I think I already addressed this by saying “who cares?” You have your opinion on the subject (which I generally agree with as a straight guy), and other people disagree. Nobody is proposing that anybody has to have sex with anyone they don’t want to or have any kind of relationship they’re not interested in. Letting our opinions on what’s gross and what’s not drive laws and policy is intrusive, irrational, and just plain ridiculous. David42 is free to be disgusted by anal sex, but he seems more than a little preoccupied with the sex thing, and the offense and insult that he derives from that view are just absurd. His posts make it obvious he is seeing grossness and sex and insults in places they clearly do not exist. People who are opposed to same-sex marriage usually insist that their views are driven by morality and tradition and not simple disgust like this, but this would be a counterexample.
“Genetics” in the sense of “characteristic of the species generally” is not relevant to questions of whether or not “genetics” lies at the root of some divergent characteristic within the species.
Not so. It is well-established, for example, that maternal age (either too young or too old) is a congenital risk-factor, and the pattern is neither “wildly divergent” nor absent.
Do you know that the vast majority of women cannot climax from intercourse alone? From where I sit, lesbian sex is FAR more beautiful, natural, and elegant. If you ask me, tongues, not dicks, were made for the vulva (and fingers. fingers too).
But, I actually think this whole discussion is stupid. OF COURSE you think hetero sex is the best; you’re a heterosexual! I’ve heard gay men describe their sex acts in such a way that I was left breathless and sweaty, blown away by the beauty and passion. And for a moment, yes, it did seem like that must be the most perfect way to make love. But then I look around at the other people I know; straight, lesbian, poly, and I know that when any of them have sex it is beautiful and wonderful.
But even when I see that ugly couple making eyes at each other, it would never occur to me that their love was “less than” just because watching them fuck doesn’t turn me on. You don’t think it does, do you?
Cynthia Nixonclarifies her position on ‘gay by choice’ for The Advocate. (She chooses to be gay, she is bisexual but not by choice.)
On the one hand, maybe a chance for her to clear up a misunderstanding. On the other, has has a whiff of Stalinist bureaucrats “clarifying” their positions after an intense session of groupthink.
Now that’s what I call irony.
I’d certainly expect most heterosexuals to view heterosexual intercourse that way. I know quite a few homosexuals who feel that way about homosexual intercourse. For myself, speaking as someone who has had sex with women, men, women who used to be men, and men who used to be women, it’s all just sex. It’s different with each partner, but never in a way that can be reliably mapped to gender.
I certainly don’t begrudge him his preferences, but I think it is unreasonable to want to see those preferences enshrined in law.
You seem to be arguing that beauty is objective. That natural elegance is objective. I’ve heard people talk in the same kinds of terms about all sorts of things. I pick this because it’s possibly the thing I most disagree with; i’ve heard people talk about maths in such words, and I for sure don’t see that.
I can understand that people might consider there to be some beauty or natural elegance about a thing I do not, just as I might find a particular painting beautiful but you see it as a piece of shit, or vice versa. I disagree, but I can understand the idea. I can entirely accept that David42 feels the way he does. I vehemently disagree that he (and you, judging by the phrasing you use to describe it) are talking about an objective standard. And while I understand differing subjective experiences, I would vehemently disagree that such experiences have any kind of worth whatsoever when it comes to deciding law. And the notion of making important objective decisions based on such subjective standards, or even including them as some minor but effective evidence, worries me a great deal, as i’d hope it would most people.
Gee, I’ve called someone a dickshit a few times, but I never meant it literally.
In addition to What They Said, I’ll add that not all homosexuals have anal sex (not even all gay men have anal sex!), and not all heterosexuals have penis-in-vagina sex. My SO and I, thanks to a wicked case of ED brought about by blood pressure medications, hardly ever have penis-in-vagina sex. Our other sex acts are just as beautiful to me as our penis-in-vagina sex.
So if you’re going to act prejudicially towards someone because of their favored sex act, you might want to actually check to see that they’re even *doing *that sex act. Knowing their sexual orientation doesn’t give you that information, by a long shot.
But the physical coming together of a woman’s mouth and another woman’s pussy has a beauty and natural elegance to it that heterosexual sex just doesn’t have.
Nice way to miss the point, everyone. I’m not arguing that ANY sex act is worthy of granting rights for. I don’t hold there is inherent beauty in penis/vagina, or that others can’t have it. it’s an entirely subjective question.
My point is that the creation of life is worthy of elevation. The fact that it is associated with one particular sex act isn’t to say that act is the most beautiful and all others disgusting. i fully support all types of sex acts outside of rape and child molestation being legal for each person to do as he/she sees fit. But I’m not elevating anybody based on what kind of sex gets you off. I’ll elevate your relationship if it is focused on creating life.
heterosexuals tend to have children. That is worthy of elevation over other relationships that don’t. To me it’s a simple as choosing life over death.
(And no, Miller, I’m not talking to you as long as the literacy problem exists.)
Now that Cynthia nixon has said she si a bisexual that is choosing to be gay, does this resolve the issue for all concerned?
Civil rights are accorded to people based on their citizenship status, which is determined by a variety of factors that don’t include congenital biological traits. Therefore, regarding the right to marry or any other civil right, it’s irrelevant whether homosexuality is a biological compulsion. In fact it’s a harmful distraction. because then homophobes can lump in homosexuality with innately compelled behaviors that are truly and unquestionably repulsive.
It’s far better just to say that because we all agree discrimination is wrong, then it is plainly wrong to deny homosexuals a right that is freely given to heterosexuals. Biology is irrelevant to discussions of civil rights, unless you’re on the side that is trying to deny them.
And what does that have to do with marriage? You can have a marriage without having children, and you can have children without getting married. You can get married and then adopt someone else’s children. There are all sorts of permutations here, and none of it has anything to do with elevating the creation of life. Nobody is asking that you applaud the kind of sex they want to have. We’re talking about relationships and love here.
So shouldn’t we wait to see if any particular heterosexual couple can and do produce life together before we issue them a marriage license? I mean, since it’s the production of children, not the sex act, that you find worthy of elevation?
That’d put a heck of a spin on the “no sex before marriage” types!
It is true that there are outliers that do not conform to the core concept. The existence of an outlier doesn’t automatically mean that all other conceivable outliers must be included. Instead, outliers that don’t meet the core function ought to be shaken off. But then the question becomes one of how reasonable the means of ridding outliers is?
I do not think that we could shake off the outliers of infertile couples and those who never intend children by any means that’s not pretty invasive of their privacy.
Thus we have the outliers. We need not engage in invading the privacy of any of the currently excluded groups of “consenting adults” that are not entitled to marriage in order to continue to fail to include them as yet another outlier. You can see it from the face of the matter and need not delve in with questions.
The further inclusion of outliers results in further dilution of the concept.
We don’t have a clue what it means anymore.
It sure would. I suppose the best way to do it would be to see which way of doing it led to the creation of more stable families.
That’s also true with regard to gay couples: you’re excluding them based on assumptions about their intention with regard to families and based on your views of the sex some of them have. And I don’t think you’ve addressed my question. Unmarried couples with children and childless married couples aren’t an “outlier.” Both are quite common, so it’s evident that they’re not determining factors in marriage. So the question is, how does your unique version of what marriage is hold up to scrutiny? It doesn’t look like it does at all. Marriage isn’t a celebration of procreative sex.
You’re proposing the concept by diluted by means of arbitrary exclusion.
Your views on what marriage is really about are very unique, and I think they’re shared by practically nobody. Even opponents of gay marriage don’t oppose it for the reasons you’ve cited. So I don’t think “we” forgot what marriage means. I also know that the meaning of marriage has changed a great deal over the centuries, and I think those changes are for the better. For most people, it means what they want it to mean. Saying the meaning has gone away shows a lack of historical context, I think.
Man, this thread has really strayed off the rails from the original OP. :eek:
[QUOTE=David42]
My point is that the creation of life is worthy of elevation. The fact that it is associated with one particular sex act isn’t to say that act is the most beautiful and all others disgusting. i fully support all types of sex acts outside of rape and child molestation being legal for each person to do as he/she sees fit. But I’m not elevating anybody based on what kind of sex gets you off. I’ll elevate your relationship if it is focused on creating life.
[/QUOTE]
So, what are your thoughts on couples (men and women) who get married and DON’T have children? Is that not a marriage? Should they not be allowed to marry unless they procreate? Should they have their rights (legal) suspended unless they produce a child? :dubious:
This whole argument is complete horseshit, since you aren’t going to take away a man and a woman’s right to marry if they don’t produce a child. Nor are you going to elevate a gay couple who DOES have children (you do realize that women can get artificially inseminated, and men could find surrogate women to have their children for them, right? Even leaving aside adoption).
-XT
[quote=“xtisme, post:158, topic:610554”]
Man, this thread has really strayed off the rails from the original OP. :eek:
State-forced divorce? Never heard of that. Who’s to say they aren’t going to conceive the next day? It’s the idea that they might that is important.
Actually some sham marriages are pretty offensive too, and anytime there is an effective way to eliminate these that is not overly invasive then I would be for it. Like fake marriages where a person pays their spouse to marry and they can get citizenship. I’ve never said “All man+woman relationships” must be allowed to marry.
Actually, the idea that marriage is all about children is very popular.