For People Who Think Gay Sex Is Wrong And Gives "Sex Is For Procreation" As A Reason

[Hooboy !!]

A government which prohibits....
Strawman.

Nothing is being prohibited.

[Hooboy !!]

Getting pregnant hardly requires marriage...
OK. has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. But... OK.

[Dlx2]

Strawman.

Nothing is being prohibited.

The creation of a specific kind of contract between two people that will be recognized by the state is being prohibited.

If you prevent me from signing an employment contract, you're prohibiting me from working, and this is wrong.

If you prevent me from signing a contract for the purchase of a home, you're preventing me from owning property, and this is wrong.

If you prohibit me from signing a marriage contract, you're preventing me from creating a state-recognized family, and this is wrong.

So no, it's not a strawman.

[Dlx2]

OK. has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. But... OK.

If what's important is raising kids, then you need to expand marriage to allow gays marriage rights. If what's important is conceiving kids, we should extoll the virtues of rape.

[Hooboy !!]

You're arguably against gay marriage based on the fact of it being a social change
Wrong. I am opposed to gay marriage because it serves no useful social purpose.

Yes. Necessarily. Those were all progressivist ideas.
You are using the words "liberal" and "progressive" interchangeably. That would be wrong too. The assumption is that only liberal ideas are progressive. That would be wrong. Conservative ideas can also be progressive. The assumption is that all liberal ideas are progressive. That would also be wrong. The other, rather funny, assumption is that all progressive ideas are "good" or beneficial to society. That would also be wrong.

You need to listen to someone. No offense, but you're frightfully naive on the subject.
LOL

When I run into someone that I think is worth taking advice from, or receiving a lecture from, I will be sure to give them a listen.

[Hooboy !!]

I never doubted that. It was you who made the assertion that sex is solely for the purpose of procreation, including sex which does not lead to pregnancy but which bonds the partners physiologically and psychologically. It leads to conclude then that we exclude any other types of bonding except that for the purpose of fostering procreation. What "bond" exactly is created between a man and a prostitute that is conducive to procreation? And what about solo masturbation?
Other types of bonding are futile. How hard is it to understand?

Gay sex is futile only in regards to natural conception.
Ahhh, so you can understand. Good.

But this discussion was on the "rightness" and "wrongness" of gay sex, not the futility of it.
How about a quote from me where I have made any moral judgement about gay sex?

So you believe it is not obvious that an 80-year-old woman cannot conceive naturally?
I do not think it is possible to look at a person and know if they are able to bear children. It is possible to make a fairly accurate guess, but it is only a guess. I can look at a gay couple and say with absolute certainty that their sexual union will never produce children.

Weren't you the one who brought in the State's interest? To be perfectly relevant, the State WOULD have to be intrusive
No, it wouldn't. For the reason I just described.

Should IVF be banned?
Peronally, I think the use of technology in the process of procreation is going to be ultimately harmful to the human species. I am opposed to the use of contraception, IVF, or anything that interferes with or augments human fertility. I realize that this is not very pragmatic however, and I make compromises.

IVF specifically is something that I have a problem with, primarily because it results in embryos that will die, intentionally. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing. My greater concern is in how those embryos are used for things other than producing children, such as stem cell research. In my view, this is no different than human slavery. It is the exploitation of a human being and treating them as property. But, this is another topic.

[Dlx2]

Wrong. I am opposed to gay marriage because it serves no useful social purpose.

Really? I'm opposed to Christianity for the same reason.

[Dlx2]

I am opposed to the use of contraception, IVF, or anything that interferes with or augments human fertility.

This says it all, folks.

[Christina Mirabilis]

Wrong. I am opposed to gay marriage because it serves no useful social purpose.

Hooboy, I asked you this once before but you didn't answer. I have what is likely a genetic condition that I don't want to pass along by having children. It seems to me that you're saying that I shouldn't have sex or get married since it serves no useful social purpose. I am understanding you correctly?

[Hooboy !!]

Hooboy, I asked you this once before but you didn't answer. I have what is likely a genetic condition that I don't want to pass along by having children. It seems to me that you're saying that I shouldn't have sex or get married since it serves no useful social purpose. I am understanding you correctly?
Genetic conditions are part of the chaotic system of human reproduction. I try not to make any judgements on these. They are what they are. Roll the bones.

[Hooboy !!]

Really? I'm opposed to Christianity for the same reason.
Too bad for you, because various religions have a great many positive things to contribute, including Christianity.

[Christina Mirabilis]

Genetic conditions are part of the chaotic system of human reproduction. I try not to make any judgements on these. They are what they are. Roll the bones.

Passing this on isn't a chance that I want to take, but it's nice that you aren't passing judgement. I'm trying to not make a judgement that you're homophobic, but I really can't see why you don't have a problem with my non-reproductive sex, but you do have a problem with theirs. What am I missing?

[Dlx2]

Too bad for you, because various religions have a great many positive things to contribute, including Christianity.

So do gay marriages.

[Griff]

IVF specifically is something that I have a problem with, primarily because it results in embryos that will die, intentionally. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing. My greater concern is in how those embryos are used for things other than producing children, such as stem cell research. In my view, this is no different than human slavery. It is the exploitation of a human being and treating them as property. But, this is another topic.No, that pretty completely explains your motivation for opposing marital equality. You should have come up front with it to begin with instead of trying to find a way to bullshit us.

[Hooboy !!]

Passing this on isn't a chance that I want to take
:huh:

That is your right.

I really can't see why you don't have a problem with my non-reproductive sex, but you do have a problem with theirs. What am I missing?
It is impossible to see what the effect of your reproduction would have, 10 years from now, 100, 1,000, or 1 million. Who knows? The key to the survival of the human species may hinge on you passing along your genetic mutation. Gay sex contributes nothing to human reproduction, except as surrogate parents. They contribute nothing genetically. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

[Hooboy !!]

So do gay marriages.
I disagree. The benefits realized from institutionalizing gay marriage comes no where near the benefits that society realizes from religious charities alone. Of course your next goal will be to demonize religion and tell me all about how much harm religion has caused. bla bla bla. I've heard all of it before, so don't bother.

BTW, I am an atheist, so I have no horse in that race. I am atheist not areligion.

[Christina Mirabilis]

It is impossible to see what the effect of your reproduction would have, 10 years from now, 100, 1,000, or 1 million. Who knows? The key to the survival of the human species may hinge on you passing along your genetic mutation. Gay sex contributes nothing to human reproduction, except as surrogate parents. They contribute nothing genetically. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

I'm not sure if you're intentionally missing the point and evading the question or not. I am absolutely positively not going to reproduce, therefore I will contribute nothing genetically, ever. I'm trying to find something other than homophobia for your reasoning given that you still make a distinction between the two situations. As far as I can tell, the only difference between my situation and theirs is that they are gay and I'm not. If that's the only difference that you can see in the situation, I can only conclude that homophobia is driving your concern and not reproductive issues.

[Dlx2]

I disagree. The benefits realized from institutionalizing gay marriage comes no where near the benefits that society realizes from religious charities alone. Of course your next goal will be to demonize religion and tell me all about how much harm religion has caused. bla bla bla. I've heard all of it before, so don't bother.

BTW, I am an atheist, so I have no horse in that race. I am atheist not areligion.

Institutionalizing gay marriage is a step in the direction of providing a normal lifestyle for a significant minority within our society. Doing so reduces tensions between members of society and promotes social cohesion. This is a significant benefit.

Religion, on the other hand, promotes social division. Additionally, while religious charities provide benefits, it should be made clear that many of those funds come from secular sources. Additionally, many of those funds could be easily replaced by taxing religious enterprise.

[Hooboy !!]

I'm not sure if you're intentionally missing the point and evading the question or not. I am absolutely positively not going to reproduce, therefore I will contribute nothing genetically, ever. I'm trying to find something other than homophobia for your reasoning given that you still make a distinction between the two situations. As far as I can tell, the only difference between my situation and theirs is that they are gay and I'm not. If that's the only difference that you can see in the situation, I can only conclude that homophobia is driving your concern and not reproductive issues.
Either you are not understanding what I wrote, or you are experiencing a cognitive dissonance when I do not fit neatly into your stereotype.

[Hooboy !!]

normal lifestyle
lol

Funny.

[TomboyMom]

Actually, Hooboy, I'm not sure I understand your position. Which of the following is moral or immoral, in your scheme?

Non-marital heterosexual intercourse with birth control.
Marital heterosexual intercourse with birth control.
Non-marital heterosexual intercourse without birth control.
Marital heterosexual intercourse with one partner naturally infertile, no possibility of conception.
Sex between two married people who do not have, and never intend to have, children.
Non-marital heterosexual intercourse with one partner naturally infertile...
Marital heterosexual intercourse between two 80 year old people, all children grown.
Marital heterosexual oral sex.
Marital lesbian oral sex, between 2 lesbians who already have a child.
Artificial insemination between married lesbian partners--that is, one lesbian, married to another, inserts sperm into the latter for the purpose of conceiving a child, with or without lesbian sex.
Heterosexual prostitution.
Masturbation.

Thank you.

[Steven Mading]

I believe that sex is indeed solely for the purpose of procreation. Sex acts that could not possibly result in pregnancy included. Why? Because of the psychological and physiological effects that having sex has on individuals and in how they perceive and bond with their sex partners.

There exist people who are known to be sterlie because of some medical condition. Yet they are allowed to get married provided it's a heterosexual marriage, even though their marriage cannot result in children just like a homosexual marriage cannot. The most obvious example of this is the way all women eventually go through menapause and yet are still allowed to marry after that. An older woman who hasn't had mer monthly periods for over a decade is still allowed to marry even though pregnancy cannot possibly result. It's pretty obvious that the capacity for the marriage to result in children is not viewed as a prerequisite under the law for getting married.

The only way your position could possibly be internally consistent with itself would be if you also wanted to change the laws to ban heterosexual marriages in cases where they involve post-menapausal women or people rendered infertile by injury or sickness. If you do want to do that, then I'd disagree with you still, but at least your position would be honest and I could disagree politely. If you still want to allow hetersexual-yet-infertile marriages and only ban homosexual marriages, despite claiming that procreation is the reason for your stance, then the internal inconsistency of that stance makes it obvious that you're lying about your stated reason you want to have the ban. And then my disagreement becomes quite impolite because I don't tolerate liars.

[Hooboy !!]

Actually, Hooboy, I'm not sure I understand your position. Which of the following is moral or immoral, in your scheme?
I don't know, to all of the below. More importantly... I don't care.

[Angrillori]

But, you see straight infertile sex can bring people together to help raise a child that's not theirs...and, uhm, gay sex cannot?

No. Wait, maybe it's because uhm Hooboy knows that nothing except pure nature can lead to the survival of the human species, because things never naturally go...extinct...oh...wait...

I mean it's because gay marriage doesn't provide the same <cough><mumble something><cough> benefit to society that an infertile straight marriage does.

Or, maybe it's because if everyone only had gay sex, no babies would be born, but if everyone had sex with infertile women, lots of babies...would...be...oh....wait...

Hmm. <head scratching>

I guess I'll just go back to reading the thread. I thought I was about to find a consistency from hooboy and got a bit excited was all.

Carry on.

[Angrillori]

There exist people who are known to be sterlie because of some medical condition. Yet they are allowed to get married provided it's a heterosexual marriage, even though their marriage cannot result in children just like a homosexual marriage cannot. The most obvious example of this is the way all women eventually go through menapause and yet are still allowed to marry after that. An older woman who hasn't had mer monthly periods for over a decade is still allowed to marry even though pregnancy cannot possibly result. It's pretty obvious that the capacity for the marriage to result in children is not viewed as a prerequisite under the law for getting married.

The only way your position could possibly be internally consistent with itself would be if you also wanted to change the laws to ban heterosexual marriages in cases where they involve post-menapausal women or people rendered infertile by injury or sickness. If you do want to do that, then I'd disagree with you still, but at least your position would be honest and I could disagree politely. If you still want to allow hetersexual-yet-infertile marriages and only ban homosexual marriages, despite claiming that procreation is the reason for your stance, then the internal inconsistency of that stance makes it obvious that you're lying about your stated reason you want to have the ban. And then my disagreement becomes quite impolite because I don't tolerate liars.

:notworthy:

[Agnostic]

Other types of bonding are futile. How hard is it to understand?

It's not hard to understand. It's hard to understand your usually unqualified one-liner arguments. So let's get you on record on whether the following are "futile" sex or not, considering what you just clarified about bonding above (you still haven't answered the question of whether conception is a vital part of the procreative process or not):

1) One-night stands
2) Paid sex
3) Solo masturbation within a relationship
4) Sex between sterile partners
5) Sex between partners who do not want children so they go beyond contraception to aborting every unplanned pregnancy

Ahhh, so you can understand. Good.

I understand perfectly. Unfortunately, you don't. Or choose not to. You choose to hide behind the veil of "impossibility of natural conception", but you apply that standard only to gay couples. To be truly consistent on the position of "futile sex", you need to apply it equally. A question for you (to illustrate my point): Sex between partners which has no possibility of leading to natural conception is futile (not referring to specific sex acts, but to the fact that the couple cannot naturally conceive) - true or false? If the procreative process needs conception to get started, then your only possible answer is TRUE if you are to stay consistent with your original premise. If your answer is FALSE, then your fixation on the futility of gay sex is simply based on gender discrimination or homophobia.

How about a quote from me where I have made any moral judgement about gay sex?

This is from your first post on the subject:

I fit the description of the thread title...

...the thread title being "For People Who Think Gay Sex Is Wrong And Gives "Sex Is For Procreation" As A Reason"

It was only later that you clarified you think gay sex is not "wrong" (the quotes around the word 'wrong' are yours by the way - I did not add them, though I'm still wondering why you need to use quotes around the word 'wrong' if you truly don't think it is wrong), just futile; and again later that your issue is not with the sex per se, but gay marriage.

I do not think it is possible to look at a person and know if they are able to bear children. It is possible to make a fairly accurate guess, but it is only a guess. I can look at a gay couple and say with absolute certainty that their sexual union will never produce children.

I don't know what your Science or Biology class taught you or is still teaching students, but when I look at an 80-year-old woman, I know she will not be bearing children naturally - I don't need to guess. It's part of our evolution. But, never mind. Let's say I accept your argument that you cannot look at a male-female partnership and know for certain they cannot conceive but you can with a same-gender partnership. What's your position on partnerships with transgendered persons then?

No, it wouldn't. For the reason I just described.

It has to be if it is in the State's interest. What is obvious is not solely determined by looking. You yourself as much admitted it when you said it is not obvious that an 80-year-old woman cannot naturally conceive, when it is deductively obvious she cannot. If "looks" alone determine what is obvious, then it becomes unfair discrimination.

Peronally, I think the use of technology in the process of procreation is going to be ultimately harmful to the human species. I am opposed to the use of contraception, IVF, or anything that interferes with or augments human fertility. I realize that this is not very pragmatic however, and I make compromises.

1. Do you hold the same belief for other uses of medical technology that interferes with or augments human lifespans, health, quality of living, etc?

2. What compromises are these?

IVF specifically is something that I have a problem with, primarily because it results in embryos that will die, intentionally. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing. My greater concern is in how those embryos are used for things other than producing children, such as stem cell research. In my view, this is no different than human slavery. It is the exploitation of a human being and treating them as property. But, this is another topic.

Scientific advancements can be used or abused. Whether you think using embryos for stem cell research is use or abuse is personal. There are either laws in place, or laws that can be enacted, to curb abuse. Everyone has concerns about abuse of technology, but as long as more good than harm is done, I favor the use of laws and enforcement to curb the abuse. But as you said, this is another topic.

Wrong. I am opposed to gay marriage because it serves no useful social purpose.

That's because you defined social purpose SOLELY as the production of children (and the subsequent caring/raising of them). You yourself said the production of children as future contributors is a State's interest. State's interest does not necessarily equate to social purpose.

It is impossible to see what the effect of your reproduction would have, 10 years from now, 100, 1,000, or 1 million. Who knows? The key to the survival of the human species may hinge on you passing along your genetic mutation. Gay sex contributes nothing to human reproduction, except as surrogate parents. They contribute nothing genetically. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

And the key to the survival of the human species may hinge on sustainable population growth, which gay sex contributes towards by NOT breeding. And without the need for contraception or sterilisation. Not to mention that genetic mutations can also be spontaneous without any contributing factors from the biological parents. Sigh...I hope we're not now going to devolve to discussing chaos theory.

First scenario: I have a deletrious gene. I pass it on, and in the 'race' of the survival of the fittest, my progeny and their subsequent progeny are eliminated, thus thinning the species. Gay sex thins the species by not breeding in the first place.

Second scenario: I have a non-deletrious gene. I contribute to the expansion of the species. With an expanding population and diminishing/constant resources, the species is ultimately thinned again (through famine, disease, etc) unless additional resources are found. Again, gay sex contributes to the thinning of the species by not breeding in the first place.

The survival of the human species, or any species for that matter, does not rest solely on reproduction. It also rests on selective culling, which, given our current moral climate, is far less desirable than non-reproduction. In other words, gay sex serves a purpose in the survival of the human species as a form of non-destructive population control.

I disagree. The benefits realized from institutionalizing gay marriage comes no where near the benefits that society realizes from religious charities alone.

And to put it another way, the liabilities from institutionalising gay marriage also comes nowhere near the liabilities of organised religion (of which charity is but a part).

Sex normally makes us feel good. When something feels good, we tend seek it and to do it more often. So nature uses sex as ONE (and not the ONLY) means of propagating a species. If we are to believe we are more than base creatures propelled by nothing more than sexual instincts, then we have to believe our relationships are not based simply on sex. It is only PART of the relationship, not the whole of it.

[Dlx2]

I don't know, to all of the below. More importantly... I don't care.

Another telling statement.

[Hooboy !!]

It was only later that you clarified you think gay sex is not "wrong" (the quotes around the word 'wrong' are yours by the way - I did not add them, though I'm still wondering why you need to use quotes around the word 'wrong' if you truly don't think it is wrong), just futile; and again later that your issue is not with the sex per se, but gay marriage.
I feel that it was not a clarification at all. Y'all insist on assuming my meaning. I put quotes around the word "wrong", because it is a concept and not an absolute. I personally couldn't possibly care less if it is "wrong" or not. It means nothing to me one way or another.

I don't know what your Science or Biology class taught you or is still teaching students, but when I look at an 80-year-old woman, I know she will not be bearing children naturally - I don't need to guess.
It is a guess.

It's part of our evolution.
No, it isn't. Infertility is a function of aging, not evolution. There are examples of species that remain fertile for thousands of years. Why should you assume that aging and dying by 80 or so years is a function of evolution?

It has to be if it is in the State's interest.
Not necessarily. The state is perectly willing to issue a driver's license to an alchoholic. Should the government not issue driver's licenses to alchoholics? How would the state know if a person is addicted to alchohol? How would the state know if the person would ever be drunk when they chose to drive? How would the state know that the person wouldn't sober up and go straight that very day? How would the state know that a sober person won't become an alchoholic? Perhaps we should place a restriction on all driver's licenses then that prohibit people from driving until they pass a breathalizer test. :rolleyes:

1. Do you hold the same belief for other uses of medical technology that interferes with or augments human lifespans, health, quality of living, etc?
Argumentative.

2. What compromises are these?
I had a vasectomy.

That's because you defined social purpose SOLELY as the production of children
No I didn't. There are other ways of serving the interests of society.

State's interest does not necessarily equate to social purpose.
What?

And the key to the survival of the human species may hinge on sustainable population growth, which gay sex contributes towards by NOT breeding.
Maybe. If we come to this conclusion, like they have in China, then we may have to offer disincentives to raise children.

The survival of the human species, or any species for that matter, does not rest solely on reproduction.
Sure it does. Without reproduction, all other considerations are completely irrelevant.

And to put it another way, the liabilities from institutionalising gay marriage also comes nowhere near the liabilities of organised religion (of which charity is but a part).
:rolleyes:

Sex normally makes us feel good. When something feels good, we tend seek it and to do it more often. So nature uses sex as ONE (and not the ONLY) means of propagating a species. If we are to believe we are more than base creatures propelled by nothing more than sexual instincts, then we have to believe our relationships are not based simply on sex. It is only PART of the relationship, not the whole of it.
Sex (in the human species) is the only means of propogation, without the benefit of technology. I do not consider technology to be as reliable as natural methods of procreation.

Our relationships are more complex than just sexual attraction. I agree. Sexual attraction certainly helps with other social objectives other than reproduction. I agree. Should we then have state institutionalized orgies?

[Dlx2]

Hooboy, I'm going to point this out as clearly as possible. Your naturalistic essentialism is self-defeating. If we should only engage in activities which promote biological success, we should never engage in art, literature, science, etc, ad nauseum, because these all take up precious time that could be devoted towards reproduction, child-raising, etc. Your view of sex as purely and basely biological is hardly backed up by sexuality in any advanced society. Like fine cuisine, fine wine, fine art, fine literature, and fine music, we have transcended the need to indulge in this act solely for the sake of biological function. Sexuality has passed long ago into the realm of aesthetics. The first lesson in aesthetics is that what is "right" and "wrong" within an aesthetic debate is entirely subjective.

It should also be pointed out that when we've got upwards of 6 billion people alive on this planet, reproduction is hardly a moral imperitive anymore. Unmitigated reproductive rates can hardly be good for humans.

[Griff]

Hooboy, this is a pluralistic society. This is one of our core values. Until you've accepted this, you will not understand why your attitude toward gay rights is not considered normal or acceptable. Our moral significance is not considered contingent upon how much we "contribute," Hooboy. Pluralism is one of the most important factors of a successful democracy, and its absence is one of the most common features of societies that remain torn by in-fighting and disunity. Take your medicine, America. It's good for you. It'll make you grow up to be big and strong.

[TomboyMom]

I don't know, to all of the below. More importantly... I don't care. And yet you care about gay sex, which I assume you have no intention to engage in. Odd. I'm trying to understand your rationale for why gay sex is wrong. It seems to have something to do with children, but I can't tell what, since some gay couples have kids and some straight couples don't or can't. I strongly suspect that your position is inconsistent, and am trying to test it for consistency. I can understand why you would resist doing that, as it would expose the problems with your position. Let me say this, on its face, your position appears to be blatantly inconsistent. Perhaps you could shed some light on why you believe it is not?

I guess I just have to ask again, if you have two couples, neither of whom can or will reproduce, why is it moral for one to have sex, but immoral for the other?

[Christina Mirabilis]

Either you are not understanding what I wrote, or you are experiencing a cognitive dissonance when I do not fit neatly into your stereotype.

Well, if I am, I'm in good company so I guess I can learn to live with it.

[Karalora]

I guess I just have to ask again, if you have two couples, neither of whom can or will reproduce, why is it moral for one to have sex, but immoral for the other?

Near as I can tell, it depends on whether he can tell for certain, just by lookin', whether or not they can reproduce. For no reason I can possibly fathom, it offends his sensibilities that people sometimes get together with no intention of reproducing, but he can tolerate the idea as long as he isn't faced with the undeniable reality.

I can only wonder, with horror, how he must feel about people like me who aren't interested in dating, marriage, or reproducing at all.

[Agnostic]

I feel that it was not a clarification at all. Y'all insist on assuming my meaning. I put quotes around the word "wrong", because it is a concept and not an absolute. I personally couldn't possibly care less if it is "wrong" or not. It means nothing to me one way or another.

Any right-thinking person would, without qualifications on your part, assume you meant "morally wrong". It's not as if I asked if "1+1=3 is wrong". What other "wrong" could you mean? "Futile" does not equal "wrong". So yes, it was a clarification.

It is a guess.

Not to me. Or any other person who uses logic and deductive reasoning.

No, it isn't. Infertility is a function of aging, not evolution. There are examples of species that remain fertile for thousands of years. Why should you assume that aging and dying by 80 or so years is a function of evolution?

Didn't we evolve so that women were born with a set number of eggs instead of constantly generating them? Men do not become infertile with age, as one would assume if infertility were merely a function of aging.

Not necessarily. The state is perectly willing to issue a driver's license to an alchoholic. Should the government not issue driver's licenses to alchoholics? How would the state know if a person is addicted to alchohol? How would the state know if the person would ever be drunk when they chose to drive? How would the state know that the person wouldn't sober up and go straight that very day? How would the state know that a sober person won't become an alchoholic? Perhaps we should place a restriction on all driver's licenses then that prohibit people from driving until they pass a breathalizer test. :rolleyes:

The State issues drivers licenses (which also serves as a State-issued means of individual identification) to all who pass a test of competence. The State also enacts laws to bar driving under the influence, regardless of whether you possess a valid driver's license or not. The State's interest is fulfilled by those laws. It is not "encouraging" sober driving. It is proactive in banning driving under the influence. There are no competence tests or laws which ban the union of sterile partners, yet child production is a State's interest.

The State does not require breathaliser tests before any instance of driving because it becomes prohibitively expensive to enforce, to the point where the State's interest in preventing driving under the influence is overshadowed by the State's interest to use its resources prudently. However, given the State-sponsored benefits that partners of legal unions enjoy for the lifetime of their unions, the cost of requiring fertility tests for new unions and any existing union comprising of a post-menopausal partner is more than offset by non-loss of tax income. It's not a question of invasiveness, it's a question of interests.

And if we truly wish for relatively non-invasive forms of ensuring marriages serve the State's interest of producing children, the State should abolish all State-sponsored privileges that come from being legally married, and only sponsor child-related privileges. This will ensure, without being invasive, that legal marriages serve its interests and not simply the interests of the partners of those marriages. As I said before, marriage binds the partners, not the children.

Argumentative.

No, it's not. Let me quote you, pertinent text bolded: "Peronally [sic], I think the use of technology in the process of procreation is going to be ultimately harmful to the human species.

No I didn't. There are other ways of serving the interests of society.

So, if child production is not the sole purpose of a marriage, what exactly again is your opposition to gay marriage? Since there are other ways for marriage to serve the interests of society, why do you wish to restrict it to only straight couples?

What?

A State's interest is not automatically a social purpose, and vice versa.

Maybe. If we come to this conclusion, like they have in China, then we may have to offer disincentives to raise children.

Yes. And it still doesn't refute the argument that gay sex contributes to population control.


Sure it does. Without reproduction, all other considerations are completely irrelevant.

I said it does not rest solely on reproduction, not that it doesn't, period. If you'd understood what I said before and after this quote, you'd have understood my point is sustainable growth (balance between reproduction and non-reproduction and/or culling), not a lack of growth (total non-reproduction).

Sex (in the human species) is the only means of propogation, without the benefit of technology. I do not consider technology to be as reliable as natural methods of procreation.

Tell me, which is the cart and which is the horse, in evolutionary terms? Libido decreases, but does not decrease to zero, once one is past one's sexual prime, or even past age-related infertility. And do you mean procreation or conception, because you have different definitons for both.

Our relationships are more complex than just sexual attraction. I agree. Sexual attraction certainly helps with other social objectives other than reproduction. I agree. Should we then have state institutionalized orgies?

I wasn't talking about sexual attraction. I was talking about sex.

----

I noticed you skipped over what I, and I trust many others here, regard as important questions (which appears to be a trend from pages ago) to more accurately gauge your stance on certain issues pertaining to sex. I repeat them again here for you benefit:

So let's get you on record on whether the following are "futile" sex or not, considering what you just clarified about bonding above (you still haven't answered the question of whether conception is a vital part of the procreative process or not):

1) One-night stands
2) Paid sex
3) Solo masturbation within a relationship
4) Sex between sterile partners
5) Sex between partners who do not want children so they go beyond contraception to aborting every unplanned pregnancy

...and...

You choose to hide behind the veil of "impossibility of natural conception", but you apply that standard only to gay couples. To be truly consistent on the position of "futile sex", you need to apply it equally. A question for you (to illustrate my point): Sex between partners which has no possibility of leading to natural conception is futile (not referring to specific sex acts, but to the fact that the couple cannot naturally conceive) - true or false? If the procreative process needs conception to get started, then your only possible answer is TRUE if you are to stay consistent with your original premise. If your answer is FALSE, then your fixation on the futility of gay sex is simply based on gender discrimination or homophobia.

...and...

What's your position on partnerships with transgendered persons?

[Hooboy !!]

Your naturalistic essentialism is self-defeating. If we should only engage in activities which promote biological success, we should never engage in art, literature, science, etc, ad nauseum, because these all take up precious time that could be devoted towards reproduction, child-raising, etc.
Not true. Study of the arts has been demonstrated to stimulate innovation and creative thinking, essential to the development of technology and problem solving in general.

It should also be pointed out that when we've got upwards of 6 billion people alive on this planet, reproduction is hardly a moral imperitive anymore. Unmitigated reproductive rates can hardly be good for humans.
I disagree.

[Hooboy !!]

Hooboy, this is a pluralistic society. This is one of our core values. Until you've accepted this, you will not understand why your attitude toward gay rights is not considered normal or acceptable.
This is not about rights. As much as you want it to be, it is not. You are upset by folks claiming that gay sex is immoral. I don't care. You are upset that gay couples are not viewed by society the same way that heterosexual couples are. Too fucking bad. You are not the same. Cannot be. Never will be. Get over it. If y'all want to get "married", there is nothing stopping you. You can have your wedding. You can dress up, have cake, basically perform the exact same rituals as any wedding would. You can live together. You can hold hands in public. You can buy a house together, and on and on and on. All of the things that married people do. It might take a little more effort, such as changing your name, or having power of attorney, and stuff like that, but it can be done. It will just not be recognized by the state as being "married". Big deal.

Our moral significance is not considered contingent upon how much we "contribute," Hooboy.
Moral significance is irrelevant. If you cannot contribute to the community you live in, then why the fuck should I care if you live or die? Just because you are a human being? You will have to do better than that.

Pluralism is one of the most important factors of a successful democracy, and its absence is one of the most common features of societies that remain torn by in-fighting and disunity. Take your medicine, America. It's good for you. It'll make you grow up to be big and strong.
This is where your argument falls apart. I am not trying to disenfranchise anyone. All I am doing is challenging you to make an argument for why the state should recognize gay marriage, and y'all can't do it. All you can do is try and redefine the meaning of marriage from the traditional to a contemporary one. You raise strawmen and exceptions, which were in some cases never even heard of when the traditional concept was first invented, as if these exceptions can somehow be used to define the rule.

I got news for you. Our society has bigger fish to fry than dealing with gay marriage.

[Hooboy !!]

Any right-thinking person would, without qualifications on your part, assume you meant "morally wrong". It's not as if I asked if "1+1=3 is wrong". What other "wrong" could you mean? "Futile" does not equal "wrong". So yes, it was a clarification.
No. It wasn't. I made no moral assessment of gay marriage or gay sex. You assumed I did. I place the word "wrong" in quotations, because it is a concept someone else used and I feel is undefined. It was not my word.

Not to me. Or any other person who uses logic and deductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning is a guess, when all of the facts are not present. LOL

Didn't we evolve so that women were born with a set number of eggs instead of constantly generating them? Men do not become infertile with age, as one would assume if infertility were merely a function of aging.
We evolved enough reproductive ability. That is what is relevant. We did not evolve to live forever. We did not evolve to live less than sexual maturity. This is all what is relevant.

which also serves as a State-issued means of individual identification
I can only presume that this is some kind of strange way of saying that the state happily issues drivers licenses to drunks. LOL

It is not "encouraging" sober driving.
Creating disincentives (punishments for drunk driving) is indeed encouraging sober driving.

Nice try. The state could (and arguably should) pre-test applicants for a driver's license to see if they are alcholics, but they do not. The reason why? Because the state is not omniscient, nor omnipresent, and it cannot know if an alcholic will drive drunk. It can only presume. No matter how reliable the presumption, or certain the state is, the intrusion into the person's privacy cannot be justified.

The State does not require breathaliser tests before any instance of driving because it becomes prohibitively expensive to enforce
Yet, it does, in cases of repeat offenders. Special equipment is installed in vehicles that require the driver to blow a test before the car can even be started. You are getting it though. This is another reason why the idea is absurd.

No, it's not.
Yes, it was and still is. We are not discussing human life expectancy.

So, if child production is not the sole purpose of a marriage, what exactly again is your opposition to gay marriage? Since there are other ways for marriage to serve the interests of society, why do you wish to restrict it to only straight couples?
Those other purposes are not significant enough or beneficial enough to justify the institutionalization of marriage.

A State's interest is not automatically a social purpose, and vice versa.
WTF is the difference between an "interest" and a "purpose"?

Yes. And it still doesn't refute the argument that gay sex contributes to population control.
So? I wasn't trying to. You will have to prove to me that lowering our birth rate is more in the interests of our society than increasing it would be.

I noticed you skipped over what I, and I trust many others here, regard as important questions
Because they are not important questions.

What's your position on partnerships with transgendered persons?
:rolleyes:

[Griff]

This is not about rights. As much as you want it to be, it is not.It is, though. You're completely wrong in this regard.

You are upset by folks claiming that gay sex is immoral. I don't care.You should, though.

You are upset that gay couples are not viewed by society the same way that heterosexual couples are. Too fucking bad. You are not the same. Cannot be. Never will be. Get over it.Too fucking bad. We're not going away. This is our society, too.

If y'all want to get "married", there is nothing stopping you. You can have your wedding. You can dress up, have cake, basically perform the exact same rituals as any wedding would. You can live together. You can hold hands in public. You can buy a house together, and on and on and on. All of the things that married people do.Then you're not against gay marriage at all. Your only stick seems to be with the licenses.

It might take a little more effort, such as changing your name, or having power of attorney, and stuff like that, but it can be done. It will just not be recognized by the state as being "married". Big deal.It is a big deal, yes.

Moral significance is irrelevant.No, it's quite relevant.

If you cannot contribute to the community you live in, then why the fuck should I care if you live or die? Just because you are a human being?Yes.

This is where your argument falls apart. I am not trying to disenfranchise anyone.No, you're just being a typical, heel-dragging conservative, wetting your pants at the prospect of anything that shakes up your vision of a forever stagnating culture. That you're an atheist isn't impressive. I've always said that one could have a number of reasons for being an atheist. Not all of them are good ones.

All I am doing is challenging you to make an argument for why the state should recognize gay marriage, and y'all can't do it.Yes, we have. Several of them, actually.

All you can do is try and redefine the meaning of marriage from the traditional to a contemporary one.The traditional one was shitcanned a long time ago. Women are considered social equals and equal partners in marriage. Challenging this is no longer considered socially acceptable. Contemporary marriage IS the norm.

I got news for you. Our society has bigger fish to fry than dealing with gay marriage.It's a big issue for gays and lesbians, though, and it's a big issue for those who advocate social pluralism. Eventually, the wafflers will say "JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, IF IT'S THAT IMPORTANT TO YOU, THEN FINE! HAVE THE MOTHERFUCKING THING!" Until then, we'll stay on the march.

[Agnostic]

No. It wasn't. I made no moral assessment of gay marriage or gay sex. You assumed I did. I place the word "wrong" in quotations, because it is a concept someone else used and I feel is undefined. It was not my word.

You asked for a quote. I gave it. Live with it. If you jump into discussions without qualifying your statements, do not blame others for seeing it as a clarification. When you answer with an unqualified "yes" to the question of whether something is wrong, you are making a moral judgement, unless the question is one of mathematics, or one of legality, in which case I'd have used the word "illegal" instead of "wrong".

Deductive reasoning is a guess, when all of the facts are not present. LOL

Knowledge comes from logical and deductive reasoning based on facts. Once you deduct what is impossible, you are left with what is possible. How is that a guess?

We evolved enough reproductive ability. That is what is relevant. We did not evolve to live forever. We did not evolve to live less than sexual maturity. This is all what is relevant.

So it IS a function of evolution. Thank you.

I can only presume that this is some kind of strange way of saying that the state happily issues drivers licenses to drunks. LOL

The State issues the drivers' licenses to any who passes a competence test. The State does not require competence tests to issue a marriage license. Drink driving is a non-issue (it is covered under laws) because the issuance of licenses is to facilitate the registration of anyone who wishes to operate a motor vehicle, not prohibit drink driving. However, you were the one who implied the State issues marriage licenses to encourage child production/raising.

Creating disincentives (punishments for drunk driving) is indeed encouraging sober driving.

It is amazing how you are able to equate punishing drink driving as encouraging sober driving, yet are unable to equate allowing only straight marriages as disallowing/banning gay marriages. It's just another sign of the inconsistency you've displayed thus far.

Nice try. The state could (and arguably should) pre-test applicants for a driver's license to see if they are alcholics, but they do not. The reason why? Because the state is not omniscient, nor omnipresent, and it cannot know if an alcholic will drive drunk. It can only presume. No matter how reliable the presumption, or certain the state is, the intrusion into the person's privacy cannot be justified.

I am actually confused whether you are a libertarian or a utilitarian. You seem to argue from both ends of the spectrum on the same issue. On one hand, you are arguing the State's interest for intruding into what was a religious ceremony, then on the other you argue against the State for intruding to guard its own interests.

Of course the State can pre-test applicants for a driver's license for alcoholism, but it doesn't for the reason you stated - it does not know if a person will drive drunk, regardless of whether he is an alcoholic or not, thus the laws in place to tackle the issue of drink driving. However, if the State's interest in legalising marriage is child production, then it should pre-test for fertility because it will then know whether a child can be produced or not. It's not as if natural sterility is something you can turn on or off at will.

Yet, it does, in cases of repeat offenders. Special equipment is installed in vehicles that require the driver to blow a test before the car can even be started. You are getting it though. This is another reason why the idea is absurd.

Except it is not foolproof. Someone else can blow into the breathaliser to allow the car be started, then allow the one who would have failed the test to drive.

So do you agree with me that all marriage privileges should be abolished, to be superceded by offspring privileges, in light of what you've claimed about State interests?

Yes, it was and still is. We are not discussing human life expectancy.

No, but we are discussing procreation, which technology plays a part beyond conception. And it was you yourself who defined procreation as more than mere conception.

Those other purposes are not significant enough or beneficial enough to justify the institutionalization of marriage.

So why institutionalize marriage for anyone who does not fulfil the State's interest (child production)? If it is not beneficial enough for gay couples to marry, how is it beneficial enough for sterile straight couples to?

WTF is the difference between an "interest" and a "purpose"?

A social purpose is one which serves the interests of the society. A State's interest only serves the interests of the State. Eg, organised religion serves a social purpose, but it is not a State's interest.

So? I wasn't trying to. You will have to prove to me that lowering our birth rate is more in the interests of our society than increasing it would be.

It's not raising or lowering birth rates I'm concerned with. It's sustainable growth. If birth rates were too low, then of course it should be increased, and vice versa.

Because they are not important questions.

It's not that they are unimportant. It's that you fear they will show your position on gay sex for what it is - inconsistent as far as we can see so far (your repeated refusal to answer pertinent questions hinders our ability to more accurately test your position/arguments for consistency).

You were the one who brought up the issue of the futility of gay sex, yet repeatedly refuse to answer questions regarding the futility of other forms of non-procreative straight sex, as well as the issue of bonding for the purpose of procreation, while adamantly insisting your position is not one based on homophobia or unfair gender discrimination. In fact, your entire argument is based on the concept of futility.

So I ask again:

Let's get you on record on whether the following are "futile" sex or not, considering what you just clarified about bonding (you still haven't answered the question of whether conception is a vital part of the procreative process or not):

1) One-night stands
2) Paid sex
3) Solo masturbation within a relationship
4) Sex between sterile partners
5) Sex between partners who do not want children so they go beyond contraception to aborting every unplanned pregnancy

Until you make your stand known on the futility (or not) of the above, one cannot test whether your stand on the futility of gay sex is based on consistent reasoning or homophobia/unfair gender discrimination.

And once clarified (or perhaps not even necessary, depending on the response), this paragraph:

You choose to hide behind the veil of "impossibility of natural conception", but you apply that standard only to gay couples. To be truly consistent on the position of "futile sex", you need to apply it equally. A question for you (to illustrate my point): Sex between partners which has no possibility of leading to natural conception is futile (not referring to specific sex acts, but to the fact that the couple cannot naturally conceive) - true or false? If the procreative process needs conception to get started, then your only possible answer is TRUE if you are to stay consistent with your original premise. If your answer is FALSE, then your fixation on the futility of gay sex is simply based on gender discrimination or homophobia.

These are questions that directly address the premise YOU made. How are they unimportant questions then, when you are willing to delve so deeply into the issue of State interests in a thread on gay sex?

:rolleyes:

I do not know how to interpret an emoticon as an answer to a question that requires more than a "yes" or "no".

[Agnostic]

I got news for you. Our society has bigger fish to fry than dealing with gay marriage.

Like the DOMA?

In any case, if it's a significant fish, you'd have to fry it, regardless of its size.

Personally I consider many of the rights enshrined in your BoR as small fish, but apparently your society has to keep dealing with them regardless of how small as fishes they seem to me.

[Hooboy !!]

You should, though.
They are entitled to their opinions.

No, you're just being a typical, heel-dragging conservative, wetting your pants at the prospect of anything that shakes up your vision of a forever stagnating culture.
LOL

I got news for you. Gay marriage is not a significant social advancement.

The traditional one was shitcanned a long time ago. Women are considered social equals and equal partners in marriage. Challenging this is no longer considered socially acceptable. Contemporary marriage IS the norm.
Ummm. I am in a traditional marriage and my wife is my equal.

It's a big issue for gays and lesbians, though
I have no doubt that chip on your shoulder weighs pretty heavy at times.

[Hooboy !!]

You asked for a quote. I gave it.
No, you didn't. You have misrepresented what I have written. Produce a quote from me where I have made any kind of moral judgement in regards gay marriage or gay sex, or live with the fact that you are simply wrong.

So it IS a function of evolution. Thank you.
:rolleyes:

Do you even remember what point you were trying to make?

The State does not require competence tests to issue a marriage license.
Yes. It does. One man, one woman. That is the test.

Drink driving is a non-issue (it is covered under laws) because the issuance of licenses is to facilitate the registration of anyone who wishes to operate a motor vehicle, not prohibit drink driving. However, you were the one who implied the State issues marriage licenses to encourage child production/raising.
Now yer gettin' it! You are correct. The marriage license is not issued to raise children. It is assumed. Just as it is assumed that the driver of the vehicle will operate the vehicle safely when the driver's license is issued. The license is issued to the applicant, regardless, as long as they pass the written, field, and eye exam tests.

It is amazing how you are able to equate punishing drink driving as encouraging sober driving, yet are unable to equate allowing only straight marriages as disallowing/banning gay marriages. It's just another sign of the inconsistency you've displayed thus far.
There are no disincentives for gay marriage.

I am actually confused whether you are a libertarian or a utilitarian. You seem to argue from both ends of the spectrum on the same issue. On one hand, you are arguing the State's interest for intruding into what was a religious ceremony, then on the other you argue against the State for intruding to guard its own interests.
I am pluralistic.

LOL

So do you agree with me that all marriage privileges should be abolished, to be superceded by offspring privileges, in light of what you've claimed about State interests?
If marriage is no longer serving the original intended purpose. Then... sure. End it and start over again.

A social purpose is one which serves the interests of the society. A State's interest only serves the interests of the State. Eg, organised religion serves a social purpose, but it is not a State's interest.
They are the same thing. A society is made up of individuals. Society is not a separate thing.

It's not that they are unimportant. It's that you fear they will show your position on gay sex for what it is - inconsistent as far as we can see so far (your repeated refusal to answer pertinent questions hinders our ability to more accurately test your position/arguments for consistency).
My position is not inconsistent. Your "pertinent" questions are trivial.

your entire argument is based on the concept of futility.
Correct. Heterosexual couples and individuals engage in futile sex. So what? My wife and I have had lots of futile sex. But, we also had very productive sex too and I have the children to prove it. What is more, that futile sex works wonders to strengthen and reaffirm the bond between myself and my wife. The result? We have been married for over 20 years and have nearly completed one of the shared life's goals that we promised to eachother on our wedding day.

A homosexual couple will never have anything except futile sex. It will never produce any offspring. Ever.

[EarlOfLade]

....

Can you explain why the fuck you should have any influence over who I sleep with?

[Griff]

I got news for you. Gay marriage is not a significant social advancement.It certainly is for gays and lesbians. Besides, just a few pages ago, you were prophesying the fall of civilization. You should really try a bit harder to be consistent.

Ummm. I am in a traditional marriage and my wife is my equal.It's not a traditional marriage, then.

[vagabond]

Hey All, concerning the original post of this thread:

Imagine a hetero couple:

1) Is oral sex wrong?
2) Is protected sex wrong?
3) Is sex without thought of procreation wrong?
4) Is masturbation/foreplay wrong?

It's not "wrong", but all things have consequences.

You failed to mention a few:
1) is sex with an animal wrong?
2) is unprotected sex wrong?
3) is gang sex wrong?

Nothing is wrong, but everything has consequences, denying or ignoring that is wrong.

[Angrillori]

Near as I can tell, it depends on whether he can tell for certain, just by lookin', whether or not they can reproduce. For no reason I can possibly fathom, it offends his sensibilities that people sometimes get together with no intention of reproducing, but he can tolerate the idea as long as he isn't faced with the undeniable reality.

I can only wonder, with horror, how he must feel about people like me who aren't interested in dating, marriage, or reproducing at all.

He's only against it if you wear a sign proclaiming it, 'cause then it would be "obvious"...

At least that's what his argument seems to be.

It sounds to me like his position is:

"If it is obvious to hooboy,* by looking at them, that a couple cannot create their own biological children solely by unaided intercourse between the partners** then the state should not let them get married."

Now, given this is hooboy, I fully expect him to rage against this and declare it a strawman, or mischaracterization. In that eventuality, I simply ask him to calmly explain why it is a mischaracterization. I put forth that I comprised that summary in good faith, based upon (several) exhaustive readings of this thread.

*Since hooboy doesn't see it as obvious that an 80-year old woman cannot bear children, I had to include this bit.

**Since gay families can raise children, and even bear children with IVF/etc I had to include this clause.

[Hooboy !!]

Can you explain why the fuck you should have any influence over who I sleep with?
Where have I tried to exert any influence?

[Angrillori]

And yet you care about gay sex, which I assume you have no intention to engage in. Odd. I'm trying to understand your rationale for why gay sex is wrong. It seems to have something to do with children, but I can't tell what, since some gay couples have kids and some straight couples don't or can't. I strongly suspect that your position is inconsistent, and am trying to test it for consistency. I can understand why you would resist doing that, as it would expose the problems with your position. Let me say this, on its face, your position appears to be blatantly inconsistent. Perhaps you could shed some light on why you believe it is not?

I guess I just have to ask again, if you have two couples, neither of whom can or will reproduce, why is it moral for one to have sex, but immoral for the other?

I had hoped this would be addressed. So I'm repeating TomboyMom's post.

[Agnostic]

No, you didn't. You have misrepresented what I have written. Produce a quote from me where I have made any kind of moral judgement in regards gay marriage or gay sex, or live with the fact that you are simply wrong.

I will admit wrong when I am proved wrong. You have not done that. I have quoted your original post on this subject where you affirmed the thread title describes you, without any qualifications. Using logic and reasoning, I thus surmise you have made a moral judgement when you originally affirmed "gay sex is wrong because sex is for procreation". Your point of contention is whether you have made a clarification of point or not. If you have to modify/qualify your original statement (as in affirming gay sex is wrong, then later stating that gay sex is NOT "wrong"), then you have made a clarification. I did not misrepresent what you initially presented without qualifications. Prove (using logic and reasoning), not simply assert, that I am wrong, and I will admit I am. As I have using logic and reasoning to show you DID make a moral judgement before you qualified your position. It's as simple as that. If your "futility" position was not a clarification of your initial affirmation of the thread title, then for starters, you can explain what you thought the "wrong" in the thread title meant.

Do you even remember what point you were trying to make?

Yes.

Yes. It does. One man, one woman. That is the test.

That's not a competence test. That's just a basic requirement. Just as being of a minimum age is a basic requirement for a driver's license. Unlike marriage where you just have to be [currently unmarried] male and female of majority age (or with parental or state consent in case of minors) to obtain a marriage license, you are not allowed to obtain a driver's license simply because you reached the minimum age requirement. You have to be tested for competence (via written/oral and practical tests) in handling a motor vehicle within certain rules. The State does not test couples for sterility to prevent those who cannot conceive from obtaining a marriage license. The State's interest in ensuring only competent drivers obtain driver's licenses is fulfilled by issuing them only to those who pass a competence test; however, the State's interest in [encouraging] procreation via marriage is NOT fulfilled by issuing marriage licenses to sterile couples.

Now yer gettin' it! You are correct. The marriage license is not issued to raise children. It is assumed. Just as it is assumed that the driver of the vehicle will operate the vehicle safely when the driver's license is issued. The license is issued to the applicant, regardless, as long as they pass the written, field, and eye exam tests.

Unfortunately, you're not getting it. Driver's licenses are issued even to known alcoholics because being an alcoholic licensed driver does not automatically mean he will ALWAYS drive under the influence. That's why the laws are enacted to punish those who do so (and hopefully revoke their licenses), regardless of whether they are alcoholics or not, since you do not have to be an alcoholic to drive under the influence. The probability that alcoholic licensed drivers will drive under the influence ranges from zero to one, and though the statistical probability may be higher, it is not always the case that alcoholics will drive under the influence. In the case of a biologically-sterile couple however, the probability of conception is always ZERO, and the statistical probability of biologically-sterile couples conceiving is always NONE. You can choose whether to drive under the influence or not, but you cannot choose to conceive or not if you are biologically-sterile. The former has a probability range, the latter is physical impossibility. Your problem is in confusing the circumstances of the two. It is possible to assume an alcoholic will not drive under the influence, but it is impossible to assume children will be born when conception is a physical impossibility. (Another minor point to note, but which is not essential to this argument, is that alcoholics can sober up, but biologically-sterile couples cannot undo sterilisation without artificial means.)

There are no disincentives for gay marriage.

Because there's no gay marriage (federally) in the first place. You can disincentivise drink driving because it can occur. You cannot disincentivise what is not there. Also, the DOMA allows states to not recognise specifically gay marriages recognised in other states. My awe stems from the fact you can equate "against x" as "for y" in one instance yet not "for x" as "against y" in another. This is not about preferences, but about mutually exclusive arguments.

I am pluralistic.

I thought pluralists recognise the diversity of interests and are against the institutionalised dominance of one faction over another.

If marriage is no longer serving the original intended purpose. Then... sure. End it and start over again.

Oddly enough, the original purpose of marriage is not procreation, but the creation and strengthening of affinal ties (or concentration of wealth and power). And marriage was strictly a civil institution until the Christian Church co-opted it. With shifting attitudes towards marriage and family, as evidenced by rising divorce rates, adultery, cohabitation w/o marriage, out-of-wedlock children and unwed parents, it is a wonder how some people can still view legalised marriages with rose-tinted glasses.

They are the same thing. A society is made up of individuals. Society is not a separate thing.

Notionally, the State is separate from society (I don't know how individuals come into the equation, since it is self-evident that an individual is not a society). Being interdependent (to a degree) does not make them equal. What is in the interest of society is not necessarily in the interest of the State, and vice versa. Protecting individual privacy may serve a social purpose, but the State may not find it beneficial in its interest to perpetuate itself. Thus, social purpose does not automatically become a State interest.

My position is not inconsistent. Your "pertinent" questions are trivial.

Care to show how they are trivial or not pertinent to the discussion at hand? You don't seem to find delving deeply into State interests in a thread on gay sex to be trivial, yet find questions which directly address your argument about the futility of gay sex to be trivial? You bring up "futility", then dismiss questions regarding futility; you bring up "physiological and psychological bonds", then dismiss questions regarding those bonds. They are not even questions requiring essay-length responses - just yes/no or true/false.

A discussion means making and rebutting arguments, not simply asserting one is right while repeatedly refusing to answer questions addressing the arguments used for that claim.

Correct. Heterosexual couples and individuals engage in futile sex. So what? My wife and I have had lots of futile sex. But, we also had very productive sex too and I have the children to prove it. What is more, that futile sex works wonders to strengthen and reaffirm the bond between myself and my wife. The result? We have been married for over 20 years and have nearly completed one of the shared life's goals that we promised to eachother on our wedding day.

As a non-sterile couple, I will never assume you never had productive sex. I did not rebut your claim that gay sex is futile with regards to conception, because it is true. However, you have not rebutted any claims that the following...

1) One-night stands;
2) Paid sex;
3) Solo masturbation within a relationship;
4) Sex between sterile partners;
5) Sex between partners who do not want children so they go beyond contraception to aborting every unplanned pregnancy

... are also futile sex with regards to procreation. Remember that "sex is for procreation" is your premise, not mine. If your response to sterile heterosexual couples having futile sex is "so what", then why shouldn't your response to gay couples having futile sex be "so what" as well, since they both will never produce any offspring. Ever..

And how does bonding conducive to procreation work when there is no procreation (not even intention to procreate, up to the point of aborting every time procreation begins) in the first place? If you dismiss every other bonding that's not conducive to procreation as trivial, then why restrict that trivialisation only to gay couples, and not sterile heterosexual couples?

A homosexual couple will never have anything except futile sex. It will never produce any offspring. Ever.

A sterile heterosexual couple will never have anything except futile sex. It will never produce any offspring. Ever.

How does this make the sterile heterosexual couple different from the gay couple except for the gender differences?

My line of questioning is to determine why you apparently use one set of rules for heterosexual coupling and another for homosexual coupling with regards to the issue of the production of offspring and procreation, yet continually assert you are being consistent.

[Agnostic]

Hey All, concerning the original post of this thread:

It's not "wrong", but all things have consequences.

You failed to mention a few:
1) is sex with an animal wrong?
2) is unprotected sex wrong?
3) is gang sex wrong?

Nothing is wrong, but everything has consequences, denying or ignoring that is wrong.

What are those consequences?

1) is simple: an animal cannot give informed consent, or at least informed consent that we can understand. It approaches the equivalence of rape. You can, of course, bring up the issue of property, but animals are a special class of property with certain rights, just like children are a special class of property with certain rights.

[Griff]

Sex with an animal isn't wrong, per se, but it's really funny.

An animal can't give informed consent to be bred, either.

[vagabond]

Hey agnostic:

What are those consequences?

They vary with each individual and their level of consciousness, also their:up-bringing, education, peers, and even genetics.

Regardless, like slapping your face or licking an icecream cone, there is "ALWAYS" a cosequence.

1) is simple: an animal cannot give informed consent, or at least informed consent that we can understand. It approaches the equivalence of rape. You can, of course, bring up the issue of property, but animals are a special class of property with certain rights, just like children are a special class of property with certain rights.

I like the property answer, well done.

[Hooboy !!]

I thus surmise
In other words... assumed.

That's not a competence test.
You are trying to play a semantical game. Competence, is a requirement.

Oddly enough, the original purpose of marriage is not procreation, but the creation and strengthening of affinal ties (or concentration of wealth and power). And marriage was strictly a civil institution until the Christian Church co-opted it
Wrong. Marriage existed before Christianity. Christian marriages are not a new thing. Christianity borrowed heavily from Roman and European pagan religions. Christianity refined it, and redefined it. Do you think it is a coincidence that Catholics are loathe to allow a divorce and to use contraception? They take the instructions given to Adam and Eve quite literally.

Notionally, the State is separate from society
A state cannot exist without a society. A society can exist without a state (stateless society).

I don't know how individuals come into the equation, since it is self-evident that an individual is not a society.
Societies cannot exist without individuals.

Care to show how they are trivial or not pertinent to the discussion at hand?
No.

you bring up "physiological and psychological bonds", then dismiss questions regarding those bonds.
I must have missed those.

[Agnostic]

I'm simply wasting time rebutting Hooboy's arguments since he simply ignores any questions he cannot answer, questions that attack his premise/argument. Until he can do significantly more (ie, rebut, not pose one-liners) other than continuously assert without proper defence, I'll use my discussion time productively by carrying on with people who can actually understand, use logic and reasoning, argue/rebut. I thought patience would yield some advances in discussions with Hooboy, but I see it's wasted when the only thing he seems capable of is make undefended claims. No wonder so many others stopped. It's impossible to argue rationally with one who offers no defence.

Unfortunately (or maybe it's "no wonder"), he's the only one who actually affirmed the thread title.

[Agnostic]

By the way, should I create a split thread on gay marriage, since this thread is (supposed to be, anyway) about gay sex?

[Hooboy !!]

he simply ignores any questions he cannot answer, questions that attack his premise/argument.
LOL

[TomboyMom]

I had a vasectomy. Nuff said. Why didn't you tell us in the first place? Non-reproductive sex that Hooboy has is RIGHT. Non-reproductive sex that TomboyMom has is WRONG. The distinction is clear.

[TomboyMom]

You are upset by folks claiming that gay sex is immoral. This thread is not about people's feelings; it's about logic and consistency. Your position is inconsistent. Apparently you don't care about that, either. You are not the same. Cannot be. Never will be. Get over it. No, no more than black people are the same as white people. They are, however entitled to the same rights, including the right to marry a white people. Obviously marriage is about rights--the right to marry! If y'all want to get "married", there is nothing stopping you. You can have your wedding. You can dress up, have cake, basically perform the exact same rituals as any wedding would. You can live together. You can hold hands in public. You can buy a house together, and on and on and on. All of the things that married people do. It might take a little more effort, such as changing your name, or having power of attorney, and stuff like that, but it can be done. It will just not be recognized by the state as being "married". Big deal. That's right, we can get "married," and do. We just can't get married. If it's not a big deal to you, I suggest you don't do it. It is a big deal to some people.

Moral significance is irrelevant. If you cannot contribute to the community you live in, then why the fuck should I care if you live or die? Just because you are a human being? You will have to do better than that. I'm not sure, are you accusing me of not contributing to my community just because my sex is not reproductive? I think you need to withdraw this insult. Obviously one's contribution to one's community is not dependent on whether one engages in reproductive sex. Witness e.g. Jane Addams.

I got news for you. Our society has bigger fish to fry than dealing with gay marriage. Would this were true. I wish we could focus on getting those incompetent and corrupt maroons out of Washington and balance the budget. For some reason the far right Christians seem to be fixated on electing anyone who will prevent gay people from getting married. Why they allow themselves to be manipulated by their perverse interest in other people's sex lives is a mystery to me.

[Hooboy !!]

Nuff said. Why didn't you tell us in the first place? Non-reproductive sex that Hooboy has is RIGHT. Non-reproductive sex that TomboyMom has is WRONG. The distinction is clear.
Strawman. I have never made a moral judgement.

I engage exclusively in futile sex now-a-days, after my vasectomy. There is only an extremely remote chance that I could possibly father another child. The sex that my wife and I engage in still contributes to the process of procreation though, by reaffirming our bonds and commitments to jointly raise our children. In this respect, our sexual relationship is still contributing to the process of procreation.

At some point, all of my children will be grown and gone. As long as my wife and I provide a stable foundatin for a family nucleus, which could include grand children and great grand children, then our sexual relationship would still be serving the process of reproduction.

[Hooboy !!]

This thread is not about people's feelings
Yes it is.

Obviously marriage is about rights--the right to marry!
Wrong. Marriage is a privilege, just like a driver's license is.

I'm not sure, are you accusing me of not contributing to my community just because my sex is not reproductive?
There are many ways to contribute to your community.

I think you need to withdraw this insult.
:rolleyes:

And you still think this is not an emotional issue?

[Griff]

Ahem. Anyway, sexual intercourse is a likely consequence of two people living together in a spousal relationship. Spousal relationships, as a general rule, are considered good for society, and pluralistic, unified advocacy of these is the best way of keeping them strong. Squabbling over whom and whom will not be discriminated against cheapens the thing. The gays and lesbians have a legitimate complaint, and they are unlikely to be silenced on the issue until their issues have been addressed and resolved. The conservatives, however, have historically come to accept the new status quo, and the fact that they will not be noticably affected by the change is all the more reason that their cries should be ignored. It doesn't hurt as much after a while, Hooboy. Relax.

[TomboyMom]

Strawman. I have never made a moral judgement. So we're not arguing about whether gay sex is wrong? Boy, did I ever misunderstand you. When you described yourself as matching the thread title, what did you mean? If you don't think gay sex is wrong, what are we arguing about?

I engage exclusively in futile sex now-a-days, after my vasectomy. There is only an extremely remote chance that I could possibly father another child. The sex that my wife and I engage in still contributes to the process of procreation though, by reaffirming our bonds and commitments to jointly raise our children. In this respect, our sexual relationship is still contributing to the process of procreation. You have been asked several times about morality of sex between people who do not have, and do not intend to have, children, and have repeatedly failed to address this case. In addition, obviously under your standards gay sex between gay people who have or intend to have kids would be moral, correct? As it would reaffirm their bond and commitment? And therefore "serve the process of reproduction?"

btw, why is reproduction the be-all and end-all?

[Dlx2]

I'm still confused on why Hooboy refuses to accept that sex can have benefits for individuals and society beyond simple reproduction.

I'm also confused as to why Hooboy thinks that we need to have MORE children when it's clear that there's not enough wealth or food to go around as is.

Personally, I wonder if Hooboy is afraid that hispanics and blacks are going to replace whites as the majority in the US and that this is the root of his skewed view of reproductive imperitive.

And, by the way, I had great sex last night with my girlfriend, and she's on the pill. I can assure you that it was not futile. If Hooboy considers sex for pleasure to be a futile enterprise, maybe his problem is that he's not really into the whole "sex with women" thing. Maybe he'd find sex more fulfilling and less futile if he'd go out and figure out what works for him in bed.

[Hooboy !!]

So we're not arguing about whether gay sex is wrong? Boy, did I ever misunderstand you. When you described yourself as matching the thread title, what did you mean? If you don't think gay sex is wrong, what are we arguing about?
I asserted that sex is for the purpose of reproduction. All sex, regardless. Even homosexual sex, which is basically the same instinct at work, just in a futile way. I think homosexual sex is the most futile, because even the ancillary benefits of homosexual sex do nothing to support procreation, unless it is to provide a surrogate family structure, which is not a bad thing, but does not justify redefining marriage to accomodate.

You have been asked several times about morality of sex between people who do not have, and do not intend to have, children, and have repeatedly failed to address this case.
Not true. I have repeatedly stated that I am making no moral judgements. I don't give a fuck what people do, as long as it doesn't bother me. I am in favor of "one man, one woman" marriages, because I believe that the traditional nuclear family is the best fundamental building block of a society and I think it is worth promoting. This should not be construed as any kind of a judgement in regards any other kind of family structure. I have stated my views on the nuclear family and why I think it is the "best" family structure in other threads.

In addition, obviously under your standards gay sex between gay people who have or intend to have kids would be moral, correct? As it would reaffirm their bond and commitment? And therefore "serve the process of reproduction?"
I think anything that positively binds people together is a "good" thing. Reproduction is certainly a very very important requirement for the continuance of any society, but it is not the only one.

btw, why is reproduction the be-all and end-all?
Without children... our society will collapse. Immigration should not be viewed as an adequate substitute. All you have to do is look at Holland or Denmark (can't recall right now), and France to see how immigration is perceived as a serious threat to their culture (read society).

[Hooboy !!]

I'm still confused on why Hooboy refuses to accept that sex can have benefits for individuals and society beyond simple reproduction.
I don't think that at all. I just think that reproduction is very very important and all other things are subservient to it.

I'm also confused as to why Hooboy thinks that we need to have MORE children when it's clear that there's not enough wealth or food to go around as is.
See my previous post.

Personally, I wonder if Hooboy is afraid that hispanics and blacks are going to replace whites as the majority in the US and that this is the root of his skewed view of reproductive imperitive.
Not really. I am more worried about secular progressives that have a vision of a socialist United States. We have far more in common with hispanics and blacks than the French do with muslim immigrants... for example. I think hispanics are actually good for this country, because they bring with them Old World traditional family values.

If Hooboy considers sex for pleasure to be a futile enterprise, maybe his problem is that he's not really into the whole "sex with women" thing. Maybe he'd find sex more fulfilling and less futile if he'd go out and figure out what works for him in bed.
It was perfectly futile, given that the Pill is 99% effective. I also had perfectly futile sex last night and enjoyed the hell out of myself.

You association of "futile" with "fulfilling" is interesting though.

[Dlx2]

I don't think that at all. I just think that reproduction is very very important and all other things are subservient to it.

Except many people disagree with you.

Not really. I am more worried about secular progressives that have a vision of a socialist United States. We have far more in common with hispanics and blacks than the French do with muslim immigrants... for example. I think hispanics are actually good for this country, because they bring with them Old World traditional family values.

The idea of breeding one's self into a majority seems like a cheapening of human life.

It was perfectly futile, given that the Pill is 99% effective. I also had perfectly futile sex last night and enjoyed the hell out of myself.

You association of "futile" with "fulfilling" is interesting though.

It was futile only if our goal was to conceive. Our goal was not to conceive. Our goal was to engage in an activity which brought us both great pleasure as well as a feeling of physical and emotional interconnectiveness. Given that this was our goal, and given that we accomplished this goal, I'd say that our night was far from futile.

[Griff]

Reproduction is futile if it doesn't result in an overall heightened quality of life.

[Hooboy !!]

It was futile only if our goal was to conceive. Our goal was not to conceive. Our goal was to engage in an activity which brought us both great pleasure as well as a feeling of physical and emotional interconnectiveness. Given that this was our goal, and given that we accomplished this goal, I'd say that our night was far from futile.
:)

It seems that you are finally getting my point. Your offense taken at my assertion that your sex was futile appears to have interfered with your ability to grasp it earlier. Now, consider this... why does a kitten like to "play" with a ball of yarn? Is it because they are getting pleasure from it? Is it having fun? I think the answer to this is "Yes". But, that pleasure exists for a purpose. That purpose is to prepare that kitten for the task of killing and feeding its self as an adult. Even adult cats like to "play".

Your futile sex is "play". It is pleasurable, because it is supposed to be. It is how we evolved. And, if that "play" were left to its own devices, without the benefit of any technology, the result of that "play", in most cases (between the vast majority of heterosexual couples) would be a child.

[Hooboy !!]

Reproduction is futile if it doesn't result in an overall heightened quality of life.
Wrong. Reproduction is a hope for the future.

[TomboyMom]

I asserted that sex is for the purpose of reproduction. All sex, regardless. Even homosexual sex, which is basically the same instinct at work, just in a futile way. I think homosexual sex is the most futile, because even the ancillary benefits of homosexual sex do nothing to support procreation, unless it is to provide a surrogate family structure, which is not a bad thing, but does not justify redefining marriage to accomodate. So by "wrong", you didn't mean morally wrong but--what, biologically wrong? Wrong in what sense? I think in a forum devoted to moral issues, when you said it was wrong, we were justified in assuming that you meant morally wrong. If not, this thread has been an exercise in talking at cross purposes and a waste of time. I agree that homosexuality is a variant on a function that evolved for the purpose of reproduction. As such it is a puzzling phenomenon. Although it is not effective for reproduction, I cannot agree that it is entirely futile, as it works fine for the other purposes of sex, such as bonding etc.

Lesbian families are not surrogate families, they are real families, with real children. If marriage serves to protect and nurture children in heterosexual families, wouldn't it serve this same function for lesbian and gay families?

I assert that the reason you don't think it merits redefining marriage is that you are not personally affected. If marriage were denied to men with vasectomies (on the grounds that they cannot reproduce) I tend to think you would view it differently.

When you say that sex has a purpose, you are implying that someone created it. That is, purposes belong to actors, the individuals who have the purposes. Although sex clearly evolved for reproduction, it does not follow that it is morally wrong to do it for other purposes. The analogy would be to chewing gum for non-nutritive purposes. It doesn't get you fed, but there's no harm in it. Dancing instead of walking, singing instead of walking. Doesn't fulfill the evolutionary purpose, but doesn't do any harm.

[Dlx2]

Your futile sex is "play". It is pleasurable, because it is supposed to be. It is how we evolved. And, if that "play" were left to its own devices, without the benefit of any technology, the result of that "play", in most cases (between the vast majority of heterosexual couples) would be a child.

Along those same lines, fine cuisine, fine wine, fine music, fine art, fine literature, etc are all "play" that should only exist for specific biological reasons. I don't think I should be limited to appreciation of the aesthetic only when it serves a biological purpose, nor do I think that anyone else should be prevented from appreciating the aesthetics they choose just because their aesthetic sense disagrees with yours.

I'm also going to point out, Mr. Vasectomy, that your sex is just as reproductive as any of the gays here on this forum. Hypocrite much?

[Hooboy !!]

So by "wrong", you didn't mean morally wrong
How about a quote from me where I used the word "wrong" to describe: gay sex or gay marraige?

[Hooboy !!]

Along those same lines, fine cuisine, fine wine, fine music, fine art, fine literature, etc are all "play" that should only exist for specific biological reasons.
We enjoy food for a reason too. We enjoy intellectual stimulation for a reason too. And yes, these activities are forms of "play" intended to meet the evolutionary imperative to survive.

I'm also going to point out, Mr. Vasectomy, that your sex is just as reproductive as any of the gays here on this forum.
Wrong. As much as you want it to be right. You are wrong. Oh how sweet would that be eh? But, alas. No. Every time my wife and have sex, even after my vasectomy, it is a reinforcement of our bond that works to secure a safe and stable home for our mutual chidlren.

[Kingreaper]

We enjoy food for a reason too. We enjoy intellectual stimulation for a reason too. And yes, these activities are forms of "play" intended to meet the evolutionary imperative to survive.


Wrong. As much as you want it to be right. You are wrong. Oh how sweet would that be eh? But, alas. No. Every time my wife and have sex, even after my vasectomy, it is a reinforcement of our bond that works to secure a safe and stable home for our mutual chidlren.And if two gay adoptive parents have sex?

[Dlx2]

We enjoy food for a reason too. We enjoy intellectual stimulation for a reason too. And yes, these activities are forms of "play" intended to meet the evolutionary imperative to survive.

Reading Dostoevsky and drinking Laphroaig is hardly helping one to survive.

Wrong. As much as you want it to be right. You are wrong. Oh how sweet would that be eh? But, alas. No. Every time my wife and have sex, even after my vasectomy, it is a reinforcement of our bond that works to secure a safe and stable home for our mutual chidlren.

You talk and you talk, but all I hear is "blah blah blah apologetics blah blah."

The only difference between your sexual experiences and my sexual experiences is that you've already contributed to the overwhelming problem of overpopulation whereas I recognize the problem and have opted out.

I think you ought to look up the Naturalistic Fallacy, because you're indulging in it to a disgusting degree.

Because you seem to think that because an impulse is "natural" it is okay to fulfill that impulse, I'm going to argue against it with a little example.

The human body likes alcohol. The actual reason for this could be a number of things, but it's quite possibbly related to an affinity to overripe fruits at some point in our evolutionary history. Drinking alcohol is fine, when it's done in moderation. However, drinking a handle of Luksosowa in one sitting is probably not a good thing to do if one has any intention of waking up the next morning.

Similarly, eating mold is not normally healthy to the human body, and no instincts exist to promote eating mold. However, taking penicillin, a mold derivative, is good for the human body when one has a bacterial infection.

Sex, and the relationships which is promotes and enriches, does more than just produce a good environment to raise children in. It also acts to provide people with a sense of stability and connnection within their own lives. The angst, alienation, and anomie that come with modern social structures are often ameliorated by the bonds formed in strong sexual relationships. Because alienation, angst, and anomie can lead to social unrest, antisocial behavior, etc., promoting sexual unions is probably damned good for society, even when that sex won't produce chiildren. Well-laid people who have loving partners are a lot less likely to bring a semiautomatic to work or jump off a bridge into oncoming traffic.

[dmarker]

This is not about rights. As much as you want it to be, it is not. You are upset by folks claiming that gay sex is immoral. I don't care. You are upset that gay couples are not viewed by society the same way that heterosexual couples are. Too fucking bad. You are not the same. Cannot be. Never will be. Get over it. If y'all want to get "married", there is nothing stopping you. You can have your wedding. You can dress up, have cake, basically perform the exact same rituals as any wedding would. You can live together. You can hold hands in public. You can buy a house together, and on and on and on. All of the things that married people do. It might take a little more effort, such as changing your name, or having power of attorney, and stuff like that, but it can be done. It will just not be recognized by the state as being "married". Big deal.




Not a big deal! Why should gay couples have to pay thousands of dollars for the same legal protections that straight couples can get by paying $265.00 at a drive up window?

http://www.chapelsoflasvegas.com/drivethruweddings.htm



And it's not just the money. As a hetrosexual woman married to a wonderful man, I cannot deny the happiness of marriage to anybody.

Don't try to tell me that gay men and women can marry someone of the opposite sex. To me, a gay person marrying someone of the opposite sex would be like myself marrying a woman, it would be a fraud, a sham, a travesty that would ruin lives. I'd rather see all the gay couples in the world married to each other than see one gay man married to an unsuspecting woman.

[Hooboy !!]

And if two gay adoptive parents have sex?
Yea, so? What about a father having sex with a daughter that is a single mother?

[Agnostic]

TomboyMom, personally, I think you are wasting your time and effort in trying to get Hooboy to admit he did (at one point) think, or indicate he thinks, gay sex is wrong. Hooboy's assertion that he did not admit such is based on this: he did not himself use the word "wrong". Apparently, to him, affirming you think gay sex is wrong is different from admitting that you think gay sex is wrong. It's like him answering "yes" to the question "is the sky blue?" is, in his mind, different from him actually saying "the sky is blue", and thus cannot form the basis of the argument that he thinks the sky is blue. Ask him a simple question of what he thought the word "wrong" in the thread title meant (so one can know what he's affirming), but you won't get an answer. Yet you will get repeated claims from him that he was misrepresented. You are arguing with someone who employs evasion tactics but will not admit so, preferring instead of refer questions he does not want to answer as "unimportant, trivial, irrelevant", simply ignoring them [perhaps in the hope no one sees], or reducing your paragraph-long argument/rebuttal into a 5-word statement which he will argue vindicates him. This is someone who claims to be a pluralist yet champions the interests of an unqualified group over another and argues for the continued institutionalised dominance of one over; someone who claims not be to anti-progessive yet argues for tradition. You are arguing with someone who does not even know the meaning of the words "clarify" or "competence", preferring instead to argue out of context. That is why I've stopped my discussion with someone who claims coherence and consistency of his arguments yet does not allow (or defend) his claims to be tested for coherence or consistency.

Dlx2, I'm going to go a bit OT here. I'm not too knowledgeable on the "naturalistic fallacy", but when we talk about "natural" instincts, are we talking about "natural" with regards to the biological, behavioural or evolutionary? For example, what's the position on the following:

1) Survival of the fittest, thus advocating abandonment of severely disabled children so resources can be better used on the "normal" children;
2) Euthanisation of non-contributing grown persons so resources are not unfairly/unjustifiably wasted on them.
3) Aggression in persons that lead them to eliminate [perceived] enemies of themselves and their families?

[Hooboy !!]

I think you ought to look up the Naturalistic Fallacy, because you're indulging in it to a disgusting degree.
I am quite familair with it and you would be wrong.

Because you seem to think that because an impulse is "natural" it is okay to fulfill that impulse
Ummm. Wrong. The role of "nature" in my argument is to explain what motivates people to do what they do. That is all. It has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage and why I think it should be sanctioned by the state alone, instead of the many other possible forms of marriage that there are.

Typical strawman.

It also acts to provide people with a sense of stability and connnection within their own lives.
I am not denying this, but so does flag football games and poker games. Should the state sanction these kinds of relationships too?

[Hooboy !!]

he did not himself use the word "wrong".
Correct. Ever.

Apparently, to him, affirming you think gay sex is wrong is different from admitting that you think gay sex is wrong.
Except that, no where did I do this. Ever. And I have asked you repeatedly to produce a quote where I did. Since you have refused several times now, and are resorting to poisoning the well, I will have to ask you to refrain, because it is now evolving into an ad hominem.

[Dlx2]

Dlx2, I'm going to go a bit OT here. I'm not too knowledgeable on the "naturalistic fallacy", but when we talk about "natural" instincts, are we talking about "natural" with regards to the biological, behavioural or evolutionary? For example, what's the position on the following:

1) Survival of the fittest, thus advocating abandonment of severely disabled children so resources can be better used on the "normal" children;
2) Euthanisation of non-contributing grown persons so resources are not unfairly/unjustifiably wasted on them.
3) Aggression in persons that lead them to eliminate [perceived] enemies of themselves and their families?

The naturalistic fallacy is fallacious moral reasoning that states that "natural" indicates "right."

[Dlx2]

I am quite familair with it and you would be wrong.

Prove it. Deny it all you want, but you're using the concept of "natural" to defend bigotry.

Ummm. Wrong. The role of "nature" in my argument is to explain what motivates people to do what they do. That is all. It has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage and why I think it should be sanctioned by the state alone, instead of the many other possible forms of marriage that there are.

People who fall in love with members of the same sex do so based on instinct. So, you know, your argument fails.

Additionally, one can hardly establish a moral imperitive to reproduce when we've got over six billion people on this fucking space rock and the fuckers are already rutting like horny rabbits. Overpopulation leads to war, disease, famine, drought, poverty, and a general drop in the quality of life for everyone involved. If you're a utilitarian, then overpopulation is strictly immoral, as is contributing to overpopulation. Overpopulation also tends to lead to more restrictive governments. If you're an existentialist, overpopulation is strictly immoral because it leads to a loss of personal freedoms. You have not demonstrated sufficiently that one has a moral imperitive to reproduce. I can demonstrate a moral imperitive to not reproduce in times of overpopulation for just about every moral system. Additionally, I can demonstrate that in natural systems, overpopulation leads naturally to lower birth and survival rates. So, you're pretty much fucked on this matter.

I am not denying this, but so does flag football games and poker games. Should the state sanction these kinds of relationships too?

The state acknowledges contracts that concern legal agreements relevant to the formation of football teams, and agreements relevant to money-exchange at the poker table. So far, your argument that the state should not acknowledge contracts that concern legal agreements relevant to the formation of a family is pretty much tanked.

[Agnostic]

The [truncated] paragraph reads, pertinent text bolded:

Hooboy's assertion that he did not admit such is based on this: he did not himself use the word "wrong". Apparently, to him, affirming you think gay sex is wrong is different from admitting that you think gay sex is wrong. It's like him answering "yes" to the question "is the sky blue?" is, in his mind, different from him actually saying "the sky is blue", and thus cannot form the basis of the argument that he thinks the sky is blue. Ask him a simple question of what he thought the word "wrong" in the thread title meant (so one can know what he's affirming), but you won't get an answer. Yet you will get repeated claims from him that he was misrepresented.

Where did Hooboy "affirm that gay sex is wrong"? He repeatedly asked for a quote, and I gave it every time (it's there for everyone to see - page 1, post #8). I didn't know how difficult it can be to show someone what he wrote and have him recognise what he wrote. Claims of misrepresentation notwithstanding (to be dealt with below), his own words are on the page for all to see.

1) Thread title is "For People Who Think Gay Sex Is Wrong And Gives "Sex Is For Procreation" As A Reason"
2) Hooboy's first post in the thread (post #8): in his own words, without qualifications - "I fit the description of the thread title..."
3) Rational person thus concludes Hooboy is a person who thinks gay sex is wrong (and gives "sex is for procreation as a reason).

Does Hooboy not personally using the word "wrong" means he did or did not think gay sex is wrong? No, because by unequivocally affirming/denying something is wrong, one is indicating one's position on a topic, which here, is that gay sex is wrong, regardless of whether one specifically used a certain word or not.

An example:

1) You ask: " for people who think the sky is blue."
2) I answer: "I am one who fits your description."
3) Later, you say: "You said you think the sky is blue."
4) I reply: "No, because I never [explicitly] said I think the sky is blue."

OR

1) I say: "I fit the description of "a person who thinks gay sex is wrong"."
2) You say: "You made a moral judgement."
3) I say: "No, I think gay sex is not "wrong", it's futile."
4) You say: "So you're clarifying your position."
5) I say: "No, you misrepresented what I said by assuming I meant 'morally wrong'."
6) You ask, after showing how you came to the conclusion that I made a moral judgement: "So what meaning of "wrong" were you using?"
7) No reply, but continued assertions of misrepresentation.

Who is right?

He later denies he clarified his position, under the basis that he was misrepresented (that others have assumed his meaning of the word "wrong") despite no initial qualifications on his part, if there are indeed many applicable meanings of the word in this context. Thus came the question of how that misrepresentation came about, which depends on the (and his) meaning of the word "wrong", and what he thought he was affirming. Despite repeated requests to explain what he thought the word "wrong" meant and what he thought he was affirming, none were forthcoming. Without his explanation of what he thought the word meant or what he thought he was affirming, there is no conclusive way of ascertaining if he was misrepresented, yet the [challenged] claim remains.

On the claim of "poisoning the well":

[i]"You are arguing with someone who employs evasion tactics but will not admit so, preferring instead of refer questions he does not want to answer as "unimportant, trivial, irrelevant", simply ignoring them [perhaps in the hope no one sees], or reducing your paragraph-long argument/rebuttal into a 5-word statement which he will argue vindicates him."

Did or did not Hooboy refuse to answer questions on the grounds on them being unimportant, trivial, irrelevant? If he did, did he justify his claims that they are unimportant, trivial or irrelevant, when those who posed the questions justified their importance, pertinence or relevance?

Did or did not Hooboy ignore questions posed in this thread to him?

Did or did not Hooboy reduce long arguments into short sentences? Did or did not Hooboy, instead of rebutting the whole argument, choose one line/sentence/clause out of an entire paragraph/argument and respond to that instead of addressing the paragraph/argument which lays out the rationale, justification for a position on a particular point?

Under these circumstances, is it unreasonable to conclude evasive techniques are being employed? I could have made a claim that he was selectively blind, but I did not.

"This is someone who claims to be a pluralist yet champions the interests of an unqualified group over another and argues for the continued institutionalised dominance of one over; someone who claims not be to anti-progessive yet argues for tradition.

Did or did not Hooboy claim to be a pluralist?

Did or did not Hooboy champion the interests (with regards to legalised marriage) of the entire heterosexual population regardless of whether they are biologically [or by choice] sterile or not (thus, unqualified group) over those of the homosexual population? [There are only 2 groups in this context, if we place the bisexuals and transsexuals in the homosexual group. Transgendered persons as a group is undefined in this context as Hooboy made no statements of his position on this group despite questioning.]

By arguing for state-recognised heterosexual marriage and against state-recognised homosexual marriage, is or is not Hooboy arguing for the institutionalised dominance of the former over the latter?

[On these 2 points, Hooboy brings up the issue of State's interest (that the State recognises heterosexual marriages and grants them marriage-based benefits in the hope of encouraging child production), then apparently argues that a test for sterility is [overly] invasive. I'm not asking the State to test the couple on their ability to parent or their ability to have sex [a man with an amputated penis cannot have sex], but their ability to produce children. And anyway, just because a married couple is fertile does not mean they will produce a child, but a sterile married couple will never produce a child - what then exactly is the point of "encouraging child production" in a sterile couple?]

Did or did not Hooboy claim not to be anti-progressive? Did or did not Hooboy later argue for marriage based on tradition (which he claimed procreation is, even when research shows it's mostly affinal ties) [even the "devil's advocate" Mav conceded that marriage in the current context is far more complex than that]? Simply showing that marriages produce children is not enough, because children are being produced regardless of whether people are married or not. If the State's sole interest in marriage is to encourage child production, then:

1) The State should deny marriages to all couples who cannot produce children, irregardless of their sexual orientation;
2) The State should revoke all privileges (or the marriage license) of childless couples once the wife reaches menopausal age [the State can always set the age ceiling (at which women go for a test) higher than what is biologically consistent].
3) More extremely, the State should ban irreversible vastectomies and hysterectomies/oopherectomies for married couples (except for medical reasons).

In balancing the interests of the State (encouraging child production) and the couple (protecting their privacy), it should hardly be considered that the proposed State actions in (1) and (2), or even (3), are [overly] invasive if the State is supposedly denying marital privileges to homosexuals on the grounds they cannot produce children, considering the tax-funded benefits married couples enjoy regardless of whether they do/can produce children.

"You are arguing with someone who does not even know the meaning of the words "clarify" or "competence",

Clarify: 1. to make (an idea, statement, etc.) clear or intelligible; to free from ambiguity

Competence: 1. the quality of being competent; adequacy; possession of required skill, knowledge, qualification, or capacity

Competent: 1. having suitable or sufficient skill, knowledge, experience, etc., for some purpose; properly qualified

preferring instead to argue out of context.

One explicit example is arguing for state-sanctioned marriage based on traditional and not modern context. Nothing wrong with that if one is a traditionalist, which Hooboy implies he's not as evidenced by his "not anti-progressive" remark. A subtler example is taking a statement out of an argument and arguing/responding to it instead of the entire argument with its attendant qualifications and justifications.

"someone who claims coherence and consistency of his arguments yet does not allow (or defend) his claims to be tested for coherence or consistency.

Obviously, Hooboy thinks his arguments are coherent and consistent or he wouldn't continue defending them and risking ridicule. Yet, questions that aim to test them for coherence and consistency go unanswered.

[Agnostic]

I'm going to create a new poll thread on state-recognised gay marriage, so this thread can focus on sex instead of marriage (but which probably won't leave much for discussion). I suppose those discussing it there will mostly comprise of those already discussing it here.

[Hooboy !!]

Prove it. Deny it all you want, but you're using the concept of "natural" to defend bigotry.
No. The burden of proof is on you.

People who fall in love with members of the same sex do so based on instinct.
I have never denied this. In fact, I have asserted the very same thing.

Additionally, one can hardly establish a moral imperitive to reproduce
Where have I discussed a "moral imperative to reproduce"? Quote please.

The state acknowledges contracts that concern legal agreements relevant to the formation of football teams, and agreements relevant to money-exchange at the poker table. So far, your argument that the state should not acknowledge contracts that concern legal agreements relevant to the formation of a family is pretty much tanked.
All you are doing is supporting my point. The state sanctions those things that it feels significantly benefits the community.

[Hooboy !!]

Where did Hooboy "affirm that gay sex is wrong"? He repeatedly asked for a quote, and I gave it every time (it's there for everyone to see - page 1, post #8).
Here is the post in question...

I fit the description of the thread title..
Ahh, I see the problem. My mistake was in not clarifying that I was referring to the second part of the title, not the first. Considering that in this post I do not discuss gay sex at all and concentrate only on the concept of procreation, and since I have repeatedly stated in this thread that I am not making any moral judgements about gay sex, I think I have done more than enough to clear that misunderstanding up. Additionally...

As far as ... homosexual partnerships go... these are perfectly normal
I do not think it [homosexual sex] is "wrong".
And I can provide more examples where I have repeatedly and consistently never claimed that homosexual sex is "wrong". Ever.

The remainder of your post is spent trying to justify your fallacious argumentation. You raise strawmen by intentionally misrepresenting my point of view. You resorted to poisoning the well by trying to convince other posters that I am not acting in good faith. And now, it is evolving into an ad hominem attack.

[Agnostic]

Finally, clarification. Thank you.

[Hooboy !!]

Finally, clarification. Thank you.
LMFAO

That "clarification" came on page 1 and 2 dude. That was a looooong time ago.

[Agnostic]

All subsequent quotes are responses to the immediately-previous quote.

Page 12, Post #276

This is from your first post on the subject:

Hooboy, page 1, post #8 : I fit the description of the thread title...

...the thread title being "For People Who Think Gay Sex Is Wrong And Gives "Sex Is For Procreation" As A Reason"

It was only later that you clarified you think gay sex is not "wrong" (the quotes around the word 'wrong' are yours by the way - I did not add them, though I'm still wondering why you need to use quotes around the word 'wrong' if you truly don't think it is wrong), just futile; and again later that your issue is not with the sex per se, but gay marriage.

Page 12, Post #278

I feel that it was not a clarification at all. Y'all insist on assuming my meaning. I put quotes around the word "wrong", because it is a concept and not an absolute. I personally couldn't possibly care less if it is "wrong" or not. It means nothing to me one way or another.

Page 12, Post 284

Any right-thinking person would, without qualifications on your part, assume you meant "morally wrong". It's not as if I asked if "1+1=3 is wrong". What other "wrong" could you mean? "Futile" does not equal "wrong". So yes, it was a clarification.

Page 12, Post 287

No. It wasn't. I made no moral assessment of gay marriage or gay sex. You assumed I did. I place the word "wrong" in quotations, because it is a concept someone else used and I feel is undefined. It was not my word.

Proof that, as of page 12, arguments were still going on over whether it was clarification or misrepresentation.

And finally, just above:

Ahh, I see the problem. My mistake was in not clarifying that I was referring to the second part of the title, not the first.

Personally, I never thought you presented any moral positions on gay sex, except in the beginning, before you clarified your position. The issue of clarification only came about when you asked for a quote where you exhibited a moral position. That evolved into an argument over whether you clarified your initial post, or was misrepresented by us. Even though it's apparent to me you've clarified the position you exhibited in your initial post, the argument over clarification continued because you insisted there was no clarification on your part. That's where the misunderstanding begun - it just seemed contradictory to me for you to be clarifying while saying you're not clarifying.

[Hooboy !!]

Proof that, as of page 12, arguments were still going on over whether it was clarification or misrepresentation.
Wrong. The quotes around the word "wrong" is in no way confusing. It is me referencing a word that someone else used. I made myself perfectly clear when I said that homosexual sex is "perfectly normal".

Personally, I never thought you presented any moral positions on gay sex
:rolleyes:

The issue of clarification only came about when you asked for a quote where you exhibited a moral position.
Which you have deliberately misrepresented over and over again.

That's where the misunderstanding begun - it just seemed contradictory to me for you to be clarifying while saying you're not clarifying.
Any misunderstanding on your part was a result of presumption. My position was perfectly clear in post #28, in completely unambiguous terms, though I think it was obvious much sooner than that. You have justified your fallacious arguments by pointing out that I quoted the word "wrong", as if that is license then to assume what ever the fuck you want to about my understanding of the word.

[TomboyMom]

Ahh, I see the problem. My mistake was in not clarifying that I was referring to the second part of the title, not the first. The thread title is: "For People Who Think Gay Sex Is Wrong And Gives "Sex Is For Procreation" As A Reason". So when you said you fit the description of the thread title, we naturally thought that you think gay sex is wrong and give "sex is for procreation" as a reason. Cuz that's the thread title. And in English, the primary clause (people who think...) controls the meaning, with the second, dependent clause (and gives sex...) being more descriptive. Now you are saying that you give sex is for procreation as a reason, but not as a reason for saying gay sex is wrong. As a reason for what? Since each and every person in the thread came to the same conclusion, and since what you are now saying makes no sense, I think you should own up to being solely responsible for any confusion. When you then denied having said that gay sex was wrong, we thought you were merely inconsistent, rather than incomprehensible.

O.K., you withdraw or deny the opinion that gay sex is wrong. Great! We're all in agreement then--nothing wrong with gay sex. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Signing off, I hope.

Considering that in this post I do not discuss gay sex at all and concentrate only on the concept of procreation, and since I have repeatedly stated in this thread that I am not making any moral judgements about gay sex, I think I have done more than enough to clear that misunderstanding up. Additionally... If you think that sex is for procreation, then I suggest that you do not indulge in non-procreative sex, however you define it. I strongly suggest that you make no attempt to impose your idiosyncratic view on anyone else. I think that sex is great for expressing love, and that love is a good thing. I do not insist on everyone using it in the same way, although I highly recommend it.

And I can provide more examples where I have repeatedly and consistently never claimed that homosexual sex is "wrong". Ever. Right, other than saying that you fit the description of someone who says it's wrong.

The remainder of your post is spent trying to justify your fallacious argumentation. You raise strawmen by intentionally misrepresenting my point of view. You resorted to poisoning the well by trying to convince other posters that I am not acting in good faith. And now, it is evolving into an ad hominem attack. Excuse me, you accepted the description of someone who thinks gay sex is wrong, and when I accused you of thinking gay sex is wrong, I intentionally misrespresented your point of view? Sorry, I have to see it differently. I think I misunderstood you, because you were, at a minimum, extremely unclear. Apparently everyone misunderstood you. Who do you think is responsible for that, you, or everyone who came to the same understanding?

Apologies to everyone for wasting your and our time.

[Hooboy !!]

The thread title is: Thread title is "For People Who Think Gay Sex Is Wrong And Gives "Sex Is For Procreation" As A Reason". So when you said you fit the description of the thread title, we naturally thought that you think gay sex is wrong and give "sex is for procreation" as a reason. Cuz that's the thread title.
Even after in my first post I did not discuss gay sex at all? Even after in my second post I pointed out that gay sex is perfectly "normal"? Even after I unambiguously stated that I did not think it was "wrong"? After 10 pages of me denying that I made a moral judgement on the subject, you were still confused? What-the-fuck-ever :rolleyes:

[Steven Mading]

All of the things that married people do. It might take a little more effort, such as changing your name, or having power of attorney, and stuff like that, but it can be done. It will just not be recognized by the state as being "married". Big deal.

It is simply not true to claim that there exist equivilent legal statuses to marriage without civil recognition of marriage. Consider adoption, for example. When a married couple adopts a child, BOTH members of the couple are considered legal guardians of that child. When an unmarried couple does it, officially only one of them can be the guardian, because officially they are both single people, not a married couple. Whether or not you are the legal guardian of a child is a rather important legal question in a lot of cases. And it's not one that can be fixed by having a lawyer write up a power of attourney contract.

Furthermore, some of these gay marriage bans explicitly state that no legally equivilent status to marriage is allowed. The one that just passed in Wisconsin contains the following closing line: "and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

When you say that people can enjoy all the legal benefits that marriage would give without actually being married, you are either ignorant of the laws or lying about the laws. Read that above sentence again and actually think about what it means.

[Steven Mading]

Strawman. I have never made a moral judgement.

I engage exclusively in futile sex now-a-days, after my vasectomy. There is only an extremely remote chance that I could possibly father another child. The sex that my wife and I engage in still contributes to the process of procreation though, by reaffirming our bonds and commitments to jointly raise our children. In this respect, our sexual relationship is still contributing to the process of procreation.

At some point, all of my children will be grown and gone. As long as my wife and I provide a stable foundatin for a family nucleus, which could include grand children and great grand children, then our sexual relationship would still be serving the process of reproduction.

Ah, so I take it then that the only reason it's okay for you to be married despite having a vasectomy is that you had kids with your wife *before* getting the vasectomy, and you now have a need to remain married because of your already-existing offspring? In that case, what about the case where someone gets a vasectomy before having had any kids. Would that man be allowed to marry a woman? If you want to keep your position consistent, your answer would have to be "no". If your answer is "yes", then the lie of your statements becomes quite obvious.

You haven't answered this question that has been asked of you many times, in many ways: Are heterosexual marriages which cannot possibly result in children just as wrong as homosexual marriages in your view of things? Only if the answer is "yes" can you avoid the accusation that you were lying about your stated reasons for disliking homosexual marriage.

[Hooboy !!]

It is simply not true to claim that there exist equivilent legal statuses to marriage without civil recognition of marriage. Consider adoption, for example.
No, not adoption for example. You are now adding a third individual to the equation and altering the scenario significantly.

Adoption preferences to married individuals versus single individuals is an altogether different problem. For gay couples, that are not allowed to marry, then joint custody becomes a very difficult problem to solve. It make sme wonder how it would work, were one of the partners the biological parent. In the case where neither partner is the biological parent though... it poses an interesting problem.

When you say that people can enjoy all the legal benefits that marriage would give without actually being married, you are either ignorant of the laws or lying about the laws. Read that above sentence again and actually think about what it means.
All matters associated with property, power of attorney, etc, can be accomodated. These are the significant things. Things like not being forced to testify, etc... well... how big a deal is it?

[Hooboy !!]

You haven't answered this question that has been asked of you many times
Because it is trivial. There are always exceptions to rules.

[Agnostic]

Post #340 is the reason for my earlier decision. I don't know what it is that is apparently so hard to understand. All I am concerned over this clarification/misrepresentation issue is what is written in #8 and #28.

Is #28 a clarification of #8, or is it not? Either (1) #28 is a clarification of #8; or (2) #8 needs no clarification - everyone else misrepresented. If it is (1), then okay, misunderstanding resolved. If it is (2) however, then of course it needs to be shown how it was misrepresented. That is the crux of this whole argument over clarification or misrepresentation. The posts in question are #8 and #28, and #8 and #28 only; everything else is expansion. The only reason I jumped straight from #8 to #276 is because that's where the argument over clarification started, over what is said in #8 and later #28.

[Druac]

The thread title is: "For People Who Think Gay Sex Is Wrong And Gives "Sex Is For Procreation" As A Reason". So when you said you fit the description of the thread title...

Sorry, I actually thought he meant he was having gay sex. My bad! :notworthy:

[TomboyMom]

Even after in my first post I did not discuss gay sex at all? Even after in my second post I pointed out that gay sex is perfectly "normal"? Even after I unambiguously stated that I did not think it was "wrong"? After 10 pages of me denying that I made a moral judgement on the subject, you were still confused? What-the-fuck-ever :rolleyes:
I'm sure you're right. I, and each and every other person in this thread, am extremely stupid as well as malevolent, and you are crystal clear and consistent.

In any case, since we all agree that there is nothing wrong with gay sex, it's all water over the dam now.

[purple_kathryn]

Because it is trivial. There are always exceptions to rules.

I don't see how it's trivial if you're excluding homosexuals for just that reason.

[Griff]

All matters associated with property, power of attorney, etc, can be accomodated. These are the significant things. Things like not being forced to testify, etc... well... how big a deal is it?Huge. When we're in a spousal relationship, we're not just in some "domestic partnership" or "civil union." It's insulting to describe it in such machiavellian terms because the language makes it clear and simple that they're convinced we're some pig-headed faggots out for financial gain. That's what makes me want to slap the politicians broadside the face. It's all about talking shit to us, man. That's all it is. It's unacceptable. You don't put fucking retards like that in charge of anything more complicated than a steering wheel.

Look, dog, I'd even be satisfied if they'd give marriage licenses to any two people who said they're madly in love with each other but only give the legal package to those who are capable of reproduction. At least that way it wouldn't be deliberately offensive, and we could still sort out the legal shit through seperate channels whatever way we liked. It ain't the insurance shit or the power of attorney that's meaningful to us. It's the name, man. It's our identity. It's something that you don't try to print out on paper unless you're some graph paper-brained accountant instead of an actual human being.

Hooboy, I think the real issue is that you're just not accepting of gays and lesbians as regular people. The thing is, I don't accept you as a regular human being. The part of the prefrontal cortex that is responsible for moral judgement and feeling other people's needs as one's own is just missing in some people, and I think you're one of them. If so, then the whole of the above was a waste of time because it addresses things that'll never mean anything to you. I might as well be speaking to you in another language. The thing is, most people on this thread can see it and understand it without any difficulty whatsoever, whether they're turned one way or the other by it or not. All I'm saying is don't have the balls to talk shit about me just because you don't get it.

[Hooboy !!]

Hooboy, I think the real issue is that you're just not accepting of gays and lesbians as regular people. The thing is, I don't accept you as a regular human being. The part of the prefrontal cortex that is responsible for moral judgement and feeling other people's needs as one's own is just missing in some people, and I think you're one of them.
I said it before and I will say it again... you have a giant chip on your shoulder and it is preventing you, and other gay rights activists, from thinking rationally. The "We should allow gay marriage, because heteros can get married." is an absurd argument.

Let me clue you in on a little secret. I have nothing against gays. Or blacks. Or short people. Or Jehovah's Witnesses. Or anyone. Until they start annoying me. Let me tell you a story...

My first experience with a gay person was in San Fransisco park. I was taking care of my mom's dog while the family went into the arboretum. I was maybe 16. This guy walks up to me wearing a purple bathrobe and pink slippers. When I look up at his face, he was wearing blue eyeshadow, lipstick and had his long hair pulled into a ponytail. Now, I was raised a Jehovah's Witness and had not yet had a chance to think freely about anything up to that point, and my first reaction was one of disgust. But, the thing was... I did not know why. He was out walking his cocker spaniel and so we had something in common. I wanted to be rude and tell the guy to get the fuck away from me, but instead... we chatted about dogs. I doubt the conversation lasted more than 3 minutes. And he walked off.

That experience has occupied my consciouness over and over again for the last 25 years or so. Why? Because it is a constant reminder of two things...

1. First impressions can be very misleading. It pays to take some time and get to really know people before drawing any conclusions.

2. No matter how different we are, we are far more alike than we are different.

It would be another 5 years before I rejected the religion I was raised in.

I should have hated that person, based on how I was raised. But, I did not. In fact, the experience has been one of the most pleasant ones from my childhood.

I have zero problem with homosexuals. I have a problem with people that think society owes them something. Society does not owe homosexuals the same regard and consideration as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage. Society does owe them the same respect, courtesy, and acceptance as heterosexuals.

I will happily attend a gay wedding. I will bring a gift. I will throw rice. And I will wish the happy couple a long and fulfilling life together. But, I will not accept it as equivalent to a heterosexual marriage. Ever. And I will always believe that having children is the single most important thing that any one can do with their lives.

Not everyone agrees with me and I am comfortable with that. Most do though. I do not mock people that cannot have children. I do not harrass couples that choose to remain childless. I do not point fingers and make accusations of people in marriages of convenience. I live and let live. Just as long as they respect and support the traditional family and marriage.

[Dr Rick]

The "We should allow gay marriage, because heteros can get married." is an absurd argument.

Perhaps, but it doesn't even approach the irrationality of the "We shouldn't allow gay marriage, because only heteros can have children" argument.

[Steven Mading]

Because it is trivial. There are always exceptions to rules.
You claim it's trivial, but the answer is key to whether or not you are lying. Whether or not you are a liar is not trivial.

[Steven Mading]

No, not adoption for example. You are now adding a third individual to the equation and altering the scenario significantly.
Nice dodge. The fact of the matter is that I found a case where your claim that every legal privilege of marriage is possible without marriage is an obviously false claim.


All matters associated with property, power of attorney, etc, can be accomodated.
That is incorrect. A next-of-kin family member can make your medical decisions if you're laid up in the hospital unable to communicate yourself. A spouse counts as a family member for this. A partner you've made your life with for 20 years but are not married to does not count for this. Power of attourney only gives you the right to control someone's finances, not their medical decisions.

[Hooboy !!]

Nice dodge. The fact of the matter is that I found a case where your claim that every legal privilege of marriage is possible without marriage is an obviously false claim.
Biological parents intrinsically possess rights that other people do not have in regards their children. Adoption laws were written to make it possible for non-biological parents to adopt children and then have those same rights and has nothing to do with being married.

A partner you've made your life with for 20 years but are not married to does not count for this. Power of attourney only gives you the right to control someone's finances, not their medical decisions.
Wrong.

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/seniors/pwrat.html

[Steven Mading]

1. First impressions can be very misleading. It pays to take some time and get to really know people before drawing any conclusions.

For example, your assumption that the person was gay because he was a man who chose to look rather effeminate was premature. There exist men who wish to be women but still want to have sex with women rather than with men. In other words "lesbian trapped in a man's body" is more than just a joke - they actually do exist. The question of whom you'd like to have sex with and the question of what sex you'd like to be yourself are not always coupled together.

[Steven Mading]

Biological parents intrinsically possess rights that other people do not have in regards their children. Adoption laws were written to make it possible for non-biological parents to adopt children and then have those same rights and has nothing to do with being married.

Joint adoption by two parents requires the two parents to be married - otherwise the child is only being adopted by one parent. Therefore when you said it has nothing to do with marriage, you were wrong.


http://www.oag.state.ny.us/seniors/pwrat.html
I assume you were referring to this paragraph:

Can a Power of Attorney grant an Agent the authority to make medical decisions for the Principal?

No. In New York State, the proper legal instrument for delegating health-care decisions to another is called a Health care Proxy. Here, too, there is a statutory short form approved by the State Legislature. It can be found at Article 29-C of the New York Public Health Law. A copy can be obtained by writing: Health Care Proxy. P.O. Box 2000, Albany, New York 12220.

I'm going to teach you how honesty works by giving you an example: I admit I was wrong on this one point. There does exist (at least in the state of New York - dunno about elsewhere) a legal means to give someone not married to you the right to make your medical decisions for you. It's not called power of attorney as you implied, but a means of doing it by another name does exist, which is all that matters for this argument. So there does exist a way to do it (in New York, anyway). Now will you return the favor and admit that you are wrong about marriage not being a factor in adoptions, and that you are wrong about it being true that EACH AND EVERY legal benefit provided by marriage is obtainable by other means, which is a necessary premise for your position to have any semblence of rationality, and therefore presents a problem for your position if it isn't true?

[Griff]

The "We should allow gay marriage, because heteros can get married." is an absurd argument.Why certainly, for some animals are more equal than others, aren't they? Ah, Orwell, if you were alive today.

And yes, I do have a "chip on my shoulder." I consider this a good thing.

My first experience with a gay person was in San Fransisco park.Stop talking right there. San Francisco is a nice town but not for the faint of heart.

Society does owe them the same respect, courtesy, and acceptance as heterosexuals.So you agree. The government has no business saying "okay, you guys over here are married and shit, but you other guys over there are just spoiling for financial advantages." Look, I find the civil unions and domestic partnerships insulting. I'm not out for the practical aspects of the license but the honorary ones. That's what it's all about for me.

And I will always believe that having children is the single most important thing that any one can do with their lives.In that case, we'd have to discuss the meaning of life for several days before there could even be any understanding between us. I don't even consider that close to the top of any rational person's list of priorities. I consider the pursuit of happiness something that naturally results in having and raising healthy offspring, baring incidental traits that shouldn't be continued, and feel that the root, not the consequence, should be held as the top priority. The thing is, most people agree with me. Most people just want to be happy. Even these screwballs have a better sense of priorities than you do:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4549396524366263030&q=if+you%27re+blood+throw+it+up

They don't care whether they live or die, and they shouldn't. Let the scalpel of natural selection eliminate the flow of their genes, in the name of sustainable growth of the species. If they get themselves killed before they breed, which is likely, they'll have done humanity a service. If there are ladies who are so excessively concerned with the pursuit of mere lust that they cannot tolerate the alterations to their figure imposed by pregnancy, allow them to abort, and let the steady and domesticated populate and prosper in their place.

I live and let live. Just as long as they respect and support the traditional family and marriage.I take a dump on the "traditional family and marriage" that you propose because it would require a reptilian outlook on life that cannot be sustained in a society populated by creatures of passion and impulse, and the real traditional marriage and family is as much a domestication and stabilization of the primal nature of Man as the market system, not the intellectually pursued system of replenishment and continuation that you suggest.

[Hooboy !!]

Joint adoption by two parents requires the two parents to be married
I am not sure that this is true. According to Wikipedia, only 4 states require that a couple be married. Only one state prohibits gay adoption.

Adoption by same-sex couples

From this, it is not clear if it is possible for a gay couple to both adopt the same child. I do not see why they couldn't.

I admit I was wrong on this one point.
And then proceed to quibble over "power of attorney".

Now will you return the favor and admit that you are wrong about marriage not being a factor in adoptions
And you want to teach me about honesty when you cannot even represent what I said accurately? LOL

What I said is that adoption is a new dynamic that includes a new individual. Adoption may be contigent on being married, but marriage has nothing to do with adoption. Adoption is an altogether different thing.

you are wrong about it being true that EACH AND EVERY legal benefit provided by marriage is obtainable by other means
Still waiting for someone to provide a case where this is not true.

[Griff]

Hooboy, nobody here is trying to fool you into believing something that is untrue. Take into the account the possibility that you are wrong. You're so determined to prove to everyone here that nobody can beat ol' Hooboy that your rational mind has been squandered.

[Hooboy !!]

San Francisco is a nice town but not for the faint of heart.
lol

I love San Fransisco. I go there regularly.

So you agree. The government has no business saying...
No, I do not. The state has every right to decide how best to serve the interests of the state.

I find the civil unions and domestic partnerships insulting.
I do not like them either.

I'm not out for the practical aspects of the license but the honorary ones. That's what it's all about for me.
Oh. I know.

The thing is, most people agree with me. Most people just want to be happy.
Define "happy".

I take a dump on the "traditional family and marriage" that you propose because it would require a reptilian outlook on life that cannot be sustained in a society populated by creatures of passion and impulse, and the real traditional marriage and family is as much a domestication and stabilization of the primal nature of Man as the market system, not the intellectually pursued system of replenishment and continuation that you suggest.
As opposed to allowing ourselves to be held hostage by a small minority?

I am not an evangelical that thinks that homosexuals are immoral. I do not think that homosexuality is a violation of natural laws. I do not think that homosexuality is a mental illness. I do think that people who have giant chips on their shoulders and feel that I owe them something just because someone called them a "fag" is no reason to alter the social norms of our society.

[Griff]

No, I do not. The state has every right to decide how best to serve the interests of the state.The interest of the state are served by drawing the clear line of equality as the proper treatment of all its constituents. Otherwise, there is discontent, which leads to trouble.

I do think that people who have giant chips on their shoulders and feel that I owe them something just because someone called them a "fag" is no reason to alter the social norms of our society.I don't have a problem with being called a fag, dandy. It amuses me. The "norms" of society are not under the control or authority of the government and never will be. The norms of society are under the control of society. In a society in which gays and lesbians have a tendency to develop spousal relationships, the only way to keep the courts from being constantly tied up with complex cases resulting from them is to provide a normative, stabilizing legal arrangement for them to fit into. Also, one change affects another. When gays were finally able to leave closeted existence, a huge social change resulted. Now able to walk and talk of their affairs freely, they're affecting further change upon the society around them. We're not in the same society we were living in multitudinous years ago. Now that the GLBT community has been let out of the box, they need to be tamed and domesticated. The way toward that is holding them to the expectation of towing the same line as everyone else, to the best of their ability. Hooboy, you're trying to close the door on the barn with the horse already on the loose, and he'll just get into mischief if you spend too long playing "let's pretend."

[Hooboy !!]

Otherwise, there is discontent, which leads to trouble.
This is exactly what I am talking about. So, things don't go your way. The option to throw a fit and make threats is not how you solve problems.

The "norms" of society are not under the control or authority of the government and never will be. The norms of society are under the control of society.
When the government is a democracy, there is no difference between "norms of society" and the government.

[Griff]

This is exactly what I am talking about. So, things don't go your way. The option to throw a fit and make threats is not how you solve problems.Of course not, which is why the Pride movement has been so successful. They've chosen the peaceful approach. It works.

When the government is a democracy, there is no difference between "norms of society" and the government.Of course, and the norms of society are changing, with or without you. The government does not dictate the norms of society.

And, again, the chance has already been taken. Society has already decided against keeping gays and lesbians an ostracized minority, and now the situation has changed. The future of marriage may depend upon convincing the gay and lesbian community to uphold and honor it in their own way. Otherwise, the sexually libertine movement of the Eighties will continue unabated, affecting the mores of the society around them. The gay community needs to adapt and conform to the norms of greater society.

Yes, it's a conformist homosexual. The world's getting freaky, ain't it?

[Hooboy !!]

Of course, and the norms of society are changing, with or without you. The government does not dictate the norms of society.
The government is a reflection of society.

When or if gay marriage is sanctioned, then I will happily concede defeat and recognize that my way of thinking has become obsolete. I expect the same kind of graciousness from you when it doesn't happen.

[Griff]

The government is a reflection of society.Nope. The government is a reflection of what portion of society is in power. For example, batshit loony neocons in alliance with pulpit kings don't reflect American culture at all; one rarely encounters people who are as rabidly intolerant as the lobbyists, and pride marchers are a poor reflection of an actually fairly reserved and tactful gay community.

When or if gay marriage is sanctioned, then I will happily concede defeat and recognize that my way of thinking has become obsolete.So you're a status quo conservative. Really, though, I consider conservatives who just don't want to adapt to the modern world nothing better than whimpering heel-draggers. They add nothing to the society in which they are situated, and they do not care that they don't have a rational basis for their views. They fling up justifications and paper-thin rationalizations in plentitude, but, when you get right down to it, they're just a bunch of sissies who are terrified of anything that shakes up their rigid notions of normalcy. If you're raising your kids with the attitude you've shown here, they're in for a lifetime of rude awakenings.

I expect the same kind of graciousness from you when it doesn't happen.Hell, no. I've got a direct stake in it, and you don't. We're looking for some normalcy and stability, so get the fuck out the way. I think we're doing incredibly well, given the circumstances. We'd be the first such group to affect a major social change without having to resort to violence, and that automatically makes us the cool kids in town. You want to see real cajones? The marchers in Belgrade went out amid high velocity ammunition and clubs. The orgnizers of the march in Jerusalem were set to go up against a portion of society that was willing to resort to murder to suppress them, and they only scaled it back to a rally amid pleas from a police force that needed the extra troops to secure sensitive areas in other cities. That's the kind of balls you're up against. You're nothing but a passive conservative, willing to tow whatever line is socially acceptable for the time being. You're never going to contribute anything at all to society. Nothing, save for delaying the inevitable.

[TomboyMom]

Society does not owe homosexuals the same regard and consideration as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage. Society does owe them the same respect, courtesy, and acceptance as heterosexuals.
These two sentences contradict each other.
Try these two sentences while replacing homosexuals with mixed-race couples, and heterosexuals with same-race couples.
The Supreme Court thinks that marriage is a fundamental right, and they do have some expertise in the subject.

[TomboyMom]

When the government is a democracy, there is no difference between "norms of society" and the government. Other than that annoying little Constitution.

[TomboyMom]

you are wrong about it being true that EACH AND EVERY legal benefit provided by marriage is obtainable by other means

Still waiting for someone to provide a case where this is not true. Tax filing status.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The government is a reflection of society.

When or if gay marriage is sanctioned, then I will happily concede defeat and recognize that my way of thinking has become obsolete. I expect the same kind of graciousness from you when it doesn't happen.

Wait, this isn't a pure democracy. Pure majority rule is mightily stupid. If the majority wants to keep the black people away from their white people, who is anyone to complain? If our society viewed extremely religious people as insane, should the government ban said religious fanatics from raising children? (Yay! I mean...er...boo. That's right. Boo. O_O)

What is this reverence for traditional family? Traditionally, a woman's place is in the home. Traditionally, people have weddings in churches with big white wedding dresses and...stuff. Does that mean the government should make laws against women taking jobs and people getting married without the white dress?

My view has always been this: If there is no reason to outlaw it, it's legal. I see no logical reason to keep people from marrying people of the same gender. There is no way you can turn back the clock to the time of traditional values. As I said before, it's all or nothing. Either non-child-raising couples can't get married/be married or the homosexuals can. THe former is never goign to happen. THerefoe, let the gays get married. They can't mess up traditional marriage anymore than it has already been messed up. Whats the harm? The government can't discriminate without a good reason to.

As for the most important thing in life being to produce children ...O_o ...Umm ...What? Why produce more people when they are already so many? George Washington never had a biological child, so he was less important than some random person who had a few kids? THe great thing about kids is that tons of people have them. We don't have to worry about people not producing kids. Huge amounts of people feel the natural urge to have babies and start a family. It IS pretty important that humans produce children to continue the species, but that's something we'll never have to worry about. As an individual, I don't have to take the responsibility of bearing and raising the next generation because people as a whole have babies.

[TomboyMom]

I am not an evangelical that thinks that homosexuals are immoral. I do not think that homosexuality is a violation of natural laws. I do not think that homosexuality is a mental illness. I do think that people who have giant chips on their shoulders and feel that I owe them something just because someone called them a "fag" is no reason to alter the social norms of our society. In what sense, if any, do you believe homosexuality is wrong?

[TomboyMom]

I will happily attend a gay wedding. I will bring a gift. I will throw rice. And I will wish the happy couple a long and fulfilling life together. But, I will not accept it as equivalent to a heterosexual marriage. Ever. Why not? And I will always believe that having children is the single most important thing that any one can do with their lives. Isn't it up to each individual to decide what is the single most important thing they can do with their lives?

Not everyone agrees with me and I am comfortable with that. Most do though. I do not mock people that cannot have children. I do not harrass couples that choose to remain childless. I do not point fingers and make accusations of people in marriages of convenience. I live and let live. On the contrary, you support them and support the state that recognizes them--as long as they are each of different genders. Just as long as they respect and support the traditional family and marriage. O.K., I respect and support traditional family and marriage. And gay marriage. They are not mutually exclusive.

[Hooboy !!]

The government is a reflection of what portion of society is in power.
Ahh. I see. We do not live in a democracy. :rolleyes:

[Hooboy !!]

I respect and support traditional family and marriage. And gay marriage. They are not mutually exclusive.
Where did I say they were?

[Griff]

Ahh. I see. We do not live in a democracy.Not in the syntactically correct sense, no. Do I need to explain American politics to you?

[TomboyMom]

Hooboy, if homosexuality is not morally wrong, is it wrong in any sense, and if so, what?

[Hooboy !!]

Not in the syntactically correct sense, no.
Wrong. We live in a democracy. All local politics are democratic. We have a republic for a federal government however, but even it is elected democratically. So, syntactically, it is perfectly correct to say that we live in a democracy, even when the federal government is a republic.

Do I need to explain American politics to you?
Oh. This should be good. Go for it.

[Hooboy !!]

Hooboy, if homosexuality is not morally wrong, is it wrong in any sense, and if so, what?
I think anal sex is "wrong". It is dangerous, to both participants.

[Agnostic]

No, I do not. The state has every right to decide how best to serve the interests of the state.

Then why bring up the issue of the "invasiveness" of pre-marital sterility qualification tests? Why should it matter if these tests are intruding into the privacy of those who wish to be legally married, if the State, using its right to serve its own interests, decides to test couples for viable fertility and/or non-sterility before granting them legal benefits, as it'd be rational to do in order to protect its interests (eg, prudent use of State [fiscal] resources)?

you are wrong about it being true that EACH AND EVERY legal benefit provided by marriage is obtainable by other means

Still waiting for someone to provide a case where this is not true.

1. Legal protections from being completely disinherited by a deceased spouse.
2. Community property laws in CP states only apply to married spouses.
3. SS/pension/military survivor benefits (for spouse).
4. Right not to testify against spouse.
5. Non-adoptive step-children's legal right to inherit from step-parent's estate in intestate inheritance cases, where no other kin is found.
6. Stated before - reduced taxes as a result of filing taxes under one, rather than two, person.

Those are what I thought of off the top of my head alone.

As opposed to allowing ourselves to be held hostage by a small minority?

Didn't this happen in the past, and isn't it still happening? Racial integration in schools, accomodation for the disabled on public transport and access to buildings, ceasing/limiting oil exploration and drilling in Alaska, continuing military actions despite majority disapproval...and the list goes on.

The government is a reflection of society.

The government is as much a reflection of society as society is a reflection of the government. Each influences the other, but neither dictates the other, nor is either a perfect mirror of the other.

Wrong. We live in a democracy. All local politics are democratic. We have a republic for a federal government however, but even it is elected democratically. So, syntactically, it is perfectly correct to say that we live in a democracy, even when the federal government is a republic.

As AH pointed out, you do not live in a pure majority-ruled democracy. You live in a republic dedicated to "liberty and justice for all". Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. (Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.)

The US Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. You have democracy only insofar as the election process, and even then, there is disenfranchisement (of those in prison, of those mentally deficient, of those under the arbitrarily-set age of 18, etc). In fact, I wouldn't even call it "democracy", but that your election is conducted using a democratic process.

I think anal sex is "wrong". It is dangerous, to both participants.

If it's dangerous, why not say it's dangerous instead of "wrong"? It'd have saved a whole lot of confusion. Danger can be minimised by the use of condoms - no sex act is inherently safe. Oral sex (on a male) can result in teeth clamping down on his penis reflexively if gagged.

[TomboyMom]

I think anal sex is "wrong". It is dangerous, to both participants. So by "wrong' you mean something like medically wrong?

I'm sure you are well aware that much homosexuality does not include anal sex, and much heterosexuality does?

What I'm trying to ask you is if it is your position that homosexuality itself is wrong, and if so in what sense of the word "wrong?"

[TomboyMom]

Wrong. We live in a democracy. All local politics are democratic. We have a republic for a federal government however, but even it is elected democratically. So, syntactically, it is perfectly correct to say that we live in a democracy, even when the federal government is a republic.

All are subject to the limits of the Constitution. The Constitution is a limitation on pure democracy.

[Griff]

Hooboy, even the local government is beholden to the federal government. For that matter, even the local governments sometimes appoint officers to make decisions in their place, which is a characteristic of a Republic. Also, as a result of voting being voluntary, a highly motivated, well-funded group can affect a decision that may not be wholly endorsed by the remainder of the population. Also, a constitution-backed Republic must follow the demands of its Constitution, which is why marriage is equal in Massachusetts and in South Africa. You lose on this one, too, Hooboy.

[Griff]

I think anal sex is "wrong". It is dangerous, to both participants.Like parasailing, only if you're careless and stupid.

[Hooboy !!]

Like parasailing, only if you're careless and stupid.
It is very difficult to avoid damaging the anus. The best you can hope for is to mitigate the risks and limit the harm caused.

Sure, there are a lot of things that have a great deal of risk associated with them, like parasailing. But, you do not get tiny little tears in your ass from parasailing.

I've tried it. I like it. But, I choose not to do it, because I do not want to cause any harm to my wife. It is far too risky with too few benefits.

[Griff]

But, you do not get tiny little tears in your ass from parasailing.Nah, you only crack your head open on a rock.

[Hooboy !!]

Nah, you only crack your head open on a rock.
Well. FWIW, I do not parasail either. Not that I think it is more or less risky than anal sex. Just that, I prefer to have a little more control over my destiny than a bed sheet with some string attached to it, when I am far enough up that my "I wish I was on terra firma" instinct kicks.

[Griff]

Well. FWIW, I do not parasail either. Not that I think it is more or less risky than anal sex. Just that, I prefer to have a little more control over my destiny than a bed sheet with some string attached to it, when I am far enough up that my "I wish I was on terra firma" instinct kicks.So you think that parasailing is "wrong," then?

[Alexander Hamilton]

I think anal sex is "wrong". It is dangerous, to both participants.

How come whenever the talk goes to gay sex, it always goes straight to anal sex? What about the lesbians? WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE LESBIANS?! *sobs* I'm sure that there are gay men who don't practice anal sex. I remember reading somewhere that suprisingly large amount don't, though i don't remember where.

From what I've read, anal sex doesn't seem that dangerous as long as it is done properly.

[Hooboy !!]

So you think that parasailing is "wrong," then?
Absolutely. Just like sky diving is. Just like snow skiing is. Just like being stuck in an elevator with far too many people for 50 floors is. Just like a cranberry sauce and turkey sandwhich is.

:huh:

I don't care if other people do it though. Its their funeral.

[purple_kathryn]

If anal sex is wrong because it's dangerous then wouldn't the same apply to vaginal sex? As far as I'm aware it's heterosexual sex thats responsible for the majority of HIV transmissons and other various STD transmissions :huh: . Last time I checked, for example, homosexual men did not suffer any lasting effects from clamydia.

[Dlx2]

I think anal sex is "wrong". It is dangerous, to both participants.

In this day and age, all sex is dangerous to both participants.

This especially includes the penetrative vaginal intercourse without the use of a condom, that is, you know, reproductive sex.

In case you forgot, there's this disease called AIDS out there.

[Hooboy !!]

In this day and age, all sex is dangerous to both participants.
Sexually transmitted diseases are not a result of the sex act. A torn rectum is.

[dmarker]

Sexually transmitted diseases are not a result of the sex act. A torn rectum is.

Penile/vaginile sex can cause abrasions and tears in the vagina and on the penis itself. Not to mention bruising of the cervix and the glans.

Also, vigorous sex can cause an urinary tract infection in the female partner. It's called the "honeymoon" condition, because this infection is found in new hetrosexual unions.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Sexually transmitted diseases are not a result of the sex act. A torn rectum is.
If the person on the recieving end of anal sex is getting any damage worth worrying about, I'm pretty sure that someone doesn't know what they're doing.

[TomboyMom]

Sexually transmitted diseases are not a result of the sex act. A torn rectum is. Uh, sexually transmitted diseases are...diseases that are transmitteed by...wait for it...sex.

Hooboy, please answer my repeated question:

Is homosexuality wrong in any sense? Not anal sex, but homosexuality. If so, in what sense is homosexuality "wrong?" Thank you in advance for answering.

[Agnostic]

Hooboy, please answer my repeated question:

Is homosexuality wrong in any sense? Not anal sex, but homosexuality. If so, in what sense is homosexuality "wrong?" Thank you in advance for answering.

To be fair, TomboyMom, he didn't say "homosexuality" was wrong. He was referring to "gay sex", which, to him, apparently means "anal sex" automatically.

[Hooboy !!]

If the person on the recieving end of anal sex is getting any damage worth worrying about, I'm pretty sure that someone doesn't know what they're doing.
True or false: Vaginal penetration by the penis is much safer than penetration of the anus.

ETA:

The same could be said of sword swallowing, snake handling, and freebasing. It does not alter the fact that these activities are intrinsically dangerous.

[Hooboy !!]

To be fair, TomboyMom, he didn't say "homosexuality" was wrong.
Correct. And in fact, I have answered that question repeatedly in this thread and I take any further repeats to be a form harrassment.

He was referring to "gay sex", which, to him, apparently means "anal sex" automatically.
This would be an assumption, bordering on a strawman, because I believe that I made it pretty clear that I do not think anal sex is limited to homosexuals.

[Jon Barleycorn]

Life's not risk free - period! If an adult chooses to take a risk - whether that's skydiving or getting fucked in the arse, that doesn't make it wrong - just someone exercising their "free will" & choice as an individual - doesn't it?

[Hooboy !!]

Life's not risk free - period! If an adult chooses to take a risk - whether that's skydiving or getting fucked in the arse, that doesn't make it wrong - just someone exercising their "free will" & choice as an individual - doesn't it?
Correct. Morality is subjective. One man's "risk" is another man's "adventure".

[Alexander Hamilton]

True or false: Vaginal penetration by the penis is much safer than penetration of the anus.

ETA:

The same could be said of sword swallowing, snake handling, and freebasing. It does not alter the fact that these activities are intrinsically dangerous.

If you mess up with sword swallowing, you slice your insides...or something. If you mess up in anal sex, there is an "Ow! Stop that!" and stopping, probably no serious damage. Unless someone is a complete moron, then a mistep in anal sex would not bring down the apocolypse. (though that is a funny mental image) There is a difference from being two inches from a snake that can kill you and just taking some extra care, with pain being the useful signal that something is going wrong.

[Jon Barleycorn]

Correct. Morality is subjective. One man's "risk" is another man's "adventure".


Then why say this : " I think anal sex is "wrong". It is dangerous, to both participants." ?

Wrong for you - quite possibly. Wrong per se - No. Risky perhaps but not "wrong" in some ultimate sense!

& perhaps one man's risk is even the same man's adventure - some people enjoy "living dangerously" ... but that is, surely, their choice?

[Hooboy !!]

Then why say this : " I think anal sex is "wrong". It is dangerous, to both participants." ?
Because... I think it is wrong. This is why I do not engage in it. This is why I recommend against it.

Wrong for you - quite possibly.
How, in fuck's name, can you say "quite possibly"? How is it possible to read what I wrote and even quoted and still think "quite possible"?

Wrong per se - No. Risky perhaps but not "wrong" in some ultimate sense!

& perhaps one man's risk is even the same man's adventure - some people enjoy "living dangerously" ... but that is, surely, their choice?
:rolleyes:

[Smullyan-esque]

Correct. Morality is subjective. One man's "risk" is another man's "adventure".

Do you see the difference between "wrong" and "risky"? Perhaps we aren't talking about the same things. Here's how I see it:

Choosing to drive a motorcycle is "risky". I would advise against it. But I would never try to say that driving a motorcycle is "wrong". If someone chooses to drive a motorcycle, I won't make an attempt to stop them.

On the other hand, shoplifting is "wrong". It is also "risky", in that a person can get in trouble if they are caught. I would advise people against shoplifting. Unlike driving a motorcyle, I would also try to stop someone from shoplifting.

Perhaps you use different definitions of these words. But, in order for me to understand what you are saying, could you try using my definitions for just a second? Using my definitions, would you describe homosexual sex as "wrong" or just "risky"?

[Dr. Retard]

Hooboy!, usually when people say something is wrong, they're (at least) expressing an negative attitude towards those who do it. An attitude like disapproval or blame (if directed at oneself, guilt or shame).

Now, if you have an attitude like that towards anyone who does somewhat risky things (motorcycles, anal sex, etc.), then that's pretty weird.

But if you don't have an attitude like that, then you probably shouldn't use the word 'wrong'.

[TomboyMom]

Sorry for being so obtuse, but I'm still confused. When I asked Hooboy whether homosexuality was in any sense wrong, he replied that anal sex is risky to the participants. Not exactly responsive. When asked whether he thought gay sex was wrong because sex is meant for procreation, he said yes, but then repeatedly asserted that he does not think it is morally wrong. So I'm left wondering whether, for Hooboy, HOMOSEXUAL SEX, not anal sex, is wrong in any sense, and if so what. Surely you will understand why I am confused, Hooboy? How about a simple yes or no, is homosexuality wrong in any sense, yes or no? If yes, in what sense?

Generally speaking, Hooboy, the one doing the communicating is considered responsible for any confusion, and for clarifying same. Thanks.

[Agnostic]

And, what exactly do you define "homosexual sex" as, Hooboy? Is it a specific sex act, which any couple. straight or gay, can perform; or is it sex between same-sex couples, which does not automatically mean anal sex is performed?

I'm bisexual, and I've never had anal sex because I don't think I'll like it, for the same reason I don't particularly "crave" vaginal sex - I enjoy it but I don't usually seek it. I like the intimacy much much better than any specific sex act.

The other thing is your continued use of the word "wrong". If something is other than "wrong" or wrong (without quotes), why not use a more descriptive word than one you think has so many meanings as to obfuscate your position on this topic?

[Hooboy !!]

Sorry for being so obtuse, but I'm still confused.
I doubt it.

When I asked Hooboy whether homosexuality was in any sense wrong, he replied that anal sex is risky to the participants.
Correct.

Not exactly responsive.
Yes it is. Just becuse it was not the answer you were expecting does not mean that I am being unresponsive.

So I'm left wondering whether, for Hooboy, HOMOSEXUAL SEX ... is wrong in any sense
I have provided a straightforward and unambiguous response to this question, more than once and continuing to suggest that I have not is now a form of harrassment.

Surely you will understand why I am confused, Hooboy?
Not at all. What I am sure of is that you are deliberately refusing to acknowlege what I have already written.

Generally speaking, Hooboy, the one doing the communicating is considered responsible for any confusion, and for clarifying same. Thanks.
I have acted in good faith and provided more than adequate clarification.

[Hooboy !!]

Hooboy!, usually when people say something is wrong, they're (at least) expressing an negative attitude towards those who do it. An attitude like disapproval or blame (if directed at oneself, guilt or shame).
This would be an assumption.

[Hooboy !!]

And, what exactly do you define "homosexual sex" as, Hooboy? Is it a specific sex act, which any couple. straight or gay, can perform; or is it sex between same-sex couples, which does not automatically mean anal sex is performed?
There is no sex act that homosexuals can perform that a heterosexual couple cannot. Minus a few combinations that require two penises or two vaginas.

The other thing is your continued use of the word "wrong". If something is other than "wrong" or wrong (without quotes), why not use a more descriptive word than one you think has so many meanings as to obfuscate your position on this topic?
I did not choose the word "wrong" for this discussion. The word has more than one meaning for me and any moral connotation would be a huge derail.

[Hooboy !!]

Do you see the difference between "wrong" and "risky"? Perhaps we aren't talking about the same things. Here's how I see it:

Choosing to drive a motorcycle is "risky". I would advise against it. But I would never try to say that driving a motorcycle is "wrong". If someone chooses to drive a motorcycle, I won't make an attempt to stop them.
I regularly make an attempt to prevent people from riding a motorcycle when they attempt to do so unsafely. If I ride in a group, I require that all participants in the group wear a DOT approved helmet, are properly licensed, and insured. BTW, AZ law does not require a helmet.

I will not stop a perfect stranget on the road who is not wering a helmet and insist they put one on though.

On the other hand, shoplifting is "wrong".
"Right" or "wrong" is really irrelevant in this case. It is against the law. Its funny though, because in this case you are advocating vigilantism.

Getting caught and punished is not the real risk of shoplifting BTW. The real risk is the harm that it causes to society, which is why the laws were passed in the first place.

Using my definitions, would you describe homosexual sex as "wrong" or just "risky"?
Would I try to stop someone from having "homosexual sex"? I think the answer to this question is perfectly obvious were you to have read my other posts in this thread.

[TomboyMom]

I doubt it.


Correct.


Yes it is. Just becuse it was not the answer you were expecting does not mean that I am being unresponsive.


I have provided a straightforward and unambiguous response to this question, more than once and continuing to suggest that I have not is now a form of harrassment.


Not at all. What I am sure of is that you are deliberately refusing to acknowlege what I have already written.


I have acted in good faith and provided more than adequate clarification.
To give another example of the confusion generated by your posts, speaking of motorcycle riding, you said, Morality is subjective.

Your answer was not responsive because I asked about homosexuality, and you answered about anal sex. Anal sex is more pertinent to heterosexuals than it is to lesbians. Simply put, anal sex != homosexuality. Further, you confused us by answering in terms of risk. Most people don't equate "risky" with "wrong", unless it is putting others at risk. So you answered a question I didn't ask about a behavior I didn't ask about. So when you keep asserting that you have answered my question, it may be because you consider answering a different question as answering the question asked.
(btw, on a side note, heterosexual sex in general is more risky than lesbian sex.)

I understand that you do not consider homosexuality immoral. I also understand that you believe that sex is for the purpose of reproduction. I'm not clear on two points:
1. Is homosexuality "wrong" in some other sense than moral? If so, what?
2. Is non-reproductive sex morally wrong? (If not, why on earth did you respond to this thread, which is about the morality of non-reproductive sex, including homosexuality?

If you think you have already answered these questions, just cite me the number of the post in which you did. I have been following the thread from the beginning, and I don't find an unambiguous answer to these questions. I find your answers very confusing. A simple "yes" or "no" would go a long way to clearing up my confusion.

to other participants:
Hooboy is feeling harassed and believes he's answered my questions more than once. Can anyone else find the posts he is referring to so that I can respond to his answers? Thanks.

[Hooboy !!]

Your answer was not responsive because I asked about homosexuality, and you answered about anal sex.
No, you asked...

Hooboy, if homosexuality is not morally wrong, is it wrong in any sense, and if so, what?
In this question, you recognized that I have already answered the question in regards "right and wrong" from a moral perspective. But, you ask "in any sense", which is beyond just the moral consideration.

1. Is homosexuality "wrong" in some other sense than moral? If so, what?
I answered this question.

2. Is non-reproductive sex morally wrong? (If not, why on earth did you respond to this thread, which is about the morality of non-reproductive sex, including homosexuality?
I answered this question, except for the second part...

I think "Sex Is For Procreation".

If you think you have already answered these questions, just cite me the number of the post in which you did.
Nope.

[TomboyMom]

No, you asked... That's what I said, I asked whether in any sense (not moral) homosexuality is wrong.


In this question, you recognized that I have already answered the question in regards "right and wrong" from a moral perspective. But, you ask "in any sense", which is beyond just the moral consideration. That's right, is it wrong in some sense other than moral, and if so, what? You answered that anal sex is risky. That is not an answer to the question, is homosexuality wrong in any sense?


I answered this question. Where? What is the answer?


I answered this question, except for the second part... Would you be so kind as to repeat or point to your answer. I deny that you answered it. Please set me straight.

I think "Sex Is For Procreation". Yes, we got that. What I'm asking is, is non-reproductive sex therefore morally wrong?


Nope. I deny your assertion. You are mistaken. You are saying something which is false. You are less than honest or correct. Prove me wrong.

Other readers: has Hooboy answered this question? I say he hasn't, he says he has but declines to provide support for his assertion. (It is not possible for me to provide support for an assertion that such a post does not exist, other than this entire thread, which I allege contains no such post.) Can anyone else find his purported answer?

[Hooboy !!]

You answered that anal sex is risky. That is not an answer to the question, is homosexuality wrong in any sense?
Yes it is. Anal sex is a very risky activity that I think is wrong to engage in, from the perspective that as a loving, caring sexual partner, I do not want to unnecessarrily cause harm to my partner.

[TomboyMom]

Yes it is. Anal sex is a very risky activity that I think is wrong to engage in, from the perspective that as a loving, caring sexual partner, I do not want to unnecessarrily cause harm to my partner. Yes, I understand all that, but what does it have to do with the question? Anal sex is one thing. Homosexuality is another. There is some overlap, but there is also overlap between heterosexuality and anal sex (not as great an overlap.) I am not asking about anal sex. I am asking about homosexuality. Why are you so hard to communicate with? Here, I'll put it in caps: HOMOSEXUALITY, NOT ANAL SEX. Get it? I'm asking about the former, not the latter. I'm asking if it is wrong in any sense, and if so what. I'm not asking if it is risky. As has been pointed out, all sex is risky. Hey, I think some male spiders get their heads bitten off after sex--now, that's risky!

Here, this might make it easier. Let's set male homosexuality aside for the time being, O.K.? Now, is lesbianism wrong in any sense, and if so, in what sense? Sheez, are you trying to be difficult, or can you not help it?

[Hooboy !!]

Yes, I understand all that, but what does it have to do with the question? Anal sex is one thing. Homosexuality is another. There is some overlap, but there is also overlap between heterosexuality and anal sex (not as great an overlap.)
Then you do understand and the rest of your post is just you harrassing me.

You are trying to catch me in a contradiction where I equate anal sex with homosexuality. I never did that and no matter how hard you try to do that, you will fail.

[Steven Mading]

And you want to teach me about honesty when you cannot even represent what I said accurately? LOL
The fact that an accurate description of your stance makes you look bad and therefore you try to backpedal is not my fault.

What I said is that adoption is a new dynamic that includes a new individual. Adoption may be contigent on being married, but marriage has nothing to do with adoption. Adoption is an altogether different thing.

If you discount any case that involves a third person, then you can discount any case that has any legal meaning of any kind. If the two people trying to get married were the only people in the world, then the issue of objecting to gay marriage wouldn't come up. It comes up BECAUSE other people exist and are inisiting on telling the two involved that they are not welcome to marry. The instant it becomes an issue there are already other people besides the two in question that are involved. Therefore your stance that adoption is different because it involves a third person makes no sense. There were already millions of people invovled - the millions that were telling the two that they can't be married. The instant the state decides that the tax rules for married people differ than the rules for unmarried people, there are already third parties involved. The instant the state decides that marriage has any legal meaning of any kind whatsoever, there are already third parties involved by that fact alone.

[Hooboy !!]

The fact that an accurate description of your stance makes you look bad and therefore you try to backpedal is not my fault.
How am I "backpedalling"? You mischaracterized what I wrote and then proceeded to lecture me on honesty. That is the definition of "irony".

If you discount any case that involves a third person, then you can discount any case that has any legal meaning of any kind. If the two people trying to get married were the only people in the world, then the issue of objecting to gay marriage wouldn't come up. It comes up BECAUSE other people exist and are inisiting on telling the two involved that they are not welcome to marry.
Pretty good argument, right up until the last sentence and then it falls apart...

- The reason why adoption is irrelevant is because it alters the social dynamics. It is no longer just about two people, in love, wanting to get married. It is about providing a caring, nurturing, safe, environment for a child.

- You are right, if no one else was around, then two people could do whatever the fuck they wanted to, without consequences to anyone else.

- It is not a case of preventing two people from getting married. It is a case of allowing only certain kinds of people to get married. What is interesting about pro-gay marriage folks is that they refuse mightily to recognize the slippery slope they are on. It is a giant pink elephant in the room that they are intent on ignoring. There is just one kind of marriage allowed in this country, out of dozens of possible types. And you seem to think that gay marriages are somehow more deserving than any of these others to also be allowed.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Then you do understand and the rest of your post is just you harrassing me.

You are trying to catch me in a contradiction where I equate anal sex with homosexuality. I never did that and no matter how hard you try to do that, you will fail.

Then the whole anal sex thing was off topic. D: Why did you even mention it? You knew that anal sex was practiced by both homosexual males and heterosexuals, and that some homosexual males and lesbians didn't engage in it at all, but felt compelled to discuss its drawbacks? Sure, it was a sexy discussion, but totally pointless. The fact that you even bothered to mention it made us assume, reasonably, that you equated homosexual sex with anal sex.

This is my interpretation of this discussion so far:

"Is homosexual sex wrong?"

"Anal sex is wrong because of X, Y, and Z."

"...But homosexual sex does not automatically mean anal sex. We're talking about homosexual sex, not anal sex."

"That doesn't make anal sex any less wrong."

"....O_o....Ummm...Okay..."

And I think we have issues over the meaning of the word "wrong". Books were meant for reading. Does that make it wrong to use them to prop up table legs? I vote that from now on we consider the word "wrong" to mean "morally wrong," like lying, stealing, and murdering.

I think we need to find ourselves an anal sex proffesional in here, too. From my research, it isn't harmful if done properly. Or we could get some gay porn. Does any have links to some gay porn? Let's forget all this fighting, whip out some nachos, and watch some. It'll cheer us up.


- It is not a case of preventing two people from getting married. It is a case of allowing only certain kinds of people to get married. What is interesting about pro-gay marriage folks is that they refuse mightily to recognize the slippery slope they are on. It is a giant pink elephant in the room that they are intent on ignoring. There is just one kind of marriage allowed in this country, out of dozens of possible types. And you seem to think that gay marriages are somehow more deserving than any of these others to also be allowed.

OMG! The slippery slope argument! Whatever shall we do! *sobs in corner*

We can worry about polygamy later. Maybe we can come up with something special just for them. For now, it is still just two people. Two human, adult people.

You still haven't answered what I said before: Is it biological-child based marriages only, or is gay marriage allowed? The former is not going to happen in our lifetime. If 80 year old great grandparents and Britney Spears can get married, is there a logical reason to deny people of the same gender to marry?

Any why are we still talking about marriage!?

[Hooboy !!]

Then the whole anal sex thing was off topic. D: Why did you even mention it?
This was already discussed.

We can worry about polygamy later.
How about now? How about explaining to me why gay marriage is more important than plural marriage is.

[Alexander Hamilton]

This was already discussed.

Thank you, Hooboy. That makes things much clearer. -_-

Would anybody here politely direct me to Hooboy's answer to this question? I looked, but found nothing.


How about now? How about explaining to me why gay marriage is more important than plural marriage is.

First of all, we were talking about gay marriage, not polygamy, or anal sex, for that matter. Actually, we should be talking about gay sex.

Marriages, the way they are now, are designed for two people. I don't know everything about marriage benifits, but allowing more than one person to get married might have some technical issues. You'd probably have to change the system. Gay marriages are pretty much the same as a heterosexual marriage, so you don't have to worry about reworking anything. Plural marriage isn't less important, but it adds more to the equation than a gender swap. Now you have more than two people to deal with.

Remember, for all intents and purposes legally, a homosexual couple is the same as a heterosexual one. Adding another person actually WOULD change things.

Considering how highly you seem to value traditional marrige, I thought allowing guys to marry more than one woman would appeal to you.

[Angrillori]

I regularly make an attempt to prevent people from riding a motorcycle when they attempt to do so unsafely. If I ride in a group, I require that all participants in the group wear a DOT approved helmet, are properly licensed, and insured. BTW, AZ law does not require a helmet.

So it's ok to engage in risky behaviour if you take all appropriate precautions....

...unless that risky behaviour is anal sex. :confused:

[Angrillori]

You answered that anal sex is risky. That is not an answer to the question, is homosexuality wrong in any sense?Yes it is. Anal sex is a very risky activity that I think is wrong to engage in, from the perspective that as a loving, caring sexual partner, I do not want to unnecessarrily cause harm to my partner.

So, let's get this straight:

It seems the argument is:

Anal sex is risky, therefore homosexual sex is wrong in some sense.

Yes? No?

If the answer for:

Is homosexual sex wrong in some sense?

Is:

Yes, because anal sex is risky.

Then, indeed the argument must be:

Because anal sex is risky, therefore homosexual sex is wrong in some sense.


If that is the case, then isn't heterosexual sex wrong in the same way? Some heteros do anal, and some homos don't, and as HB has agreed, anal sex != homosexuality and homosexuality != anal sex.

Now, excepting for the obvious fallacy of equating wrong with risky, we're looking at an undistributed middle anyways.

Maybe if THESE premises were true:

P1) It is wrong to engage in risky activity.
P2) Anal sex is risky activity.
C1) It is wrong to engage in anal sex.

P3=C1) It is wrong to engage in anal sex.
P4) Homosexual sex necessarily entails engaging in anal sex.
C2) Homosexual sex necessarily entails something "wrong."

Now that's much easier to see the flaws. In fact, even if the premises are correct, the second syllogism seems to be flawed in and of itself, but I just couldn't quite get it to work.

But, obviously P1 isn't necessarily true--remember risky != wrong.
And P4 is obviously wrong.

So that leaves the:

"Homosexual sex is wrong because anal sex is risky," argument pretty out of air.

[TomboyMom]

Then you do understand and the rest of your post is just you harrassing me.

You are trying to catch me in a contradiction where I equate anal sex with homosexuality. I never did that and no matter how hard you try to do that, you will fail. I'm about to give up. You are either remarkably obtuse, or...something else. You did equate anal sex with homosexuality, but that's not my point. That's in the past. My point is, what the heck are we talking about here? Is there any sense in which you think that homosexuality, NOT ANAL SEX, is wrong, and if so, what? Why is that so hard? If we all agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, WTF is this thread about? If we don't, then what is wrong with it? Why is this being so hard?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Here is the fundamental question, Hooboy: Why did you bother bringing up anal sex? We all agree that is is not exclusive to homosexuals and that not all of them engage in it. You know this, I know this, everybody knows this. So what are we even arguing about? Why bring it up? What does anal sex have to do with ANYTHING?

[Hooboy !!]

You did equate anal sex with homosexuality
No, I didn't. That was an assumption on your part.

My point is, what the heck are we talking about here? Is there any sense in which you think that homosexuality, NOT ANAL SEX, is wrong, and if so, what?
Any sense other than anal sex? Not that I can think of off the top of my head.

[Hooboy !!]

Here is the fundamental question, Hooboy: Why did you bother bringing up anal sex? We all agree that is is not exclusive to homosexuals and that not all of them engage in it. You know this, I know this, everybody knows this. So what are we even arguing about? Why bring it up? What does anal sex have to do with ANYTHING?
Not exclusive, but I would venture to say far more common in gay sexual relationships than heterosexual relationships, which is more than in lesbian relationships.

I would like to see a poll that asked how many gay couples did not engage in anal sex. I am sure the percentage would be pretty low, considering that, there are 30% fewer different types of holes to take advantage of, 100% more penises and 100% more anuses. Simple math really.

[Alexander Hamilton]

But that is still about anal sex, not homosexual sex. Homosexual is the key word. In other words, we are discussing the act of engaging in sexual activities with people of the same sex, not any particular acts that are not exclusive to homosexuals. In fact, the title of this thread is, " For People Who Think Gay Sex Is Wrong And Gives "Sex Is For Procreation" As A Reason." Therefore, it was mostly irrelevant.

And I still think you are vastly overestimating the dangers of anal sex.

[Griff]

Hooboy, the position that you initially took has been defeated. You should do the honest thing and concede, having grown as a person. Unfortunately, your growth seems to have been stunted by your own stubborn pride. You will acheive nothing by continuing to drag your heels on this point other than to cause disgrace for both yourself and for the other participants in this thread.

One of your arguments both depends upon the practice of anal sex and overlooks informed, mutual consent, thus it falls apart completely in three different cases: both partners both enjoy anal intercourse, in spite of having been informed of its risks; both partners have chosen to either rarely engage in anal intercourse or have determined that they do not wish to engage in it at all; or both partners are lesbian women and do not employ anal stimulation. Another problem with your argument is that the possibility of anal sex does not depend upon homosexuality.

Instead of continuing to associate yourself with this position, consider it defeated. Otherwise, consider yourself defeated along with it.

Another of your arguments depends upon procreation being the only moral purpose for engaging for sexual intercourse. For this to work, you must first prove that engaging in sexual intercourse in pursuit of pleasure is immoral, including within the context of a lifelong partnership. You must also prove that engaging in sexual intercourse to strengthen one's relationship with a person is immoral. You must also prove that engaging in sexual intercourse for the purpose of improving one's psychological well-being is immoral. You loftily dismiss non-procreative sex as "futile," but you do nothing to back up this claim.

Support this position thoroughly, or consider it duely dismissed. Otherwise, consider yourself dismissed along with it and held in scorn.

The topic of gay marriage is tangential, but what you don't seem to understand is that it is not equality that needs to be defended. A law must be applied universally and fairly unless there is a strong justification for favoring one group over another. If it makes the matter any easier for you, imagine that there are no marriage licensing laws at all and that, heretofore, the concept had been unheard of. You are sitting with the state's legislative branch around a table, and up for debate is the passage of a law that assigns to spouses the rights and obligations of modern marriage. The law is surely going to pass in very nearly its current for. You, Hooboy, have just opened your mouth and said "well, we need to make sure that spouses of the same sex are excluded." Everyone at the table is staring at you, wondering whether to hear you out or have you cast in a loony bin. Either explain yourself quickly, or retract the statement. The men in the little, white coats are on their way! However, I think that it would be most polite to create another thread for it.

[Smullyan-esque]

My point is, what the heck are we talking about here? Is there any sense in which you think that homosexuality, NOT ANAL SEX, is wrong, and if so, what?
Any sense other than anal sex? Not that I can think of off the top of my head.

Phew! Finally. Why did you have to make this so difficult, Hooboy? Why didn't you just come out and say in the very beginning: "I don't see anything wrong with homosexual sex"?

You could have then gone on to say: "I think anal sex is wrong, for homos or heteros" as a seperate topic.

See? Nice, clear, understandable.

[TomboyMom]

No, I didn't. That was an assumption on your part. Right, I assumed that you were answering the question I was asking. I will never assume anything about what you are saying again, Hooboy, including what "is" is.

Any sense other than anal sex? Not that I can think of off the top of my head.
Thank you. WAS THAT SO HARD? We apparently all agree that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with gay sex, and you may apologize to the rest of us for wasting the last 18 pages of bandwidth.

[Dr. Retard]

So I guess here's the score:

Fellatio, cunnilingus, manual masturbation, etc.: Hooboy! doesn't think these are wrong

Anal sex: Hooboy! does claim to think that this is wrong, but he doesn't have any negative attitude like disapproval towards it, so it's unclear what he could possibly mean by "wrong"

[Hooboy !!]

But that is still about anal sex, not homosexual sex. Homosexual is the key word. In other words, we are discussing the act of engaging in sexual activities with people of the same sex, not any particular acts that are not exclusive to homosexuals. In fact, the title of this thread is, " For People Who Think Gay Sex Is Wrong And Gives "Sex Is For Procreation" As A Reason." Therefore, it was mostly irrelevant.

And I still think you are vastly overestimating the dangers of anal sex.
Are there any sex acts that are strictly homosexual in nature? I do not think so.

I think you are vastly under estimating the dangers. Experience and lubricants work to mitigate the risks of course, but the tissue in the anus was simply not intended for this purpose and tears, fissures and ruptures are common.

[Hooboy !!]

Hooboy, the position that you initially took has been defeated.
See? This is all it takes for me to ignore the rest of your post.

<delete>

Thanks for putting that at the beginning so that I did not have to waste any more time than necessary.

[Dlx2]

Are there any sex acts that are strictly homosexual in nature? I do not think so.

I think you are vastly under estimating the dangers. Experience and lubricants work to mitigate the risks of course, but the tissue in the anus was simply not intended for this purpose and tears, fissures and ruptures are common.

As someone who climbs rock and ice and has been known to hanndle venomous snakes, I can tell you with some certainty that "danger" does not equal "wrong."

Additionally, unprotected sex in many parts of the world is extremely dangerous: in Washington, DC, one in every ten people has AIDS. In parts of Africa, the rate may be as high as 2 in every 5 people. In these cases, simple heterosexual sex can be deadly. Clearly we should say that heterosexual sex is "wrong."

[Hooboy !!]

As someone who climbs rock and ice and has been known to hanndle venomous snakes, I can tell you with some certainty that "danger" does not equal "wrong."
Handling venomous snakes isn't "wrong"... it is just plain stupid. ;)

Additionally, unprotected sex in many parts of the world is extremely dangerous: in Washington, DC, one in every ten people has AIDS. In parts of Africa, the rate may be as high as 2 in every 5 people. In these cases, simple heterosexual sex can be deadly. Clearly we should say that heterosexual sex is "wrong."
Actually, the greatest problem is not heterosexual sex... it is promiscuity and after that, ignorance. A lot of carriers choose to remain ignorant of whether or not they are carriers and even those that know, they continue to seek out new sexual partners.

[Dlx2]

Handling venomous snakes isn't "wrong"... it is just plain stupid. ;)

Hardly. So long as you know what you're doing and take the proper precautions, it's no more dangerous than driving to the grocery store. And while I don't study toxicology, there is a lot of medically-relevant work out there right now on snake venom. You can't get that venom without handling venomous snakes.

Actually, the greatest problem is not heterosexual sex... it is promiscuity and after that, ignorance. A lot of carriers choose to remain ignorant of whether or not they are carriers and even those that know, they continue to seek out new sexual partners.

The greatest problem is ignorance, especially ignorance on the nature of the illness that is encouraged by certain religious and social organizations.

[Bracer]

Actually, the greatest problem is not heterosexual sex... it is promiscuity and after that, ignorance. A lot of carriers choose to remain ignorant of whether or not they are carriers and even those that know, they continue to seek out new sexual partners.

Sorry to just jump in here after 18 pages or so, but I just can't let this one slide. According to British medical journal the Lancet, ignorance contributes far more to the spread of AIDS than promiscuity: (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/01/europe/EU_MED_Sex_Study.php)


In the first comprehensive global study of sexual behavior, British researchers found that people aren't losing their virginity at ever younger ages, married people have the most sex, and there is no firm link between promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases.

(emphasis mine)

[Alexander Hamilton]

Are there any sex acts that are strictly homosexual in nature? I do not think so.

Actually, there is one act that is strictly homosexual in nature: sex with a person of the same gender. THAT'S what we should be discussing. Someone might say that homosexual sex is wrong because homosexual sex cannot produce children, or something. We are discussing the homosexual factor.

Must...resit...urge...to...discuss...anal...sex...

[EarlOfLade]

I've been a male slut all my life and have slept with hundreds of men and women and have never had an STD, not once! In 1982 i thought I had gotten one but it was only a urinary tract infection.

If Hooboy's argument that promiscuity leads to STD,, I should have been dead.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I've been a male slut all my life and have slept with hundreds of men and women and have never had an STD, not once! In 1982 i thought I had gotten one but it was only a urinary tract infection.

If Hooboy's argument that promiscuity leads to STD,, I should have been dead.

You wouldn't have happened to have been on the receiving end of any anal sex, would you? If so, what are the risks of injury?

[Steven Mading]

How am I "backpedalling"? You mischaracterized what I wrote and then proceeded to lecture me on honesty. That is the definition of "irony".

I agree that in this alternate imaginary world you're talking about here where I mischaracterized what you said, it would be ironic. Over here in the real world where the rest of us live, it's pretty clear I did no such thing.

At this point there's no further use in talking to you. Either you're irrational enough not to realize that there's a problem in taking contradictory stances, or you have no moral qualms with lying in order to never having to admit you're wrong. Either way you're beyond hope. The only purpose in continuing would be to hope to expose your dishonesty for third-party lurkers, but that has been done adequetely by now, I'd say.

And to others watching - I realize I'm being rude here, but sometimes honesty is incompatable with politeness. It's Hooboy's fault I cannot be simultaneously polite to him and honest about him.

[t.w.]

This is no different than most pro-religious arguments. Its not a logical argument and really makes no damn sense.

That's all there is to it.

If people think this argument is sound, they will likely hold dozens of other illogical assumptions. So, really, who cares? They are going to need to learn a substantial amount on the topic of logic before they can shed their illogical beliefs anyway.

Strange, normally when people say an argument is fallacious they can actually point out a logical fallacy, instead of just waving their arms about aimlessly and screaming 'illogical'.

[EarlOfLade]

You wouldn't have happened to have been on the receiving end of any anal sex, would you? If so, what are the risks of injury?
Lol, no, that's not my thing :)
Use protection is all I can say, plus stay away from heroin whores :)

[Alexander Hamilton]

Lol, no, that's not my thing :)
Use protection is all I can say, plus stay away from heroin whores :)

Curses...Thanks anyway.

[TomboyMom]

Actually, the greatest problem is not heterosexual sex... it is promiscuity and after that, ignorance. A lot of carriers choose to remain ignorant of whether or not they are carriers and even those that know, they continue to seek out new sexual partners. Actually I think the greatest risk is from heterosexual sex without prophylactics. Although promiscuity does increase the risk, an unprotected non-promiscuous partner is at risk of exposure to STDs, including HIV, from an infected partner. I believe this is a common source of STD infection among married women in Africa.

[Griff]

See? This is all it takes for me to ignore the rest of your post.Then it mystifies me that you bothered to answer.

You haven't lived until your wifey has pounded you with a ten-inch strap-on.

[Steven Mading]

Strange, normally when people say an argument is fallacious they can actually point out a logical fallacy, instead of just waving their arms about aimlessly and screaming 'illogical'.
Except when the fallacy is simply "that does not follow" - it's hard to describe it any further at that point. "All socks are green. Daddy is Male. Therefore the Earth is flat." is pretty hard to pick apart specifically other than to just say "that's not even really an argument at all." And that's what it's sometimes like dealing with extremely irrational arguments. (Note, I can't see loprogression's original post after searching back 8 pages I gave up - so I don't mean to imply that this is necessarily true in this case - I don't know the context of your post - just that there really are cases where there's nothing more to say about a fallicious argument other than 'that does not follow' - which is pretty much the same thing as saying "this isn't even an argument.".)

[verv2]

I apologize if I am repeating the points of others, there are so many replies, I've only read a portion of them.

A question which struck me when reading this:
Why do people assume that someone who believes sex is for procreation does not believe that people should enjoy sex?

That's not logical to me. When I hear "sex is for procreation", I don't believe that people mean that it is exclusively for procreation, but procreation is the natural reason for it in all species. Now, that is not to say that because it is nature's way of continuing the species that it should not be enjoyed. The enjoyment of it is the natural way to facilitate it. If sex was painful no one would have the desire to do it. The enjoyment facilitates the desire, which facilitates procreation.

That's not to say that any type of sex is wrong (except that which happens without informed consent). There is nothing wrong with enjoying our bodies. However, arguing that sex must not be for procreation because it is enjoyable does not seem like an appropriate counter argument.

[Dlx2]

I apologize if I am repeating the points of others, there are so many replies, I've only read a portion of them.

A question which struck me when reading this:
Why do people assume that someone who believes sex is for procreation does not believe that people should enjoy sex?

That's not logical to me. When I hear "sex is for procreation", I don't believe that people mean that it is exclusively for procreation, but procreation is the natural reason for it in all species. Now, that is not to say that because it is nature's way of continuing the species that it should not be enjoyed. The enjoyment of it is the natural way to facilitate it. If sex was painful no one would have the desire to do it. The enjoyment facilitates the desire, which facilitates procreation.

That's not to say that any type of sex is wrong (except that which happens without informed consent). There is nothing wrong with enjoying our bodies. However, arguing that sex must not be for procreation because it is enjoyable does not seem like an appropriate counter argument.

Saying that modern sexuality is for procreation is like saying that Godiva chocolates are for nutrition. There is a pretty sizeable schism at this point between biology and social interaction. Anyone who doesn't accept this is deluding themselves. Godiva chocolates are for godiva chocolates. Sex is for sex. There is nothing wrong with gratuitous aesthetic actions, and no reason why we must use biology to justify them.

[verv2]

Saying that modern sexuality is for procreation is like saying that Godiva chocolates are for nutrition. There is a pretty sizeable schism at this point between biology and social interaction. Anyone who doesn't accept this is deluding themselves. Godiva chocolates are for godiva chocolates. Sex is for sex. There is nothing wrong with gratuitous aesthetic actions, and no reason why we must use biology to justify them.

I agree and disgaree. There isn't anything wrong with having sex. However, there is nothing else that creates life but sex. Ignoring that fact seems ridiculous. I think the better argument to have is that sex does not always have to be for procreation. There is nothing wrong with enjoying our own bodies (and someone else's if they let us). And it seems to me that if two people want to have sex, the only question should be is, why do people think it is wrong to enjoy our bodies? I would word my argument in defense of anal, oral, infertile, or protected sex this way:

My guess would be that if someone stated that they exercised simply because they enjoyed it and it brought them pleasure, no-one would think that was wrong. So why is it that people think sex purely for enjoyment is wrong? It accomplishes the same thing - Pleasure. Excersize does not have to be used for fitness, so why does sex have to be used for procreation?

[Dlx2]

However, there is nothing else that creates life but sex. Ignoring that fact seems ridiculous.

So does ignoring cloning and in vitro fertilization.

[verv2]

So does ignoring cloning and in vitro fertilization.

I haven't ignored either of those things. In vitro requires the use of human sex organs as they would be used if the person had heterosexual sex. It is pregnancy with help. And no one legally clones human beings, so until they do, sex is all that we have to create life.

By ignoring that heterosexual sex creates life, you weaken your argument. However, if you acknowledge that, but argue that it is not the only reason for sex, you strengthen your argument. If there is a person alive who has intended to get pregnant every time they have sex, it would be a waste of your time to even debate the subject. However, It is not likely that even the holiest-of- though married person could honestly say that. Shoot - we have people who take a vow of celibacy and do it to. That is why I'm saying that it is better to counter the point without ignoring that fact.

[Dlx2]

I haven't ignored either of those things. In vitro requires the use of human sex organs as they would be used if the person had heterosexual sex.

Hardly. Masturbation is not sex, and masturbation alone is as likely to result in babies as it is to result in blindness. And egg-harvesting is about as sexual as a colostomy.

It is pregnancy with help.

Holy crap we're on to something here!

And no one legally clones human beings,

Legality is irrelevant.

By ignoring that heterosexual sex creates life, you weaken your argument.

Cloning creates life. In vitro fertilization creates life. Rape creates life. Leaving leftovers out on the counter while you're out on vacation creates life.

However, if you acknowledge that, but argue that it is not the only reason for sex, you strengthen your argument. If there is a person alive who has intended to get pregnant every time they have sex, it would be a waste of your time to even debate the subject.

Hardly. Just because someone wears a fur suit every time they have sex, it does not mean that EVERYONE must do the same thing. In order to argue that sex must be used only for procreation, they need to prove that sex without the goal of procreation is a terrible evil that can only be offset by the great good of procreation. As far as I can see, sex is a great good (at least, it was for me this morning, and last night, and etc.). Procreation, however, is a blessing mixed at best. I can think of only a few situations where premarital consensual sex is harmful. I can think of a number of situations where procreation is pretty much the devil.

However, It is not likely that even the holiest-of- though married person could honestly say that. Shoot - we have people who take a vow of celibacy and do it to. That is why I'm saying that it is better to counter the point without ignoring that fact.

I don't see any reason why I should have to defend sex with my girlfriend on the basis that if we so desired we could make babies in thhat manner. Neither of us want kids. We have sex because we love each other and because the physical aspect of the relationship is very rewarding to both of us. It hurts no one (except her parents who are antisemites and can honestly go fuck themselves). It brings us great pleasure. I find it offensive that I should have to defend this to some intolerant asshole who thinks that I shouldn't be able to share this with the girl I love because we don't want to contribute to the population problem.

This isn't a matter of not defending my position in an effective manner. This is a matter of me stating outright that I don't HAVE to defend my position.

[Hooboy !!]

A question which struck me when reading this:
Why do people assume that someone who believes sex is for procreation does not believe that people should enjoy sex?
I do not believe that people should not get pleasure from sex. The notion is absurd and perfectly counter-intertuitive. Sex needs to be pleasurable in order to compell people to exgage in it. Without sex, there would be no procreation, or certainly not enough.

People that seek to diminish the pleasure that comes from sex do so to avoid things like "unnatural" sex or sex addiction (with varying definitions). It is viewed as being as harmful as engaging in any other pleasurable activity to excess would be. The problem they have with sex is that it is very pleasurable and easy to become obsessed with, particularly in young people.

For me, I think people should explore their sexuality and learn to enjoy it. I think it is definately something that can easily become an obsession, which is not an all bad thing in the proper context, but can also be very dangerous and counter-productive. I do not think that people are capable of self-regulation when it comes to sex, especially in young men, and that artificial limits are very useful. For some people artifical limits abound, for others though, there are few and limits may need to be fabricated. This is why I am in favor of teaching abstinence, monogamy, and the sanctity (in an atheistic way) of marriage. These things may not be necessary, but they work well to regulate sexuality to what I consider a healthy pace.

[verv2]

I do not believe that people should not get pleasure from sex. The notion is absurd and perfectly counter-intertuitive. Sex needs to be pleasurable in order to compell people to exgage in it. Without sex, there would be no procreation, or certainly not enough.

I said the EXACT same thing on THIS page.

[Hooboy !!]

I said the EXACT same thing on THIS page.
Good for you. Do you believe that the purpose of sex is for procreation?

[verv2]

Hardly. Masturbation is not sex, and masturbation alone is as likely to result in babies as it is to result in blindness. And egg-harvesting is about as sexual as a colostomy.

We agree. I didn't say egg harvesting was sexual. I said In Vitro was accomplished through the use of human sex organs.


Legality is irrelevant.

Cloning creates life. In vitro fertilization creates life. Rape creates life. Leaving leftovers out on the counter while you're out on vacation creates life.
Legality isn't relevant in this discussion. The point is that no one can go have a baby by cloning one, it is not legal.
um......rape is still sex. that is why it is a sex crime.
Mold......get real, we're talking about animal life and you know it.



Hardly. Just because someone wears a fur suit every time they have sex, it does not mean that EVERYONE must do the same thing. In order to argue that sex must be used only for procreation, they need to prove that sex without the goal of procreation is a terrible evil that can only be offset by the great good of procreation. As far as I can see, sex is a great good (at least, it was for me this morning, and last night, and etc.). Procreation, however, is a blessing mixed at best. I can think of only a few situations where premarital consensual sex is harmful. I can think of a number of situations where procreation is pretty much the devil.
procreation is not a blessing, it is a biological function which results from heterosexual sex. Otherwise, we agree here completely. If you'd read just my responses on this page, you'd see that.



I don't see any reason why I should have to defend sex with my girlfriend on the basis that if we so desired we could make babies in that manner. Neither of us want kids. We have sex because we love each other and because the physical aspect of the relationship is very rewarding to both of us. It hurts no one (except her parents who are antisemites and can honestly go fuck themselves). It brings us great pleasure. I find it offensive that I should have to defend this to some intolerant asshole who thinks that I shouldn't be able to share this with the girl I love because we don't want to contribute to the population problem.

This isn't a matter of not defending my position in an effective manner. This is a matter of me stating outright that I don't HAVE to defend my position.
I agree. You don't have to defend it to anyone. I wasn't making the point that you do. However, that is what people are doing on this thread, discussing it. All I am doing is offering a way to debate the subject if you WANT to.

[verv2]

Good for you. Do you believe that the purpose of sex is for procreation?

It's one purpose......I don't believe it is the only purpose. My tubes are tied for that exact reason. I want to have it without the worry of getting pregnant.

Personally..... my reasons are orgasm, intimacy....oh yeah, and orgasm.

[Reign_Cryogen]

Good for you. Do you believe that the purpose of sex is for procreation?Sex is to procreation as news media is to information.

[Rayven_Alandria]

Gay sex is natural because we are evolving into one gender. It's just evolutionary practice. :Cheeky:

[Reign_Cryogen]

Nice try, but I have eyes only for GLA.

[Hooboy !!]

It's one purpose......I don't believe it is the only purpose.
There you have it, then we are not saying exactly the same thing.

[Griff]

I do not believe that people should not get pleasure from sex. The notion is absurd and perfectly counter-intertuitive. Sex needs to be pleasurable in order to compell people to exgage in it.Yes, and this is the purpose that most normal, healthy people have in mind when they engage in it. Well, between that and passing the time. The kids are just an odd side-effect. They always have been. Nobody cares if the species is headed for extinction if they're all having a good time. You give everyone plenty of krypto, a steady supply of nachos, and the ability to give themselves head, and we'll have acheived the ultimate purpose of our species. If you think otherwise, you have no sense of perspective. Besides, in another hundred years, assuming we gun down enough fundies between now and then, we won't even have to worry about reproduction's role in the survival of the species. We'll eventually run out of vital organs we can't work out how to replace.

I do not think that people are capable of self-regulation when it comes to sexYes, they are. It's called masturbation.

[Hooboy !!]

Yes, they are. It's called masturbation.
Masturbation is still sex.

[verv2]

There you have it, then we are not saying exactly the same thing.

Really? So when someone wants to have a baby, or a couple wants to have one together......what would you tell them to do?

[Dr Rick]

Masturbation is still sex.

So if, as you claim:

1) the purpose of sex is procreation, and
2) masturbation is sex, then:

...is procreation the purpose of masturbation?

[verv2]

Y You give everyone plenty of krypto, a steady supply of nachos, and the ability to give themselves head, and we'll have acheived the ultimate purpose of our species. If you think otherwise, you have no sense of perspective.

Hardly, masturbation might be pleasurable, but it's nothing compared to sex with another.

[Reign_Cryogen]

Masturbation is still sex.Wait, what?

[Hooboy !!]

So if, as you claim:

1) the purpose of sex is procreation, and
2) masturbation is sex, then:

...is procreation the purpose of masturbation?
There are all kinds of futile sex. Self-stimulation being probably the single most futile.

ETA

I know your only purpose in responding is to try zing me, but I do not mind explaining this...

"Sex" is a broad label that covers a great many things. The root of it though is the orgasm. A person can experience an orgasm all kinds of ways. How a person is stimulated to orgasm is not really all that important. What is important is the physiological and psychological effects the orgasm has on the person and ultimately how it modifies their behavior.

When a person masturbates, they are simply reminding themselves that having an orgasm feels good and encourages them to seek new opportunities to experience an orgasm. Masturbation can become counter-productive (as well as futile) when it becomes the preferred method of achieving orgasm. Fortunately, this is rare and is not typical. Human sexual behavior tends to seek out a partner, typically of the opposite sex. And, when all of the stars are aligned properly, the result is a new person. It is only a matter of time.

[Dlx2]

We agree. I didn't say egg harvesting was sexual. I said In Vitro was accomplished through the use of human sex organs.

Great. We can do this by isolating gametogenic tissue and culturing it in a lab (hypothetically). Look. There's a point where the distinction between somatic and gametic tissue is pretty distinct. My sperm are not me. On the other hand, the sensory input received by my nervous system and interpreted by my brain iis most certainly me.

Sex is somatic.

Reproduction is gametic.


Legality isn't relevant in this discussion. The point is that no one can go have a baby by cloning one, it is not legal.
um......rape is still sex. that is why it is a sex crime.
Mold......get real, we're talking about animal life and you know it.

My point is that creating life is not particularly special. It's easy to create life. We're not concerned with the creation of life. We're concerned with people being able to choose and control the sensory input their somatic system experiences.

procreation is not a blessing, it is a biological function which results from heterosexual sex. Otherwise, we agree here completely. If you'd read just my responses on this page, you'd see that.

My point is that there's no reason to defend consensual sex for the sake of pleasure. If anything, it is those who have sex for the sake of reproduction who should have to defend their activities.

I agree. You don't have to defend it to anyone. I wasn't making the point that you do. However, that is what people are doing on this thread, discussing it. All I am doing is offering a way to debate the subject if you WANT to.

No. We're saying that reproductive (gametic) sex and sensual (somatic) sex are not the same thing, and there is no reason to hold them to the same standards.

For example, if I go to a sperm bank tomorrow, my sperm can be taken and used by just about anyone who wants it. I don't get to choose who uses my sperm to have ttheir babies. A lack of choice when it comes to sensual sex is something called rape, and it's a crime. However, when reproduction ceases to require sex, choice is less of an issue.

Another example. For repproductive sex, male orgasm is critical but female orgasm is pretty much pointless. For sensual sex, the pleasure of both people involved is very important, and thus, a man will often go to additional measures to make certain the girl he is having sex with does indeed achieve orgasm. This makes no reproductive sense, but makes perfect sense as far as sensuality goes.

Reproduction and sensuality are distinct goals. While it's certainly possible to achieve both with a single act, there's no reason to limit reproduction OR sensuality to where those two realms overlap.

[Dlx2]

There are all kinds of futile sex. Self-stimulation being probably the single most futile.

Here you go again saying that sex without the goal of reproduction is futile. Why can't you understand that otther people define the goal of their personal sex lives DIFFERENTLY than you define yours?

When a person masturbates, they are simply reminding themselves that having an orgasm feels good and encourages them to seek new opportunities to experience an orgasm.

Or....not.

[verv2]

Really? So when someone wants to have a baby, or a couple wants to have one together......what would you tell them to do?

I'll repeat the question (to Hooboy!)

[Griff]

Hardly, masturbation might be pleasurable, but it's nothing compared to sex with another.There's a difference between sex and lovemaking. If you're just having sex, spare yourself the risk of getting the Clap, and stay home with a Hustler.

[Griff]

There are all kinds of futile sex.You're still on that crap? Look, man, I'll rub your nose in it again: reproduction is a consequence of having sex, not the purpose. The purpose is to immensely enjoy it.

[verv2]

You're still on that crap? Look, man, I'll rub your nose in it again: reproduction is a consequence of having sex, not the purpose. The purpose is to immensely enjoy it.

I'll ask you also, If a heterosexual couple tells you that they want to have a baby, what would you tell them to do?

[Hooboy !!]

I'll repeat the question (to Hooboy!)
So when someone wants to have a baby, or a couple wants to have one together......what would you tell them to do?
I don't tell them anything. No need to. If they just leave things well enough alone, these kinds of things kind of take care of themselves.

[Hooboy !!]

You're still on that crap? Look, man, I'll rub your nose in it again: reproduction is a consequence of having sex, not the purpose. The purpose is to immensely enjoy it.
LMFAO

You are still wrong. That we enjoy sex is how we evolved to guarantee that we will procreate. Without it... we would have become extinct a long time ago.

[Griff]

I'll ask you also, If a heterosexual couple tells you that they want to have a baby, what would you tell them to do?Hey, what they gonna name it? That's the first question anyone asks for some reason. If I told them to do anything, I'd run over the regular precautionary checklist, including checking family histories and such. Just common sense things they probably already know to do.

[verv2]

:rolleyes: Right hooboy and Griff, great evasion. You know what my point what, so let's not BS. If you can't get real, it's not worth my time to duscuss it.

[Griff]

That we enjoy sex is how we evolved to guarantee that we will procreate.That we're here today is just a consequence of it, though. It wasn't the primary motivation for their behavior. Even those of our ancestors who actually sought to have offspring weren't thinking about the species and probably wouldn't have cared at the time if the rest of the species had lit itself on fire.

Without it... we would have become extinct a long time ago.Not at all, for, if one branch of the species had gone extinct, the way would merely have been cleared for a selectively stronger one. This is how evolution works. This is what happened to the Neanderthal Man. There was nothing wrong with them. It just happened that they were not prolific breeders. As proper, they receded as more prolific breeders increased in number. It's perfectly natural.

[Dlx2]

LMFAO

You are still wrong. That we enjoy sex is how we evolved to guarantee that we will procreate. Without it... we would have become extinct a long time ago.

The reason we evolved xenophobia is so that we'll kill off populations of people who are different from us and ensure the reproductive success of our own relatives.

Just because something worked well in the Pleistocene does not mean it works well today (or in the case of amniote sex, just because something worked well in the Carboniferous does not mean it necessarily has to work that way today).

[Smullyan-esque]

I'll ask you also, If a heterosexual couple tells you that they want to have a baby, what would you tell them to do?

I'll bite.
--------------------------------

I would tell them to have sex at the right time of the month.

I have to admit, this sounds like a good point. If people want to have a baby, the way to accomplish that is to have sex. It sure sounds like that means that the purpose of sex is to create babies.

Let's see if this type of reasoning works in other ways:

1) If I lived 200 years ago, and I had a bacterial infection, what would I do? I would use bread mold (penecillin) to cure the infection! So the purpose of bread mold is to kill bacteria.

Hmmm. That doesn't sound right.

Let's try again.

2) If my freezer has too much ice, what would I do? I would pull the plug, so the ice would melt! So, the purpose of the plug is to melt the ice.

Darn. That doesn't sound right either.

Maybe one more try.

3) If I wanted to post on the internet, what would I do? I would use my computer! So the purpose of a computer is to post on the internet.

Well, that one almost works. Sometimes the purpose of a computer is to post on the internet. Sometimes it isn't. Some computers don't even hook up to the internet!

Overall, it doesn't look like your question really accomplished what you think it does. Just because one possible purpose of sex is to have children does not mean that that is the only possible purpose, or even the primary purpose of sex.

[Griff]

Verv, I'm really not sure of the point of your question. I gave it a straightforward answer, as I understood it. Did I take it too literally? I understood that you wanted to know what I would tell a young couple who was interested in having a kid, and I answered you with exactly what I would actually say to them. If there's something else you were driving at, come out with it because I'm too slow with these things to pick it up anytime today.

[Hooboy !!]

It wasn't the primary motivation for their behavior.
Wrong. It is the only motivator. All living things must reproduce, or they become exitinct. Period.

Even those of our ancestors who actually sought to have offspring weren't thinking about the species
BTW, procreation has absolutley nothing to do with the species. This is a common misconception about individual behavior. The individual just doesn't give a fuck about the species.

This is how evolution works.
It is pretty clear that you don't have a clue how evolution works.

[Hooboy !!]

<bla bla bla> xenophobia <bla bla bla> kill <bla bla bla> different
Apparently, you seem to think it is possible to simply ignore millions of years of evolution when it comes to human behavior. Oh and, this has absolutely nothing to do with genocide, ethnic cleansing, or survival of the fittest. It is about reproduction, which does not necessarily require confrontational, antagonistic, competition for mates with mating peers. Some species reproduce just fine in a polyandric systems.

[Starshark]

Apparently, you seem to think it is possible to simply ignore millions of years of evolution when it comes to human behavior. Oh and, this has absolutely nothing to do with genocide, ethnic cleansing, or survival of the fittest. It is about reproduction, which does not necessarily require confrontational, antagonistic, competition for mates with mating peers. Some species reproduce just fine in a polyandric systems.

Evolutionary developments aren't always a great long-term strategy survival tactic. Evolution only looks as far as the next generation. As long as you can reproduce, there's no pressure to adapt. Sometimes, evolution can outsmart itself.

We're seeing an example of this right now. All of the problems with the plaent which will affect the long-term survival of humanity can be summed up in one word: Overpopulation. Global warming, environmental decay, resources petering out, and other problems, are all a by-product of overpopulation. If we continue in our population explosion, eventually we will die out as a result of our inability to ignore our reproduction instincts.

Really, (non-reproducing) homosexuals and people who aren't reproducing are making the more moral action than those having babies.

[Dlx2]

Apparently, you seem to think it is possible to simply ignore millions of years of evolution when it comes to human behavior. Oh and, this has absolutely nothing to do with genocide, ethnic cleansing, or survival of the fittest. It is about reproduction, which does not necessarily require confrontational, antagonistic, competition for mates with mating peers. Some species reproduce just fine in a polyandric systems.

Xennophobia, genocide, etc are all evolutionarily successful behaviors. Human xenophobia is something that has been bred into us through millions of years of evolution; you see this throughout social mammals, for example.

As far as reproduction goes, the most evolutionarily successful route for me to take would entail knocking up as many women as possible and leaving some other poor sap to raise those children. Mate deception and so forth is highly selected for in most taxa, including so-called "monogamous" taxa.

Trust me, you do not want to bring evolutionary fitness into this. There is really no worse thing you could do to defend your position.

[Dlx2]

Wrong. It is the only motivator. All living things must reproduce, or they become exitinct. Period.

I suggest you look into eusocial haplodiploid insects. Only a small proportion of the insects in a given colony are actually reproductives.

BTW, procreation has absolutley nothing to do with the species. This is a common misconception about individual behavior. The individual just doesn't give a fuck about the species.

Which is why genocide and xenophobia are evolutionarily successful behaviors.

It is pretty clear that you don't have a clue how evolution works.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Dlx2]

I'll ask you also, If a heterosexual couple tells you that they want to have a baby, what would you tell them to do?

I would tell them to stop using birth control. That or get a psychological exam to make sure they're not entirely crazy.

[jobot]

How many people here have sex hoping not to procreate?

(Raises hand)

[Dlx2]

How many people here have sex hoping not to procreate?

(Raises hand)

Hooray for the pill.

[Griff]

Wrong. It is the only motivator.It's not a motivator at all, though.

All living things must reproduce, or they become exitinct. Period.Individuals don't go extinct.

BTW, procreation has absolutley nothing to do with the species.You're the one who went off on the subject, laughing boy.

It is pretty clear that you don't have a clue how evolution works.You're wrong, though. I know quite a bit about how it works, or I wouldn't be attempting to educate you on it. Your logic is upside-down. Evolution works based on how far a member of a species produces below its maximum capacity. If a species of newt can produce a maximum of a dozen surviving, fully reproductive offspring in a lifetime, the direction the species evolves in depends upon which members produce merely eleven, ten, nine, eight, seven, a half-dozen, five, four, three, two, one, or none. In this way, the strains which produce less recede from the genepool, and the species remains strong. For the same reason, it is vitally important to the future of our species to allow those who don't care to have kids not to do so.

[verv2]

Overall, it doesn't look like your question really accomplished what you think it does. Just because one possible purpose of sex is to have children does not mean that that is the only possible purpose, or even the primary purpose of sex.

Thank You, That is all I've been saying! Yet it seems that other's don't want to acknowledge that someone might actually have sex for the sole purpose of procreation.

In fact many couples purchase ovulation tests in order to be able to have sex at the most opportune time to get pregnant. They would not necessarily be having sex at that moment if they weren't attempting to procreate. Also many time when they have sex and how often during the times they want to get pregnant.

Otherwise, I raise my hand!

[Dlx2]

Thank You, That is all I've been saying! Yet it seems that other's don't want to acknowledge that someone might actually have sex for the sole purpose of procreation.

No, I'm saying that equivocating sex and procreation is fallacious. Period.


In fact many couples purchase ovulation tests in order to be able to have sex at the most opportune time to get pregnant. They would not necessarily be having sex at that moment if they weren't attempting to procreate. Also many time when they have sex and how often during the times they want to get pregnant.

It's good to know that there are people out there who want to waste money to ruin their lives, the lives of their children, and wreck any hope of keeping our population sustainable.

People kill each other. Doesn't mean we should condone it. People have wanton sex for procreation. Doesn't mean we should condone it. Procreation has more effects on society in general than private, consensual, and nonprocreative sex.

I will emphasize this again. The people who need to defend their decision are those who have sex FOR the purpose of procreation, because their actions affect others. Those who have consensual sex and preclude reproduction via birth control methods or sexual behavior besides vaginal intercourse do not have this same ethical burden to defend.

[Hooboy !!]

You're wrong, though. I know quite a bit about how it works, or I wouldn't be attempting to educate you on it.
LMFAO

Evolution works based on how far a member of a species produces below its maximum capacity.
What?

the strains which produce less recede from the genepool, and the species remains strong.
Wrong. If of those offspring, none survive to reproduce, then it does not matter how many offspring they have.

[Griff]

LMFAO...

Wrong.Nope. It still works just as I said.

If of those offspring, none survive to reproduce, then it does not matter how many offspring they have.I clearly specified surviving offspring if you'll reread my post.

Open yourself to the possibility of learning something instead of just showing once again how determined you are to end a meaningless discussion as ignorant as when you began it, a meaningless display. You are an old man, and you have become so set in your beliefs that you cannot conceive of the possibility that changing some of them could serve to make you a wiser and better person. Well, right now I'm prodding you to take a moment for introspective in spite of yourself. Actually back off from the confrontational realm of internet forum debate, and give your views thorough reveiw. Just end this discussion right now, and think your feelings over for a fucking change.

I may have a vested interest in this, but I'm also an aspergean. Duplicity is not in my nature. I'm not saying any of this to try to make a fool of you. I put my views and beliefs through the wringer, and I wouldn't voice them if I didn't honestly think they were logical. I don't like the way you've been treating my views here. Really, I don't think that I'm under any obligation to bother myself further with a person who doesn't even have the respectability to give fair hearing to others' ideas. I wouldn't be as pissed off at this point as I am if you had picked apart my views and explained to me in detail what's wrong with them because that would have served to make me a stronger thinker, a wiser man, and a better person. You have done none of this for me. You're not even interesting to talk to. I'm done with you.

[verv2]

I will emphasize this again. The people who need to defend their decision are those who have sex FOR the purpose of procreation, because their actions affect others. Those who have consensual sex and preclude reproduction via birth control methods or sexual behavior besides vaginal intercourse do not have this same ethical burden to defend.

So let me see if I understand your logic correctly........
1. those who have consensual sex for the purpose of procreation have to defend themselves because their actions create an ethical burden on society.
2. a couple that wants to have children, and thus tries to have a child, must defend themselves because they are creating and ethical burden on society.
3. parents create ethical burdens on society.
4. We all have been created by parents
5. we are all ethical burdens on society.
that's the DAS I've ever heard.