Well, Adam and Eve were the only two initial humans, right? Their kids couldn't have had too many problems with it.
Frozen
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Oh for heaven's sake we had ended it, ENDED IT! 
But since you're roping me back in yes, Adam and Eve's sons and daughters would obviously have only had themselves to marry. A theory is that Adam and Eve's kids were so "pure" that them intermarrying wouldn't have caused the genetic mishaps we see today. God didn't forbid incest until many generations later.
I was calling out the dog thing though. You acted like it should only be frowned upon unless the dog says "yes."
But since you're roping me back in yes, Adam and Eve's sons and daughters would obviously have only had themselves to marry. A theory is that Adam and Eve's kids were so "pure" that them intermarrying wouldn't have caused the genetic mishaps we see today. God didn't forbid incest until many generations later.
I was calling out the dog thing though. You acted like it should only be frowned upon unless the dog says "yes."
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 16,367
- Reaction score
- 526
I hope there was a grandfather clause on incest. It would suck to burn forever on a technicality.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,452
- Reaction score
- 3,156
That's exactly what it feels like to me.
The LGBT community have their rights now. They got their gay marriage and these transgender people are constantly in the spotlight and getting unheard of privileges (that I'm not quite sure are appropriate, but hey, whatever). When will it be enough? Tolerance is one thing, but this kind of exposure? C'mon. Why does a children's movie need to promote such lifestyles? These are movies made for kids that the adult audiences seemed to have glommed up on as their own. But then to want to put propaganda into it? I don't like it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it just feels like the homosexual movement here in the U.S. has achieved unprecedented power in the past 10 years. It really feels like a bombardment everywhere you look. If you're gay or whatever, that's fine, I would hope most rational people would judge a person by their character and not their sexual orientation. However, I think the more exposed people are to these things, the more accepting they'll be to them. To me, that's blatant desensitization. I'm not quite sure brainwashing is a good thing on a wishy-washy issue that many people don't agree with. Now we're starting to see a small media push for pedophilia which is being treated as a form of "sexual identity" and, I'm sorry, I can't abide by that. That's disgusting. Like homosexuality before it, if I'm considered a bad guy for finding pedophilia wrong and vile, so be it. I'm sick of political correctness and trying to make everyone feel like they're happy, little, special snowflakes.
There are steps to all this stuff, levels of tolerance. As soon as society lets up on one issue, another, more degenerate one will rear up it's ugly head and takes it's place. Homosexuality was the start of all that. Gay laws have set the stage for pedophilia "rights". What's next, incest? Bestiality? I don't think one has to necessarily be a bible thumper to view these things as being wrong or immoral. In fact, I'm always relieved when I see non-religious people thinking just as I do. To blatantly put these things in front of kids by glamorizing and normalizing it just seems wrong and inappropriate. It might be a quaint idea, but I do feel like people are innocent and pure during their childhood. They don't need to be exposed to these kinds of ideas about sexuality or all these crazy, mentally ill, "gender labels". The past generation is confused enough about their identity, to push that further? I don't know. I think there's such a thing as sexual morality, and if you lose that as a society, I think you'll be ****ed in the long run. It's certainly being tested and eroded now a days. It's like what was once viewed as good, is bad and vice versa.
Regarding the past generation being confused about its identity, how do you think it was for a gay person in the 1950s U.S.? I think we're having issues now, in large part, because there still is a lingering social stigma that doesn't let adolescents really know who they are. They feel pulled in different directions. But once we move beyond this, I think we will have much less of that, though of course, all adolescents and young adults have an adjustment period. That's natural. And that's quite a jump to go from, again, adults making consensual decisions to bestiality and pedophilia. I just can't equate those things in my mind like some of you guys are. Removing these social stigmas isn't a gateway into injurious behavior toward innocents.
But ultimately, for me, I just come back to my own experiences. And maybe you all haven't had those experiences, but I have a first cousin, who was raised in a very religious family. He had two kids. Turned out he was gay, and eventually he pursued that lifestyle. Now he is happy with his life, whereas before he felt repressed and he wasn't comfortable living a lie. I would say that he's better for it. Of course, his parents have essentially disowned him and they have a strained relationship. My major professor was openly gay. Two of my former bosses were gay/lesbian. I work very closely with a lesbian woman on a big project. So I see it every day. It is very normal to me, and if I saw it in any TV show, it would feel totally normal. Because this is the world we live in.
Again, back when my mom was growing up, in rural Mississippi, a black person on the street would have racial epithets thrown their way, and would be treated like a second class citizen. Just because of who they were. Maybe the Bible doesn't explicitly say that there are inferior races, but that's surely the way society, and particularly conservative society, saw it. Look at how blacks were portrayed in cartoons in the 30s and 40s. But we became "desensitized" to that, so now we can have a movie like the Princess and the Frog, which would have seemed outrageous and unacceptable back then. I think this is parallel to the issue here.
But ultimately, for me, I just come back to my own experiences. And maybe you all haven't had those experiences, but I have a first cousin, who was raised in a very religious family. He had two kids. Turned out he was gay, and eventually he pursued that lifestyle. Now he is happy with his life, whereas before he felt repressed and he wasn't comfortable living a lie. I would say that he's better for it. Of course, his parents have essentially disowned him and they have a strained relationship. My major professor was openly gay. Two of my former bosses were gay/lesbian. I work very closely with a lesbian woman on a big project. So I see it every day. It is very normal to me, and if I saw it in any TV show, it would feel totally normal. Because this is the world we live in.
Again, back when my mom was growing up, in rural Mississippi, a black person on the street would have racial epithets thrown their way, and would be treated like a second class citizen. Just because of who they were. Maybe the Bible doesn't explicitly say that there are inferior races, but that's surely the way society, and particularly conservative society, saw it. Look at how blacks were portrayed in cartoons in the 30s and 40s. But we became "desensitized" to that, so now we can have a movie like the Princess and the Frog, which would have seemed outrageous and unacceptable back then. I think this is parallel to the issue here.
@ Khev & Karamazov's conversation.
Ugh..
@ Khev & Karamazov's conversation.
I hear you. It's like this place isn't even moderated...
SnakeDoctor
Super Freak
Oh for heaven's sake we had ended it, ENDED IT!
But since you're roping me back in yes, Adam and Eve's sons and daughters would obviously have only had themselves to marry. A theory is that Adam and Eve's kids were so "pure" that them intermarrying wouldn't have caused the genetic mishaps we see today. God didn't forbid incest until many generations later.
I was calling out the dog thing though. You acted like it should only be frowned upon unless the dog says "yes."
The "it's wrong because animals can't consent" argument has always struck me as really weird. And stupid.
First ... animal consent never matters in any other respect. We can trap them. Cage them. Chain them up. Force them to breed. Put them to hard labor. Make them jump around for our entertainment. Kill them -- with needles or a gunshot or arrow launched from a hiding spot. Skin them to make clothes, boots, etc. We can eat some of them. None of that's consensual ... because animal consent never matters. Consent is a strictly human phenomenon.
And, second, it seems like a half-assed and logically flawed attempt to avoid saying "it's wrong because it's unnatural" and/or "it's wrong because it offends the moral sensibilities of any non-degenerate". Because some people don't like the idea of pulling at that thread.
WAY off topic. But, what do I care?
SnakeDoc
rushmore223
Super Freak
Ugh, religious discussion, think I'll skip this one.
If homosexuality wasn't natural it wouldn't happen nearly as often as it does. It is totally natural, just not as common as heterosexuality for obvious, survival-related reasons. And there are several interesting theories as to why.
And regarding animals, there are two issues: 1) society generally has a different attitude toward domestic animals like dogs (which Khev brought up) than wild animals or livestock. I doubt you could start shooting stay dogs with arrows and have people high five you about it; and 2) there is a strong consensus that inhumane treatment of any animals, even those being killed for food, is wrong. And again, this is something where social attitudes are changing, hence the wide availability of eggs from free range chickens and social stigma against veal. Of course there is a different standard for an animal vs. a person, that's a whole other conversation, but Khev was referring to my premise about consent being a necessary prerequisite to a person doing what they wanted to, and was discussing animals in that context.
And regarding animals, there are two issues: 1) society generally has a different attitude toward domestic animals like dogs (which Khev brought up) than wild animals or livestock. I doubt you could start shooting stay dogs with arrows and have people high five you about it; and 2) there is a strong consensus that inhumane treatment of any animals, even those being killed for food, is wrong. And again, this is something where social attitudes are changing, hence the wide availability of eggs from free range chickens and social stigma against veal. Of course there is a different standard for an animal vs. a person, that's a whole other conversation, but Khev was referring to my premise about consent being a necessary prerequisite to a person doing what they wanted to, and was discussing animals in that context.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 16,367
- Reaction score
- 526
My brother told me that ducks are rapists and necrophiliacs. I assume he meant necrophiliquacks.
It's interesting that after years of being inundated with homosexual behavior from friends, family and coworkers now karamazov wants all Star Wars characters and superheroes to be gay, is totally cool with consensual bestiality as long as the animal is wild, etc. Interesting little case study there that only reinforces the point some of us are making.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,452
- Reaction score
- 3,156
Well as long as he believes that Batman is a straight white male that occasionally kills, I'm fine with Kara's views.
