Texas may ban gay foster parents

[ShadowTemplar]

Skin, there's a thread on fair trade floating around somewhere around the top of the forum that's sorrily lacking responses. I suggest you move Spider's and your own posts on the issue of population max (suitably edited so that the other thread won't contract flame-war disease) to that thread to prevent this.

[Spider AL]

If you so wish Skin, just start a new thread and I'll edit the relevant bits into a new response. Shadow's way might involve messing up the posts...

[toms]

 

 

 

Just so you know, with these kind of threads i just tend to reply generally to the "feel" of the previous arguments, so I probaly wasn't responding specifically to your posts.

 

I rarely go through and pick out individual arguments and counter-point them in sequence as i find that too much work and hard to read.

 

--------

 

I still don't buy this "don't do it cos its more dangerous" argument. Humans (and indeed animals) often do things that are dangerous. Either because they are drivento do them by their genes or instincts... or because they make a concious decision that the risks are worth the rewards.

Just having sex is dangerous these days, as is snowboarding, or skateboarding, or horse jumping... or crossing the road, or especially driving. But we do them because we either NEED to do them or we get pleasure from doing them and decide the risks are worth it.

 

I'm also not convinced by your idea that we are all raving pro-homsexual advocates. Or that you can be somehow neutral in the middle in comparisson. There might be the odd extremist homosexual who wants to make everyone gay or something, but i've never met one.

I mentioned much earlier that arguments tend to end up with everyone taking more extreme positions than they might normally... so maybe this is the case here too.

But basically you have a small minority saying "we want to do our thing, which has no effect on any of you" and then you have another lot of people saying "you can't do YOUR thing because we don't like it".

All most of us are saying is that not liking something is no reason to sto someone else doing it. We aren't saying you have to like it too, or do it too, or watch it too or anything that might be considered biased or extremist. We are just saying... let them get on with it, they are big enough and ugly enough to make up their own mind.

 

To me that seems just as unbiased as your position.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Anus + KY = lubricated

Vagina + Natural lubricant + KY = better lubricated.

Anus loses, flawless victory.

 

You're using fallacious logic. At what point is lubrication under lubricated? Come on, now. Either you're lubricated or you aren't. I would accept your argument if you used "anus + saliva," since the latter is a poor lubricant, however, KY is demonstrably better than natural. It would be like saying that a house burning out of control would be more out of control if you threw on a few more matches. The end result is the same.

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

It's not designed to accomodate such an object, and therefore its structural tolerances are not high enough to safely do so.

 

I don't know of another way to say this than to be graphic, so I'll use the spoiler tag:

isn't it ironic that turds are phallic-shaped/sized?

Granted the former is perhaps less rigid than the latter, but morphological relationship is there. But, as I will reiterate later, I'll give you the structural difference between the vagina and the rectum. (damn... hope nobody quotes that last sentence in their signature.. )

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

As likely to be damaged... as the vagina? Surely you're joking. I've stated quite clearly previously the "basic anatomy" that the rectal walls are both thinner and less elastic than vaginal walls. That is why epidemiologists discussing the spread of severe STDs refer specifically to anal sex as "the highest risk".

 

Okay. Lets agree that the vaginal walls are thicker than the much thinner rectal walls. But the rectum does adapt. It becomes accustomed to the sexual act; as does the vagina. My point isn't that the vagina is physically as fragile as the rectum. My point is that both vaginal and rectal intercourse that are unprotected carry significant risks. I'll use quotes from your own sources:

 

"Transmission through unprotected vaginal sex is thought to be lower than anal sex, though still highly significant. However, where there is a risk of vaginal tears or sores, for example in the presence of a sexually transmitted infection, the risk of transmission is greatly increased."

 

" HIV can be absorbed into the woman's bloodstream during unprotected vaginal intercourse via tears in the vaginal wall, genital ulceration, an inflamed or traumatised cervix caused by cervicitis, or by absorption through the membrane of the cervical canal. Also, because semen remains in the vagina and around the cervix after intercourse, the risk of transmission is increased."

 

But if you want to maintain that all those that engage in anal intercourse fail to use lubrication and condoms while dyspareunia among females that engage in intercourse doesn't exist, then there will certainly be distances in the risk factors.

 

Promiscuity, my friend, increases the risks of heterosexuals to that of homosexuals, that is my point.

 

We have to recognize that as a society (or set of societies) we aren't going to "cure" people of homosexuality. Whether we agree or disagree on the cause of the condition, it does exist and it is a culture of people. A culture that believes itself to be valid.

 

The risks of homosexuality can be mitigated through education and prevention methods. As a disease, HIV/AIDS (as well as others) can be eliminated. Moreover, I would suggest that the very nature of the stigma that homosexual culture endures as well as stereotypical beliefs within it contribute heavily to the promiscuous nature of its participants. Once homosexuality becomes more accepted and tolerated by "mainstream" societies, then the need to rebel or present a counter-culture attitude by its members will subside.

 

Particularly if proper education is provided with regard to how to prevent disease. Ironically, this same education would help heterosexuals as well by stemming the growing number of promiscuous heterosexuals and thus preventing many unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

A man with HIV has consentual unprotected vaginal intercourse with a woman who does not have HIV. They use KY jelly.

 

A man with HIV has consentual unprotected anal sex with another man who does not have HIV. They use KY jelly.

 

Patently, the latter has a greater chance of infecting his partner. The number of other partners either of them have had has no bearing on this simple comparison. My statements have in NO WAY been based on the "promiscuity" angle, quite deliberately so I might add. QED.

 

I'd say that, based on the quotes that we've both provided from the sources you cited, that your "QED" is a bit premature. First, neither of your sources (the third didn't work for me) appeared to indicate that there was a "greater" chance of contraction. Indeed, the quotes I cited seem to suggest that the risks as presented by your argument above are around the same, based on anatomical characteristics of the female sex organs and their method of dealing with sperm.

 

Second, without promiscuity, neither of the couples in your hypothetical could have contracted HIV/AIDS to begin with. It is well understood that the heterosexual population is less promiscuous than the homosexual, obviously a cultural condition and not an anatomical one. And there is a large segment of the heterosexual population (which is growing) that is very promiscuous and at equal or greater risk to contracting HIV/AIDS than the entire homosexual population.

 

I doubt that there will be anything else to add from my perspective on the differences between risk factors between the two sexual orientations. In the end, I agree that if it could be boiled down to just physical anatomy, the rectum is at much greater risk of damage than the vagina during intercourse. But that would eliminate the cultural and social aspects of risks and risk management, which do have significant impacts in the spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS and STDs. Using Quod erat demonstrandum in a discussion of social issues is a slippery slope and only demonstrates a refusal to look further than what is readily measurable. Moreover, your assumption that it would be wrong to state that "promiscuous heterosexuals are as likely to contract HIV/AIDS as homosexuals" isn't "utterly wrong" or even slightly wrong, particularly when "the fastest growing method of transmission is heterosexual contact." Indeed, here's a graph based on CDC data that is at the link above:

 

I also think it to be quite a stretch to compare the vast number of sexual deviations and perversions that exist in humanity to the sexual orientation of the individual. When one speaks of homosexuality, it isn't the sex that is at the core of the relationship a homosexual couple has, it's the love and romance they feel for one-another. One cannot apply the same concept to other deviants that are attracted to "tickle-me-elmo" dolls, animals, children, etc. since these deviations don't involve consenting (let's not go down the slippery slope of whether a "child" can consent to sex or a relationship with an adult) relationships between to adult-human individuals that have romantic affection for each other and desire to commit that affection to each other in a monogamous manner.

 

I hope you aren't offended, but I have pity for those that cannot separate sexual attraction and sex from a relationship that runs far deeper. There is more to being in a relationship than engaging in sexual contact and romance need not be a prelude to this. I've been in several, monogamous, non-sex relationships with women that have, to this day, special meaning to me. Moreover, I've had relationships in which the feelings I had for the other person are more memorable than the sex (there are those relationships that are the opposite as well! ).

 

I believe that part of the problem with homosexual promiscuity arises from the stigma associated with the "lifestyle" applied by the heterosexual community. The homosexual culture "lives up to" the expectation that there is less morality and values among them. This might also explain the stereotype of the "flaming fag" with the limp wrist etc., which really is a minority of the homosexual population, but the most recognizable. I can't believe that simply being attracted to the same sex creates this set of stereotypical characteristics, but rather the expectation of it within and without the culture itself.

 

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

As for adoption, as previously stated there's no logical or scientific reason why homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt... provided they meet the same stringent requirements as hetero couples, that is.

 

And to that, we both agree.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Well, this attempt to equate homosexuality with any given 'fetish' - in relation to the topic at hand - works to an extent. But when taken too far (as is being attempted here) just get's silly.

I wouldn't actually equate homosexuality with 'perversion' at all myself, but I accept that's just my personal view, and I do accept it could be defined as 'perversion', depending on your definition of 'perversion'.

...but bringing 'humping sports bags' into it is just taking it way too far, and I'll explain why. But first I'll start a 'bit' less extreme.

 

I can see how someone could compare homosexuality to bondage / S'n'M / sticking fruits where the sun doesn't shine / whatever else.

...in the sense that if both adults are consenting and it's kept within the privacy of the bedroom, then it's only the business of those consenting adults and no-one elses - no matter what your personal opinion on the practice.

(Although of course you could argue certain practices would eventually have effects outside that bedroom, whether intended or not, but that's a broader discussion).

 

Should a couple who are into bondage / S'n'M / like-sticking-fruits-where-the-sun-doesn't-shine be allowed to adpot? If they kept it in the bedroom and they were both consenting?

..I would argue it shoudln't nessesarily be an indication of their value as parents. It would depend on how much it would worry you that the child concerned might find out about it (and perhaps get interested in it) I guess. And of course whether they were careful in keeping their private matters 'private' - even to that child.

I'd be interested in where you'd draw the line though. If an adult was ever caught (or heard) naughtily 'spanking' their partner, would that mean social services would have to be called in, dragging the kids kicking and screaming into the night - for their own safety...?!

I hope we can agree that would be a bit extreme

 

So anyway - back to homosexuality. When compared with the kind of stuff I've been talking about thus far, all fine and good. I can see the 'link' and I admit it's a fair and valid one.

...but 'humping sports bags'?! I mean come on. There of course is an obvious and clear difference.

 

Humping sports bags is not sex between two consenting adults - of any kind. It's masturbation using a prop! lol

Humping a goat - again - not consenting (Unless you think you can speak goat I suppose), let alone between adults.

Neither is sex with a minor. Remember - consenting adults.

 

So if your gonna go with the 'homosexuality is a perversion' argument, fine. You're free to debate it. But it's got to be stated clearly that going too far with it is not only illogical and misleading, it's also clearly insulting.

 

Wanna call me a rabid liberal? Go right ahead - I'm not really defined by your labels of course , but you're free to beleve that if it helps you sleep at night...

[SkinWalker]

CTBD! Welcome back!

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Hey Skin - just call me the ever-present lurker

 

Oh and just for the record, I do believe (and from the evidence I've seen - imo rightfully so) that on the whole homosexual behavoiur is generally inborn and not 'learned'. It doesn't affect my arguments above one iota. I'd have said all the same stuff when I was undecided as to whether homosexuality was inbuilt or learned (I've 'swung' - heh - to the mainly inborn side upon seeing the evidence I've seen).

I'll be happy to go over both my reasoning and the evidence if anybody would like. It's actually buried amongst old threads somewhere in these forums...

...oh and no, my evidence has nothing to do with genetics. (I am aware of the genetic evidence and argument, but I'm not convinced by it)

Genetics are not the full story. There are other things that can happen between conception and birth that can affect who we turn out to be. (I hope I'm not forced to 'prove' that fact!)

 

Of course homosexuals can 'experiment' with hetrosexuality, just as hetrosexuals can 'experiment' with homosexuality. This proves nothing more than people can go against their inbuilt natures / desires, for many different reasons...

 

But since whether homosexuality can be inborn or not - imo - is not directly related to the topic at hand, I won't go into it further unless it's proposed it's directly relavent.

..after all, I'm sure certain forms of homicidal tendancies coudl very well be inborn (to some extent, in some cases).

But if theoretically that was ever conclusively shown, that doesn't mean I want murderers to start adopting (because it's not their fault, they can't help it..! )

[Spider AL]

Toms:

 

I still don't buy this "don't do it cos its more dangerous" argument. Humans (and indeed animals) often do things that are dangerous.

Of course they do things that are dangerous. Walking out of your front door in the morning is "dangerous". The point is that certain things are LESS or MORE dangerous, and logically one should avoid the more dangerous things.

 

Presuming you believe life has value, that is. I believe it.

 

I'm also not convinced by your idea that we are all raving pro-homsexual advocates. Or that you can be somehow neutral in the middle in comparisson.

I am neutral. I have no vested interest in either thing. I don't really care whether children are adopted by straight parents, homosexual parents or alien parents. I don't care whether homosexuality is growing or shrinking... actually that's a lie. I would like homosexuality to grow, because a: we have a population problem and b: I like the idea of loads of frustrated, available women who can't find a straight man running around. I don't hold any pro or anti-gay political positions, I've never had my car stolen by a homosexual... I was brought up in a liberal household but discarded those values later... I am neutral.

 

Why am I debating, if I'm neutral?

 

I enjoy debating a subject logically, and arriving at what I consider to be the truth. It's really that simple.

 

There might be the odd extremist homosexual who wants to make everyone gay or something, but i've never met one.

I've met a few. They say things like "every straight man is just in the closet" and suchlike. I find them simultaneously amusing, and dangerous as all fanatics and extremists are amusing and dangerous, christian, muslem, feminist or homosexual. Extremism is dangerous. Dangerous for society, dangerous for freedom of choice, dangerous full stop.

 

 

SkinWalker:

 

At what point is lubrication under lubricated? Come on, now. Either you're lubricated or you aren't.

Incorrect Skin, any engineer will tell you that lubrication is not an oversimplified matter of "lubricated or not lubricated". Lubrication runs out, wears thin, or simply isn't sufficient for the job. Artificial or not, lubricant doesn't last forever, one must use enough for the job, and it'll still wear thin or be insufficient for the job depending on the level of force and therefore the level of friction involved. Therefore the more lubricant, the better.

 

My examples stand unchallenged.

 

Anus + KY = lubricated

Vagina + KY + natural lubricant = BETTAR!!!11

 

I would accept your argument if you used "anus + saliva,"

Ugh. Ugh. That's just icky.

 

 

Granted the former is perhaps less rigid than the latter

Are you seriously comparing a piece of fecal matter to a penis? The turd is specifically designed not to injure the rectal walls because it is NOT solid. Because it IS naturally lubricated with a coating of mucus... and EVEN THEN, people injure their passageways on turds all the time. Blood on the loo roll is a common occurrance with straining, low fibre diets, the combination of constipation and dry stools due to poor diet... etcetera.

 

Your argument is MASSIVELY flawed in this respect: That if the rectum can be injured even by the much softer substance that it was DESIGNED to transport... it will DEFINITELY be more likely to be injured by the passage therein of... not to be too frank, but... an engorged phallus.

 

My point isn't that the vagina is physically as fragile as the rectum. My point is that both vaginal and rectal intercourse that are unprotected carry significant risks.

Heh heh. And once again, your statement is meaningless. I could say: "vaginal intercourse and making toast both carry significant risks" and it would mean about as much as your unqualified, nonspecific statement there.

 

Once again, anal intercourse poses a GREATER risk. That is why, logically, one should not engage in it, just as one should logically not engage in the activity of running across a main road blindfolded.

 

Promiscuity, my friend, increases the risks of heterosexuals to that of homosexuals, that is my point.

But once again promiscuity is irrelevant to my point that bottom-shagging is inherently the most risky of sexual activities and logically should not be engaged in.

 

I'll use quotes from your own sources:

The quotes you've used do nothing to challenge the plain, simple fact that between the two passages, the anus is the more risky due to its fragility, blood borne diseases, yadda yadda yadda.

 

neither of your sources (the third didn't work for me) appeared to indicate that there was a "greater" chance of contraction. Indeed, the quotes I cited seem to suggest that the risks as presented by your argument above are around the same

Then you're reading only what you want to read and ignoring the rest. Once again, I will quote from the articles:

 

"unprotected anal intercourse poses a greater risk of transmission than any other sexual activity. The tissue inside the anus is much softer than vaginal tissue and it is also less elastic and less well lubricated. Therefore, anal tissue is more prone to tearing during intercourse: this increases the risk of bleeding and therefore provides more opportunity for viral transmission."

 

"Anal intercourse without a condom is the highest risk sexual activity"

 

Now that is pretty clear: More easily damaged = more opportunity for blood-borne infection to spread = simply more risky.

 

Nowhere in those articles does it say that vaginal and anal intercourse are "equally risky". In fact they make a point of the fact that anal intercourse is the activity with the highest risk attached.

 

Second, without promiscuity, neither of the couples in your hypothetical could have contracted HIV/AIDS to begin with.

Again, simply incorrect. It only takes ONE ill-advised sexual encounter to catch ANY sexually transmitted disease.

 

Your attitude that "only promiscuous people catch AIDS" smacks of the prejudice from the eighties that "only homosexuals catch AIDS". Neither is true, neither is based in fact.

 

When one speaks of homosexuality, it isn't the sex that is at the core of the relationship a homosexual couple has, it's the love and romance they feel for one-another.

Again, wrong. It's the sexuality, (hence the "-sexuality" suffix on the end of the word.)

 

If two men feel a great love for one another, spend all their time around each other and enjoy the other's company more than any other... that makes them friends. Comrades. Buddies. Blood-brothers.

 

If however, they choose to play a game of hide the sausage with each other, that makes them homosexual.

 

One cannot apply the same concept to other deviants that are attracted to "tickle-me-elmo" dolls

A tickle-me-Elmo doll can't consent to sex, but neither can it refuse, nor can it care one way or the other. That's irrelevant to the point that it IS a sexual deviation, perversion, whatever you want to call it. Consent means nothing except in terms of legality which is not what we're discussing.

 

I hope you aren't offended, but I have pity for those that cannot separate sexual attraction and sex from a relationship that runs far deeper.

I am offended... that you think that a personal slight will have any effect on me at all.

 

I've been in several, monogamous, non-sex relationships with women that have, to this day, special meaning to me. Moreover, I've had relationships in which the feelings I had for the other person are more memorable than the sex

Yes, no doubt they were very special friendships indeed.

 

Once again you fall into the trap of hollywood-ising "romance". There are relationships, and then there's sex. Sex and sexuality are separate processes from social relationships. Being friendly with someone doesn't make a relationship sexual. Being madly "romantically" in love with someone doesn't make the relationship sexual.

 

SEX... makes the relationship sexual.

 

It is well understood that the heterosexual population is less promiscuous than the homosexual

If you say so. Yet another logical reason not to engage in homosexual practices.

 

 

CloseTheBlastDo:

 

I wouldn't actually equate homosexuality with 'perversion' at all myself, but I accept that's just my personal view, and I do accept it could be defined as 'perversion', depending on your definition of 'perversion'.

A most enlightened viewpoint, sir. When I speak of perversion I am using the dictionary definition of perversion, that is, to use something or do something improperly, the way it was not intended or designed to be used or done. Therefore homosexuality can indisputably be defined as a sexual perversion, as you admit.

 

Should a couple who are into bondage / S'n'M / like-sticking-fruits-where-the-sun-doesn't-shine be allowed to adpot? If they kept it in the bedroom and they were both consenting?

Sure. Dunno if you've been reading my arguments, but once again I've stated loads of times that legal sexual preferences really have no bearing on fitness to adopt.

 

So anyway - back to homosexuality. When compared with the kind of stuff I've been talking about thus far, all fine and good. I can see the 'link' and I admit it's a fair and valid one.

...but 'humping sports bags'?! I mean come on. There of course is an obvious and clear difference.

 

Humping sports bags is not sex between two consenting adults - of any kind. It's masturbation using a prop! lol

It IS masturbation using a prop...But the presence of a living prop doesn't make sex "different" in any way from masturbation.

 

Let's face it, most sex has about as much emotional investment as a public lavatory. People have sex because it feels good, not because they have the gift of "mutual true love" with whomever they happen to be boinking at the time.

 

And lest we not forget: Fetishists are just as obsessional over their "props", their stuffed toys, their sports bags... as we can be over our partners. So there's really no difference from the point of view that they're both sexual perversions. They both involve people sticking their genitals into utterly RANDOM places, because of their oh-so-slightly slightly skewed psychological attitude towards procreation.

 

So if your gonna go with the 'homosexuality is a perversion' argument, fine. You're free to debate it. But it's got to be stated clearly that going too far with it is not only illogical and misleading, it's also clearly insulting.

 

Wanna call me a rabid liberal? Go right ahead

You're a rabid liberal.

 

I'm not really defined by your labels of course , but you're free to beleve that if it helps you sleep at night...

Frankly mate, you're getting emotional and taking the discussion, myself and yourself too seriously, and I have no time for that.

 

I'm here to debate a subject logically, not to get into acrimonious emotion-fests with people. I'm going to ignore any further personality-based comments in future, so why bother posting them?

 

But since whether homosexuality can be inborn or not - imo - is not directly related to the topic at hand, I won't go into it further unless it's proposed it's directly relavent.

It's not directly relevant as far as I can see, but I WOULD be fascinated to see your reasoning nonetheless. There is no compelling scientific evidence I know of to support the idea that homosexuality is nature rather than nurture... so your arguments will be most interesting to me.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

A most enlightened viewpoint, sir. When I speak of perversion I am using the dictionary definition of perversion, that is, to use something or do something improperly, the way it was not intended or designed to be used or done. Therefore homosexuality can indisputably be defined as a sexual perversion, as you admit.

 

OK - to further explore the definition of 'perversion', please define the following sexual acts as either 'perverted' or 'non-perverted':

 

NOTE: I'm about to list a slew of funny stuff But there's actually a serious point to be made - honest...

 

* Missionary position

* Swinging from a chandaleer shouting 'Yehhaaa'

* 4-way gang-bang

* 4-way gang-bang, ending in 'money shots'

* Oral sex (of any kind)

* Anal sex - both with natural penetrants, and atrificial (please note, anal sex is not an exlusive act to homosexuality, nor is homosexual sex limitied to it. Unless you've got a fixation with lesbians with strap-ons)

* 'Normal' masterbation

* Masterbation wearing a glove

* 'Shagging a sports bag'

* Mutual masterbation

 

 

You may think I'm taking the piss, but I'm deadly serious. I want you to put every single one of those 'acts' into perverted, non-perverted columns and explain exactly why you've done so.

Your argument is that there is a clear borderline between (sexually) perverse and non-perverse which isn't really negotiable (i.e. not down to individual judgement). I disagree, but I'll listen to your answers, and then we can take it from there...

 

Sure. Dunno if you've been reading my arguments, but once again I've stated loads of times that legal sexual preferences really have no bearing on fitness to adopt.

 

Yeah sure, no issue there. That section wasn't aimed at you actally, but just to make sure I wasn't completey off-topic. The thread -after all - is about gay adoption, so I though I'd better make my opinion clear

 

It IS masturbation using a prop...But the presence of a living prop doesn't make sex "different" in any way from masturbation.

 

So you don't see a problem with calling a homosexual's partner nothing more than a 'prop'?!

..does that mean I can call hetrosexual sex 'a couple of props bashing into each-other to bring a few more props into the world'...?

 

Let's face it, most sex has about as much emotional investment as a public lavatory. People have sex because it feels good, not because they have the gift of "mutual true love" with whomever they happen to be boinking at the time.

 

VERY VERY blanket statment. And of course can be just as true for any sexual orientation. Neither does it nessesarily have anything to do with 'perversion' - unless your suggesting 'true love' (whatever the f**k that's suppost to be) is limited to the missionary position...?

 

And lest we not forget: Fetishists are just as obsessional over their "props", their stuffed toys, their sports bags... as we can be over our partners. So there's really no difference from the point of view that they're both sexual perversions. They both involve people sticking their genitals into utterly RANDOM places, because of their oh-so-slightly slightly skewed psychological attitude towards procreation.

 

OK - so just to re-iterate what your trying to say - for someone to 'love' a bag like a 'normal' person would another person, you've basically gotta have a bit wrong with you in the old mental department. (Which I woudln't nessesarily disagree with)

Therefore, homosexuals are - in the nicest possible way - probably just a little bit 'messed up' in the head, cos it's really no different...?!

...I mean feel free to correct me if I've got that wrong, but that is the depth of your argument...?

 

You're a rabid liberal.

 

Wanna call me an all-round-brilliant super-stud? Go right ahead...!

 

..bah - worth a try

 

Frankly mate, you're getting emotional and taking the discussion, myself and yourself too seriously, and I have no time for that.

 

I'm here to debate a subject logically, not to get into acrimonious emotion-fests with people. I'm going to ignore any further personality-based comments in future, so why bother posting them?

 

Nope, I don't really accept that. I am somebody who is worried about the equal rights for other 'sexual orientations' and I think it's an important issue that needs to be discussed. And from your earlier comments, according to your slide-rule, I am slap bang in 'froth-at-the-mouth', 'like-to-chase-people-and-bit-them' liberal territory.

 

By choosing to imply that anyone that disagrees with you is either a 'rabid liberal' or a 'bible-bashing conservative', I felt I had to make the point I made. (It was only paragraph at the end though of course The rest of it was nothing but rational I hope..)

I also think it's very easy for people who just so happen to not be in the 'looked-down-upon minority' to say stuff like 'Oh, just stop going on about it and let me get on with my meaningful, hetrosexual life..!'

 

But anyway, for sure, let's keep it to rational discussion. I certainly want that. Just making it clear I won't be pigeon-holed just because I may (or may not) disagree with you on certain points (and also because pigeons are far smaller than humans - I just cann'ie fit in der..!)

 

It's not directly relevant as far as I can see, but I WOULD be fascinated to see your reasoning nonetheless. There is no compelling scientific evidence I know of to support the idea that homosexuality is nature rather than nurture... so your arguments will be most interesting to me.

 

Ok - I'll start a fresh thread on it shortly. It'd probably end up derailing this one...

[Spider AL]

You may think I'm taking the piss, but I'm deadly serious. I want you to put every single one of those 'acts' into perverted, non-perverted columns and explain exactly why you've done so.

I'll make it even easier for you:

 

A male human above the age of consent inserting his genitalia into the genitalia of a consenting female human above the age of consent... is sexual congress as intended by evolutionary design and at a legal age sanctioned by societal standard.

 

Position is irrelevant. Noises made... are irrelevant.

 

That's it.

 

Now, perverted sexual activity is therefore anything that utilises the genitalia in ways they were not designed to be used. For instance, shagging a pile of soil, an apple pie, a member of one's own gender in the bottom, an animal other than human, a stuffed toy.

 

Perverted sexual activity is also deriving sexual pleasure from acts that are not sexual in nature. Like... sniffing a shoe. Or whipping someone. Or being whipped.

 

Many people have perversions of many types. These - as I've previously stated - are their business and their business alone. Popping up on television to tell us all about your latest fetish is most annoying to me. I don't tell people about my fantasies, I don't want to be told about the fantasies of others.

 

Now that we've defined the boundaries, one can easily see that homosexuality clearly falls under the perverted definition.

 

You also mentioned several instances of autoerotic stimulation there, i.e. masturbation, and asked me whether I consider the act of self-abuse to be perverted in nature. This was your trickiest question. Everyone does it, so can it be a perversion by definition? Yes it can. The genitals are ostensibly designed to be used on members of the opposite sex. Fiddling with your own genitals is pretty pointless, biologically speaking. So yes, it is technically a perversion of the natural purpose and function of the genitals and the sexual urge. That makes most people guilty of this perversion.

 

On the other hand, it might be said that without masturbation, we wouldn't know how our genitals worked in the first place, so that WHEN we encounter a member of the opposite sex, we know what we want to do with them. So perhaps masturbation is a behaviour evolutionarily designed as a learning instrument.

 

But either way, is it dangerous or damaging? Nope. Well, the Chinese believed that if one wasted one's semen, one was depleting one's vital force... but hey. Perversions are perversions. They are not necessarily dangerous.

 

Certain homosexual practices are highly risky however, and that's what my posts have highlighted.

 

So you don't see a problem with calling a homosexual's partner nothing more than a 'prop'?!

Nope.

 

A living prop, a prop with feelings, but a prop nonetheless. Just another random thing to stick one's genitals into because one is psychologically speaking a few millimetres off-true when it comes to sexuality. People obsess over inanimate objects as much as they obsess over other humans.

 

..does that mean I can call hetrosexual sex 'a couple of props bashing into each-other to bring a few more props into the world'...?

Not always. Sexual normality has a purpose, biologically speaking. But if the man is just using the female body to give himself jollies, or the female is just using the male body to give herself jollies... sure, they're just props to each other.

 

unless your suggesting 'true love' (whatever the f**k that's suppost to be) is limited to the missionary position...?

You're really missing the point when it comes to the "romantic love" angle, Blast. I've said time and time again that love and sex have been linked by literature, social pressures and the media for hundreds of years now... but they're not linked in REALITY.

 

Sex can exist without love and love can exist without sex. The two are separate and though they may co-exist in a single relationship, this is more due to fate or chance than any special relationship that love and sex have to one another.

 

OK - so just to re-iterate what your trying to say - for someone to 'love' a bag like a 'normal' person would another person, you've basically gotta have a bit wrong with you in the old mental department.

You have to be a little... skewed in your sexual psychology, if that's what you're trying to say.

 

Therefore, homosexuals are - in the nicest possible way - probably just a little bit 'messed up' in the head, cos it's really no different...?!

"Messed up" is an emotive term, which I'd expect you to use.

 

It would be more accurate, however, to say that to be homosexual, one must be outside the accepted norm when it comes to sexual instinct.

 

Nope, I don't really accept that.

With all due respect, I don't care whether you accept it or not. Start getting emotionally charged in your language again, and I'll ignore you, just as I'd expect others to ignore me if I started to freak out. It's nothing personal, I'm just not here to get into a slanging match with someone who's looking for a fight.

 

I am somebody who is worried about the equal rights for other 'sexual orientations' and I think it's an important issue that needs to be discussed.

Then you're labouring under a slight misapprehension. It DOESN'T need to be discussed in ANY geographic area where people's rights are not restricted. In my country (the UK) homosexuals aren't restricted from doing anything important. Yet many homosexual activists still warble on endlessly about how hard their lives are. They also try to glorify their personal fetish, and make it more than acceptable... they try to make it attractive. A societal NORM. A social standard. In short, they try to make you like what they do. Anyone who doesn't say "homosexuality is beautiful" is a homophobe. This is what I find both annoying, insulting, counter-productive and a general waste of time.

 

By choosing to imply that anyone that disagrees with you is either a 'rabid liberal' or a 'bible-bashing conservative'

No, that was your inference, not my implication. Please read my posts more carefully.

 

I also think it's very easy for people who just so happen to not be in the 'looked-down-upon minority' to say stuff like 'Oh, just stop going on about it and let me get on with my meaningful, hetrosexual life..!'

"Meaning"? Who said "meaning"? Who uttered that word? Meaning is an airy concept. What has "meaning"?

 

I'll tell you what doesn't have any meaning. Campaigning for the glorification of sexual fetishes. Our society is saturated with sexual images as it is, and it's all pointless, frankly.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

So you don't see a problem with calling a homosexual's partner nothing more than a 'prop'?!

..does that mean I can call hetrosexual sex 'a couple of props bashing into each-other to bring a few more props into the world'...?

But of course. All humans are nothing but worthless, mindless props of God:p...

 

And anal sex doesn't fall into the definition of perversion in my eyes. It doesn't corrupt or distort anything, and it's not the "wrong use" of an anus to stick something up it if you ask me.

[Spider AL]

And anal sex doesn't fall into the definition of perversion in my eyes.

Falls neatly.

 

It doesn't corrupt or distort anything

"To corrupt" is not the core definition of "pervert". To pervert something is merely to use it in a way for which it was not designed or intended to be used.

 

PS: It certainly distorts the anus

 

and it's not the "wrong use" of an anus to stick something up it if you ask me.

The anus is for crapping from. If it were designed to receive sexual organs, it would be sturdier, less fragile and oh... I don't know... connected to the sexual organs? As it is, it's just a poop-tube.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Now that we've defined the boundaries

 

No - you've defined your boundries. The word 'we' has no place in that statement.

 

perverted sexual activity is therefore anything that utilises the genitalia in ways they were not designed to be used

 

Right, so by that definition, I'll place my earlier list of practises what I 'think' your defintion implies. (Please don't have a go at me if I've gotten it wrong. You could have done it yourself to save any ambiguity).

 

Non-Perverted:

* Missionary position

* Swinging from a chandaleer shouting 'Yehhaaa' (irrelavent)

* 4-way gang-bang

 

Perverted:

* 4-way gang-bang, ending in 'money shots' (no chance of reproduction - therefore not as designed)

* Oral sex (of any kind)

* Anal sex - both with natural penetrants, and artificial

* 'Normal' masterbation

* Masterbation wearing a glove

* 'Shagging a sports bag'

* Mutual masterbation

 

Is that right / accurate?

 

Ok - now if that's acceptable, wouldn't you also accept that by MANY MANY peoples standards, a 4-way gang bang is 'perverted'? I don't mean by 'your' definition of the word, I mean by a generally held definition of the word...

...if your reply is going to be 'I dont' give rats arse what most people define it as, this is my definition', then that's fine. But were gonna have to make it clear - perhaps - that your definition of perverted isn't the generally held one. Or were not all gonna be talking on the same page...

 

So yes, it is technically a perversion of the natural purpose and function of the genitals and the sexual urge. That makes most people guilty of this perversion.

 

I think we are at the REAL issue now. Yes, masterbation - under your definition of the word - would be perversion. But a hidden one. You can hid the fact you masterbate, but when you turn up to your parents house for dinner with 'dave' on your arm rather than 'diane', then you can't really hide that can you.

Your defintion of 'perversion' makes no effort to tackle the social implication of sexual desires / preference. And that's a problem when trying to discuss the social matters of sexual orientation...

 

On the other hand, it might be said that without masturbation, we wouldn't know how our genitals worked in the first place, so that WHEN we encounter a member of the opposite sex, we know what we want to do with them. So perhaps masturbation is a behaviour evolutionarily designed as a learning instrument.

 

Wow - don't tell me your 'rock-hard' (pun intended) definition of 'perverse' actually allows for any ambiguity?! I'm shocked...

 

But either way, is it dangerous or damaging? Nope. Well, the Chinese believed that if one wasted one's semen, one was depleting one's vital force... but hey. Perversions are perversions. They are not necessarily dangerous.

 

Fair point well made.

 

Certain homosexual practices are highly risky however, and that's what my posts have highlighted.

 

Interesting word - 'highly'. I've found the whole discussion about anal walls / lubrication / etc. as about as relavent as discussing whether rock climbing is safer than sky-diving (and more natural, since you don't need a mechanicl bird to rock-climb). i.e. not at all...

 

 

A living prop, a prop with feelings, but a prop nonetheless. Just another random thing to stick one's genitals into because one is psychologically speaking a few millimetres off-true when it comes to sexuality. People obsess over inanimate objects as much as they obsess over other humans.

 

Well, sexual relations between a gay and another gay aren't 'imaginary' - unless you prove otherwise.

Sexual 'relations' between a man and a sports bag ARE imaginary - unless you prove that a bag can 'relate'.

 

Your quite big on your definitions. As am I. Let's call masterbation 'masterbation' and leave it at that eh?

 

You're really missing the point when it comes to the "romantic love" angle, Blast. I've said time and time again that love and sex have been linked by literature, social pressures and the media for hundreds of years now... but they're not linked in REALITY.

 

Sex can exist without love and love can exist without sex. The two are separate and though they may co-exist in a single relationship, this is more due to fate or chance than any special relationship that love and sex have to one another.

 

Nope - I'm not missing the point at all.

I know sex can exist without love.

I also know love can exist without sex.

I also know both can happen at the same time.

 

...so what are you trying to tell me I don't already know..?! And what has it got to do with the price of rice?

 

If your gonna assuse homosexuals of never 'really' being in love (in the sexual sence), just come out and say it!! Heh

 

"Messed up" is an emotive term, which I'd expect you to use.

 

It would be more accurate, however, to say that to be homosexual, one must be outside the accepted norm when it comes to sexual instinct.

 

I'd expect you to use the term 'acceptable', even though your happy to come up with your own definition of 'perverse' and have everyone else accept that without any reasonable discussion...

 

Anyone who doesn't say "homosexuality is beautiful" is a homophobe. This is what I find both annoying, insulting, counter-productive and a general waste of time.

 

Campaigning for the glorification of sexual fetishes. Our society is saturated with sexual images as it is, and it's all pointless, frankly.

 

I'm sorry if I've misrepresented you, but now you clearly misrepresent me. When I have ever asked you to say 'I think gay is teh r00x0rs?!'

[Spider AL]

No - you've defined your boundries. The word 'we' has no place in that statement.

You disagree with my purely logical definition of sexual perversion then? Elaborate please. What logical flaw did you find in it?

 

Right, so by that definition, I'll place my earlier list of practises what I 'think' your defintion implies. (Please don't have a go at me if I've gotten it wrong. You could have done it yourself to save any ambiguity).

 

...

 

Is that right / accurate?

No, you got it wrong. And I'm not going to have a go at you, I'll just point out that your list there was YOUR opinion, and not related to mine.

 

Ok - now if that's acceptable, wouldn't you also accept that by MANY MANY peoples standards, a 4-way gang bang is 'perverted'? I don't mean by 'your' definition of the word, I mean by a generally held definition of the word...

Blast, it's not "my definition". It's the DICTIONARY definition of the word. We can't have "our own definitions" of ANY word. Words are defined in dictionaries. Go and read the definition of "perverting". the sense I use it in is: "to put to a wrong or improper use - misuse." Collins defines it as "to use wrongly". Its latin root is "pervertere" - to turn the wrong way.

 

And if your four-way was two men and two women with the men shagging only the women, I don't think anyone but christian fundamentalists would call it especially "perverted".

 

Three men and one woman, all shagging each other in turn? That's getting perverted.

 

Four men? Heh.

 

Besides, I'm not concerned with "many many people's standards". By many many people's standards, homosexuals are EVIL and are going to HELL0rz.

 

I don't pay any attention to those "many many" people.

 

Wow - don't tell me your 'rock-hard' (pun intended) definition of 'perverse' actually allows for any ambiguity?! I'm shocked...

Save your "witticisms" for another debate. I never stated that the definition of perversion easily encompassed masturbation. I merely stated that it DID easily encompass homosexuality, which I'm glad to see you're not disputing anymore.

 

Your defintion of 'perversion' makes no effort to tackle the social implication of sexual desires / preference. And that's a problem when trying to discuss the social matters of sexual orientation...

Once again you miss the point. I'm saying that sexual fetishes/perversions should have NO impact on society. They're not important. They're foibles. Games. Preferences no more vital than what spread you like on your toast.

 

People define themselves by their sexual preference. This is self-destructive and self-indulgent. It wastes time and effort. It glorifies the trivial. This is why I am against it.

 

Interesting word - 'highly'. I've found the whole discussion about anal walls / lubrication / etc. as about as relavent

Then you haven't been reading carefully enough. The risk attached to anal intercourse makes it inadvisable behaviour. Thus, there a logical reason not to engage in it.

 

Well, sexual relations between a gay and another gay aren't 'imaginary' - unless you prove otherwise.

Sexual 'relations' between a man and a sports bag ARE imaginary - unless you prove that a bag can 'relate'.

What do you mean "imaginary"? Sticking your genitals into a sports bag and sticking them into another male are perversions of the sexual act. Neither are imaginary. Neither should be reviled... but nor should they be glorified.

 

Your quite big on your definitions. As am I. Let's call masterbation 'masterbation' and leave it at that eh?

No, let's call it a Ford car engine. Sticking your genitals into an object BECAUSE IT SEXUALLY EXCITES YOU is different from normal masturbation, in which one manipulates one's genitals while thinking about something separate, which excites you. Shagging a sports bag is definitely a perversion.

 

Masturbation to a centrefold? Somewhat less perverted. Not sure if it's perverted at all, as I noted earlier.

 

Nope - I'm not missing the point at all.

I know sex can exist without love.

it needed clarifying when you asked: "unless your suggesting 'true love' (whatever the f**k that's suppost to be) is limited to the missionary position...?"

 

If your gonna assuse homosexuals of never 'really' being in love (in the sexual sence), just come out and say it!! Heh

"in love" in the heady, romantic sense of the term, is a hormonal function designed to promote mating. "Love" on the other hand, has nothing to do with sex.

 

I'd expect you to use the term 'acceptable', even though your happy to come up with your own definition of 'perverse' and have everyone else accept that without any reasonable discussion...

Go and read a dictionary.

 

I'm sorry if I've misrepresented you,

Apology accepted. Don't do it again.

 

but now you clearly misrepresent me. When I have ever asked you to say 'I think gay is teh r00x0rs?!'

Who said you did? Not me. You've misread again.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Yeap -your right. This is stupid. Let's just go to the dictionary and stop the arguing.

 

Agreed.

 

OK - from dictionary.com:

 

sex

1. a.The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on

 

the basis of their reproductive organs and functions.

b.Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, of this classification.

2.Females or males considered as a group.

3.The condition or character of being female or male; the physiological, functional, and

 

psychological differences that distinguish the female and the male. See Usage Note at

 

gender.

4.The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior.

5.Sexual intercourse.

6.The genitals.

 

 

perverse

1. Directed away from what is right or good; perverted.

2. Obstinately persisting in an error or fault; wrongly self-willed or stubborn.

 

3. a.Marked by a disposition to oppose and contradict.

b.Arising from such a disposition.

4. Cranky; peevish.

 

OK - we have a lot of different possible definitions presented for both words, so we have a few combinations to go through. On first notice I'm surprised to see only one version of the word 'reproduction' used - in sex: 1.a. in relation the organs, but let's go with this...

 

Ok - so first I hope we can we agree that definitions 1a and 1b are talking about only gender in and of itself and therefore not relavent.

Same for defintions 2 and 3.

Definition 4 talks about sexual urge. That's of course relavent. As is 5.

 

Wow - neither 4 nor 5 actually mention reproduction!!

In fact only one of them mentions intercourse at all. Definition 4 mentioned 'desire' only. So I guess that blows your 'you can want to shag a man all you want, but your not homosexual until you do it' argument doesn't it. Sex can be defined as much by desires as by action. (Hey - your the one who said 'read a dictionary' )

 

...and now let's get back to the lack of the mention of reproduction - ermm - where is it?!

 

Well, kinda makes sense if you think about it - I mean oral sex is a perfectly valid, gramatically correct term, and yet you can c**e as much as you like into a womans mouth (man's mouth / sports bag) and no-one's gonna get preggie from it - I can assure you. (I've known girls who were worried about it after they'd sucked their boyfriend off, but I'm pretty sure they were just paranoid )

 

...so if the words 'sex' or 'sexual' or 'sexuality' were only 'valid' or 'normal' in terms of reproduction, the terms 'oral sex', 'anal sex' etc. etc. wouldn 't exist at all would they. They would be non-sensical. (At least for humans - and sports bags. Maybe there are some alien beings which do apply. If so, please share...)

Did I really need to go to the dictionary to clarify that?! meh - oh well.

 

We can move on to the word 'perverse' if you really want, but I think we have enough issue with the word 'sex'. Let's walk before we can run eh?

...unless there are other types of perversion you want to being into it perhaps...?

...socially perverted?

...oh - how about 'asthetically' perverted?!

(I saw an episode of Jerry Springer and they had some gay marriges on it. Some of those dudes look 'asthetically perverse' - I can tell ya.)

 

 

Well - n summary. To say homosexuality is 'perverse' because it can't lead to reproduction doesn't actually strictly follow ANY of the official definitions of the term 'sexual perversion'. (You can maybe argue definiton 5 implies reproduction - even though it's not stated and so you'd be getting a bit desperate, yuo'd still have definition 4 to kick you in the nuts...)

 

BUt I'm glad you told me to go to the dictionary. I agree - we have clarified things pretty well. I mean, I'm sorry the dictionary doesn't actually seem to agree with you, but hey -worse things happen at sea.

...after all - you know what they say about those flaming sailor homos...

 

Tip: try saying 'reproductively perverse' next time. Or summin'. Just a thought...

 

I merely stated that it DID easily encompass homosexuality, which I'm glad to see you're not disputing anymore.

 

Heh, your a bit presumptuous aren't you...

*sigh*

p ... r ... e ... s ... u..

bah - use your own dictionary

[Spider AL]

Yeap -your right. This is stupid. Let's just go to the dictionary and stop the arguing.

 

Agreed.

I'll take that as an apology for all the misrepresentation in your previous posts, and a retraction of everything you got blatantly wrong.

 

On first notice I'm surprised to see only one version of the word 'reproduction' used - in sex: 1.a. in relation the organs, but let's go with this...

Sex def. 5: "Sexual intercourse."

 

This is the only definition we refer to when we use terms like "having sex". The dictionary.com definition for "Sexual intercourse" is as follows:

 

Main Entry: sexual intercourse

Function: noun

1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS

2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis

 

i.e: The sexual act. Note: act

 

Definition 4 mentioned 'desire' only.

Sex def. 4: "The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior."

 

As it manifests itself... in behaviour. Actual behaviour. It doesn't mention desire at all. Where's the desire? Where's the fantasy? If I've missed it, please tell me.

 

So I guess that blows your 'you can want to shag a man all you want, but your not homosexual until you do it' argument doesn't it.

Blastdoor, you appear to have the wrong end of the stick.

 

1. I stated that your "sexuality" was a practical irrelevance unless cemented by sexual action. People fantasise about many things. Unless they act on these fantasies, their fantasy does not define them as people. Not even the sexual act itself always defines them as people, so how much less does mere fantasy define one as a person? Much less. Not at all, in fact. In short, you can think of yourself as a homosexual, you can be DESTINED to be a homosexual, you can appear to others as a homosexual... but unless you shag other men, calling yourself a homosexual is idiotically pointless. It's a practical irrelevance, trapped in the realms of fantasy.

 

2. Even if I HAD stated directly the vulgar phrase "you're not homosexual until you've shagged another bloke", since the dictionary definitions you wheeled out don't mention desire or fantasy at all, they certainly would not disprove that statement.

 

In short, what you copied and pasted didn't prove what you seem to think it proved.

 

...so if the word 'sexual' was only 'valid' or 'normal' in terms of reproduction, the terms 'oral sex', 'anal sex' etc. etc. wouldn 't exist at all would they. They would be non-sensical.

I'm afraid your argument is incorrect. The fact that the word sex must be preceded by the words "anal" or "oral" in order to describe these abberant sexual acts, means that the "normal" meaning of the word sex is indeed "coitus". That is, the congress of a male and female human, bumping uglies.

 

We don't say "vaginal sex". As a term, it isn't in common use. We don't have to say it. We just say "sex", and we know that we're referring to "vaginal sex". This is the norm.

 

In summary, to say homosexuality is 'perverse' because it can't lead to reproduction doesn't actually strictly follow ANY of the official definitions of the team 'sexual perversion'

A: I haven't said that "homosexuality is perverse because it can't lead to reproduction". I state that it's a sexual perversion because it is a fetishistic sexual act unrelated to normal sexual intercourse.

 

B: You haven't even looked up the definition of the term "sexual perversion". Here's the dictionary.com definition of "sexual perversion":

 

sexual perversion

 

n : an aberrant sexual practice that is preferred to normal intercourse

 

QED.

 

BUt I'm glad you told me to go to the dictionary. I agree - we have clarified things pretty well. I mean, I'm sorry the dictionary doesn't actually seem to agree with you, but hey

I think you'll find, when you re-read your own post, that it does indeed agree with me. Or more accurately, that I agree with it.

 

We can move on to the word 'perverse' if you really want, but I think we have enough issue with sex. Let's walk before we can run eh?

My dear fellow, sounding patronising isn't the same as sounding clever. Quite the opposite, in some cases.

 

per·vert ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-vûrt)

tr.v. per·vert·ed, per·vert·ing, per·verts

To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.

To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase.

To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. See Synonyms at corrupt.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Wow - now this IS classic stuff. Spider - before I start, 10 out 10 for attempts to get out of a hole. Truly awe-inspiring.

 

i.e: The sexual act. Note: act

 

Well congrats in making clear that definition 5 means the sexual 'act' and nothing else. My God - what a revelation!

 

If I've missed it, please tell me.

 

Read on - I'm about to.

Defintions 4 and 5 are seperate for a reason you know

 

1. I stated that your "sexuality" was a practical irrelevance unless cemented by sexual action. People fantasise about many things. Unless they act on these fantasies, their fantasy does not define them as people. Not even the sexual act itself always defines them as people, so how much less does mere fantasy define one as a person? Much less. Not at all, in fact. In short, you can think of yourself as a homosexual, you can be DESTINED to be a homosexual, you can appear to others as a homosexual... but unless you shag other men, calling yourself a homosexual is idiotically pointless. It's a practical irrelevance, trapped in the realms of fantasy.

 

2. Even if I HAD stated directly the vulgar phrase "you're not homosexual until you've shagged another bloke", since the dictionary definitions you wheeled out don't mention desire or fantasy at all, they certainly would not disprove that statement.

 

 

This whole section is - sorry - but plain crazy talk. And I'll expain exactly and clearly why.

 

First off, you state 'Not even the sexual act itself always defines them as people' - which is of course only expessing your personal view and not actually helping to define the word 'sex' at all.

For all your assertion that the definiton of 'sexual perversion' is not only not to be debated, but whatever you say it is, you now trying to make the whole issue as vague as humanly possible. Beggers belief.

 

Secondly, you say 'In short, you can think of yourself as a homosexual, you can be DESTINED to be a homosexual, you can appear to others as a homosexual... but unless you shag other men, calling yourself a homosexual is idiotically pointless.'

 

..ermm, if you haven't shown any 'behaviour deriving from an urge' to be homosexual, how the f**k would anybody possibly come to the conclusion you 'may' by homosexual?! Because you talk funny? Because you has outrageous dress sense perhaps? Or maybe you say things like 'Ohh - that's a LOVELY combo you've got on love. Really brings out your complexion'...

 

Your right about an urge needing to result in at least some behaviour to be relevent. but that's totally obvious and irrelavent. I may as well say I have a constant urge to jab a fork in my eye but I keep it constantly at bay with sheer will my God - what are you on about?!

...definition 4 covers ALL kinds of potential behaviour:

 

* A wink

* Following someone around

* Saying 'Ohh - he / she / it's nice'

 

blah blah. And yet all you can talk about is rogering?! (Which is clearly covered by definition 5 anyway, thereby making definition 4 irrelavent?!)

Your a bit obsessed it seems...

 

As it manifests itself... in behaviour. Actual behaviour. It doesn't mention desire at all.

 

Wow - you love the word games don't you

I used desire instead of urge. Big deal. We'll stick with urge if you like, but doesn't matter at all. I'm still exactly right.

 

The fact that the word sex must be preceded by the words "anal" or "oral" in order to describe these abberant sexual acts, means that the "normal" meaning of the word sex is indeed "coitus".

 

Jesus - your really on a roll now. When I turn around to someone and say 'I had sex last night' it cannot be assumed it was vaginal sex! It can mean all kinds of things.

Sure, some people consider a blowjob to not be 'real' sex. Some do. but that's just individuals postering around their 'idea' of sex.

The fact is that according to the definitions I've just posted, oral sex IS INDEED SEX.

Your personal view, or what conclusion Joe Bloggs might jump to if the type of sex isn't specified is totally irrelavent.

 

I state that it's a sexual perversion because it is a fetishistic sexual act unrelated to normal sexual intercourse.

 

Interesting word - normal.

Reading your (correct) definition of 'sexual intercourse':

 

1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis

2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis

 

Please point out the word 'normal'. Please point out a word even like normal.

...nope, didn't think so. Just two definitions with neither being stated as being more 'normal' than the other.

God man - YOU posted the definition. Did you read it?!

 

sounding patronising isn't the same as sounding clever. Quite the opposite, in some cases.

 

Right back at ya pal.

This stuff is just plain common sense. It really is. I can't belevie I'm even having this conversation.

..but then, I am a bit rabid. Maybe that expains it...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

In short, you can think of yourself as a homosexual, you can be DESTINED to be a homosexual, you can appear to others as a homosexual... but unless you shag other men, calling yourself a homosexual is idiotically pointless. It's a practical irrelevance, trapped in the realms of fantasy.

This is getting tireseome, Spider AL.

 

Yes, it does matter what orientation you are even though you want to remain a virgin, like me. To me and my girlfriend, it certainly mattered that both of us was straight - otherwise we wouldn't be together. It certainly mattered to the "girl next door" that she became a lesbian even though she and her boyfriend weren't sexually active (to my knowledge). Why? Because they had to break up.

 

So is it "idiotically pointless" for me to say I'm heterosexual? Just because you don't have sex? That's like driving a car and not calling yourself a car driver because you aren't "fullfilling it" by taking it onto an interstate highway.

 

And not everyone's "fantasies" are limited to sex. I can act out my fantasies by just spending quality time with the girl I love.

 

It's not "pointless" to claim that I'm "straight", for the simple reason that it makes it clear to girls that there's a technical chance of me having a love relationship with them, and to the gays that I desire no such relationship with them.

 

Bottom line: There's more to relationships than fantasies about sex or the actual act of the above-mentioned. There's kissing, dating, being friends, and comforting each others trough good and bad times. Or don't I have a sexual orientation, perhaps, just because I'm a virgin?

[Spider AL]

CloseTheBlastDoor:

 

Wow - now this IS classic stuff. Spider - before I start, 10 out 10 for attempts to get out of a hole. Truly awe-inspiring.

I wasn't in a hole, Blastdoor. I do wish you'd stop fantasising. Fantasising, doesn't make it so.

 

Well congrats in making clear that definition 5 means the sexual 'act' and nothing else. My God - what a revelation!

Sexual intercourse (definition 5) is indeed the sexual act, and nothing else. It is not the "sexual desire".

 

Wow - you love the word games don't you

You started the semantics by posting dictionary definitions and then attempting to alter them. I didn't open this line of debate, though I'm happy to remain here.

 

I used desire instead of urge. Big deal. We'll stick with urge if you like, but doesn't matter at all. I'm still exactly right.

I'm afraid you're not right, you're wrong: You said that definition 4 was "sexual desire". It was not, it was the sexual urge as it manifests in behaviour. Not in your head, in behaviour. It's not desire, it's what you do because of your "sexual urges". See the difference?

 

First off, you state 'Not even the sexual act itself always defines them as people' - which is of course is only expessing your personal view and not actually helping to define the word 'sex' at all.

It's not expressing my personal view, it's stating a fact: people experiment with homosexuality and then remain hetero for the rest of their lives. So the one homosexual act didn't define them as homosexual.

 

If even a sexual ACT can't define you, how much less does your fantasy-life define you? Much less.

 

..ermm, if you haven't shown any 'behaviour deriving from an urge' to be homosexual, how the f**k would anybody possibly come to the conclusion you 'may' by homosexual?! Because you talk funny? Because you has outrageous dress sense perhaps? Or maybe you say things like 'Ohh - that's a LOVELY combo you've got on love. Really brings out your complexion'...

You're trying to be funny, but you're just being vulgar and irrelevant. I'd like you to stop, and be civil and relevant.

 

As to your question, people believe others to be homosexual on very little evidence, all the time. I've met effeminate men and thought "his manner is consistent with a homosexual-community standard trait. He may be homosexual", and I've learned later that they're happily married with seven children.

 

Your right about an urge needing to result in at least some behaviour to be relevent.

Exactly. So it follows that a man who fantasises about homosexual congress but never actually engages in it cannot with all honesty and accuracy call himself a homosexual.

 

Jesus - your really on a roll now. When I turn around to someone and say 'I had sex last night' it cannot be assumed it was vaginal sex!

It would be assumed by many to be "vaginal sex", simply because it is the primary, normal, procreative type of sex. Oral sex is oral sex, and anal sex is anal sex. They're both technically perversions of the sexual act... but when someone says "I had sex" they tend to mean hetero congress between themselves and a member of the opposite sex, genital to genital contact, etcetera.

 

The dictionary agrees with me on this point, as coitus is the primary definition of "sexual intercourse".

 

...definition 4 covers ALL kinds of possible behaviour:

I'm afraid you're wrong, it doesn't cover "all possible behaviour". It only covers the active behaviour that manifests from sexual urges. i.e: mating ritual gestures, actions, or actual sex. Chatting a girl up, or sleeping with her.

 

It does NOT cover fantasies in your head. Fantasies are not behaviour. Only actions in the real world are behaviour. Therefore you were wrong when you said that it meant "desire", and it's time you admitted it.

 

oral sex IS INDEED SEX. Your personal view is totally irrelavent.

Once again, you seem to think I've said things I haven't said. I've never said that "oral sex isn't sex". I said it was a sexual perversion, which it technically is.

 

Interesting word - normal.

Reading your (correct) definition of 'sexual intercourse':

 

1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis

2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis

 

Please point out the word 'normal'. Please point out a word even like normal.

...nope, didn't think so. There is no mention of one being more 'normal' or 'acceptable' than the other.

Hetero genital intercourse is "the norm" because:

 

a: it is the only sexual purpose that the genitals were evolutionarily designed specifically to accomplish.

 

b: it is the societal standard of normal sexual behaviour due to this.

 

If it weren't "the norm," we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because sexual perversions wouldn't be an issue for ANYONE. Which in my book would be great, but since they ARE... here we are.

 

Right back at ya pal.

This stuff is just plain common sense. It really is. I can't belevie I'm even having this conversation.

If it troubles you to have your arguments analysed in this debating forum, it's your choice to stay or leave. Don't complain so much about your own presence here, after all you're here of your own volition.

 

... This whole section is - sorry - but plain crazy talk...

 

... how the f**k would anybody possibly come to the conclusion you 'may' by homosexual?!

 

... my God - what are you on about?! ...

 

... but then, I am a bit rabid. Maybe that expains it ...

 

... blah blah. And yet all you can talk about is rogering?! Your a bit obsessed it seems ...

 

... Jesus - your really on a roll now. ...

These passages indicate to me that you're getting emotional again. Please don't, it's not good for the debate. I won't debate with someone who makes personal remarks all the time, I've done quite enough of that over the years.

 

I've been more courteous to you than you have to me. Now I expect some form of reciprocity, otherwise I don't see the point in listening to you at all.

 

Dagobahn Eagle:

 

This is getting tireseome, Spider AL.

 

Yes, it does matter what orientation you are even though you want to remain a virgin, like me. To me and my girlfriend, it certainly mattered that both of us was straight - otherwise we wouldn't be together.

Don't get me wrong, Eagle. I respect your choice, and I know how psychologically tough you have to be, to do what you're doing.

 

Having said that...

 

So is it "idiotically pointless" for me to say I'm heterosexual? Just because you don't have sex? That's like driving a car and not calling yourself a car driver because you aren't "fullfilling it" by taking it onto an interstate highway.

It's not like that. It's like calling yourself a car driver... when you've never driven a car.

 

And not everyone's "fantasies" are limited to sex.

Nobody said they were. I've been specifically referring to sexual fantasies, however. I must clarify that.

 

It's not "pointless" to claim that I'm "straight", for the simple reason that it makes it clear to girls that there's a technical chance of me having a love relationship with them, and to the gays that I desire no such relationship with them.

Here you've hit on it. SOCIAL impact. Impact in our current society. If one had to work at the bar in a gay club, one might claim to be gay in order to have a social advantage, be more accepted, etcetera. But thinking something or claiming something doesn't make it so.

 

I have NO DOUBT you're a red-blooded male who is necessarily strong in character to remain true to your principles, and you will undoubtedly get married and produce a litter of healthy kids someday.

 

But... thinking it doesn't make it so. My thinking doesn't make it so, your thinking doesn't make it so. Claiming it doesn't make it so. If one has never had sex, one can never know if one enjoys it with the prospective partner, or not. And since first sexual experiences are generally disappointing, one must be in a long-term sexual relationship to REALLY find out if one enjoys sex with the person one is with. Sex isn't so simple as thought, desire or belief.

 

There's more to relationships than fantasies about sex or the actual act of the above-mentioned. There's kissing, dating, being friends, and comforting each others trough good and bad times. Or don't I have a sexual orientation, perhaps, just because I'm a virgin?

Yes there is more to relationships than fantasies about sex... but what makes a relationship sexual? The sexual aspects of course. Sex itself.

 

And frankly, sexual orientation before sex is in the realms of thought and cerebral fantasy. It exists. It can affect your behaviour. That behaviour can change your social standing... but it still exists only in your mind. Not in the physical world.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

I've been more courteous to you than you have to me. Now I expect some form of reciprocity, otherwise I don't see the point in listening to you at all.

 

Nope - you haven't been very curteous at all I'm afraid.

And after your condesending cry of 'go read a dictionary', which I did - you now want very little to do with the clear definitions within.

 

You'd rather add all kinds of other words which are found no-where in the definitions, and hold desperately to one use of 'desire' instead of 'urge', as if it means anything.

 

Oh well. Word games the senate remains. So back to lurking Enjoy.

[Spider AL]

Very nice debating with you, Blastdoor. All the best to you.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Very nice debating with you, Blastdoor. All the best to you.

 

Thanks. Regardless of disagreement, you're a very good debater. For that you have my respect.

 

All the best to you too