|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:04 pm
A man and a man can love each other. A woman and a woman can love each other. Love is love.
Well, is bestiality okay?
Is incest okay?
I mean, love is love, right? :3~~
// I'm not sure how I honestly feel about this. I'm mostly just pointing out a pattern, a "slippery slope" as some might call it, though we can argue whether it's a slope at all. I can argue both sides. If a lady really loves her dog, is it any of my business? But how do you judge where "love" becomes abuse? How do you judge whether a little girl loves her dad that way, or is just brainwashed and scared?
And. Do you think this has anything whatsoever to do with the acceptance of homosexuality?
I think it does. Love existed primarily to bring two people together to make babies. Obviously, in modern society, love now serves a more emotional purpose, and it occurs all the time between people without resulting in babies. Which many people see is okay. (I think it's fine too.) But bestiality and incest and cross-generational relationships, it's not far off.
In the end, I don't think it's any of my business, and any of yours, either. But the government makes it everybody's business. What is your opinion?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:19 am
There are different kinds of love. Sexual and nonsexual. Filia, Eros, and Agape. Love between friends, love between lovers, love between family, etc.
Not all love = love.
To say "love is love" is an oversimplification of the terms.
Overuse of cliches does not make me want to support someone's bestial sexual relationship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:47 am
I don't think the government has any business dictating who can love whom, but "marriage" and "love" are two different things. Love doesn't have any legal implications, but marriage affects things like taxes and insurance qualification. It's a much more slippery slope (to stick with that metaphor) than just two guys who happen to like getting it on.
As for beastiality and that other stuff, that gets even trickier. Again, a girl who enjoys banging her dog is one thing, but if that girl wants to marry that dog, there are a lot of legal factors to consider. For example, how can we be sure the dog even wants to get married? It's not like he can say "I do." He can't voice his opinion or sign his name on an insurance document. He probably doesn't earn any income, either, which would affect their taxes.
There's too many factors involved to simplify it as "love is love."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:30 pm
Interesting.
A good point there Zorlock Darksoul. Love is a tricky subject. One could say, "Love is Love" and say they love their flowers. Now, do they want to marry their flowers? Maybe..but then I'd hate to see the children. razz
but the word "love" is totally different than love itself. People say "I love you." because they love that person, "I love this show! it's the best!" They say this because the show is so exciting to them, "I just love how gorgeous these flowers are!" they like how preatty the flowers bloomed.
You can say "Love" but it's not always happy fun sex time, or make-outs until midnight, all the time. True love is felt in your heart and soul, "love" is just a word used to emphasize how much a person likes a certain pet, object, or thing.
Now I'm not saying I'm right, lol but discussion on love is a hard one sometimes. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:54 pm
Stardust Drifter Interesting. A good point there Zorlock Darksoul. Love is a tricky subject. One could say, "Love is Love" and say they love their flowers. Now, do they want to marry their flowers? Maybe..but then I'd hate to see the children. razz but the word "love" is totally different than love itself. People say "I love you." because they love that person, "I love this show! it's the best!" They say this because the show is so exciting to them, "I just love how gorgeous these flowers are!" they like how preatty the flowers bloomed. You can say "Love" but it's not always happy fun sex time, or make-outs until midnight, all the time. True love is felt in your heart and soul, "love" is just a word used to emphasize how much a person likes a certain pet, object, or thing. Now I'm not saying I'm right, lol but discussion on love is a ######## sometimes. sweatdrop Wow... Someone who has about the same views as me... In Polls Galore!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:39 pm
Another thing is are they really in love or just lust? Some think that homosexuals are just trying to make up for what they think they lack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Detective
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:41 pm
moless Another thing is are they really in love or just lust? Some think that homosexuals are just trying to make up for what they think they lack.
confused What do you mean by people think that I'm trying to make up for what I lack? ..What exactly am I lacking, here?~ I Love Kyle. ~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:41 pm
you are okay to some people, not to other... if in the end you care about it... you are not more than a poser~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:46 am
Normally I don't get involved with debates on the internet, but I'm making an exception as this is a personal thing that irks me.
Homosexuality =/= bestiality. You can't say that two people of the same gender being in love with each other is the same as some girl who likes her dog a bit too much. They are two completely different subjects. One involves two people consenting to be together, where the other is one person and an animal. It's apples and oranges, you can't compare them.
As for incest, there's where you get tricky. The main reason we react on an emotional level to incest is because of the implications of what may happen to the children. The kids have a higher risk of developing all sorts of problems due to lack of diversity in the gene pool.
Which brings me to my final point. Sexual intercourse is not just for reproduction! You can ask thousands of people, and I bet children are the last thing on their mind when they do it.
Even if it were, there are 6 BILLION people on this planet last I heard. Children are starving on the streets, or suffering under the foster care system (but that's another debate), and there are still many more stuck in orphanages. Don't you think we've had enough little miracles to last us for a while?
I do not wish to seem like I am on the attack, but it just really gets me angry when people try to make that point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:04 am
Lycan, sexual intercourse may not be just for reproduction anymore. But this would only be because as a species we are so numerous that it doesn't matter if even half of us stopped procreating. We would continue to exist as a species. But the purpose of the sexual organs and intercourse is to create children. Despite this it is as you said, most people do not have children in mind when they have sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:23 pm
The organs themselves are not just for reproduction. They regulate hormones in your system, even long after the ability to reproduce is gone from them. Plus, the role of sex has never been just for procreation. Sex feels really good. Both physically and emotionally, it connects people. Without those kind of connections, what woman would want to go through the painful process of labor and raising a child? In younger societies, sex was used as a way of connect tribes together. So even in older times, homosexuals played a vital role in society. Since procreation wasn't their main focus, they could focus on other tasks, such as helping others raise their children.
Also, the purpose of sexuality and sex changed as we became self aware. Once a good number of people could have children with minimal problems, that is when we started to think about what truly turns us on. In this day and age sex isn't just for reproduction meerly because of overproduction, but because we recognize that emotional connection that comes with sex. We can choose who to share this bond with, and that is the other half of sex that often gets left out of these debates.
Finally, if you make that argument that homosexuals are not acceptable because they can't reproduce, you also shut the door to a whole bunch of other people. What about infertile people? The elderly? If sex is truly just for reproductive purposes, then why do people feel the need to engage in it even when they can't have children?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:56 am
Lycan_no_Chaos The organs themselves are not just for reproduction. They regulate hormones in your system, even long after the ability to reproduce is gone from them. Plus, the role of sex has never been just for procreation. Sex feels really good. Both physically and emotionally, it connects people. Without those kind of connections, what woman would want to go through the painful process of labor and raising a child? In younger societies, sex was used as a way of connect tribes together. So even in older times, homosexuals played a vital role in society. Since procreation wasn't their main focus, they could focus on other tasks, such as helping others raise their children. Also, the purpose of sexuality and sex changed as we became self aware. Once a good number of people could have children with minimal problems, that is when we started to think about what truly turns us on. In this day and age sex isn't just for reproduction meerly because of overproduction, but because we recognize that emotional connection that comes with sex. We can choose who to share this bond with, and that is the other half of sex that often gets left out of these debates. Finally, if you make that argument that homosexuals are not acceptable because they can't reproduce, you also shut the door to a whole bunch of other people. What about infertile people? The elderly? If sex is truly just for reproductive purposes, then why do people feel the need to engage in it even when they can't have children? This is deserving of a standing ovation, I believe. You made some very good points, and they were delivered quite expertly. 3nodding Bravo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:46 pm
Lycan_no_Chaos Normally I don't get involved with debates on the internet, but I'm making an exception as this is a personal thing that irks me. Homosexuality =/= bestiality. You can't say that two people of the same gender being in love with each other is the same as some girl who likes her dog a bit too much. They are two completely different subjects. One involves two people consenting to be together, where the other is one person and an animal. It's apples and oranges, you can't compare them. As for incest, there's where you get tricky. The main reason we react on an emotional level to incest is because of the implications of what may happen to the children. The kids have a higher risk of developing all sorts of problems due to lack of diversity in the gene pool. Which brings me to my final point. Sexual intercourse is not just for reproduction! You can ask thousands of people, and I bet children are the last thing on their mind when they do it. Even if it were, there are 6 BILLION people on this planet last I heard. Children are starving on the streets, or suffering under the foster care system (but that's another debate), and there are still many more stuck in orphanages. Don't you think we've had enough little miracles to last us for a while? I do not wish to seem like I am on the attack, but it just really gets me angry when people try to make that point.
// .....
*Claps* That pretty much just hit the nail right on the head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:25 pm
Zorlock Darksoul Lycan_no_Chaos The organs themselves are not just for reproduction. They regulate hormones in your system, even long after the ability to reproduce is gone from them. Plus, the role of sex has never been just for procreation. Sex feels really good. Both physically and emotionally, it connects people. Without those kind of connections, what woman would want to go through the painful process of labor and raising a child? In younger societies, sex was used as a way of connect tribes together. So even in older times, homosexuals played a vital role in society. Since procreation wasn't their main focus, they could focus on other tasks, such as helping others raise their children. Also, the purpose of sexuality and sex changed as we became self aware. Once a good number of people could have children with minimal problems, that is when we started to think about what truly turns us on. In this day and age sex isn't just for reproduction meerly because of overproduction, but because we recognize that emotional connection that comes with sex. We can choose who to share this bond with, and that is the other half of sex that often gets left out of these debates. Finally, if you make that argument that homosexuals are not acceptable because they can't reproduce, you also shut the door to a whole bunch of other people. What about infertile people? The elderly? If sex is truly just for reproductive purposes, then why do people feel the need to engage in it even when they can't have children? This is deserving of a standing ovation, I believe. You made some very good points, and they were delivered quite expertly. 3nodding Bravo. Agree's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
