicates to others that you either don't have one, or don't have a consistent one.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Yes, agreed.

Why is homosexuality moral?

Originally Posted by Freedom

Exactly, that is why it is silly to condemn sexual behavior based on social factors it adds, those factors are obvious corollaries and it's hardly possible to make generalizations for every situation especially given little to no knowledge. One of the things that bothers people about homosexuals is that they imagine that when they meet one they will be 'checking them out' they normally don't have to worry about sending the wrong signals with their own gender and they do not appreciate the added pressure. This of course disappears as they get to know the homosexual, and it's ignorant to condemn homosexuality based on your lack of imagination on how to communicate things you aren't used to communicating.

It depends what the social factors are. I agree with what you said about homosexuality and irrational fears.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Likely on a global scale? Of course, there are thousands of adulteries and jealous rages every week across this planet, a few more aren't going to bring the society down.

It's likely to happen at the roots and core of the family this time, changing, conflicting and destroying relationships from within. Why create more of these things, unnecessarily? When a gay or straight spouse makes a comitment, they don't want to worry about their kid(s) maybe getting older and be in competition sexually for the other spouse. This is actually more, and closer relationships ruined compared to an outside affair. The latter isn't good either.

Originally Posted by Freedom

A lot of things change the dynamic in families. Divorce has been known to be terribly detrimental for thousands of years, and hard data continues to support this ancient knowledge; yet no body seems to be willing to outlaw divorce.

Yes it does. Divorce may be a necessary evil as staying together may cause even more conflict. The parents try to keep the problems between themselves and protect the children. Divorce should be avoided if possible and still causes harm.

Originally Posted by Freedom

What we do not agree on is the exclusivity of sexual 'love' and 'other' love. Love does not need to be dependent on sex, nor sex on love.

OK. Sometimes these can intersect. You are still changing the type of love in the family when these do. That's the question raised.

Originally Posted by Freedom

If you would stop and examine what you sense as sexual attraction you will notice a wide range of thoughts and feelings, it's not just one emotion or one urge. It's obviously a complex system of some sort. I use the term romantic love as it is commonly used, I think it's a misnomer if intended to describe a new emotion distinct from either love or sexual attraction. It's merely the particular colour of emotion that one feels when one is both sexually attracted and loving.

Yes, all right.

Originally Posted by Freedom

No I don't, I think the love of family is strongest because you know your family the best. Only rivaled in magnitude by love of life partner because as the name implies you know them very well too. I do not think that you can feel the same strength of love for a sexual partner even if you do love them until you have been with them for many years.

One involves sexual love, one does not involve sexual love.

Originally Posted by Freedom

.... If it's a so called "other kind" how would harming this "other love" harm "family love"?

Because the new sexual love and the non-sexual family love you had since your first memories, are combined in feelings for a family member and now come into conflict, quite possibly competing for the same family member.

Originally Posted by Freedom

They can already be brought into the family, spouses commit adultery, siblings are often jealous of boy/girl friends, and abuse can and does happen. You may say it is worse if it happens without some outside party to blame, but it's not your place to magically assess the stability and propriety of situations which are too diverse to imagine in general terms.

It's now happening from the core and the roots involving very strong love relationships, because as you've rightly argued, the family members have known each other for the longest time. The family has a real potential and opportunities to destroy itself from within. Go outside the family, if not married. And if married don't go outside nor inside the family to commit adultery.

Originally Posted by Freedom

One is enough to invalidate a rule.

Incest is defined as involving any possible family member.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Homosexuality never involves jealousy, adultery, or abuse?!

Sorry. I think I meant it never involves these things with core family members.

Originally Posted by Freedom

My question and your answer did not deal with any cases. A general question on a conclusion given certain premises was asked and answered. The premises did not mention the sexuality or any specific cases of sexuality. Are you saying your answer would change? and if so why?

Indeed, it was overly general. You asked if it was different for gays than others who are the minority in terms of immutability. Gays are attracted to the same sex. That's the sexual orientation. There is no other sexuality for homosexuals. Incest may be attracted to others outside the situation. They can change quite easily compared to gays. And there are reasons they should.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Logic concluding what?

Gay equality like I said.

Originally Posted by Freedom

That's an excuse.

No. It really is a diversion. They haven't shown a substantial connection between the issues, just that it's all sex and involves a minority.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

There's no inconsitency. I'm saying there are different questions raised to society and to family relations raised by incest which are not raised by homosexuality(assuming the hypothetical that the incest issue comes to debate).

Originally Posted by Freedom

The questions are irrelevant,

How can you say that? Of course the questions related to the topic are relevant to that topic.

Originally Posted by Freedom

the important thing is the theory of sexual ethics that allows homosexuality. What is it, what does it conclude, is it consistent? Other deviations are important because they test the consistency of the theory, hiding from applying one's theory of sexual ethics completely indicates to others that you either don't have one, or don't have a consistent one.

Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone or anything in society as heterosexuality does not(sexual ethics for everything sexual). And meaningful, beneficial relationships come out of it without threatening other very important relationships like the ones of love(non-sexual), trust and boundaries that have been established between one and one's family since forever. Incest by its nature has the potential to cause family conflict and sexual competition and change the nature of the family by sexualizing members besides the two parents with one another. The fact that you say adultery from outside the family does too, is beside the point. No one said adultery was good. Different issues from homosexuality, and I think I'm about done with this diversionary derailing nonsense yet again. None of this deals with the issues of gay rights and gay marriage. Enough already.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

It's not really the issue, as anti-gay groups are great and very well funded.

Any group that has a hugely powerful politcal lobby supporting it cannot really call itself suppressed.Gay groups like to promote this lie whereas anti gay groups do not

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Then the term deviant also has other definitions. It's statistically deviant, but isn't generally considered that way by social morals.

I have never stated that homosexuality is morally deviant.A man that wants to have sex with another man is not morally deviant because morals IMO are subjective when applied to sexual preference.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

It depends on whether or not you respond with logic and reason.

Come off it! You accused me of being illogical because I have responded to your posts

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Lol, I'm talking about places where it was defined to include gay couples. The reason would be to include gay couples.

I dont know what you are talking about

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

No, for the reasons I've given on incest. Also, on polygamy, I have to disagree from a woman's equality perspective. Don't deliberately misrepresent my arguments, please and thank you. You have yet to give a logical reason for the issue at hand, which is the exclusion of gay couples from marriage or anything else in society.

I do not propose the exclusion of gay couples in marriage.I propose that other sexual deviant groups should be included because homosexuals have no more right to marriage as they have.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

It does introduce sexual tension and conflict concerning the inter-relationships, where it hadn't existed before(obviously where there had been a non-sexual relationship with a parent or sexual conflict between siblings). See my reply to Freedom above. It's a different debate, a different type of change to family which gays aren't asking for.

It doesnt. You using the same old biased ' it breaks up families' BS as the anti gays did in years past.
If a brother and sister wants to start a sexual relationship and legally commit with the same priviliges as non incestuous couple then they should have the same right to do so as a same sex couple.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

How about dealing with these other reasons and the other debate concerning incest on a different forum or at least showing how it's a substantially similar debate to gay issues?

How about dealing with them now?

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

No it's not. Where do you get that? Sometimes they share DNA, sometimes not.

Both same sex parents will never be the real parent of the child...not sometimes not..only one can be

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

And it has the potential to create much sexual tension and conflict, within that changed definition of family from a non-sexual one, to a sexualized one in all those inter-relationships. So I'm guessing you are arguing for incest, or is your purpose just a diversion? I'm arguing for homosexuality which doesn't include those issues.

Arguing that incestuous relationships cause sexual tension within families is a ridiculous concept when applied to legalising incest or incestuous marriage. It is the same agument that anti gays throw at you...homosexuality ruins families..sheesh

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Studies show same-sex families function just fine.

Same sex families with good parents are better than families with bad parents of each sex.' Studies' show what the people who make the study want it to

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

No, it doesn't. It's the same acts. Same-sex couples and gay people are not the majority. You get over what two men are doing, if you don't want to do it.

Homosexuals cannot perform any other sex act but a deviant one

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

You're using deviant too subjectively again

.

Im using deviant accurately again

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

You could include heterosexuals who put their things in other areas under your definition of deviant, and they are allowed to marry.

Sexually deviant activity should not stop you marrying.If that were the case then most heterosexual couples would be exempt
You are the one that proposes that.
I would also say that there are many homosexual couples that would be far better parents than many heterosexual ones.
Nevertheless homosexuality is a deviant form of sex and if we are to change a heterosexual institution to accomodate one deviant sexual group then we should either accomodate all benign sexual deviants or change marriage from being a recognised institution with legal rights into a ceremony with no legal rights involved

Originally Posted by gansao

Any group that has a hugely powerful politcal lobby supporting it cannot really call itself suppressed.Gay groups like to promote this lie whereas anti gay groups do not

Such groups exist to lobby for equal rights, meaning they don't have these yet.

Originally Posted by gansao

I have never stated that homosexuality is morally deviant.A man that wants to have sex with another man is not morally deviant because morals IMO are subjective when applied to sexual preference.

The false dilemmas you keep making are the ultimate in subjectivity.

Originally Posted by gansao

I dont know what you are talking about

The definition changed to include same-sex couples, so that's what the definition is meant to be in those places.

Originally Posted by gansao

I do not propose the exclusion of gay couples in marriage.I propose that other sexual deviant groups should be included because homosexuals have no more right to marriage as they have.

Then you are saying because we marry anyone, heterosexuals included, since the right flows from straight to gay, we must marry everyone who is sexual?

Originally Posted by gansao

It doesnt. You using the same old biased ' it breaks up families' BS as the anti gays did in years past.
If a brother and sister wants to start a sexual relationship and legally commit with the same priviliges as non incestuous couple then they should have the same right to do so as a same sex couple.

The gay causes family conflict was based on nothing but prejudice. Being gay or straight, involves the two spouses. Incest changes non-sexual relationships of all family members into sexual ones. The potential for sexual conflict involving a number of family members, besides the married couple, is logical. Different issues involving family, and the potential for sexual conflicts which wouldn't have existed before among its members logically result with incest.

Originally Posted by gansao

Both same sex parents will never be the real parent of the child...not sometimes not..only one can be

DNA? And? Why should that concern us?

Originally Posted by gansao

Same sex families with good parents are better than families with bad parents of each sex.' Studies' show what the people who make the study want it to

And there are good same-sex parents. It's not just a question of being better than the bad straight parents.

Originally Posted by gansao

Homosexuals cannot perform any other sex act but a deviant one




.

Im using deviant accurately again






Sexually deviant activity should not stop you marrying.If that were the case then most heterosexual couples would be exempt
You are the one that proposes that.
I would also say that there are many homosexual couples that would be far better parents than many heterosexual ones.
Nevertheless homosexuality is a deviant form of sex and if we are to change a heterosexual institution to accomodate one deviant sexual group then we should either accomodate all benign sexual deviants or change marriage from being a recognised institution with legal rights into a ceremony with no legal rights involved

It's not about sex acts, exclusively. It's a false dilemma that we must accept all or nothing or that we are limited to either heterosexuality or everything else included. Society will decide how it defines couples and families. A hypothetical future debate on incest, as we have on gay marriage today, would involve seperate questions. I think there are some real concerns about changing the nature of one's basic family raised in, to a sexualized environment between not only the parents. This is why it's not seriously being debated, except as a diversion to gay issues for some debators. Again, we might ask, why have heterosexual marriage, since the right was first established there. We must, and are, considering things on an issue-by-issue basis. There's no other logical way to do it.

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Such groups exist to lobby for equal rights, meaning they don't have these yet.

They have the same rights as everyone else.They want the laws changed to accomodate them

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

The false dilemmas you keep making are the ultimate in subjectivity.

There are no false dilemmas.There are no dilemmas

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

Then you are saying because we marry anyone, heterosexuals included, since the right flows from straight to gay, we must marry everyone who is sexual?

There is no right.Marriage was and is a heterosexual preserve.You want to change it so that you can participate.You have no more ' right' to participate than other sexual deviants or lifstyles

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

The gay causes family conflict was based on nothing but prejudice. Being gay or straight, involves the two spouses. Incest changes non-sexual relationships of all family members into sexual ones. The potential for sexual conflict involving a number of family members, besides the married couple, is logical. Different issues involving family, and the potential for sexual conflicts which wouldn't have existed before among its members with incest.

PSML You want to change the defintion of family to include two fathers and no mother but complain incestuous marriages will cause ' family' conflict.
You want the definition of family to change to your advantage but baulk about it in others.
The fact that incest changes' the notion' of non sexual relationships into potentially sexual ones are no cause to prohibit it.No more than banning gay sex because it changes ' non sexual' same sex relationships into ' potential' sexual ones..which is just the arguments that anti gay groups propose against you.

Banning incest because it may cause sexual conflict is creating a false dilemma which is exactly what you are accusing me off

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

DNA? And? Why should that concern us?

It doesnt seem to.A gay family is a parent and a step parent by default.Not a bad thing but not as desirable as two 'real' parents

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

And there are good same-sex parents. It's not just a question of being better than the bad straight parents.

A parent and a step parent with both of them being the same gender is a compromise rather than an ideal.
No better than a brother sister marriage with an adopted child .

Originally Posted by Provocateaur

It's not about sex acts, exclusively. It's a false dilemma that we must accept all or nothing or that we are limited to either heterosexuality or everything else included. Society will decide how it defines couples and families. A hypothetical future debate on incest, as we have on gay marriage today, would involve seperate questions. I think there are some real concerns about changing the nature of one's basic family raised in, to a sexualized environment between not only the parents. This is why it's not seriously being debated, except as a diversion to gay issues for some debators. Again, we might ask, why have heterosexual marriage, since the right was first established there. We must, and are, considering things on an issue-by-issue basis. There's no other logical way to do it.

It is all about sex according to you.A brother sister relationship can be about more than sex.
You are the redneck bigot to incest as the homophobe is to homosexuality.