homosexuality is man made!!!!

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

And so the attempts to link homosexuality and paedophilia returns...

There is nothing civil about you, you are deliberately hateful. A shame your love of Jesus doesn't translate into common decency.

there are gay peado's i am not creating a link it exists... I'm sorry if you cannot handle the world as it is...

who was it who wanted the age reducing to 12 for gay sex??

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I'm not debating what your god is, I know all that. I was just countering the idea that those other people hate the word of god, that is not true.

If they are not adhering to the word of God they cannot love the word especially if they are prepared to change it...

they might as well make up another God and forget the bible..

the mormons, j'w's and the koran have their on versions of Jesus but none conform to the Jesus of the bible...

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Feelings of being homosexual may not be man made but homosexual 'acts' certainly are.

Belatucadros wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Feelings of being homosexual may not be man made but homosexual 'acts' certainly are.

So consenting adult acts of love are wrong to you?
Sorry does your faith not preach love?
Two men can express love through a sexual act.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

So consenting adult acts of love are wrong to you?
Sorry does your faith not preach love?
Two men can express love through a sexual act.

Keep your panties on.

I said they were man made. Nothing about wrong or right.

Belatucadros wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Feelings of being homosexual may not be man made but homosexual 'acts' certainly are.

So consenting adult acts of love are wrong to you?
Sorry does your faith not preach love?
Two men can express love through a sexual act.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

there are gay peado's i am not creating a link it exists... I'm sorry if you cannot handle the world as it is...

who was it who wanted the age reducing to 12 for gay sex??

But why bring up such esoteric bullshite?  There are hundreds of thousands times more hetero rapists.  There are hundreds of thousands more hetero predators in all sex crime categories.

The only reason one would do that is to distort truth.  When I hear such crap my only thought is, Hey, I'm talking to a Republican.  

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

So consenting adult acts of love are wrong to you?
Sorry does your faith not preach love?
Two men can express love through a sexual act.

so having sex with your own sister is ok because it's love??

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

so having sex with your own sister is ok because it's love??

People have sex with cousins.
So incest is allowed. What you argue on is levels of incest
Do I agree with adult consenting brothers and sisters making love?
Personally no, but again I have no reason to deny them their love.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



People have sex with cousins.
So incest is allowed. What you argue on is levels of incest
Do I agree with adult consenting brothers and sisters making love?
Personally no, but again I have no reason to deny them their love.

I never said cousins I said sisters or for a sister to go with a brother, if it's love of course...

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

I never said cousins I said sisters or for a sister to go with a brother, if it's love of course...

Both are incest, are you claiming they are not incest?
Again I do not aprove but have no reason to do deny them this love.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Both are incest, are you claiming they are not incest?
Again I do not aprove but have no reason to do deny them this love.

i think you can legally have sex with your cousin in this country... not your sibling though...so the world does not approve of all love for love sake...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Both are incest, are you claiming they are not incest?
Again I do not aprove but have no reason to do deny them this love.

i think you can legally have sex with your cousin in this country... not your sibling though...so the world does not approve of all love for love sake...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

So consenting adult acts of love are wrong to you?
Sorry does your faith not preach love?
Two men can express love through a sexual act.

so having sex with your own sister is ok because it's love??

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

I never said cousins I said sisters or for a sister to go with a brother, if it's love of course...

Both are incest, are you claiming they are not incest?
Again I do not aprove but have no reason to do deny them this love.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Both are incest, are you claiming they are not incest?
Again I do not aprove but have no reason to do deny them this love.

Look at you dodge the original question.

HA HA!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

so having sex with your own sister is ok because it's love??

lol! That's how fucked up Didge's logic is.

Raggamuffin wrote:Dear oh dear. It's obvious that siblings are closer relatives than cousins.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Dear oh dear. It's obvious that siblings are closer relatives than cousins.

So incest is incest, had do you measure love here. Again personally I am not for it but have no reason to deny two people
The only issue on such an act is based on having offspring, not the actual love is is?
Think about it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

So incest is incest, had do you measure love here. Again personally I am not for it but have no reason to deny two people
The only issue on such an act is based on having offspring, not the actual love is is?
Think about it.

It depends on how you define incest. Do you include second or third cousins?

Actually, it's not legal for siblings to have sex with each other, regardless of whether they have children or not.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It depends on how you define incest. Do you include second or third cousins?

Actually, it's not legal for siblings to have sex with each other, regardless of whether they have children or not.

Yes because the law has decided it is not right and again this will stem down from religious aspects as to why. Look at the law when it first came in.
Ask yourself is there a reason to really deny two consenting adults in love, even if they are siblings?

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Yes because the law has decided it is not right and again this will stem down from religious aspects as to why. Look at the law when it first came in.
Ask yourself is there a reason to really deny two consenting adults in love, even if they are siblings?

I always thought it stemmed from it causing genetic problems...

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

I always thought it stemmed from it causing genetic problems...

There you go based on if they have offspring, but again take this out of the equation and they do not want to have children.
Can you see a reason to deny them wanting to be in love?

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Yes because the law has decided it is not right and again this will stem down from religious aspects as to why. Look at the law when it first came in.
Ask yourself is there a reason to really deny two consenting adults in love, even if they are siblings?

I always thought it stemmed from it causing genetic problems...

Raggamuffin wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

I always thought it stemmed from it causing genetic problems...

It is to a large extent - the risk of recessive genes coming to the fore and all that. The view in the UK is that first cousins are sufficiently apart genetically that it's not so great a risk.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It is to a large extent - the risk of recessive genes coming to the fore and all that. The view in the UK is that first cousins are sufficiently apart genetically that it's not so great a risk.

That is completely incorrect, there is a huge risk also with cousins.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

That is completely incorrect, there is a huge risk also with cousins.

They don't share the same parents, so obviously there is less risk of them carrying those recessive genes.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They don't share the same parents, so obviously there is less risk of them carrying those recessive genes.

Its less than siblings but still an increased risk.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Its less than siblings but still an increased risk.

Well write to the Government and tell them then. It's legal to marry your first cousin and have children.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well write to the Government and tell them then. It's legal to marry your first cousin and have children.

I have no issue wikth counsins being married and was not even the point being addressed.
Again read back.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

I have no issue wikth counsins being married and was not even the point being addressed.
Again read back.

What I said was not incorrect. You should read back.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What I said was not incorrect. You should read back.

No it was incorrect because there is an increased risk even if the nation agrees its okay, as others do not agree its okat to marry.
Its subjective.

It is to a large extent - the risk of recessive genes coming to the fore and all that. The view in the UK is that first cousins are sufficiently apart genetically that it's not so great a risk.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

No it was incorrect because there is an increased risk even if the nation agrees its okay, as others do not agree its okat to marry.
Its subjective.

This post was completely correct.

It is to a large extent - the risk of recessive genes coming to the fore and all that. The view in the UK is that first cousins are sufficiently apart genetically that it's not so great a risk.

Clearly, it's not so great a risk as re a child of siblings. It's obvious.

Cousin marriage

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

This post was completely correct.



Clearly, it's not so great a risk as re a child of siblings. It's obvious.

Again that is subjective.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Again that is subjective.

No it's not - it's science.

Cousin marriage

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No it's not - it's science.

No its subjective on Governements deciding:

Cousin marriage

For every non-consanguineous couple there is a 1 in 40 (2.5%) chance that each child will suffer a severe problem, such as a congenital malformation or learning disabilities. A consanguineous couple is at increased risk for both autosomal recessive disorders and several congenital malformations, this increased risk being due to a common mutation in an autosomal recessive gene from a shared ancestor. For a couple who are first cousins in a family where there is no other consanguinity, their overall risk is about 1 in 20 (5%). This risk is therefore double that of the general population. The additional risk for second cousins is 1% (overall risk 3.5%). If there have been several other cousin marriages in the family, the risk may reach 1 in 10 and the risks may need to be calculated from the degree of relationship. If someone in the family is already known to have an autosomal recessive disorder, then risks for this disorder can be accurately calculated. It is sensible to offer carrier testing for autosomal recessive traits known to be common in the couple's particular ethnic group (for example cystic fibrosis in Northern Europeans, Tay-Sachs disease in Ashkenazi Jews, thalassaemia in people from the Mediterranean, the Middle East, South-East Asian and the Indian sub-continent and sickle cell disease in people from Africa, the Caribbean, the Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East and Asia). Couples should also be offered detailed ultrasound scanning in pregnancy, in addition to routine antenatal care.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

No its subjective on Governements deciding:

Cousin marriage

For every non-consanguineous couple there is a 1 in 40 (2.5%) chance that each child will suffer a severe problem, such as a congenital malformation or learning disabilities. A consanguineous couple is at increased risk for both autosomal recessive disorders and several congenital malformations, this increased risk being due to a common mutation in an autosomal recessive gene from a shared ancestor. For a couple who are first cousins in a family where there is no other consanguinity, their overall risk is about 1 in 20 (5%). This risk is therefore double that of the general population. The additional risk for second cousins is 1% (overall risk 3.5%). If there have been several other cousin marriages in the family, the risk may reach 1 in 10 and the risks may need to be calculated from the degree of relationship. If someone in the family is already known to have an autosomal recessive disorder, then risks for this disorder can be accurately calculated. It is sensible to offer carrier testing for autosomal recessive traits known to be common in the couple's particular ethnic group (for example cystic fibrosis in Northern Europeans, Tay-Sachs disease in Ashkenazi Jews, thalassaemia in people from the Mediterranean, the Middle East, South-East Asian and the Indian sub-continent and sickle cell disease in people from Africa, the Caribbean, the Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East and Asia). Couples should also be offered detailed ultrasound scanning in pregnancy, in addition to routine antenatal care.

Do some research into the chances of siblings passing on recessive genes to a child, and then come back.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Do some research into the chances of siblings passing on recessive genes to a child, and then come back.

OMG I just showed you it can be as high as 1 in 10
Try reading and you might actually learn something

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

OMG I just showed you it can be as high as 1 in 10
Try reading and you might actually learn something

FFS, the chances of two siblings passing on two recessive genes to a child is much higher than the chances of first cousins passing on the same two recessive genes to a child. It's basic genetics.

Go and read about it before you make an arse of yourself again.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

FFS, the chances of two siblings passing on two recessive genes to a child is much higher than the chances of first cousins passing on the same two recessive genes to a child. It's basic genetics.

Go and read about it before you make an arse of yourself again.

Are you being deliberately thick?

I never said siblings was not higher.
Read back to what has been said dummy

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Are you being deliberately thick?

I never said siblings was not higher.
Read back to what has been said dummy

I was talking about the relative risks re siblings and cousins. Read back, dummy.

Ask yourself is there a reason to really deny two consenting adults in love, even if they are siblings?

I always thought it stemmed from it causing genetic problems...

It is to a large extent - the risk of recessive genes coming to the fore and all that. The view in the UK is that first cousins are sufficiently apart genetically that it's not so great a risk.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I was talking about the relative risks re siblings and cousins. Read back, dummy.

Well dumbo as seen it is still a huge risk.
or do you think 1 in 10 is not a huge risk?

Take your time

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ask yourself is there a reason to really deny two consenting adults in love, even if they are siblings?

I always thought it stemmed from it causing genetic problems...

It is to a large extent - the risk of recessive genes coming to the fore and all that. The view in the UK is that first cousins are sufficiently apart genetically that it's not so great a risk.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Well dumbo as seen it is still a huge risk.
or do you think 1 in 10 is not a huge risk?

Take your time

Take your own time and do some reading, dumbo.