The Gay Marriage Controversy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bossel

I think, if a male hemophilliac procreates with a female carrier of the gene defect, there is a 25% probality (didn't look this up, just from memory) that the child is also a hemophilliac.

---

I think that's wrong, and not just by a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bossel

According to the logic of probability of disabled offspring, should carriers of that defect then be prohibited to marry?

---

People with the hemophillia gene should be aware of the risks involved, inform themselves of the exact particulars of their individual case, and consider carefully what actions they should take.

In my personal opinion if I was a carrier of a gene that with treatment reduces life expectancy by ~10 years I'd get the snip and rely on sperm banks.

Incidently there was a recent case where a couple who were born deaf wanted to use a sperm filtering technique so that their child would also be deaf. The reason being that they wished their child to be part of the deaf community. I believe that the court ruled against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulTB

I think that's wrong, and not just by a little.

---

You're right, my example was wrong (BTW, I would appreciate it if you would either quote me correctly or otherwise indicate your changes!). As I said, it was just from memory.
In my example above the probability of a child being a bleeder is actually 50% (the probability for being a carrier of the gene even 75%). The probability of 25% is in the case of a female carrier procreating with a healthy male.

Quote:

---

People with the hemophillia gene should be aware of the risks involved, inform themselves of the exact particulars of their individual case, and consider carefully what actions they should take.

---

Exactly! Like always when people want to have children.
But the question is: Should it be possible to forbid people to marry or procreate for genetic reasons? I don't think so!

Quote:

---

Incidently there was a recent case where a couple who were born deaf wanted to use a sperm filtering technique so that their child would also be deaf.

---

This would actually be deliberately causing bodily harm to the child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ascate

Everywhere you might go, don't forget to organize a STRAIGHT pride and parade and show off, so that hetero can also have a nice musical momentum to show off. (Has anyone thought about that or hould I put a copyright on it???)

---

The Love Parades (or whatever these Techno parades are called) all over the world could count as such, I think.:music:
Anyway, I know from German gay pride parades that they are not an exclusively homosexual event.

Yeah, there are bigger problems on this world, but the most urgent problem for people is always the one that currently buggers themselves. That's OK, as long as the bigger problems are not forgotten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bossel

You're right, my example was wrong (BTW, I would appreciate it if you would either quote me correctly or otherwise indicate your changes!).

---

It may well be different where you are but that word is an insult where I was brought up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bossel

This would actually be deliberately causing bodily harm to the child.

---

You could argue that it would be beneficial for a child being brought up by two deaf parents to be deaf himself. If he isn't deaf then there will be strong influences acting to separate him from his parents and their culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ascate

Everywhere you might go, don't forget to organize a STRAIGHT pride and parade and show off, so that hetero can also have a nice musical momentum to show off. (Has anyone thought about that or hould I put a copyright on it???)
Have a good time and send us a postcard, we'll all be happy for you.

---

Yes, definetely send (me) a postcard, mieboy. :)

I think that in some countries, Poland for example, such parades are needed. People still try to not notice us, or hide us in the cages of our own homes pretenfding there is no such subject like homosexualism at all. You can't go with your love on the street and kiss because everybody will loook at you thinking "gross". [actually, I have them deep inside...] Maybe with these parades people will get used to this thought that there are homosexuals among us, and they will tolerate, and accept them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulTB

It may well be different where you are but that word is an insult where I was brought up.

---

I never heard that bleeder could be an insult. Upon your statement I looked it up in the OED & indeed it can be, but in a different context, not referring to haemophilia. Since the context is clear, I don't see the problem.

From the OED:
bleeder
2. Med. A person subject to hæmophilia, i.e. disposed by natural constitution to bleed.
3. low slang. A very stupid, unpleasant, or contemptible person; also transf.; also used inoffensively, preceded by little, poor, etc., = DEVIL n. 4c.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kama

I think that in some countries, Poland for example, such parades are needed. People still try to not notice us, or hide us in the cages of our own homes pretenfding there is no such subject like homosexualism at all. You can't go with your love on the street and kiss because everybody will loook at you thinking "gross". [actually, I have them deep inside...] Maybe with these parades people will get used to this thought that there are homosexuals among us, and they will tolerate, and accept them.

---

Yes, Kama, you might be right. It might be good for Poland, but now that your country is in EEC, it will make things go faster. But it will take time for older generation to adapt (even some younger ones), but finally, it will come to a "normal" situation. thanks for your posts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bossel

Actually, this is a common misconception.
Incest is prohibited on moral grounds, the biological reasons are minor. Personally, I see this kind of reasoning as leading in the direction of Eugenics as the Nazis enforced it. You forbid people to procreate for reasons of the "health" of future generations.

The probability for genetic disorders is of course bigger in incestuous relations (than in most other relations of healthy adults), but it's normally highly exaggerated. Usually you'd need several generations of inbreeding to see negative results.

From Wikipedia:
"Incest may be a form of inbreeding, and some have suggested that the incest taboo is meant to reduce the chances of congenital birth-defects that can result from inbreeding. Scientists have generally rejected this as an explanation for the incest taboo for two reasons.
[...]
If an individual has an allele linked to a congenital birth-defect, it is likely that close relatives also have this allele; a homozygote would express the congenital birth defect. If an individual does not have such an allele, a homozygote would be healthy. Thus, the frequency of a defect-carrying gene in a population may go up, or down, when inbreeding occurs. The overall effect of inbreeding depends on the size of the population."

Your argument of "grave disabilities" holds more water for relationships of (related or non-related) bearers of genetic deficiencies, let's say haemophiliacs. I think, if a male bleeder procreates with a female carrier of the gene defect, there is a 25% probality (didn't look this up, just from memory) that the child is also a bleeder.

According to the logic of probability of disabled offspring, should carriers of that defect then be prohibited to marry? This question counts for other genetic deficiencies as well.

---

good post, but where does that leave me?

to be honest, i still feel it's not really ok, even if the kids will do fine..

does that make me racist.. errr.. sexist? or something like that? :souka:

i guess it does... i'll have to ponder this... :?

(yeah, i know.. not racist for sure, but i can't really think of anything else that sounds as hated as racist..)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwistedMac

good post, but where does that leave me?

to be honest, i still feel it's not really ok, even if the kids will do fine...

---

Whether or not the children will do fine biologically* there is still the question of whether such relationships are psychologically healthy.

There are a countries where there are reports of high proportions of incestual relationships - most of them are not pretty at all.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040125/herworld.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/259959.stm

* And I believe there have been some of animal studies showing a very significant decreased life expectancy associated with 'close' relationships without any known individual 'bad gene' being involved. It was reported in New Scientist a few months ago.

Thank you for the links PaulTB

If I might just say that there are more than 50 organizations ( NGO, UN affiliated, private and official gov.) that are shouting into India's top ministers'ears about this problems.

Unfortunately, the laxity of the government and the fact that India is a self-proclaimed civilized country stops them from taking serious actions, even if they try. A good punishment, such as emasculation, without prescription (limitation of action by laps of time ) shoud be more appropriate and should bring to a stop a large part of what is considered as a way of life. But can y human being do that to another ? I would say yes.

But dont get it wrong. Incestuous child abuse and agressionsar not a "specialty" of India. These practices are well and truly alive. Even if they have a tendency to be less important in Europe and North America, it has not completely disappeared.

And it will always remain in countries such as some regions of Africa, Middle-East, and some more Oriental Nations. As long as the male considers himself as more worthy and important than the female. And as long as he will feel himself supported as such by law, religion or ancestor's traditions.

It's a familly affair and all of them who knows, knows nothing. Terror, blackmail and beatings are a common "language" in these situations. Quickly, you'll find the whole familly living in a sort of "Syndrome of Stockholm", just to keep alive.

And it's not only girls that are the victims, boys too. You never know who might be the next victim. If you have a neighbour with children, just ask yourself if they are safe...

Frightning nightmares that have kept me awake more than a night ! Even worst, tears of anger, rage and despare that have run down my cheeks, suspecting of what was going on, and not been able to do anything.

Empty eyes, without light, of an abused child wandering into nothing-land, future with no hope. Emptiness, no rewards.
She was called Iñes and she died at the age tewlve, on january 3rd 2003. Not so long ago. How many more since then ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwistedMac

to be honest, i still feel it's not really ok, even if the kids will do fine..

---

Hey, you don't have to like it! There are lots of things I don't like, incest is one of them, but if people enjoy what they do & nobody is harmed without their consent, why should I forbid them to do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulTB

Whether or not the children will do fine biologically* there is still the question of whether such relationships are psychologically healthy.

There are a countries where there are reports of high proportions of incestual relationships - most of them are not pretty at all.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040125/herworld.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/259959.stm

* And I believe there have been some of animal studies showing a very significant decreased life expectancy associated with 'close' relationships without any known individual 'bad gene' being involved. It was reported in New Scientist a few months ago.

---

Now you are really mixing things up. Incest is not necessarily child abuse & child abuse is not necessarily incest!

I quote myself (bad habit, I know):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bossel

Anyway, as long as something happens consensually without harm to anybody else, why not?

---

With child abuse you are actually harming someone!
There is something called the age of consent, in most countries somewhere between 16 & 21, I think. We are talking about adults who are able to make a choice. Should they be allowed to marry, or not? I don't see, how child abuse enters the game. Child abuse is harmful & without consent.

Editing: BTW, I searched NewScientist for what you mentioned but didn't find anything. Can you provide a link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ascate

But dont get it wrong. Incestuous child abuse and agressionsar not a "specialty" of India. These practices are well and truly alive.

---

Right on! In the link below, you will find that of 60% of children in Europe say that they are "abused" at home. These are all forms of abuse & the number is not very objective, but it shows that abuse is quite common.
It's hard to get the real numbers, anyway, since many cases go unreported.
http://www.euro.who.int/document/med...re/fs0203e.pdf

Now you are really mixing things up. Incest is not necessarily child abuse & child abuse is not necessarily incest!

This is a stupid statement, and please excuse me to be so direct & blunt about it.. How can you say that an incest on a child is not an abuse ? So before I'm really affraid of you, give me a motivation for what you said, please !

We know that incest between adults may results of perversity or of a somewhat disturbed minds. But nature has from time to time made "funny" twists, and a young man, arriving at maturity might physically fall in love with his mother (even his father). Same thing apllies to the daughter / father relation. So is it ok between adults ? I would tend to say yes, it's none of our business as long as they dont reproduce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bossel

Now you are really mixing things up. Incest is not necessarily child abuse & child abuse is not necessarily incest!

---

No they are not. But I would bet a significant amount of money that statistically most incest is abusive and most child-abuse is incestual (e.g. with a relative).

Unfortunately the New Scientist article was a right pain to trackdown the last time I had to look it up - there weren't any obvious 'keywords' to use.

Incidently there is very good evidence that people brought up together will have less successful relationships regardless of whether they are related or not.

(The classic study on the subject being
Wolf, A., & Huang, C. (1980). Marriage and adoption in China: 1845-1945. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yimija

Now you are really mixing things up. Incest is not necessarily child abuse & child abuse is not necessarily incest!

This is a stupid statement, and please excuse me to be so direct & blunt about it.. How can you say that an incest on a child is not an abuse ? So before I'm really affraid of you, give me a motivation for what you said, please !

---

Before you are really afraid of me, read again what I posted! :worried:

What you quoted is simple logic, maybe this makes it clearer: Incest among adults is no child abuse. Children can be abused by complete strangers, hence no incest.
If you'd read further in my last post, everything should have been clear, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulTB

No they are not. But I would bet a significant amount of money that statistically most incest is abusive and most child-abuse is incestual (e.g. with a relative).

---

Well, I wouldn't take that bet. As I said, statistics on this topic are not very reliable, since esp. abuse by relatives is often not reported.
What makes it even more complicated are the differing definitions of incest. In some countries it means only sexual relations between direct relatives (IE parents, children, siblings), while others include more distant relatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bossel

Wasn't that his stepdaughter, Woody Allen got involved with?
Anyway, as long as something happens consensually without harm to anybody else, why not?

---

Okay, how about a father marrying his own biological adult son?

Don't bother answering. I already know you think it would be okay.

i'm gonna go with bossel on this whole topic.. it's true that incest isn't synonymous with child abuse.. in a parent/child incest relationship the daugher/son could very well be an adult and may even be the one that seduced his or her parent to start off with...

on the topic of child abuse and rape however, i think most will agree it's just plain wrong and quite sickening...

so i've decided to go entirely with bossel's live and let live attitude...

Strike two for the good guys. :cool: :bravo: :yeahh: :cheer: :victory:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3716615.stm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwistedMac

it's true that incest isn't synonymous with child abuse..

---

Nobody has said differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwistedMac

in a parent/child incest relationship the daugher/son could very well be an adult and may even be the one that seduced his or her parent to start off with...

---

Care to put a percentage on that 'could very well' for a country of your choice?

From the set of parent/child incestual relationships what fraction are non-abusive and started when both parties were adult. 1%, 0.01%, ... I don't know, but I'd bet it's on that edge of the graph by a long way.

I have absolutely nothing against gay people, in fact I am perfectly fine about them telling me about who they dated. I am ok with them getting married. Equal Civil unions or marriage sounds acceptable. I do not think the church should tell the government what to do or vise versa. If gay marriage is against Christianity, then the church will simply refuse to preform them. If the church is willing to preform a homosexual marriage, than so be it. I hate how Conservatives want to get the government involved with religious and cultural affairs (especially since they say they are for smaller government, but clearly are not). Conservatives like to censor what they find "offensive" and punish who even made it. Stupid Religious Right Wingers are the reason teenage girls go to jail for having naked pictures of themselves. Either Bush and the religious right looses power or I am leaving the country. I am sick of Conservatives and their anti-homosexual, anti-everything attitudes. Religious-Right Wingers think they speak for every Christian in the world, however they are wrong. There are plenty of Christians who believe Social-Conservatives are a bunch of bigoted morons, which they are.
:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morfos

I have absolutely nothing against gay people, in fact I am perfectly fine about them telling me about who they dated. I am ok with them
:p

---

the funny part about it is that you have to ACTUALLY TELL everyone that you are ok with homosexual. Why speak about it ? Do you tell everybody that you aare actually OK and have nothing AGAINST hetero ?
Why make a difference netween them, since you seem to agree that ther shouold NOT BE ANY DIFFERENCE ?
On that point you are right : There is no difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwistedMac

it's true that incest isn't synonymous with child abuse.. in a parent/child incest relationship the daugher/son could very well be an adult and may even be the one that seduced his or her parent to start off with...

on the topic of child abuse and rape however, i think most will agree it's just plain wrong and quite sickening...

---

so we all agree on that point. It's good to see there is some cohesion...lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rachel

Strike two for the good guys. :cool: :bravo: :yeahh: :cheer: :victory:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3716615.stm

---

Hi Rachel, I'll go along with you, too

There's absolutely no sane reason to hinder gay or lesbians from marrying if they really want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lina Inverse

There's absolutely no sane reason to hinder gay or lesbians from marrying if they really want to.

---

yes, of course you are right. But some people have to be told again and again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yimija

yes, of course you are right. But some people have to be told again and again...

---

and some of them still don't get it... some people are jsut too stubborn and/or they think they know better... :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kama

and some of them still don't get it... some people are jsut too stubborn and/or they think they know better... :(

---

self rightous people will do if when they die, they find out the religious figure they worship is gay??

Frank

:?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kama

and some of them still don't get it... some people are jsut too stubborn and/or they think they know better... :(

---

no, for most of them, they have just bee born and raised not to be open-minded andthe rest of them are too weak to have their own minds and cannot think.
Thea are just weaklings and we cannot blame them !!! LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank D. White

... they find out the religious figure they worship is gay??

Frank :?

---

We want names, Frank, please !!!!!!

Im starting to be ashamed of being Polish. First, in Krakow (Cracow), now in Warsaw there is a church organization which sends to PEOPLE'S MAILBOXES. They doesn't allow a peace march of gay and followers because it's one day after a church holiday (so what? XD) and because it's immoral (we gays are sodomists XD). The march will end before the parliament's building with petition to allow gay marriages. There will (probably) be "allpoland's teenagers" who last time threw stones into the marching people. They want to confront us with aggression. People from this group won't shake hands with gays. ==" Some days ago there was a politician who publicated over the net names and e-mail addresses of people who opposed his anti-gay politics.

Warsaw's president because of his OWN THOUGHTS banned the march. His decision was cancelled from the up. But he refused to allow the march for the second time. Till this year, nobody banned the march.

Everybody is shouting it's the end of family, we want to destroy a beautiful relationship between man and woman. And yes, they all say, we want to promote our lifestyle. Yes, yes... That's our plan!! :D We will agitate for sure "become gay, become les". And everybody will rush to become gay/les. XD

Some people say that they tolerate gays only when they are doing it inside and when they are not reminded outside that gays DO exist. Why can't I hug or kiss my love on the street? Why it's allowed for a boy to kiss a girl on the street?And why I can't kiss my girl? Why it's awful? Why I and my feelings are worse?

I think I will never understand people. I wish some ot these f... politicians tasted what is like to be hated by (almost) everyone, when in reality you haven't done anything wrong. The country (in the paper, as everything in Poland) is such a wonderful country... So what if we have european-union-standards law, when nobody respects them? So what if we ratificated Genevian convention if the politicians (not talking about normal people) didn't even bother to respect it? So what if we have "unreligious" country where in reality is dictated by the Church (one and the only one right)? How can people critcize muslim religious countries (theocracy) when it's in Poland (so what that not officially?)