I said that "urges come when people see or some other way experience whatever it is they desire". Meaning it's enough for straight guys to see woman, to desire them and start thinking about them. Same goes for homosexuals, but with boys. This means that if you want to be completely certain your kids doesn't become homosexual, you'd have to isolate them from other boys entirely, you would have to bring them up in an all-girls environment. Let's be reasonable, there's tons of far more convenient professions for preying on children. School teacher, children hospital nurse, social worker for orphans, etc. Becoming a priest to simply rape children is unrealistic, it's far too much irrelevant work for such an intention. I've already provided an explanation for pedophile priests. Some of them might be gays who, as soon as they realize they are gay and can never live like normal people (typically while their 10-12), decide to live in celibacy. For a good christian man who either way has to live in celibacy, becoming a priest is just perfect, familty will be proud, etc. What they don't expect though is that an undeveloped sexuality will take them over and force them to commit horrible actions. Sorry, English is not my first language and I might not express myself as clearly as I'd wish. What I'm saying is - and I suspect you'll see that this is what I'm saying if you read my last post once more - is that there's two types of people who become gay in prisons. One type lowers their standards. They are normal heterosexual people who have so little contact with real females that their need for sex become so powerful they'll take anything that resembles females. That's most people who commit rapes and such in prisons. This is also the type of homosexuality described in the bible. The other kind of people who become gay in prisons, and these are a minority amongst prison gays, are those who take it all out, they get a real boyfriend in prison, they fall in love, some even become crossdressers. These people are closet gays, closet bisexuals or even transsexuals who have suppressed their real orientation on the outside, only to embrace their true sexual identity in an environment that allows them to do so. On the contrary, I have provided you with references to researchers who have found physical, biological evidence for differences in the brains of gay people compared with straight people. If you wish, I can give you the research papers that proves these differences. Some of them indicate that differences appear already while people are in their mothers wombs. That is scientific evidence against your theory. It's not scientific evidence for the claim that homosexuality is 100% genetic, but it is evidence that suggest that homosexuality is 100% involuntarily. Of course, the scientific methods might be flawed, etc., but as long as nobody can point out whatever errors might be, simply ignoring this research is plain, wilful ignorance. You're exactly like these atheists. The only difference is that you've traded whatever scientists say for whatever the bible says. You're wrong about me, I've had countless of debates with strong atheists, arguing these exact points. As far as homosexuality goes, even though there's strong scientific (and logical) evidence that they're born homosexuals, nobody can be 100% sure. But we can be more than 50% sure, and that's enough not to force them to be miserable or discriminate against them. This is pure communist ramblings. First of all, it is not correct that if something is not beneficial to society it must hurt it, certain things might be neutral. If gay people carry their weight, pay their taxes and provide enough for their society, they're not destructive. And second, if a society perceives gays as something horrible even though they don't hurt anyone, it is that society's problem and not the homosexuals. I do not wish for homosexual children, but I do not wish for children with downs syndrome either. If I did have children who where born either of those, I'd be dead before I'd take any society's side against my own children. You on the other hand, would probably disown your own child, to protect your honor and reputation in your society. That makes you a collectivist, brain dead societal lackey. I assure you, Jesus would not love you. I don't appreciate any answer that is based on something somebody said, whether it be God or anybody else. If by logic you mean marxist mumbo jumbo, then no, that is not logic that is acceptable to me. I don't only not accept this sort of logic, I condemn it. For once I agree. Debating this with you is like debating with communist atheists. It's the same type of idealistic, wilful ignorant collectivist ramblings. Good luck with your bisexuality, and I hope to God your children aren't anything your society disapprove of, because we know now, they'd be left all by themselves.
Ok, let's avoid the children argument as no one is advocating legalizing paedophilia here - either straight or gay. The paedo criticism applies to heterosexuality as much as homosexuality. And with bestiality the animal can't properly consent, it is not a sentient being on remotely the same level as an adult human. Regarding father daughter etc - if both are responsible adults, then while it may strike us as distasteful, no one is actually being harmed just from them having sex. Many distasteful behaviours are not criminal - for example, obese people having sex, people indulging in fetishes etc. A father and daughter, both over 18/21, having sex with each other, is no more disgusting than a married couple pissing on each other, or fat people having group sex, 70 year olds in speedos or bikinis at the beach. Something causing distaste is not sufficient to make it a criminal offense. Furthermore, many behaviours which violate consent and cause direct harm to the victim are not criminal - for example, invasion of privacy, infidelity, malicious gossip etc. Finally, many people have made the same argument about things like interracial relationships, or even racially mixed society. Many people genuinely felt that an interracial couple having sex, let alone having mixed babies, was distasteful in exactly the same way you feel about homosexuals. So even if I agreed with you that being gay was somehow intrinsically degrading or distasteful, I would not view that as a valid argument for criminalizing it. It is not your views being "wrong" that is the problem - it is the conclusion you draw from your views. Hypothetically I could agree with you 100% about gay sex being disgusting and a perversion of nature, but that wouldn't in any way indicate that I should want to criminalize it. Regarding your kids being "at risk", that is true for everything you don't believe in. For example, if you're a christian they are "at risk" if people are legally allowed to talk about islam, judaism, buddhist, atheism or satanism. Should religious discussion be criminalized? What about political beliefs, your kids are "at risk" of becoming communists or socialists or democrats or republicans (pick whichever you hate most) if free political discussion is allowed. Do you support bans on free political discussion? If your theory of having a right to "protect" your kids from hearing about opinions you don't like is correct, then ALL opinions and behaviours can legally be banned, because every single viewpoint and behaviour on earth has at least one parent who finds it distasteful. Liberals can say they want to "protect" their kids from Jesus freaks and gay-bashers, and try to ban you from talking about it in public or educating your kids that way. Would you like that? Religious fanatics can ban discussion of alcohol, and criminalize sex education. Bohemians would ban *not* discussing booze, drugs, and sex. Astrologers would demand that science is not taught in the classroom. Each political view would demand that it is the *only* one taught in the classroom. Even if you accepted the gross violation of freedom of speech that this would require, surely you can see how it would be literally impossible to allow only one political viewpoint to be discussed, since no one would agree on what that should be. It is the same for sexual discussion. So, just as you have no right to stop people with different political or religious views discussing and consensually interacting with each other, so you have no right to criminalize the same discussion in any other field including sexuality. And even if you did have that right, so would everyone else, and it would be impossible to enforce. Remember they are not *forcing* you to be exposed to this - you can choose your friends, your media that you use. You can always stop your kids from being exposed to this stuff by home-schooling them and avoiding subscription to any gay-friendly media or socializing with gay-friendly people. And even if you couldn't, and had to put them in an environment where they get exposed to that stuff - everyone else would be in the same boat. You wouldn't want your kids to be exposed to the realities of homosexuals existing and having sex. Liberals wouldn't want their kids exposed to the realities of conservatives thinking being gay is degrading and should be criminalized. Well, that's tough for both of you, because society is not your personal playpen to be forced into your set of views on personal whim, just because you don't like the alternatives. The difference is that genuinely liberal (classical terminology, not "socialist" as in modern US parlance) people would not try and force you to stop believing or even practising your views. Whereas you want to force them to stop. That's why you are in the wrong and why you are a hypocrite on this issue.
No it isn't, because incest is also prohibited when there is no conception. Gay incest is illegal, so is incest when one of the people is infertile and cannot possibly have kids. Furthermore, it is not illegal for 2 unrelated people to have sex if they have a higher than normal risk of offspring having birth defects. If it were about birth defects, then people at high risk of having defective kids would be jailed for years for having sex. Of course, that would raise an outrage. The prohibition on incest is thus clearly a moral anachronism from the days when mere taboo, not demonstrable harm, was viewed as reason to jail, ostracize, or even kill people. There have been cases of siblings who never met after being adopted, fostered, or abandoned, and then meeting without realising it and getting into relationships with someone they just thought was another person. When discovered, they have been jailed, sometimes for 5-10 years. That is barbaric but perfectly legal.
I wonder if peil advocates abolishing prison to stop all the man on man sex that goes on there It's funny how close-minded people tolerate violent non-consensual rape of heterosexuals in prison, but are horrified at the thought that two free men or women might get it on with each other. Seems like a fucked-up sense of priorities to me.