Cynthia Nixon states she's "gay by choice". Does this harm the LGBT community?

[XT]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Greater efficiency and ability to survive. By evolution. Though I have to admit I’m a bit confused on how the genitalia of the two sexes evolved in a way that they were in sync. But that is fodder for another thread.
[/QUOTE]

Those aren’t designs, they are adaptations. I don’t know why you are confused that genitalia can be used in different ways, since basically they ARE used in different ways depending on what is needed at the time. Sometimes they are used for waste disposal, sometimes they are used for procreation. Sometimes they are simply used for pleasure, which is ALSO an adaptation. Sometimes, depending on ones kinks, they are used all together at once.

Only if you define “intended use of the body” as “every possible use of the body”. Which is odd to say the least. But based on your thinking, it seems that just because I can use a screwdriver to pop open a paint can or scratch an itch on my back, that it was not designed to turn screws. Hell, might as well ask the question: was the screwdriver designed to turn screws? Why or why not?

A screwdriver is purposely and specifically designed for one use as a tool. That you can use that tool for other purposes just means it’s a versatile tool. Human beings aren’t single use tools, and aren’t purposely designed for anything, including simple procreation. Human sexuality, in all it’s diversity (including homosexual behavior) is part of our adaption to facilitate sex and bonding, both for the purposes of procreation AND social bonding and construction. Even a cursory understanding of human sexuality demonstrates that penis to vagina intercourse is hardly the only sexual option used by men and women, and that procreation is hardly the only desired effect of sexual contact EVEN IN HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS. That’s what you get when a species evolves instead of is created as a specific tool. And all of this handwaving about design and specific use for genitalia really doesn’t help whatever case you think you are making. See, ‘natural’ human sexuality doesn’t encompass the narrow aspect of procreation only.

Let’s start with the question about the screwdriver: was it or was it not designed specifically to turn screws? I’ll make it even easier for you to get the right answer: was a Philips head screwdriver designed to turn philips he’d screws? Yes or no? Why or why not? answer that and then I’ll be able to address the rest of your post.

Because it’s DESIGNED to be that way for a specific purpose. Seriously…do you think this line of thinking is forwarding some point here?

-XT

[Marley23]

@magellan01

Marley23, you seem to have missed my questions about the screwdriver.

In case this was not obvious for some reason, I’m ignoring it. You’re piling analogy on top of analogy to prove a point that doesn’t mean anything to anyone else and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

[Miller]

@magellan01

Because it doesn’t call upon the human body to be used in complementary fashion with a person of the opposite sex.

So? Opposable thumbs also don’t call upon the human body to be used in a complimentary fashion with a person of the opposite sex, but that still made the cut for your list of “natural elegance in nature.”

It seeks to ignore the fact that penises and vaginas were made to come together. Now, that may not be a bad thing, and Im not implying that i is. Only that there is an elegance in nature that can be seen when things that have evolved are put to the use to which evolution encouraged.

No, it doesn’t “seek to ignore” anything. Rather, it acknowledges that penises and anuses were “meant” to come to together in precisely the same fashion as penis and vaginas were “meant” to come together. (Or tongues and clits, for you ladies out there.)

See, this is the problem with talking about what nature “meant” us to do. Everything humans do is a result of nature, and the evolutionary path that got us here. Reproductive sex? Result of evolution. Non-reproductive sex? Also the result of evolution. Opposable thumbs? Evolution. Hunting with a spear? Evolution. Building a car? Evolution. Yelling at each other over the internet? Evolution. Everything we are, everything we do, is a result of the natural environmental stressors that shaped our evolution into our current status. And, of course, continues to shape us to this day. As you mention in a later post:

What do you think adaptation is? It’s constant redesign. Evolution is constantly redesigning things to work better and to address change. For instance the shape of bird beaks evolved to result in beaks better designed to take advantage of local food sources.

Which is another one of those examples you like to bring up that shoots holes in your own argument. Because for every bird with a beak that’s specially “designed” to, say, root around in tree bark looking for grubs, there was a point in that species evolution where its beak was not “designed” for that purpose. But when it found itself in an environment where there was a lot of untapped protein in grub-form, it started using its beaks in a way that wasn’t “intended” by nature. And after doing that for many, many generations, the species changed until it appears, at least from our anthropic viewpoint, to have been designed for just that purpose.

So, at what point exactly did our bird start to be an example of “natural elegance?” The answer, of course, is that the natural elegance lies not in the bird itself, but in the processes that shaped the bird to be a more perfect fit for its environment. And that same elegance is also in play in humans, where we evolved to be a more perfect fit for our environment by having some members of our species be sexually attracted to members of their own gender.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@magellan01

Only if you define “intended use of the body” as “every possible use of the body”. Which is odd to say the least. But based on your thinking, it seems that just because I can use a screwdriver to pop open a paint can or scratch an itch on my back, that it was not designed to turn screws. Hell, might as well ask the question: was the screwdriver designed to turn screws? Why or why not?

Er, that’s a bit of a bad question. I own a screwdriver that in fact is specifically designed in order to be helpful in opening paint cans (it also has a ruler built into it, so you don’t have to swap tools all the time). Primarily it’s for screwing, but it also has those nifty features.

I have to say, genitalia seem also pretty effective in homosexual sex as they do with heterosexual sex. Given that it would seem homosexuality is something that’s effectively inherent to whatever extent in the human population, how are we to know that we haven’t evolved, designed by nature, to have those features, too? I mean, for things which are apparently utterly and only designed for one purpose, they seem remarkably good at doing these other things.

[magellan01]

@Miller

So? Opposable thumbs also don’t call upon the human body to be used in a complimentary fashion with a person of the opposite sex, but that still made the cut for your list of “natural elegance in nature.”

Yes.

@Miller

No, it doesn’t “seek to ignore” anything. Rather, it acknowledges that penises and anuses were “meant” to come to together in precisely the same fashion as penis and vaginas were “meant” to come together. (Or tongues and clits, for you ladies out there.)

Miller, you know I’m a fan, but this must be the single most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen you post. It’s one thing to hold an opinion that there’s nothing wrong with penises going into anuses, it’s quite another to say that it is just as natural to do that as to put it into a vagina.

@Miller

See, this is the problem with talking about what nature “meant” us to do. Everything humans do is a result of nature, and the evolutionary path that got us here. Reproductive sex? Result of evolution. Non-reproductive sex? Also the result of evolution. Opposable thumbs? Evolution. Hunting with a spear? Evolution. Building a car? Evolution. Yelling at each other over the internet? Evolution. Everything we are, everything we do, is a result of the natural environmental stressors that shaped our evolution into our current status.

There’s only a problem if you insist on coloring facts with your personal bias. Legs can be used to kick footballs, bounce on a trampoline, or do the Riverdance. And it’s wonderful they can be used for all these things, but they were intended to enable us to walk upright, and run—after food or away from danger.

@Miller

Which is another one of those examples you like to bring up that shoots holes in your own argument. Because for every bird with a beak that’s specially “designed” to, say, root around in tree bark looking for grubs, there was a point in that species evolution where its beak was not “designed” for that purpose. But when it found itself in an environment where there was a lot of untapped protein in grub-form, it started using its beaks in a way that wasn’t “intended” by nature. And after doing that for many, many generations, the species changed until it appears, at least from our anthropic viewpoint, to have been designed for just that purpose.

So, at what point exactly did our bird start to be an example of “natural elegance?” The answer, of course, is that the natural elegance lies not in the bird itself, but in the processes that shaped the bird to be a more perfect fit for its environment. And that same elegance is also in play in humans, where we evolved to be a more perfect fit for our environment by having some members of our species be sexually attracted to members of their own gender.

But that doesn’t get away from the fact that, as wonderful and super fabulous as homosexuality might be, the penis is not being used for the primary sexual purpose for which it was designed. Do you really think that if this was an analogy question on a test in which the example was “plug as to electrical outlet as:___________________”, that filling in the blank with “as penis is to vagina” is an equally good answer as “as penis is to anus”?

[magellan01]

@Marley23

In case this was not obvious for some reason, I’m ignoring it. You’re piling analogy on top of analogy to prove a point that doesn’t mean anything to anyone else and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

I think we both know that is not the real reason, but let me spell it out for you anyway. Your point was that because penises can do things other than go into vaginas that one can’t say that going into a vagina is not the intended (sexual) use for a penis. The simple analogy I presented to you…to show you the error in your position…was that of a screwdriver. Many uses, no doubt. But that doesn’t change the FACT that the intended use of a screwdriver is to turn screws. Now, you either agree with that simple fact, and sink your original objection, or you disagree with it and state publicly that it is your position that turning screws is not the intended use of a screwdriver.

So, which will it be?

My guess is that you’ll choose to try to ignore the question, due to the corner you’ve placed yourself in.

[XT]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Miller, you know I’m a fan, but this must be the single most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen you post. It’s one thing to hold an opinion that there’s nothing wrong with penises going into anuses, it’s quite another to say that it is just as natural to do that as to put it into a vagina.
[/QUOTE]

Why isn’t it ‘natural’? Hell, what IS ‘natural’? Considering that monkeys and other apes exhibit this behavior, even if you think that humans doing so is un-natural or whatever, I’d have to question where you are getting this from. A male (human or monkey, or dog or whatever) will attempt to stick his cock into ANYTHING, if it feels good…and that IS natural. We developed that way so that we’d WANT to stick our cocks into anything that would stand still long enough to let us.

There’s only a problem if you insist on coloring facts with your personal bias. Legs can be used to kick footballs, bounce on a trampoline, or do the Riverdance. And it’s wonderful they can be used for all these things, but they were intended to enable us to walk upright, and run—after food or away from danger.

Well, two things. First off, your blithe theory on why we walk upright does not match most of the theories I’ve seen from anthropologists as to why we walk upright. And, secondly, your underlying assumption that this was the ‘intended’ reason assumes some sort of plan, which doesn’t exist.

And, of course, your overall point is flawed, since human sexuality, including any use of penis or vagina IS ‘natural’ if humans exhibit it, since if it wasn’t we wouldn’t do it. It might be a minority behavior (though oral and anal sex is pretty common behaviors and has been with us for quite a long time, as a species), but if we as a species do it it’s ‘natural’, regardless of your personal views on it.

But that doesn’t get away from the fact that, as wonderful and super fabulous as homosexuality might be, the penis is not being used for the primary sexual purpose for which it was designed. Do you really think that if this was an analogy question on a test in which the example was “plug as to electrical outlet as:___________________”, that filling in the blank with “as penis is to vagina” is an equally good answer as “as penis is to anus”?

Seriously, do you really think this is a valid argument? Sex in humans fulfills many roles beyond procreation. Why do you think that humans, even in heterosexual relationships that have zero potential for child bearing (say, in relationships where one or both mates are unable to conceive, or when both are past child bearing) still have sex?? Or the fact that has been pointed out to you numerous times of heterosexual couples engaging in oral, anal, mammary or other non-procreative sexual acts?? Sex in the human animal is all about the bonding and social construction, primarily…and procreation is just one aspect of that, and not even the most important (since in our early history babies might have to be abandoned if there wasn’t enough food for them, or other related grim possibilities).

I don’t know why you continue down this dead end, to be honest. It’s pretty irrational.

-XT

[magellan01]

@Revenant_Threshold

Er, that’s a bit of a bad question. I own a screwdriver that in fact is specifically designed in order to be helpful in opening paint cans (it also has a ruler built into it, so you don’t have to swap tools all the time). Primarily it’s for screwing, but it also has those nifty features.

(above bolding mine)

You make my point, Rev. What you have is a hybrid that has been specifically designed to be a screwdriver and other things. I think you would grant that if hadn’t been “specifically designed” to do those other things that it would be an ordinary screwdriver, which intentionally designed to do what? Right, turn screws.

@Revenant_Threshold

I have to say, genitalia seem also pretty effective in homosexual sex as they do with heterosexual sex. Given that it would seem homosexuality is something that’s effectively inherent to whatever extent in the human population, how are we to know that we haven’t evolved, designed by nature, to have those features, too? I mean, for things which are apparently utterly and only designed for one purpose, they seem remarkably good at doing these other things.

I did not say that they couldn’t do other things, or do other things well. And I’m all for doing with your penis anything that gives you pleasure without hurting anyone. But what got us here is my claim that there is an elegance to a penis going into a vagina that other acts do not have. Even if someone, or I, might enjoy some of those other acts more than intercourse.

Gotta run again.

[Marley23]

@magellan01

I think we both know that is not the real reason

It’s absolutely the real reason. Please remind me- why does this matter again?

@magellan01

But what got us here is my claim that there is an elegance to a penis going into a vagina that other acts do not have.

Ah, there it is. Why does that matter? Why not just acknowledge that your preference (same as mine) is your preference, and someone else’s preference might differ? This stuff about elegance and intent is an unnecessary justification based on arbitary criteria.

[Ibn_Warraq]

I find all this discussion of the “comparability” of penises and vaginas quite humorous since just about the most powerful orgasms men can have are by having their prostates massaged.

As one wag put it; there are two types of men in this world, bottoms and those who have no idea what they’re missing.

In fact fear of ass-play is one of the ways people in the west are often more sexually repressed than people in the Middle East.

[magellan01]

@xtisme

Why isn’t it ‘natural’? Hell, what IS ‘natural’? Considering that monkeys and other apes exhibit this behavior, even if you think that humans doing so is un-natural or whatever, I’d have to question where you are getting this from. A male (human or monkey, or dog or whatever) will attempt to stick his cock into ANYTHING, if it feels good…and that IS natural. We developed that way so that we’d WANT to stick our cocks into anything that would stand still long enough to let us.

So, sticking our cocks in anything we can is natural? Is that right? And we know this because we see animals doing it, right? Well, there’s not a small amount wrong with this as an explanation for anything.

First, male lions will kill any cubs that are not their own. So, I guess you could say it is “natural”. How does that translate to it being okay for humans to do it?

Next, we have the notion that homosexual sex is natural because, well, the urge is there, in some, and monkeys do it. Well, I do agree it is natural (even though you seem to think I don’t hold that view). But the animal world is only evidence that the urge exists elsewhere in nature. So, it might argue for the act to be accepted, like it was in Ancient Greece, but it offers zero support for SSM.

Finally, I think you need to be careful about attempting to justify sexual behavior because males have a natural urge to slip their cock into anything that feels good. I know that it is not your intent, but the justification you offers also excuses rape, bestiality, and pedophilia. And pleased don’t anyone try to tell me that I’m equating homosexual sex with any of that grossness.

@xtisme

And, of course, your overall point is flawed, since human sexuality, including any use of penis or vagina IS ‘natural’ if humans exhibit it, since if it wasn’t we wouldn’t do it. It might be a minority behavior (though oral and anal sex is pretty common behaviors and has been with us for quite a long time, as a species), but if we as a species do it it’s ‘natural’, regardless of your personal views on it.

I never said that homosexual sex is not natural. Your assuming I think something I don’t. I think it is completely natural. I also think it is deviant (clinical definition) behavior. (Even with the parenthetical to clarify, $10 says someone will still come back with a pointing finger screaming "He said “deviant”!!!)

@xtisme

Seriously, do you really think this is a valid argument? Sex in humans fulfills many roles beyond procreation. Why do you think that humans, even in heterosexual relationships that have zero potential for child bearing (say, in relationships where one or both mates are unable to conceive, or when both are past child bearing) still have sex?? Or the fact that has been pointed out to you numerous times of heterosexual couples engaging in oral, anal, mammary or other non-procreative sexual acts?? Sex in the human animal is all about the bonding and social construction, primarily…and procreation is just one aspect of that, and not even the most important (since in our early history babies might have to be abandoned if there wasn’t enough food for them, or other related grim possibilities).

Again, you seem to think I hold positions I do not hold. I’d ask you to reread the thread a little more carefully.

[XT]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
First, male lions will kill any cubs that are not their own. So, I guess you could say it is “natural”. How does that translate to it being okay for humans to do it?
[/QUOTE]

Of COURSE that is natural…for lions. Sheesh. It’s not CULTURALLY acceptable for humans to do this (though that hasn’t always been the case). What you think this has to do with the subject under discussion is a mystery to me.

Next, we have the notion that homosexual sex is natural because, well, the urge is there, in some, and monkeys do it. Well, I do agree it is natural (even though you seem to think I don’t hold that view). But the animal world is only evidence that the urge exists elsewhere in nature. So, it might argue for the act to be accepted, like it was in Ancient Greece, but it offers zero support for SSM.

Your logic is truly dizzying. We were discussing homosexual behavior here, which you seem to be conceding is ‘natural’ (now). CULTURALLY, SSM hasn’t been acceptable in most communities, but as culture can change and adapt over time, that attitude is slowly changing.

To put this into perspective, there was a time not to long ago when inter-racial marriages weren’t acceptable, culturally, in some countries (including the US). That wasn’t because mixed marriages were ‘unnatural’, but because they simply weren’t CULTURALLY acceptable. Well, this is pretty much the same exact thing. And has nothing to do with penises and vaginas ‘naturally’ fit together, and that this is the only ‘natural’ way to fit our various parts together…or whatever you were getting at there (it seems to be shifting, which might be a good thing).

Finally, I think you need to be careful about attempting to justify sexual behavior because males have a natural urge to slip their cock into anything that feels good. I know that it is not your intent, but the justification you offers also excuses rape, bestiality, and pedophilia. And pleased don’t anyone try to tell me that I’m equating homosexual sex with any of that grossness.

I’m not ‘justifying’ anything. CULTURALLY, many of those things you mentioned might not be acceptable. Doesn’t mean they are ‘unnatural’, however, regardless of how distasteful they are. That’s the point I was trying to make. Justifications aren’t in it.

I never said that homosexual sex is not natural. Your assuming I think something I don’t. I think it is completely natural. I also think it is deviant (clinical definition) behavior. (Even with the parenthetical to clarify, $10 says someone will still come back with a pointing finger screaming "He said “deviant”!!!

Semantics. It’s minority behavior, but that doesn’t mean it’s deviant OR unnatural. Basically, if humans do it then it’s natural, even if you or someone else might not like it much, or even if culturally it’s not acceptable.

Again, you seem to think I hold positions I do not hold. I’d ask you to reread the thread a little more carefully.

Since I don’t seem to be the only one with this impression I’m going to assume I am reading the thread correctly, as well as the responses, and that perhaps it’s you that needs to read a little more carefully. Especially after trying the ‘justify’ gambit above to muddy the waters.

-XT

[Marley23]

@magellan01

So, sticking our cocks in anything we can is natural? Is that right?

Pick some presidents and presidential candidates at random. Pick some dirtballs who just had an opportunity or a couple of drinks. Yes, it’s pretty natural

First, male lions will kill any cubs that are not their own. So, I guess you could say it is “natural”. How does that translate to it being okay for humans to do it?

We weren’t discussing whether or not it’s OK. We were discussing your comments about the intent of evolution, the purpose of our bodies, and the aesthetics or natural beauty or sex. You were saying anal sex is less beautiful/aesthetics/whatever than vaginal sex because it interferes with the functions of our bodies (we’re left to wonder how) and because it’s not how those parts of your bodies were intended to be used. The problem with that is that it’s wrong and doesn’t make a lot of sense. You’re not going to reproduce that way, but evolution doesn’t care about that (to continue with your habit of attributing intent to evolution). There’s no evolutionary preference that pregnancy be possible every time people have sex. If that were the case, we might have a shorter gestational time or any number of other features. As long as the genes are being passed on, it doesn’t matter if there’s extra sex - and nonprocreative sex does seem to have some other advantages in terms of bonding.

Finally, I think you need to be careful about attempting to justify sexual behavior because males have a natural urge to slip their cock into anything that feels good. I know that it is not your intent, but the justification you offers also excuses rape, bestiality, and pedophilia.

Again, we aren’t talking about justifications based on nature. Humans have decided that lot of stuff that might be considered natural really sucks to have done to you, so it’s discouraged for ethical reasons.

[ctnguy]

It’s the usual bait-and-switch.

“Homosexual sex is worse because it’s unnatural.”
“But it is natural; what about [insert any number of examples from the animal world]?”
“So what? Just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s OK. We don’t have to stoop to the level of animals.”
“… :smack:”

[Miller]

@magellan01

Miller, you know I’m a fan, but this must be the single most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen you post. It’s one thing to hold an opinion that there’s nothing wrong with penises going into anuses, it’s quite another to say that it is just as natural to do that as to put it into a vagina.

Why is that ridiculous? How is anal sex any less a product of our evolutionary heritage than gendered reproduction?

There’s only a problem if you insist on coloring facts with your personal bias. Legs can be used to kick footballs, bounce on a trampoline, or do the Riverdance. And it’s wonderful they can be used for all these things, but they were intended to enable us to walk upright, and run—after food or away from danger.

That’s simply not true. All of those things we can do with our legs, we can do because at some point there was an evolutionary advantage to it. Being able to use our limbs as weapons (kicking things), the use of tools to enhance our natural prowess (inventing and building a trampoline), and social display of said prowess to impress potential mates (dancing) all gave us evolutionary advantages in one regard or another. Homosexuality is no different. We evolved to reproduce through heterosexual intercourse, true. We also evolved to feel pleasure from sex. We evolved to have sex for non-reproductive reasons. We evolved to feel intense emotional bonds with people with whom we have sex. And we evolved to feel, and occasionally prefer, those bonds with people of our own gender. None of these traits are “more natural” than any other, and although some clearly are more important to the survival of the species, they are all part of the greater system of human sexuality, which is, as a whole, a natural product of the evolution of our species.

[crowmanyclouds]

I’m really sad that we aren’t a super advanced member of the genus Afrocimex.

'Cause magellan01 would be here extolling the elegant nature of traumatic insemination.

CMC fnord!

[Shodan]

@Miller

Why is that ridiculous? How is anal sex any less a product of our evolutionary heritage than gendered reproduction?

Because anal sex doesn’t lead to reproduction, and cannot therefore directly affect it. Gender reproduction leads directly to genetic diversity. Anal sex does not.

If anal sex were just as much a product of evolution as gendered reproduction, it would be as nearly universal among the higher orders as gendered reproduction. It isn’t.

Regards,
Shodan

[StusBlues]

@crowmanyclouds

Traumatic Insemination

Bandname.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@magellan01

(above bolding mine)You make my point, Rev. What you have is a hybrid that has been specifically designed to be a screwdriver and other things. I think you would grant that if hadn’t been “specifically designed” to do those other things that it would be an ordinary screwdriver, which intentionally designed to do what? Right, turn screws.

I agree.

I did not say that they couldn’t do other things, or do other things well. And I’m all for doing with your penis anything that gives you pleasure without hurting anyone. But what got us here is my claim that there is an elegance to a penis going into a vagina that other acts do not have. Even if someone, or I, might enjoy some of those other acts more than intercourse.

Right. So here’s the question; how do you tell the difference between a thing which has been designed specifically to do two or more things, and something which has been specifically designed to do one thing but just so happens to also be good at other things?

[FinnAgain]

@Shodan

Because anal sex doesn’t lead to reproduction, and cannot therefore directly affect it.

Well… there is, however, evidence that having gay children may increase women’s overall fertility. If that’s correct, then homosexuality is an evolutionary strategy.