[Gay] Gay News from Around the Gay World That is Gay

[Valmy]

Same as with the above, in a free society, the burden should be on the party willing to ban some practice between consenting adults - not the one willing to allow it. The social value is, obviously, letting adults decide who they wish to be married to and thus achieving greater happiness for the parties involved.

But we are not talking about banning anything, we are talking about adding legal privileges. The fact it was burdensome to define marriage between a man and a woman for gay and lesbian couples marry was easily demonstrated, this would not apply here. Plus you had the separate but equal argument, this also would not apply here. This would be a special privilege only reserved for same sex couples.

[Martinus]

The predominant argument in favour of gay marriage is that it is equal rights issue, not a social policy privilege issue. So the same applies to two brothers marrying each other.

[Valmy]

The predominant argument in favour of gay marriage is that it is equal rights issue, not a social policy privilege issue. So the same applies to two brothers marrying each other.

I know and I mentioned that and I just explained why it does not apply.

Though I do not like equal rights as a defense of positive policy. That seems like a tool of leftism to explain why socialism is a human right or something.

[Barrister]

I have always thought that incest between consenting adults is going to be the next one to go. Unless you want to engage in eugenics, there is really no rationale for banning it that is not already caught by laws against coercive sex. And of course the eugenics argument is irrelevant for homosexual incest.

The argument against any kind of incest, hetero or homosexual, is not based nearly as much on fears of inbreeding (although that exists) as it is on issues of consent.

Meh - I had a long answer typed out, wasn't satisfied with it, then realized I'm not going to change your mind no matter what I type - you're very much of the libertarian "I can do whatever I want" point of view.

[Martinus]

I have always thought that incest between consenting adults is going to be the next one to go. Unless you want to engage in eugenics, there is really no rationale for banning it that is not already caught by laws against coercive sex. And of course the eugenics argument is irrelevant for homosexual incest.

The argument against any kind of incest, hetero or homosexual, is not based nearly as much on fears of inbreeding (although that exists) as it is on issues of consent.

Meh - I had a long answer typed out, wasn't satisfied with it, then realized I'm not going to change your mind no matter what I type - you're very much of the libertarian "I can do whatever I want" point of view.

Yeah, probably. My position is that everything should be permitted unless there is a very strong case why it should be banned. There are of course cases where incest could involve questions around consent - especially in a parent-child relationship where the question of "grooming" can arise. But the blanket ban against incest is simply painting the issue with too-broad-a-brush and this is not acceptable in a modern liberal society, especially when it comes to something as central to one's happiness and emotional well-being as the issue of love, sex and intimacy. The current regulation should be scrapped or replaced with something more proportional to the perceived threats (and only after a decent study has been put together to understand the scope of such threats in the first place).

If, for example, I found out that I had a long lost brother whom I never met before - it would be a crime for us to have sex - why?

[Martinus]

And no, my position is not "I can do whatever I want", it's "Anyone should be allowed to express himself or herself freely, in particular in matters of sex, love and intimacy, as long as this is done between consenting adults of any race, age, ethnicity, gender, sex, creed, politics, persuasion, profession or DNA make-up." Religions, taboos, social mores and eugenics should fuck off and die.

[Valmy]

If, for example, I found out that I had a long lost brother whom I never met before - it would be a crime for us to have sex - why?

If it is a crime it should not be. I was not aware we were talking about throwing people in prison.

[garbon]

Social mores should fuck off?

[Admiral Yi]

I wouldn't want the prevention of birth defects to fuck off.

[crazy canuck]

If, for example, I found out that I had a long lost brother whom I never met before - it would be a crime for us to have sex - why?

If it is a crime it should not be. I was not aware we were talking about throwing people in prison.

Marti is forgetting that intent is part of what makes an act criminal...

[Barrister]

I have always thought that incest between consenting adults is going to be the next one to go. Unless you want to engage in eugenics, there is really no rationale for banning it that is not already caught by laws against coercive sex. And of course the eugenics argument is irrelevant for homosexual incest.

The argument against any kind of incest, hetero or homosexual, is not based nearly as much on fears of inbreeding (although that exists) as it is on issues of consent.

Meh - I had a long answer typed out, wasn't satisfied with it, then realized I'm not going to change your mind no matter what I type - you're very much of the libertarian "I can do whatever I want" point of view.

Yeah, probably. My position is that everything should be permitted unless there is a very strong case why it should be banned. There are of course cases where incest could involve questions around consent - especially in a parent-child relationship where the question of "grooming" can arise. But the blanket ban against incest is simply painting the issue with too-broad-a-brush and this is not acceptable in a modern liberal society, especially when it comes to something as central to one's happiness and emotional well-being as the issue of love, sex and intimacy. The current regulation should be scrapped or replaced with something more proportional to the perceived threats (and only after a decent study has been put together to understand the scope of such threats in the first place).

If, for example, I found out that I had a long lost brother whom I never met before - it would be a crime for us to have sex - why?

There's a reason why "long lost brothers" are a staple of soap operas - in the real world such things are very uncommon.

That is apparently "a thing", by the way.  People tend to be sexually attracted to people who look like them.  So when brothers / sisters who did not grow up together meet as adults, it's not unheard of for them to be sexually attracted to each other.  There's a brother / sister couple in germany that led a push to get that country's incest laws struck down who met on similar circumstances (they were unsuccessful by the way).

But like I said - it's rare.  And what unfortunately is not so rare is sexual abuse within families.  My office is full of files where that goes on.

Many times the law is much better to make clear, bright lines between what is allwoed and what is not.  Trying to untangle consent between a father and now adult daughter, when that father has been a part of that daughters entire life, sounds horrendously complicated.  Far simpler to say "you can have sex with whomever you want - just not the 6 or 12 people you're closely related to".  It's also minimally instrusive, because it prevents you from having sex with such a small number of people.

[Martinus]

If, for example, I found out that I had a long lost brother whom I never met before - it would be a crime for us to have sex - why?

If it is a crime it should not be. I was not aware we were talking about throwing people in prison.

Marti is forgetting that intent is part of what makes an act criminal...

Not really. I was talking about a situation when I would have sex with him after finding out he is my brother. The anti-incest instinct is based on growing up together, not on having a similar genetic make-up.

[Martinus]

Anyway, to change the subject - I disagree with this decision and Peter Thatchell:

UKIP rejected from Pride in London

The Board of Pride in London have said UKIP will not be marching in this year's parade.

Veteran campaigner Peter Tatchell spoke out against their inclusion, whereas others argued Pride should welcome all facets of the LGBT community.

After days of discussion and negotiations, the board released a statement this evening.

It says: "For this year we have reached the decision that UKIP's application to join the Pride in London Parade, 27th June 2015, will be turned down.

"This decision has been made after careful consultation in order to protect participants and ensure the event passes off safely and in the right spirit, it has not been made on a political basis.

"We appreciate many in our community have strongly held views about UKIP, their policies and comments, but is undeniable that there are LGBT+ members of UKIP, including their MEP for Scotland, and it is important to remember that Pride in London aims to be an inclusive event.

"However, of paramount concern to us is the experience of all participants at Pride, most especially the position we would be putting our volunteer stewards in."

It is understood that 'sit-ins' or other direct action has been threatened in order to disrupt the parade, and organisers were consulting with sponsors over the issue.

A petition calling for their application to march to be denied says: "Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, clearly does not support the values of acceptance that Pride promotes, and UKIP is an inherently homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic political party."

[Admiral Yi]

Clearly they watered down the petition language to maximize signatures.

[Valmy]

So wait the threat by the anti-UKIP people were so potentially extreme that they banned the UKIP to protect the safety of their volunteers?

When Pride Parades start censuring themselves to not be controversial I wonder what point they serve. 'Come and be proud of your conformity!'

I mean I don't know maybe the UKIP is radically homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic to an extent that it would be equivalent to allowing the KKK to march in their parade. However, considering the level of support this party received I am going out on a limb and assume that is a bit hyperbolic

Does the UKIP hold any anti-gay sentiments that would make them more unacceptable than simple gay tories?