Two adult brothers in a relationship

pathtohome

bleepp wrote: »

People ARE born gay.

Id love to have a wife and kids and the rest but I can't..because of the way God made me.

And nothing in my life made me this way. I had a normal Irish up bringing the same as everyone else, surrounded by love and great friends. but I have always been gay..as long as I can remember. I didn't wake up one morning and say "hey think i'll like guys now!" It's always been there...

You don't have a clue man..

So you're claiming there's a "gay gene"? That theory has been disproved countless times.

TheBegotten

Normally Id argue incest is wrong because it leads to a stagnant gene pool, but the point would be invalid here. From a morality point of view its extremely wrong, it would suggest that a lack of nuturing caused fraternal love to change to physical. I've nothing against the LGBT community, I wish them all luck provided they don't above anything down my throat. But the whole incest thing seems to be unnatural in that it defies natural selection.

Undiscovered

pathtohome wrote: »

So you're claiming there's a "gay gene"? That theory has been disproved countless times.

Maybe it's not a gene. It's still possible that it's something to do with hormonal exposure during gestation. In this case people would still be born gay, without it being linked to genetics.

Sinfonia

bleepp wrote: »

Oh everyone here assumes you're trolling if you say something they don't agree with...why would I troll.
I believe incest is wrong and a result of negative experiences in childhood. That's all.

It's not a matter of what we agree on, the point is that you can't just say what the usual causes of incest are without evidence. You are presenting something as though it is fact.

Also, you can't just 'believe' that incest is a result of negative experiences in childhood.

bleepp

pathtohome wrote: »

So you're claiming there's a "gay gene"? That theory has been disproved countless times.

I'm saying I was born this way so if that means there is a gay gene then I guess they haven't found it yet.

pathtohome

bleepp wrote: »

I believe incest is wrong and a result of negative experiences in childhood. That's all.

Just because something is an effect of a negative experience does not make it wrong.

Until you can define why it's wrong, you're wrong.

Sinfonia

TheBegotten wrote: »

From a morality point of view its extremely wrong

Why?

TheBegotten wrote:

I've nothing against the LGBT community, I wish them all luck provided they don't above anything down my throat.

Jesus, this can of worms has been opened way too much on this thread.

TheBegotten

bleepp wrote: »

I'm saying I was born this way so if that means there is a gay gene then I guess they haven't found it yet.

There's a lot of misinformation about genetics. To keep it brief, chemicals interacting with genes AFTER the chromosome is formed have an impact. Every thing you experience from pre-natality until you die can leave a chemical imprint on your genes and who you are. So technically being gay isn't etched into your genes, but they could still play a huge part.

Undiscovered

TheBegotten wrote: »

Normally Id argue incest is wrong because it leads to a stagnant gene pool, but the point would be invalid here. From a morality point of view its extremely wrong, it would suggest that a lack of nuturing caused fraternal love to change to physical. I've nothing against the LGBT community, I wish them all luck provided they don't above anything down my throat. But the whole incest thing seems to be unnatural in that it defies natural selection.

Children living with cystic fibrosis (for example) kept alive by artificial medicines defy natural selection. Why does it matter whether something is natural or not? There's nothing natural about our modern lives so I can't see why people place such value on the "naturalness" of something in determining it's morality. What if the two brothers were adopted to separate families and met in their twenties and fell in love? Then lack of nurturing clearly wouldn't be the case.

TheBegotten

@Sinfonia I've explained. Its tricky to describe right but bear with me. 1.) Biology: It conflicts with natural selection. At its barest level, natural selection provides the instinct to find a suitable mate. Assuming they weren't raised away from all society that should be a genetically varied person.
2.) An explanation of morality: Morality is based off accepted norms and accepted norms are based off morality. Its not something drilled into me, its something I have concluded from point 1.)
3.) That LGBT thing was a pun :rolleyes:

gara

As long as they're not causing harm to anybody, I don't really care what consenting adults do on their own time

Sinfonia

TheBegotten wrote: »

@Sinfonia I've explained. Its tricky to describe right but bear with me. 1.) Biology: It conflicts with natural selection. At its barest level, natural selection provides the instinct to find a suitable mate. Assuming they weren't raised away from all society that should be a genetically varied person.

That is not how natural selection works. At all. In fact, it's closer to artificial selection.

TheBegotten wrote:

2.) An explanation of morality: Morality is based off accepted norms and accepted norms are based off morality. Its not something drilled into me, its something I have concluded from point 1.)

That is an explanation of morality that describes it as a product of pointless circular logic; therefore meaningless.

TheBegotten wrote:

3.) That LGBT thing was a pun :rolleyes:

Yes, for all its subtlety, I got the joke. The can of worms was in including off-topic references to homosexuality.

1ZRed

pathtohome wrote: »

So you're claiming there's a "gay gene"? That theory has been disproved countless times.

Nothing has been disproven. The human genome has only been mapped. What every single gene does within it has not been discovered.

I don't believe there is a single "gay" gene. That seems very unlikely but I do believe there could be genes that are slightly altered and therefore effect the production of hormones that determine sex, sexual features and sexual attraction. I think there could be multiple genes present within certain people that cause an inoptimal exposure to hormones such as testosterone in gestation. It has already been studied that too much or too little exposure to certain hormones can have an effect on various factors such as sexual attraction and orientation.

Now, nothing is so simplistic that it could be narrowed down to just one gene. In reality, there would be multiple genes working together in symbiosis to produce the right hormones at the right time and at the right levels. One or more faults or mutations with these genes could have an effect on sexual orientation.

For example, there is a theory that enough exposure to testosterone to masculinise the body, but not so much exposure to masculinise the brain, may lead to a homosexual orientation.
But that is just a theory based on the observation of one gene and it's one task -the production of testosterone. This hypothesis has been kept from developing further credibility because it was noted that heterosexual men had varying degrees of masculinity. When compared to homosexual men, a gay man could possess a higher degree of masculinity than a straight man yet still remain gay. Or a gay man and a straight man could both posses an equal level of masculinity but still have different sexual orientations. This shows that the insufficient testosterone issue was not responsible in shaping his orientation, as he still remained masculine. Another factor must have been present. If the Testosterone theory was truly plausible, then homosexual men would never be more masculine than heterosexual men because that one factor - insufficient testosterone exposure, would always prevent a masculine gay man from developing.

Considering gay and straight men both range from possessing high levels of masculinity to lower ones, and have varying degrees of sexual orientation and attraction, ranging from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual, shows that more genes are at play in the process.
That is why it is so difficult to pinpoint a single gene that causes homosexuality and brand it the "gay gene" because sexual orientation is so complex and is so fluid that it is the result of a multitude of hormones produced by a multitude of genes, all working in unison. I believe that one gay man's specifically effected genes that lead him to being sexually attracted to men, would not be equal to another, as the factors to do so would be unique to each individual, thus giving different levels of same sex attraction, masculinity etc.
This idea also gives credence to the fact that a straight man may be slightly attracted to other men but remain straight and identify as so, whereas another straight man may not posses these attractions at all.
Human sexuality is too much of a complex issue to view it as either homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual without allowing some leeway to fluctuate between these labels.

So you see, what ultimately causes homosexuality to come about may not be entirely genetic, nothing is ever solely genetic, as environmental (non-genetic) factors always have an effect, but there is no denying strong genetic influences pressent in the overall outcome of homosexuality.

IrishAm

Lets give the gays equal rights, marriage rights and everything but adoption rights.

Leave me be after that and I shall reciprocate.

Scanlas The 2nd

TheBegotten wrote: »

@Sinfonia I've explained. Its tricky to describe right but bear with me. 1.) Biology: It conflicts with natural selection. At its barest level, natural selection provides the instinct to find a suitable mate. Assuming they weren't raised away from all society that should be a genetically varied person.
2.) An explanation of morality: Morality is based off accepted norms and accepted norms are based off morality. Its not something drilled into me, its something I have concluded from point 1.)
3.) That LGBT thing was a pun :rolleyes:

Fertility therapy for infertile couples defies natural selection, should we ban that.

Undiscovered

IrishAm wrote: »

Lets give the gays equal rights, marriage rights and everything but adoption rights.

Leave me be after that and I shall reciprocate.

How is it equal rights if they don't have adoption rights?

Dyr

Lyaiera wrote: »

Ithere have been valid reasons given for not allowing some incestuous relationship

So far, all you've managed is that the siblings must be mental to do this


In other news, you sound like you should talk to Joe.

Dyr

Undiscovered wrote: »

How is it equal rights if they don't have adoption rights?

In that adoption is about a child rights rather than the adopted parents rights?

Undiscovered

Bambi wrote: »

In that adoption is about a child rights rather than the adopted parents rights?

Can you elaborate on your reasoning behind this? Are you also opposed to straight couples adopting on the grounds that it doesn't take the child's rights into consideration? Which child rights are you referring to specifically?

Equality is a total package. You can't just pick and choose which rights you want to give someone and call it even.

Dyr

Undiscovered wrote: »

Equality is a total package. You can't just pick and choose which rights you want to give someone and call it even.

No couple of any gender has a "right" to adopt a child, capiche?

Carlos_Ray

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Sometimes you just know something is wrong. You don't need to articulate reasons why because its so inherently disturbing and depraved that it goes without saying.

Quite often these are the things one should be MORE inclined to spend time articulating. If you find yourself jumping to some gut reaction but utterly failing to be able to articulate your issue with it in any meaningful or logical way - then perhaps the gut reaction is wrong in the first place.

Too many people are quck to equate "It is disgusting to me" with "It IS disgusting" or worse that it is morally wrong. One wonders if we could press a button tomorrow that would make that distinction entirely clear in the heads of people all around the world - would it change the debate about - and the numbers of people against - homosexuality for example. The vast majority of people I discuss Homosexuality with have little reason to be against it except personal distaste for it. But since no one is asking them to engage in it - one wonders what their issue is.

The same is true of incest I fear. I wonder how many people who think it is morally wrong are doing so for no other reason than they themselves have no wish to engage in it and therefore feel no one else should either.

Abi wrote: »

We know it can cause genetic defects in opposite gender couples if they have children.

That is actually - depending on how exactly you phrase it - a myth. It does not "cause" genetic defects at all. It just slightly increases the likelyhood of certain types of defects carried by one of them being expressed in their children.

The reason for this is that if a person carries a recessive defect, then the child will only display it if the other parent also has the same defect AND both pass it on to the child.

So it is all down to probability of the partner carrying it AND passing it to the child. Incest just increases the likelyhood that the partner MIGHT also be carrying it.

But "causing" defects - incest does not do that and - for example - if two siblings carry no defects then there is no reason to expect their child any more likely to have one than the child of any "average" couple.

Undiscovered

Bambi wrote: »

No couple of any gender has a "right" to adopt a child, capiche?

What would you call it then?

So you're against adoption full stop, straight or gay?

coffee_cake

Undiscovered wrote: »

What would you call it then?

a privilege

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite often these are the things one should be MORE inclined to spend time articulating. If you find yourself jumping to some gut reaction but utterly failing to be able to articulate your issue with it in any meaningful or logical way - then perhaps the gut reaction is wrong in the first place.

couldn't agree more

Undiscovered

bluewolf wrote: »

a privilege

They're practically synonyms. Call it what you want it's the same thing in essence and it still brings the issue of equality into question. Why should gay couples be denied the same "privileges" afforded to heterosexual ones?

coffee_cake

Undiscovered wrote: »

They're practically synonyms. Call it what you want it's the same thing in essence and it still brings the issue of equality into question. Why should gay couples be denied the same "privileges" afforded to heterosexual ones?

Oh, they shouldn't. I was just jumping in there

Dyr

Undiscovered wrote: »

What would you call it then?

So you're against adoption full stop, straight or gay?

I'm sorry but i tend to not to pay much attention to accounts with brand spanking join dates, I'm a bit prejudicial like that. Get back to me when you've some miles under that account and have proven that you're not just another one issue wonder.

Medusa22

Undiscovered wrote: »

Children living with cystic fibrosis (for example) kept alive by artificial medicines defy natural selection. Why does it matter whether something is natural or not? There's nothing natural about our modern lives so I can't see why people place such value on the "naturalness" of something in determining it's morality. What if the two brothers were adopted to separate families and met in their twenties and fell in love? Then lack of nurturing clearly wouldn't be the case.

I am an adult living with CF and I am definitely defying natural selection!

Undiscovered

Bambi wrote: »

I'm sorry but i tend to not to pay much attention to accounts with brand spanking join dates, I'm a bit prejudicial like that. Get back to me when you've some miles under that account and have proven that you're not just another one issue wonder.

It's a shame you're so dismissive toward new accounts. We make worthwhile posts too sometimes anyway I'm going to take your advice and try to post around abit! You're correct for thinking that equality is one issue I feel very passionately about.

Medusa22 wrote: »

I am an adult living with CF and I am definitely defying natural selection!

Fairplay to ya! Modern medicine truly is marvelous I actually know a guy from secondary school who has CS. I have so much respect for him, you couldn't meet a nicer or more cheerful fella!

RDM_83 again

Really interesting thread so I've decided to articulate in a longer post why I consider it 'morally/socially' wrong but not feel that it should be illegal.

Even today one of the largest factors in our society is the family/kin group (which has become more and more restricted and nuclear in passing decades and centuries), an incestuous relationship within the family and kin group is likely to disrupt the functioning of these dynamics, relationships outside the kin group are going to act against the process of integrating other from outside the group into it, I'd consider this important socially (Ptolemaic Egypt is an example of incest arguably being used as a tool to restrict social mobility and retain power in a narrow kin group) and also self evidently biologically important demonstrated by the outbreeding phenomenon which is very strong in the majority of life forms.
A further point is that within family units there is very strong existing power dynamics which would surely come into play even if the relationship is broadly consensual e.g. for an example threat stated or otherwise that a refusal/termination of the sexual relationship could break the extremely important social bonds of family. Obviously skewed power dynamics occur in other relationships RE my previous post.

Though you 'could' equate homosexuality with incest in terms of previous social views, I would argue that this is false, there is a strong potential for bi-sexuality to be an advantageous to the continued reproductive success of the kin group(1). We are also approaching the issue of homosexuality from a very western european view, a gay friend of mine who spent time in deep SE european country has often mentioned how different it was there.

1- As an offside I am not entirely convinced off the biological imperative to completely exclusively homosexual behavior however arguing from no evidence at all I would believe that this is much less common than is perceived e.g there is very few homosexuals that have not had some heterosexual sexual experiences and would not be capable of serving a reproductive role if there was strong social pressure (to use an example the gay medieval lord would be married and creating heirs though he might spend most of his time and be much happier bumming the stable boys).

In an attempt to justify having watched lesbian twin porn :P I would argue that this serves as a display to entice a high profile mate of good genetic stock e.g by reproducing with both sisters the kin group gains. (I'l admit that this argument isn't very strong :cool: )

Offtopic I am personally homophobic in that I find physical male homosexual activity 'icky' however this does not mean that I condemn the activity or consider it wrong (however having actually tried to explain this disjunct to a gay friends friend I understand how a personal feeling of 'ickyness' can give the impression of personal judgment which is not the case)

enda1

No form of incest bothers me, so of course this doesn't. As long as the parties have made free adult decisions to join in, go right ahead.