The Forum > General Discussion > Diverse sexuality and selective compassion
Diverse sexuality and selective compassion
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 4 March 2009 2:25:25 PM
| |
Opinionated2,
You conflated statutory rape with consensual incest either through ignorance or as an obscurantist strategy. The Deaves are a consensual couple. Who can justify the taboo on their relationship in light of the breaking of the taboos on other “diverse” relationships? On what basis can any objections be sustained? The spectre of congenital abnormality has been raised but this can only be applicable to fertile couples (and is rendered irrelevant by easy access to abortion). What about father and son, mother and daughter, brother and brother, sister and sister? I assert that only the yuk factor stands in the way of the acceptance of incestuous relationships. Any opposition is hypocrisy in light of the acceptance of other “diverse sexualities” Posted by KMB, Wednesday, 4 March 2009 4:47:16 PM
| |
Mjpb
You just cannot pass it off like that. Both the NSW Health Dept and the UK National Heath in the Midlands came to the same conclusion. Go Google it up, it is easy to find, I think I just used Cousin Marriage. There is a medical term but I don't remember what it is. There should be legislation against cousin marriage and those that are already married should have their marriages annulled. It is terribly cruel to the children and places a significant burden on the rest of society. Don't argue about it go and read the reports. Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 4 March 2009 5:01:08 PM
| |
Bazz,
What is the basis of your argument? When a deaf lesbian couple can choose to have a deaf child by design (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1916462.stm), which is also “terribly cruel to the children and places a significant burden on the rest of society”, how can we deny the right of an incestuous couple to reproduce and maybe/maybe not have congenitally deformed offspring? Posted by KMB, Wednesday, 4 March 2009 6:17:36 PM
| |
KMB,
And you assert wrongly! It isn't the infantile Yuck factor as you try to propose. You know it, I know it! Read Foxy's post. In fact read all the posts. Come on KMB you are a Christian and you are trying to stir the pot on a whole range of issues aren't you? If Christians are meant to be honest, (your God is watching you), tell me all the agendas that I referenced in my first answer that you weren't pushing or intending to push? Come on be honest! You don't believe for 1 second that this family should be allowed to be married and have kids do you? I don't, and everyone else here doesn't! Laws rightly exist in this area to stop parents taking advantage of their children. You were alluding to homosexuality in your obscure "Diverse Sexuality" words, weren't you? Are you a "Pro-Lifer"? So why don't you be a good little Christian and tell me how you would deal with such a complex issue that I mentioned? You see I can read you like a book... You are trying to be tricky, but I can see through you. So please tell me exactly what you think about these matters and whilst you are at it please reference where from within your belief system you make your moral stand? Christians walk a very fine line when delving into these areas. Most of the churches have fallen well short of community standards in their dealings with the victims of sex crimes by criminal clergy within their organisations. Please define "Diverse Sexuality" for us so we can assess the bredth of what you are really getting at. So let's not play games KMB ... tell the truth! Your God is watching you! Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 4 March 2009 7:53:51 PM
| |
Dear mjpb,
Your comments are always worth reading. Dear Opinionated2, I am a female. One who's also learning so much from the posters and challenges of OLO. By the way, welcome aboard. I think you're going to be quite a gift to the discussions on this Forum. Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 4 March 2009 9:16:04 PM
|
As disgustingly, ugly as the tragedy of this girl is, the fact remains that too many people express "Pro Life" propoganda and never face the tough questions on how they arrive at that stance, and, when and where it should apply.
Also they never address the consequences of that stance.
To pretend that KMB was actually arguing what he/she is naive.
KMB was playing a line that needed correction. You will note he/she hasn't said much since. Silence is golden!
I apologise if it offended you!
Then on such an ugly topic Foxy puts forward some evidence that was quite illuminating... TY Foxy.
I hope Foxy isn't a man... that would scare a whole heap of people here. A name like that owned by a male. lol
So many intelligent people on this site debating, sometimes ugly and intense topics, is a wonderful example of free speech in action.
I enjoy everybody's posts... even the nutty ones...lol