Otokonoko,

We can add another rebuttal to your point
* Children have a higher chance of defects. REBUTTAL: We do not prohibit relationships between people who are likely to pass on defects or disabilities to offspring.

REBUTTAL: We provide Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) to people of other diverse sexualities and these ART's (including IVF) have more than double the risk of producing children with major birth defects.
http://www.mydr.com.au/babies-pregnancy/ivf-babies-at-more-risk-of-birth-defects

Foxy,

Thanks.

Bazz,

I am open to being wrong about the risk. I note that Foxy did adduce some anecdotal evidence which suggested otherwise.

The key thing however is that risk of genetic abnormality is the only reason I have seen argued if it is taken out of the realm of social factors / right and wrong. However a taboo based on that risk as a standard isn't applied to others in the community. In the extreme example that KMB subsequently provided the worst that it attracts is criticism not criminal sanction. (Not that I think that the taboo should be removed.)

KMB,

I shared the suspicion of CJ and others and wondered if you were Boazy. But you aren't a Christian. Are you on a genuine intellectual expedition into uncharted territory?

Opinionated2,

The relationship reportedly started when she was 31.

It's good to see that most people see this thread as the disingenuous troll that it is. Personally, I have little time for those unfortunates like KMB who wish to stick their noses into the sexual preferences of others. My guess is that it's some kind of compensatory obsession that substitutes for actually having sex.

I'd rather go fishing than to bother with some loser's obsession with other people's sex lives - which is what I'm going to do, first thing in the morning.

Do have a nice week everybody, including KMB. Try and focus on something other than other people's sex lives.

CJMorgan,
It's bizarre that you talk about "unfortunates (who) stick their noses into the sexual preferences of others".
The reality is that those suffering from diverse sexuality are rubbing it in the face of the public wherever you look, from primary schools to magazine covers to soap operas.
I'm just pointing out the contradiction in ostracising a particular brand of diverse sexuality, incest, when we're supposed to be celebrating all the others.
The fact that nobody has managed to come up with a single argument supporting the continued isolation of incestuous couples indicates that some contributors are long on insults but short on intelligence.
Or maybe it's just because their hypocritical, insupportable position cannot be justified so they just shout down what they don't want to hear.

As far as I can see, there are two ways at looking at this thread.

The first is to assume that KMB is not being disingenuous but is genuinely wondering “ Why are proponents of “diverse sexuality” not supporting the poor, ostracised Deaves family?”


Given his/her assertion that the thread was initiated as a genuine conundrum the answer is simple and could have been provided with the very first post:

Sexuality and sexual practices are two separate things.

Sexuality refers to “the properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive role”
- the example given for understanding this concept for those who might still remain in the dark is the sentence “she didn’t want to know the sex of her foetus” based on Princeton University’s Word net definition. “The condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex” the American Heritage Dictionary explains.

Thus it becomes clear that the phrase “ diverse sexuality” refers to gender. “Proponents” of diverse sexuality, i.e. those who understand the meaning of the phrase, acknowledge that gender cannot be reserved only for male and female categorization. Objectively, sexuality exists in more than these two delineations and extends to hermaphrodite and cross gendered organisms. Sexuality is therefore, diverse.

Thus incest, bestiality, oral sex, anal sex or any other sexual practices indulged in by any organisms belonging to the diverse categories of gender, are a completely separate subject. Objection to, or support for any or all sexual practices is subjective and depends on an individual’s personal preference, religious background, moral framework, politics and other.

Comprehension of these concepts therefore shows that there is no connection, or indeed any earthly reason why those who understand the meaning of “diverse sexuality” should logically be assumed to support any particular sexual practices nor to condemn any others.

The other way of looking at this thread of course is, as has already been suggested, that KMB is indeed a troll seeking to mask personal homophobia in a disingenuous manner.

In this case the answer is also very simple. Discontinue feeding

Romany,
You conflate diverse sexuality with gender diversity.
If sexuality is as intrinsic as gender then why do some heterosexuals become homosexuals?
You might argue that they were always homosexual and were living a lie because of societal homophobia.
But what of the homosexuals who revert to heterosexuality?
Ex-gays face a very difficult time from the homosexual community because they expose the myth that underlies your argument.
Not surprisingly, proponents of “Genetic Sexual Attraction” http://www.geneticsexualattraction.com/ follow a similar pattern of reasoning whereby they associate their incestuous feelings/behaviour with “who they are”.