My best guess would be, the gay men are missing out on being with someone who has a vagina, and the lesbians are missing out on being with someone who has a penis.
Malacandra does say that they don’t mind “missing out.” Proabably, (I’d guess) no more than a straight woman “minds” missing out on hot lesbian sex, or no more than a straight man “minds” missing out on all that hot gay sex. You don’t mind missing out on what you don’t want.
Vaginal intercourse, Dio. Am I going too fast for you?
My point was that although I, for one, and a good many other people, know that this is pretty wonderful, gays don’t view what they are missing out on as any kind of deficiency or deprivation. It depends on whether you attach an emotional significance or a value-judgement to the phrase “missing out”.
Here’s a f’rinstance. A woman might tell me that I, being a man, am “missing out” by never knowing what childbirth is like. She’s quite right to say so; but I don’t consider myself impoverished by the lack.
passes Carrot a soapbox
Damn. Here I thought it was funny. Now it appears that my attempt at humor has been rebuffed.
I’ll get you yet, Malacandra.
Sorry, carrot, I thought you were hijacking - there are enough other gay-marriage-rights threads going on without sidetracking another (though what the hey, this thread might as well get put to some use).
Y’all have a good day now!
I don’t get it, don’t you feel an irrational fear and hatred for the non-notorious ones as well?
Ironically both this and the OP entail a spot of have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife. And where TheRyan went wrong was in failing to conclude that what OpalCat was actually saying was: “To a person capable of desiring and enjoying vaginal intercourse, a sex life without same is lacking something important”.
That a heterosexual, supposing herself to be addressing a predominantly heterosexual audience (since the discussion was about heterosexual practices and conception in the first place), should not trouble to cross every I and dot every T, is hardly a Pittable offence.
How so?
And how do you know that’s what she meant? Moreover, how would this be relevant? Sexual orientation and preferred sex acts are two different issues.
No, it’s not. Flying off the handle when asked to clarify, however, is. Moreover, this is hardly an issue of “crossing every I”. Homosexuals aren’t another species, you know.
A. is the answer. But only for person D.
Some women like oral sex performed on them, but they love a good fuck even more (no matter how good your oral “skills” are). Other women love oral sex and can’t even orgasm from intercourse, though lots still like the act. And then there are some women that you just need to bring a high speed shower massager/vibrator/jack hammer in to get the job done. But they still want more then a “device” usually. And then there’s the “Who needs a man, I’ve got a jack hammer!”
As for me, I prefer live chickens and crisco.
I think I read all that stuff in a book or something. 
The Ryan, on the one hand there’s a tongue-in-cheek query as to exactly which homosexuals I suffer an irrational fear from, which presupposes that I’m phobic about any of 'em - which isn’t the case. On the other hand your question about interpretation makes a presupposition that an assertion that a sex life without vaginal intercourse is missing something is intended, or can be validly interpreted as, any kind of a slur against queers.
Your mistake was to ignore the context. The discussion was about whether women who don’t want to get pregnant could use abstinence as a 100% effective contraceptive. Sure, if someone had started a thread out of the blue with the line “Anyone who doesn’t have vaginal intercourse is missing something” then yes, you’d have been entitled to look for the anti-gay slant; but as I’ve demonstrated above, the line works as a factual statement, without any value-judgment implicit in the phrase “missing something”, so a presumption of anti-gay intent would have been premature.
How do I know that’s what OpalCat meant? Well, I can’t present you with a mathematical proof. But look at it this way: Your point about gays representing a sizeable fraction of the population is right enough, but if I were in the middle of a conversation about Brit food eccentricities and remarked: “Anyone who’s never eaten a good steak and kidney pudding doesn’t know what they’re missing,” it would not be a suitable time to butt in and ask “Does that include vegetarians?” or “Does that include Hindus?”. It’s be another matter if the discussion was about vegetarianism or Hinduism in the first place.
Agreed it’s kinda small justification for getting mediaeval on your ass, though…
Well, as you said, it was tongue-in-cheek, and it was prompted by you labelling yourself as a homophobe. If someone called themselves a notorious wifebeater, and someone asked if they’ve stopped beating their wives, that wouldn’t be out of line.
Sorry, don’t see the connection. On one hand there’s the question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” which presupposes something, and which is asking a question based on the presumed state of affairs. On the other hand, there is my question, which supposes nothing, and which asks a question which apparently some people believe is such that an affirmative answer would indicate negative attitudes towards gays. I did not intend to imply that OpalCat was slurring homosexuals, and I do not see how that is a valid inference.
And the implied argument was that abstinence from reproductive sex was an unreasonable expectation. Yet homosexuals do so all the time.
I didn’t see a demonstration of how there is no value judgement. There is no more value judgement in my question than there is in the declaration. And I not presume an anti-gay slant; you are presuming a presumption of anti-gay slant.
Why not? Either those that haven’t eaten it don’t know what they’re missing, or they do. I don’t see how one’s vegetarianism or Hinduism would affect whether one knows what they’re missing. What, do vegetarians and Hindus have some special ability to know what they’re missing that the rest of us lack?
The Ryan, you wanted interpretation. I offered you one, including an attempt to explain why your multiple-choice OP didn’t in fact cover all the bases. Now you’re determined to argue with every word I say, and the plain fact of the matter is that I’m not emotionally invested enough in winning the argument to stick at it.
So: You’re right. I’m wrong.
Feel better now?