[DMCForum] Re: Why? (For Marc or Jack)

["cruznmd" <racuti1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ok Jack,

I totally disagree. Looking up to your father is irrelevant. The 
primary arguement of people for homosexual lifestyles is that they 
aren't hurting anyone. If the child were to be raised to believe that 
sex with parents is acceptable and it's all kept in the home, then 
supposedly society isn't hurt by their actions. Genetic defects from 
incest can be avoided through birthcontrol.

But hey, let's set that aside and I'll refine it for you further:

Let's take brother/sister or sister/sister or brother/brother or hey 
why not 1st cousins of any gender. There is NO matter of control 
there. They are total equals. They are "in love", not hurting anyone. 

Is it right?

Rich

--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Parrot Head Radio <jackstiefel@xxxx> 
wrote:
> I will tackle this one if no one minds... lol
> 
> The act of making Love is not necessarily for the purpose of
> perpetuating the species.  If that were true then married couples
> would only have sex that one time a month when the women can get
> pregnant.  Lovemaking is a way to consumate a relationship and show
> Love.
> 
> Now in the case of a Father/Daughter...  Well besides the conflict 
of
> interest between the Daughter looking up to her Father and there 
being
> an inherent wanting to please, there is the problem with incestual
> children being deformed and such.  Your question could have even put
> it to children like that teacher who wants or has married her 
student
> she is in jail for for having a sexual relationship.  They swear up
> and down they are in Love, but the teacher has a inherent control 
and
> the studens tend to look up and want to please their teacher.  Plus 
it
> is generally accepted that it is a wrong thing to do.
> 
> The same question could be asked to Gun supporters... Hey if it is 
ok
> to go out and hunt and shoot animals, why not humans (don't say for
> food, many hunters don't do it for that reason)? We all want a nice
> male head on our wall right?  The same goes with having sex with
> animals.  Animals can't really consent, only rely on animal 
instincts.
>  If a female dog is in heat, almost anything can be waved in front 
of
> her and she will take it, same with the male dogs.
> 
> So 2 women over the age of 18 fall in Love.  Be it because they were
> abused by men at an early age, had a bad boyfriend, had a terrible
> first sexual experience, they were born that way, or for whatever
> reason causes them to be attracted to the same sex.  They have the
> right to make love to each other, plain and simple.  It is not 
harming
> society, if anything it is population control at it's minimum.  They
> are not having sex in public places, involving minors, throwing it 
in
> your face... Nothing.
> 
> Now some would next argue well what about drugs?  If I do drugs in 
my
> own home why should I be bothered.  Well drugs can and do lead to
> criminal acts and harm to the innocent.  They lead people down a 
path
> of hurting others as well as themselves.  I would say the same thing
> about Alcohol, but it is more trivial the damage that we have 
allowed
> it to continue.  I suppose the line must be drawn somewhere...  
Wow!!!
> I got it!!!  The line between pro-homo and anti-homo must be the 
same
> line as pro-pot and anti-pot....  We all agree beastiality is wrong,
> and Crack is wrong, but pot and alcohol are ok...  So no we are at 
the
> line of sexuality...
> 
> Man I am rambling, sorry.  FTR I am not in support of beastiality,
> incest, or hunting for anything except food.  Teachers should remain
> teachers and Gays are ok in my book as long as a guy doesn't hit on 
me
> lol.
> 
> Jack -- legal handgun carrying, non drinker/smoker who has lines in 
the sand :) 
> 
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:23:08 -0000, cruznmd <racuti1@xxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > Marc said:
> > 
> > I want all you liberals to answer a question for me, that I 
honestly 
> > can't seem to resolve:
> > 
> > If two men or women, love each other, and engage in sexual acts 
which 
> > are unnatural (meaning for pleasure and not for the purpose of 
> > perpetuating the species) and they aren't hurting anyone, why is 
it 
> > not acceptable for a man to teach his daughter that it is ok, or 
> > perhaps even a privilage for her to love him and pleasure him if 
she 
> > agrees and isn't forced and isn't injured? Why is it not 
acceptable 
> > for a man to engage in acts with an animal if the animal isn't 
forced?
> > 
> > Is all of that acceptable simply because "it's in their bedroom 
and 
> > they aren't hurting anyone"? Where do we draw the line as a 
society 
> > and WHY?

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.