Gayness, it's unnatural. Therefore, it's wrong.

[Tony]

I’m sure most of you have heard this line of tired BS. I think this is one of the most blatantly hypocritical statements made by the people who make it. How many unnatural things do we do in our lives? Too many to count, are they all wrong? The anti-gay crowd, to preserve any kind of consistency, would have to say they were. Why does BS justification for being anti-gay continue?

[Tmy]

Its sort of like the "who are we to play god" argument. We do that all the time thru medicine.

I think the antigay thing is based on the fact that people need someone to hate. People who are barely religious will make a big deal how God says gays are bad!!! There always has ta be a scapegoat. It used to be the jews, irish, blacks, ect... but its no longer the "in" thing to hate them. Right now your pretty much limited to gays and muslims.

[Bikewer]

I've read a lot on the genetic/developmental aspects of human sexuality and orientation, and it's increasingly evident that there has always been a percentage of the population that's "gay" to one degree or the other.

Explaining homophobia is a different kettle of fish, I'd think. Some cultures have more-or-less accepted homosexuality at various points in history. The Japanese, for instance.

One might be tempted to think of homophobia as being primarily cultural, fueled by religion primarily. For people "of the book", as they say, it's fairly obvious that Jehovah/Yaweh was a gay-basher......
Still, one wonders (I'm reading The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker) if there might be deeper reasons for such beliefs. The fear of the "different", perhaps? The strong bias against non-reproducing members of the tribe/group, when survival depended on offspring?
A subject I havn't seen a lot in print on.

[Ipecac]

Yeah, it's a tired argument. I try to point out many of the other "unnatural" things we do.

Flying
Eating with utensils
Surgery
Wearing clothing
Basketball
Watching television

The list is endless.

[Ian Osborne]

I wonder how the 'unnatural' argument could condemn homosexuality without also condemning kissing and oral sex? Neither activity uses the mouth for its intended purpose...

[Tmy]

Whats always freaked me out is how there are some gay people who dont think that bisexuality really exists. That bi's are somehow confused.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle gay!

[Bikewer]

That's odd, as sexuality is not generally a black-white issue.

If you made one of those infamous "bell-curve" diagrams, with 100% homosexual on the one end and 100% hetero on the other, you'd find nearly everything in between.
This would range from having a single homosexual experience, to having a brief homosexual "period", to being primarily gay but having occasional "straight" relationships....etc, etc.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its sort of like the "who are we to play god" argument. We do that all the time thru medicine.

....................There always has ta be a scapegoat. It used to be the jews, irish, blacks, ect... but its no longer the "in" thing to hate them. Right now your pretty much limited to gays and muslims.


Gays, muslims, and sometimes believers.
;)

Some people are accused of hating blacks, some of hating gays, others of hating Jews. I was accused in my younger years of hating believers. That won't happen again as I have learned that I can dislike the belief, and still have respect for the believer.

I know some people on this board who can't seperate the belief, from the believer, and have a very hard time showing even an ounce of respect to the believer, no matter if he or she is an illiterate, ignorant believer, or a well educated one.

Hate is hate, bigotry is bigotry. It's all wrong in my opinion.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leroy

Hate is hate, bigotry is bigotry. It's all wrong in my opinion.

Why is a harmless natural human emotion "wrong"? I see nothing wrong with hate or bigotry until it infringes on the rights on others.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony


Why is a harmless natural human emotion "wrong"? I see nothing wrong with hate or bigotry until it infringes on the rights on others.

As a human being endowed with free will you have every right to hate and be a bigot as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.
But, the rest of us have every right to reject you as a hateful bigot if you exercise such behaviour. A person can hate all they want, but don't expect a lot of sympathy or respect from others.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


As a human being endowed with free will you have every right to hate and be a bigot as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.
But, the rest of us have every right to reject you as a hateful bigot if you exercise such behaviour. A person can hate all they want, but don't expect a lot of sympathy or respect from others.

I know this, but this doesnt explain to me how it's "wrong".

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I wonder how the 'unnatural' argument could condemn homosexuality without also condemning kissing and oral sex? Neither activity uses the mouth for its intended purpose... Mine didn't come with instructions. I kind of just suck it and see.

[CJW]

Originally posted by Bikewer
That's odd, as sexuality is not generally a black-white issue.

If you made one of those infamous "bell-curve" diagrams, with 100% homosexual on the one end and 100% hetero on the other, you'd find nearly everything in between.
This would range from having a single homosexual experience, to having a brief homosexual "period", to being primarily gay but having occasional "straight" relationships....etc, etc.

Not quite everything...This wouldn't account for people with no preference, or who had no attraction to either gender.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I wonder how the 'unnatural' argument could condemn homosexuality without also condemning kissing and oral sex? Neither activity uses the mouth for its intended purpose...

Some folks do condemn oral sex as 'unnatural'.

There were state laws prohibiting it as a form of 'sodomy' in some parts of the USA until earlier this year.

[fishbob]

Gayness, it's unnatural. Therefore, it's wrong. What IS natural anyway? Whose life is natural? Those who do not live in a cave, scratch fleas, and whack strangers with a club?

[Luke T.]

Are incest and pedophilia natural or unnatural?

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Bikewer
That's odd, as sexuality is not generally a black-white issue.

If you made one of those infamous "bell-curve" diagrams, with 100% homosexual on the one end and 100% hetero on the other, you'd find nearly everything in between.
This would range from having a single homosexual experience, to having a brief homosexual "period", to being primarily gay but having occasional "straight" relationships....etc, etc.

Seeing as how the sexual drive is based upon reproduction, and animals instinctively are drawn to the sex, I'd say that the bell curve is very, or even extremely, curved toward the heterosexual side, even in this day and age. In fact, I don't think there's a downward slope of any sort as you reach the 100% heterosexual side.

Of course, I am just deducing. Does anyone have any concrete research on this?

[Bikewer]

The hypothetical graph would, I believe, be skewed towards the heterosexual side.
Still, all the "variations" would show up. I remember reading a study which adressed all these "levels" of participation were outlined. Of course, it's doubtful as to whether the sort of youthful experimentation that takes place could be called homosexual or not. (Circle-jerks and the like)

On the political side, it's interesting to compare the "percentage of the population that's gay" figures depending on who's talking about it.
Right-wingers tend to marginalize the gay population by quoting figures like 1-3%, thereby making it seem like a tiny, abberant minority.

Gay-rights types tend to expand the figure to 10% or so, by including "everyone who ever had a remotely gay fantasy" as a potential....

The truth no doubt lies somewhere in between.....

[karl]

Originally posted by Tony


Why is a harmless natural human emotion "wrong"? I see nothing wrong with hate or bigotry until it infringes on the rights on others.

People are social creatures. If you hate something that's prevalent and generally accepted in society, you become difficult to accommodate. It puts an unfair burden on those who try to be polite and causes you needless discomfort.

But if you are a hermit and never interact with anyone, who cares?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Are incest and pedophilia natural or unnatural?

Humans have a perfectly natural taboo about incest due to its affect on the gene pool. Had humanity not developed this taboo, we'd be an imaginary footnote in the unwritten history of evolution.

Paedophilia causes harm, and would therefore be better compared with rape than homosexuality.

[Tony]

Originally posted by karl


People are social creatures. If you hate something that's prevalent and generally accepted in society, you become difficult to accommodate. It puts an unfair burden on those who try to be polite and causes you needless discomfort.




But that's not wrong.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tony



But that's not wrong.

Really?

karl
If you hate something that's prevalent and generally accepted in society, you become difficult to accommodate. It puts an unfair burden on those who try to be polite and causes you needless discomfort.

You think it is not wrong to needlessly put an unfair burden on others?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Humans have a perfectly natural taboo about incest due to its affect on the gene pool. Had humanity not developed this taboo, we'd be an imaginary footnote in the unwritten history of evolution.


The population is small and just barely able to feed itself?

The infant mortality rate is very high?

Even people who are homosexually oriented can reproduce if they have to?

Then it makes pefect sense marry them off young and prohibit non-reproductive sex.

The homosexuality taboo is a survival trait under these circumstances.

Religion didn't create the predjudice, it merely perpetuated it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos

You think it is not wrong to needlessly put an unfair burden on others?


Those people are putting the burden on themselves. By your logic, its wrong to be gay because I have the burden of choosing to be respectful and polite by not using the word "fag" while around gay people.

I am putting the burden on myself.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


The population is small and just barely able to feed itself?

The infant mortality rate is very high?

Even people who are homosexually oriented can reproduce if they have to?

Then it makes pefect sense marry them off young and prohibit non-reproductive sex.

The homosexuality taboo is a survival trait under these circumstances.

Religion didn't create the predjudice, it merely perpetuated it.

Religion also perpetuates the "prejudice" against incest, also.

Why is incest bad and homosexuality good?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Religion also perpetuates the "prejudice" against incest, also.

Why is incest bad and homosexuality good?

That's an argument for a whole other topic (in fact, if you search for it, you'll probably still be able to find it).

Paedophallic incest and paedophillia are bad because of the issue of consent. Cleopatra can explain this one to you better than I can if you need it spelt out to you. Whether incest among consenting adults is bad or not is subject to debate.

Some will bring out the inbreeding issue when it comes to incest, but my biology teacher says thats not as big a deal as you might think, and he seemed to know what he was talking about. :D

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


That's an argument for a whole other topic (in fact, if you search for it, you'll probably still be able to find it).

Paedophallic incest and paedophillia are bad because of the issue of consent. Cleopatra can explain this one to you better than I can if you need it spelt out to you. Whether incest among consenting adults is bad or not is subject to debate.

Some will bring out the inbreeding issue when it comes to incest, but my biology teacher says thats not as big a deal as you might think, and he seemed to know what he was talking about. :D

I don't mean pedophallic incest. I mean incest in general.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I don't mean pedophallic incest. I mean incest in general.

That's an argument for a whole other topic. :D

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Religion also perpetuates the "prejudice" against incest, also.

Why is incest bad and homosexuality good?

Incest is bad for genetic reasons.

Homosexuality is bad under the circumstances outlined in my previous post.

Otherwise, I'd say it's morally neutral.

In both cases, the taboo wasn't arrived at by reasoning.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


That's an argument for a whole other topic. :D

No it isn't. So far, the arguments I've seen in favor of homosexuality apply to favoring incest.

[Tmy]

I guess unnatural means it doesnt happen in nature. Now humans aside I've heard that other mammals do have homosexual sex, but I think incest and pedophillia arent really found.

OK OK im basing this on the actions of dogs. While I see then hummping each other alot I dont recally Scruffy ever mounting any puppies.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.


No it isn't. So far, the arguments I've seen in favor of homosexuality apply to favoring incest.

This (http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/corvino/corvino3e.html) topic says as much as I would say, specifically:

Many gay-rights opponents seem to think of the "What about incest?" argument as a kind of trump card. Their idea is that if one accepts homosexuality, one gives up on the idea of drawing moral lines altogether.

Nonsense. Gay people, like everyone else, can make judgments about which kinds of relationships are conducive to human well-being and which aren't. Besides, unless one assumes from the outset that homosexuality is immoral, there is no more reason to group incest with homosexuality than with heterosexuality: after all, there is far more heterosexual incest than homosexual incest.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Tmy
I guess unnatural means it doesnt happen in nature. Now humans aside I've heard that other mammals do have homosexual sex, but I think incest and pedophillia arent really found.

OK OK im basing this on the actions of dogs. While I see then hummping each other alot I dont recally Scruffy ever mounting any puppies.

If we judge 'natural' by (non-human) animal behavior, then better include cannibalism during sex (preying mantises).

'Natural' is not a moral category one way or the other.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


This (http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/corvino/corvino3e.html) topic says as much as I would say, specifically:

"Many gay-rights opponents seem to think of the "What about incest?" argument as a kind of trump card. Their idea is that if one accepts homosexuality, one gives up on the idea of drawing moral lines altogether.

Nonsense. Gay people, like everyone else, can make judgments about which kinds of relationships are conducive to human well-being and which aren't. Besides, unless one assumes from the outset that homosexuality is immoral, there is no more reason to group incest with homosexuality than with heterosexuality: after all, there is far more heterosexual incest than homosexual incest."




That's a circular argument. The phrase "unless one assumes from the outset that homosexuality is immoral" is what makes it so.

Unless one assumes from the outset that incest is immoral, there is no reason to say it is bad. You follow?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


If we judge 'natural' by (non-human) animal behavior, then better include cannibalism during sex (preying mantises).

'Natural' is not a moral category one way or the other.

I think youd need to compare humans wh other primates and not insects. Otherwise having out skeletons on the inside is unatural.

Most primates are non commital. So marriage is unnatural!


"Many gay-rights opponents seem to think of the "What about incest?" argument as a kind of trump card. Their idea is that if one accepts homosexuality, one gives up on the idea of drawing moral lines altogether.

Nonsense. Gay people, like everyone else, can make judgments about which kinds of relationships are conducive to human well-being and which aren't. Besides, unless one assumes from the outset that homosexuality is immoral, there is no more reason to group incest with homosexuality than with heterosexuality: after all, there is far more heterosexual incest than homosexual incest"


Ummmm so its Ok to find things immoral so long as homosexuality makes the cut?????

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Tmy
Ummmm so its Ok to find things immoral so long as homosexuality makes the cut?????

You entirely miss my point. I was addressing the origin of the taboo, not justifying it.
;)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.


That's a circular argument. The phrase "unless one assumes from the outset that homosexuality is immoral" is what makes it so.

Unless one assumes from the outset that incest is immoral, there is no reason to say it is bad. You follow?

There is no reason to believe that homosexuality is in any way harmful.

Incest is a little trickier. I'm undecided when it comes to incest among consenting adults, because I can't see what harm it would cause. But whatever your views are on incest, I still think you're comparing apples and oranges. There is a wider acceptance for homosexuality than there is for incest, and there are no genetic implications for homosexuality- in fact, given the world's current overpopulation problems, homosexuality should be encouraged.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Incest is a little trickier. I'm undecided when it comes to incest among consenting adults, because I can't see what harm it would cause. But whatever your views are on incest, I still think you're comparing apples and oranges. There is a wider acceptance for homosexuality than there is for incest, and there are no genetic implications for homosexuality- in fact, given the world's current overpopulation problems, homosexuality should be encouraged.

Something I'd like to add. Gayness hurts no one (except of course for the usual heartbreak you experience in any relationship). Incest has the potential to bring a genetically deformed child into the world. That fact has to be taken into account.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Tony


Something I'd like to add. Gayness hurts no one (except of course for the usual heartbreak you experience in any relationship). Incest has the potential to bring a genetically deformed child into the world. That fact has to be taken into account.

Actually, I believe that, statistically speaking, incest has far less of an impact on your chances of having a deformed child than many other, more socially acceptable, activites (drinking alcohol, for example).

Sadly I'm too drunk to look up the statistics right now though!

Graham

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


There is no reason to believe that homosexuality is in any way harmful.

Incest is a little trickier. I'm undecided when it comes to incest among consenting adults, because I can't see what harm it would cause. But whatever your views are on incest, I still think you're comparing apples and oranges. There is a wider acceptance for homosexuality than there is for incest, and there are no genetic implications for homosexuality- in fact, given the world's current overpopulation problems, homosexuality should be encouraged.

Not harmful? Isnt the risk of AIDS much higher in unprotected homosexual sex.

I disagree. Here in the west we consider first cousin relationships to be incest, but "kissing cousins" is acceptable in many places of the world.

Does incest really cause birth defects, or is that risk exaggerated.

[Regnad Kcin]

Regarding homosexuals (separate from homosexual behavior, which can be engaged in by anyone) I suspect that for many people the Ick Factor comes first, and they then search for a justification to support their opinion. "Because the Bible says so," is of course one response. But perhaps the more troublesome is the "Because it's unnatural" reply as is being discussed in this thread. It does seem quite reasonable on the face of it. After all, what are the sex organs for, if not reproduction?

Setting aside the obvious act of waste elimination by these organs, the physical body -- including the brain -- is so complex as to not be easily constrained by singular functions. Nor are the sexes so individual, so opposite in design, that an overlap in properties would be anything but common or "natural."

Or, to put it another way (for instance when confronting someone who is stubborn in their condemnation of "alternate" animal behavior)... why do men have nipples?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tmy


Not harmful? Isnt the risk of AIDS much higher in unprotected homosexual sex.


Isn't the risk of juvenile pregnancy higher in unprotected heterosecual sex?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


There is no reason to believe that homosexuality is in any way harmful.

Incest is a little trickier. I'm undecided when it comes to incest among consenting adults, because I can't see what harm it would cause. But whatever your views are on incest, I still think you're comparing apples and oranges. There is a wider acceptance for homosexuality than there is for incest, and there are no genetic implications for homosexuality- in fact, given the world's current overpopulation problems, homosexuality should be encouraged.

Undecided when it comes to incest among consenting adults? Whooooo! Who says there isn't a slippery slope?

I think the over-population problem is exaggerated. There certainly isn't an over-population problem in the US. So should it only be encouraged in over-populated countries?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Regarding homosexuals (separate from homosexual behavior, which can be engaged in by anyone) I suspect that for many people the Ick Factor comes first, and they then search for a justification to support their opinion. "Because the Bible says so," is of course one response. But perhaps the more troublesome is the "Because it's unnatural" reply as is being discussed in this thread. It does seem quite reasonable on the face of it. After all, what are the sex organs for, if not reproduction?

Setting aside the obvious act of waste elimination by these organs, the physical body -- including the brain -- is so complex as to not be easily constrained by singular functions. Nor are the sexes so individual, so opposite in design, that an overlap in properties would be anything but common or "natural."

Or, to put it another way (for instance when confronting someone who is stubborn in their condemnation of "alternate" animal behavior)... why do men have nipples?

Exactly. By simplifying the argument that anti-homosexual people make in the opening post of this topic, one is led down the garden path to misplaced ridicule. There is no one reason that people are against homosexuality except, perhaps, that they feel it is immoral.

Sooner or later, you have to make up your own mind about what is right and what is wrong. Incest, homosexuality, wearing white shoes after Labor Day....

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Isn't the risk of juvenile pregnancy higher in unprotected heterosecual sex?

Pregnancy is not an incurable disease.

"Why do men have nipples?" I use that in creationism vs darwinism arguments.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Tmy
Does incest really cause birth defects, or is that risk exaggerated. It's standard practice when line breeding Guppies and other fancy fish to breed a parent with offspring. I've never had any issues with mutant fish. After 3 or 4 generations though fertility does decrease and it's useful to introduce some new genes, usually by mating with a wild type. I think the birth defect arguments against incest are bogus.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tony



Those people are putting the burden on themselves. By your logic, its wrong to be gay because I have the burden of choosing to be respectful and polite by not using the word "fag" while around gay people.

I am putting the burden on myself.

By my logic, it is wrong to hate people for something they (according to the scientific evidence we have) did not decide for themselves, i.e. being gay.
If you cannot supress the "Ick factor" enough to refrain from openly hating such people, this is not their fault, but yours.

By your logic, hatred is the fault of the person that is hated, because they are something different from the person who hates. That is, by the way, the same argument anti-semites use all the time: "It´s the Jews´ fault I hate them; I wouldn´t hate them if they were no Jews."

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos


By my logic, it is wrong to hate people for something they (according to the scientific evidence we have) did not decide for themselves, i.e. being gay.
If you cannot supress the "Ick factor" enough to refrain from openly hating such people, this is not their fault, but yours.


Huh? I just said it isnt wrong to hate, and this is what you come up with?

By your logic, hatred is the fault of the person that is hated, because they are something different from the person who hates. That is, by the way, the same argument anti-semites use all the time: "It´s the Jews´ fault I hate them; I wouldn´t hate them if they were no Jews."

This is completely unfounded. You dont have a clue, you clearly cant support your position if you have to resort to this kind of ad hominem.


Lets recap, you said:

You think it is not wrong to needlessly put an unfair burden on others?

Those people (the polite people) are putting the burden on themselves. By your logic, its wrong to be gay because I have the burden of choosing to be respectful and polite by not using the word "fag" while around gay people.

I am putting the burden on myself.

I am saying that the polite people are putting the burden of being polite and respectful to the hater on themselves. They don’t have to be polite to the hater, they can tell him/her to go away, or just look past or ignore whatever hateful things the hater might say. The hater is not putting the burden on them.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Chaos


By my logic, it is wrong to hate people for something they (according to the scientific evidence we have) did not decide for themselves, i.e. being gay.


What scientific evidence? Have they dioscovered a "gay gene". If there is a gay gene how do you explain bi-sexuals or people who experiment wh gay sex.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I wonder how the 'unnatural' argument could condemn homosexuality without also condemning kissing and oral sex? Neither activity uses the mouth for its intended purpose...

Don't forget, some US states outlaw oral sex, too.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Yeah, it's a tired argument. I try to point out many of the other "unnatural" things we do.

Flying
Eating with utensils
Surgery
Wearing clothing
Basketball
Watching television

The list is endless.

Here are some natural things we do

Farting.
Belching.
Picking Nose.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Don't forget, some US states outlaw oral sex, too.

I have decided to halve my level of sexual activity....but I can't decide if I should stop talking about it or thinking about it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Don't forget, some US states outlaw oral sex, too.


Apparently, in Cali. it's illegal for women to drive in house coats.

In Hawaii, it's illegal for people to put coins in their ears.

In Mass. it's illegal for a woman to be "on top".

You read about these and other dumblaws at http://www.dumblaws.com .

Enjoy. :)

[athon]

Originally posted by Tmy


What scientific evidence? Have they dioscovered a "gay gene". If there is a gay gene how do you explain bi-sexuals or people who experiment wh gay sex.

'Genes' don't quite work like that. To get a resulting phenotype - be it behaviour, physical, functional etc., you need a whole plethora of interlinking genes that all play a small role. So when you hear on the new something about a 'fat' gene, or a 'gay' gene, or a 'bigot' gene etc., it is more likely a single gene that has a dominant functioning role in a large number of phenotype cases. And by 'large' number, that could be anything from 10% to 90% of cases.

Is 'gayness' genetic? Like any trait in a human being, it may have genetic influences. Perhaps certain hormone levels affected by a number of genes that might influence association with pleasure which rise at a very specific time in one's life...see how complicated the biological issue gets.

Short answer is no, it is not a genetic condition. Long answer is that genes influence us in many complicated ways, and there is no simple response. It would be easier to say 'genes make up somebody to like baseball over swimming' than it would to say 'genes make up somebody to like men over women'.

Athon

[athon]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
It's standard practice when line breeding Guppies and other fancy fish to breed a parent with offspring. I've never had any issues with mutant fish. After 3 or 4 generations though fertility does decrease and it's useful to introduce some new genes, usually by mating with a wild type. I think the birth defect arguments against incest are bogus.

Imagine a mutation in gene X. Gene X creates a protein which controls the development of retinal tissue. Without this protein, the retinal tissue does not develop, and the person goes blind.

It is a random mutation, rare in terms of 'normal' mutation, due to a single deletion. Such mutations are surprisingly common. So why don't we see more defects?

If this occurs deletion occured in one of your father's sperm, your mother's ova would have a working copy of gene X, meaning your body could still make the protein. Now, your sister might have the same issue - she can make the protein, but has only one working copy of gene x.

Say you and your sister have a baby. There's a 50% chance you could give your broken copy of gene X, and a 50% chance your sister could. That's a 25% chance the baby could be blind. And it's a 50% chance it could be a carrier.

This is increased from a 0% chance of the baby being born blind if you had a baby with the cute chick from next door, yet is still a 50% chance the baby could be a carrier.

So mating within a small gene pool (i.e. immediate family) increases the risk of a recessive mutation being expressed (a mutation that needs both examples of the gene in order to be expressed).

I hope that clears up why having rumpy-pumpy with your twin presents a higher risk of producing offspring that expresses genetic abnormality.

Athon

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Don't forget, some US states outlaw oral sex, too.

As I mentioned in passing in an earlier post, this is no longer true. There was a Supreme Court decision earlier this year that declared all consentual sodomy laws unconstitutional.

Amendment IX (1791)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So there! :p :D

[Ed]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Are incest and pedophilia natural or unnatural?

I suspect that they are both pretty natural, otherwise there would not be such strict injunctions against them.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

It's tough being gay in Israel. Gay Pride in Jerusalem (http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_arsenault/20040621.html)

Mom, I heard that the same people who do indecent things to little kids, acts of sodomy in the public parks of Jerusalem, decided to organize a third pride parade in Jerusalem...they will return to celebrate in the darkened public park, there they are mercilessly attacking small children. Daddy, mommy, help, I'm afraid. - Poster in Jerusalem


Particpants in Gay Pride responded with houmour.

[Snide]

Homosexuality is not wrong.

Hate of homosexuality is not wrong.

Actions based on either may or may not be wrong, depending on the action.

Consensual adult sex is not one of those actions.

Gay bashing is.

Seems so simple, doesn't it?