America: Gay Rights Movement

This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.

To view other archive projects go to https://archives.mabination.com

BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-01-19 10:02

[video=youtube;u62OtM_vt5k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u62OtM_vt5k[/video]\

just posting for discussion
Cynic wrote on 2012-01-19 10:15

I can't help but wonder.. what are their stances on the entire LGBT circle? Is the support just for gay people? Is it for bisexuals? Pansexuals? Trans-persons? Everything inbetween?
Akemii wrote on 2012-01-19 10:44

All over tumblr~

Love this video.
Hiccup wrote on 2012-01-19 10:46

So beautiful
TA wrote on 2012-01-19 22:39

I'd like to see an Incest Movement.

I wouldn't do it myself, but I think it's unfair and the government has no place in people's private lives like that.
Pierce wrote on 2012-01-20 11:36

I don't have anything against transgenders, I think they're great. I know Drag Queens aren't transgenders per se, I have a couple as friends. However, I don't think the movement should be called LGTB. Think about it... Lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual. Something doesn't belong to the group, right? Hence the confusion among old people like my uncle who think gay people like to dress like women and such, and that's fine because quite honestly I don't care about what other people think about me, I just want them to understand BASIC concepts such as sexuality and gender, and I think the LGTB name is not helping.
Sayoko wrote on 2012-01-20 12:03

Quote from TA;741879:
I'd like to see an Incest Movement.

I wouldn't do it myself, but I think it's unfair and the government has no place in people's private lives like that.

Because incest has a high chance of causing recessive debilitating traits to show up. Hemophilia, progeria, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progeria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAAx6l9nCv4
TA wrote on 2012-01-20 20:52

Quote from Sayoko;742800:
Because incest has a high chance of causing recessive debilitating traits to show up. Hemophilia, progeria, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progeria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAAx6l9nCv4

I'm a Geneticist. You don't need to tell me about the effects.

In my professional opinion, it's not nearly as bad as it's painted to be. It would take multiple generations of Incest to have any real danger. Check out these articles:
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=243
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=105

With that said...

I don't think having children and having sexual and/or romantic relations are mutually exclusive.

Marriages among first cousins are prohibited in 24 out of 50 states, and only allowed in special circumstances in another 7. There's only a 2-3% higher chance of anything bad happening from any other couple. These are purely socially based laws, not on any kind of scientific foundation.

As for the more close pairings like bother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son, etc... they are indeed considerably higher. Though, I don't think marriage nor their relationships should be regulated nor prohibited by law.

Their having children however, I do think should be prohibited by law. And Federally regulated. If they wish to have children then either adoption or designer babies then become an option. Or, they can be tested first to see if there is a low risk, and if so then it could be allowed. But for high risk pairings that have considerably similar genes, they shouldn't be allowed to have children together, outside of adoption or a designer baby.

This goes into a much deeper discussion for me however, about how I think all child birth should be regulated and parents should have to pass parenting tests to be allowed to have children.

Eventually we're going to have to decide whether we want a low birth rate or a high death rate. We can't have both.

That is, when we do come out with a way to prolong human life considerably (say 1000 years or more of healthy life), then it will be a very large problem that we will very seriously have to deal with.

Though, I digress. This probably deserves its own thread at this point.
BizarreJuju wrote on 2012-01-20 21:13

[Image: http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkon47JUbb1qz8jddo1_500.jpg]