I know we just established that gays don’t exist. In case that didn’t convince you, a random commenter has a great explanation for why homosexuality is unnatural:
I don’t understand why some people try hard to demonstrate that gays are just gays, and they have nothing whatsoever to do about it! Poor them, they are just attracted to other men and they can’t fight it. they can’t prevent themselves from not acting on it. period. Why would they subject themselves to social rejection, and injustice if it were easy to deny being gay!! Well, I don’t agree, if this is the case, then…then, we can also rationalize J Sandusky or any pedophile for that matter. Poor him, he is just attracted to young biys, he can’t do anything about, and he can;t prevent himslef from acting on it. or, maybe …incest, the father, is just attracted to his girl…and if she consenting, that s completely ok, actually in some societies, it is. the only difference between gay men and pedophiles is that one has a consenting partner, and the other doesn’t (you cant call kids a consenting partner), but the same deviate sexual urge is there. so then , why do we punch pedophile. we can just say that poor them, they can’t do anything about it. we do we punish incest? we can rationalize it the same way. The key here is learned behaviour…you learn to hold yourself from a ceratin behavior, and not act on it because it is wrong. someone would argue that homosexuality is natural. well I argue that it is not…as a matter of fact, there is no natural lubrication available for sodomy! …there are tons of reason why homosexuality is not normal.
Oh, well then. Because obviously vaginas are always well lubricated, gays only have anal sex, straights never have anal sex, and no one ever has oral sex. Man, such airtight logic. This guy could be a theologian.
You silly goose! Good Christians only have sex for reproductive purposes. Anal sex and oral sex are obviously right out.
Chumps.
I do agree with his sentiment of ‘punch pedophile,’ though. Brutish, yes, but you hafta support the feeling behind it.
Also, isn’t Intimate Organics a natural lubricant?
He’s not?
Anyone else notice that he(I think he’s a he), basically answered his own question:
I wouldn’t say it’s the only difference, but it’s a pretty big one.
Dan Savage has mentioned anal mucus in passing. I have no experience with it, but he’s always seemed pretty knowledgeable about teh buttsecks
Therefore, lesbians are twice as natural since there’s double the natural lubricant?
It’s like he is so very close to understanding and then he completely loses it again.
Reminds me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgDWAvLh0yo&feature=g-hist
I wouldn’t be able to have this sort of debate in person, because I’d have to punch them in the face. At least online I can restrain myself and mock them.
Inconsistency at its best…
“the only difference between gay men and pedophiles is that one has a consenting partner, and the other doesn’t (you cant call kids a consenting partner), but the same deviate sexual urge is there. so then , why do we punch pedophile. ”
Actually he answers his own question .. he just doesn’t realize it. Why doesn’t he realize it? because he wants to condemn homosexuality in the first place and doesn’t care for the argument or does he?
“well I argue that it is not…as a matter of fact, there is no natural lubrication available for sodomy!”
Ok, then let’s turn this argument around for a second…..
“As a matter of fact there IS natural lubrication available for pedosex … ERGO……”
The supposedly “only difference” is actually THE important difference.
The worst part is how nearly right part of this is. I don’t know – I’m not sure if it is known at all yet – what makes one person straight, another gay, and anyone else a pedophile – whether it’s the same basic mechanism of orientation pointed in different directions, or due to different factors. The former possibility doesn’t strike me as patently absurd, so for the sake of argument I’ll grant it.
Okay – so now we have a scenario where pedophiles, like gay people, have their orientation and can’t do anything about it, can’t change it by conscious choice. The key difference of course is that gay people can have relationships matching their orientation without it being anyone’s business but theirs and their partners, while pedophiles can’t without it automatically being non-consensual. That strikes me as a quite sufficient difference on its own!
He seems to be saying this is somehow not enough, that we have to be able to demonize pedophiles simply for being pedophiles rather than for actually doing any harm to children, and that if we acknowledge that pedophiles don’t choose to be so, sympathize with their unfortunate position, but say sorry, you can’t act on that without involving those incapable of consenting, so you can’t act on it… that somehow this prevents us from saying okay, gay people, you don’t choose to be so, and… acting on it shouldn’t make a blind bit of difference to me or anyone else, so knock yourself out, what do I care?
I just feel like sending that commenter tons of these:
http://anongallery.org/356/buttsecks
Authoritarians really don’t get concepts like choice.
Or informed consent.
Of his examples, children are unable to give informed consent. (In the incest example, if the daughter is an adult and consents, I don’t think the “Argument from EWWWWWWWWWWWWWW” is sufficient to justify getting the law involved, but I doubt very much this is what he had in mind).
I ran across a quote from a conservative explaining the difference between liberal and conservative views on rape, who summarized it more or less thus “Conservatives recognize that rape is a violation of a woman’s modesty. To liberals, however, rape is merely a violation of a woman’s preference; liberals don’t believe women should have modesty.” Somehow the calm, grammatically correct tone makes it more sickening… >.>
That commenter should follow his(?) own advice and avoid the unnatural act of posting on the internet.
Some women do not produce enough “natural lubricant” for enjoyable vaginal intercourse, and benefit from additional, tube-based lube. So.
Preferences?!
First of all, I resent the implication that men cannot be raped. Secondly what the fuck does the physical and mental harm rape survivors endure have to do with an absurdly outdated, worthless concept like modesty?
This is why I hate believers. The insistnce that the physical, living breathing human being in front of me exists just to uphold theological ideals like chastity and modesty. Pain isn’t bad. It’s a way to be closer to Christ, so people suffering are really lucky and we don’t have to do anything about it. Rape isn’t a violation of another human being. It’s depriving them of their modesty.
Gah! Fuck believers.
Yeah, but what you fail to take into account is that this is obviously the kind of man who thinks that being held down and having one’s orifices forcibly penetrated doesn’t sound all that bad. He probably doesn’t realize that this is the kind of thing that most people find a bit traumatic. Never mind, I’m sure one day he’ll meet the rapist of his dreams and they’ll both live happily ever after.
Did I just read that right? It looks for all the world like the guy just said that the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is consent, and then moved right along to ask plaintively, “what’s the difference”? He’s just said what the fucking difference is! Does this guy not even read back his own posts?
It’s right there on the screen, fuckwit! You said it yourself! Or do you have to get someone who can read to write all your comments for you?
Like Morgan(#10) pointed out, he seems to be starting at the wrong point in his logic. In his mind, homosexuality is intrinsically bad and ‘born that way’ is used as an excuse for homosexuals to be the way they are. He is absolutely right that in this context the argument is silly and should instantly be dismissed. Indeed, other intrinsically bad behaviour is expected to be controlled (like paedophilia). Whether there is consent or bot is irrelevant if the behaviour is bad either way. Also, it is right to dismiss in this context the argument that something is natural and therefore good, because whether something is natural or not is completely irrelevant.
So his main problem is that he is not understanding the arguments and their context. There is a movement by certain homophobes to make it seem like homosexuality is a choice so that they can blame the gays. The reaction is to show that a person’s sexuality is not a choice. This is not an argument for the acceptability of homosexuality, but for how static sexuality is. Likewise, saying that homosexuality is in fact natural is a response to the critics claiming homosexuality is unnatural.
He should be examining his assumption that homosexuality is bad behaviour. And to do this, he will have to find some argument showing that it is bad. Showing paedophilia is bad is easy: there is no consent. Showing homosexuality is bad? Yeah… your only hope is referring to the bible, but that’s a lousy argument for why I should not be gay; the bible only binds it followers so it cannot forbid me to work on Sunday or command to pray every day. Nor can it suddenly make homosexuality intrinsically bad.
Basically, I understand where he is coming from and he is a perfect example how logic without knowledge can still make you sound incredibly stupid.
Someone doesn’t understand what harm is… Or maybe he thinks gay sex causes harm.
Oh, poor extremely narrow-minded and ignorant guy, and he can’t fight it.
He also fools “deviated” with “deviated from him”.
The idea that consent doesn’t matter is something I cannot comprehend, nor do I want to understand that “reasoning”. To me that seems sick.
One fundamentalist I knew in college used as his main argument against homosexuality “How would you feel if you went into your dorm room and your roommate was doing a guy?”
The fact that I didn’t want to see my roommate having sex with anybody didn’t carry any weight.
Pedophiles practice hetero child rape too, so the only difference between pedophiles and heterosexuals is whether the partner consents.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Of course, he probably doesn’t think the fact that it’s non-consensual is a problem. People like this have a tendency to think that rape is the woman’s fault after all. And incest wasn’t exactly uncommon until relatively recently. May still be for all I know. I find it telling that all of the things that he uses for comparison to show that homosexuality is unnatural are fully endorsed by the bible.
Yeah, kind of buzzes right over the tiny little difference of HAVING A CONSENTING PARTNER.
By corollary, conservatives don’t believe a woman should have a choice. To hell with choice, there is modesty at stake!
**facepalm**
An apple pie has “natural lubricant”.
Oh yeah.
I’m off to the bakery.
Ah yes, the argument from buttsex. Or as it’s more formally known, Argumentum Ad Anus.
…. If we’re defining “good” as “natural” and “natural” as “biologically producing the least awkward logistics and discomfort” then I should apparently only be having sex with other women.
Somehow I don’t think that’s what he means by this, though.
Nono, he knew what he was saying. It works out if men only have sex with women, because women are basically self-heating RealDolls who exist to provide holes for men to fuck. Consent is a feminazi conspiracy of a concept created to keep men from getting the sex they rightfully deserve.
I wonder if this guy thinks proper punctuation, grammar and spelling are also unnatural?
There is, however, plenty of natural lubricant for me to stick my fingers up another woman’s pussy, so lesbianism is perfectly natural, and entirely compatible with safe, fulfilling sex. Awesome!
Not to mention all the natural lubrication in the world for putting one’s tongue on someone else’s naughty parts, including their butthole. So, everything is perfectly natural in oral sex.
Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. Some book otherwise filled with stupidity did make that observation, but it likely isn’t original to it.
They prefer to see gay as being about sex instead of relationship because they have such failures in their own relationships, including with their own god. Not to mention the problems with sex.
Yeah, on this issue he’s at least partially correct. The difference is largely one of consent. As far as brain structure and chemistry and how well we can identify pedophilia as a pathology, I just don’t know, but it is very likely that most pedophiles aren’t really making a choice. Certainly not a choice in what urges they feel. But we punish them because it is wrong to victimize a child who is unable to give meaningful consent because we cannot simply allow people to make choices that harm others, whereas homosexuality harms no one. I think there is actually a case to be made there for how we handle pedophiles. While the crime itself is abhorrent in the way it robs a child of their innocence, our response to it is perfectly natural, but not necessarily the right and just course. Currently we throw these people in general population and take glee in them being victimized in the same way, then when they’ve served their mandated sentence we tack on additional restrictions on their lives post hoc that cannot be shown to reduce recidivism or improve child safety, but do impose a significant burden on the offender outside of the judicial system. There ought to be a way of treating these offenders that keeps children safe and recognizes that these are crimes born of the bio chemistry of the brain and addresses that. Don’t ask me how, but there’s certainly no reason to single them out for greater punishment than murderers or rapists of adults in spite of our emotional revulsion at their crime.
But again, homosexuality has no victim, it hurts no one. So even though one can certainly choose to be miserable their whole life by denying it, and even if they actually could be “cured”, the premise is faulty because it just doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter how much of a “choice” homosexuality is, it hurts no one, nor does gay marriage, and there’s no reason to fight being gay just to please people with absurd and outdated moral views based on ancient myths or because they thing butt sex is icky.
I’m sure he got his computer from the computer tree outside his front porch.
Oh, wait, he must be living in a forest since a house isn’t natural either.
This guy makes no sense!!
definition of gay
Why would anyone avoid being happy and gay?!?!?!?!?!?!
I’m going to give this poor fellow a break. After all, is it his fault for having been born an incoherent, rambling fool?
“the only difference between gay men and pedophiles is that one has a consenting partner, and the other doesn’t ”
One could drop the adjective gay from this.
I’m in my 60s, I’ve grand nieces who are just turning into young women, there is simply no interest. I haven’t had interest in a woman in her teens since I was in mine.
Actually he has one point: we can’t call people “evil” for having impulses like being attracted to young children. We might call them an evil-doer for acting on those impulses. But too often we judge others for not going against their natures enough. Psychopaths are probably the most “evil” people in the world, yet their brains don’t work the same. We can stop them, but can we truly call them “evil”.
Similarly, “good” people portions of their brain associated with reward activated when they perform “good” acts, and also when the punish “evildoers”. So are they good, or just acting based on their nature and rewarding themselves?
So I agree, more research into how to help pedophiles, psychopaths, the addicted, etc, so that they can overcome and not harm others, and less judgement and punishment (and less “punch”ing them as well).
Oh that’s not what he meant?
I’m sorry about my atrocious grammar. ugh.
“there is no natural lubrication available for sodomy”
Spit and/or precum
Adults aren’t children. I don’t find either of those claims credible. (While therapy is actually ongoing is another matter because 1) there’s an active professional relationship with that inherent power imbalance and 2) people who go into therapy generally aren’t in a balanced, healthy mental state).
Like the “animals can’t give informed consent [which matters for sex, but not for riding them, buying them, selling them, breeding them, or eating them]” argument, this seems more like an attempt to retroactively justify a visceral reaction than a sound argument from principles.
…oh, just realized.
By that logic, no one should ever be able to buy a car from their parents either, since the transaction would be subject to the same kind of undue influence.
Ahem. Paedophilia is the sexual attraction to children and does not per se involve sex with minors. That is child molesting. An equivalence to paedophilia would be homophilia or heterophilia rather than homosexuality or heterosexuality. A person can hold an attraction without having sex with them. It’s a small but important difference.
It is important because we don’t arrest people based on who they are attracted to but on what they actually do. What they actually do has everything to do with consent. We throw child molesters in prison (unless the Catholic church whisks them away to safety first) and we put rapists in prison whether they are gay or straight. We don’t punish them because of whom they have raped but because their rape is a violation of the person that they have harmed.
I feel sorry for those boring Christians who just have missionary sex once a month. No oral, no hand jobs, no anal, no sex for fun, just penetration, in out and over in 10 minutes, bang. They should try having sex for pleasure or just enjoying their partner’s body. It’s no wonder that they get so frustrated. That said I’m not quite rude enough to tell a Christian man where to stick his cock and I think that they should extend the same courtesy to other people, gay or straight or any permutation that this doesn’t cover.
…why do you think these things are contradictory?
You mean Santorum(tm)?
Thats what I immediately thought of when I read that argument.
There is unequal power between the two parties- one having a lot of it and the other very little.
Yet another het guy who thinks that whatever amount of mucus produced by vaginal walls is enough. A selfish blithering idiot, in other words.
Advice to young women: do not sleep with guys who appear to believe that lube is a weird luxury or that saliva is a good substitute.
I once posed the following question to a heterosexual friend who had been influenced by the idea that homosexuality ia a choice: OK, let’s say that one day you decide that you’re going to switch from straight to gay. Maybe you’re just fed up with dealing with women & think being gay would be less hassle, or whatever. Would you be able to get it up for a man? You don’t have to answer me, just think about it, & think about this: If you couldn’t get it up for a man even if you wanted to, why do think gay men are that way by choice?
The only difference between a gift and theft is consent. So I don’t understand why we don’t criminalize Christmas. Or something.
Wait.
So a person could never have a relationship with their therapist?
People who use “consent” and “only” in the same sentence should never have sex, ever.
Gus Snarp @ 3,
I am honestly not trying to come down on you, individually, and I know you were just using a sort of verbal shorthand, so please don’t take the following rant personally.
I hate that phrase. I really hate it.
Being raped as a child is not abhorrent because it robs a child of innocence. It’s abhorrent because it is rape. It hurts. It scares the shit out of you. It leaves you feeling helpless and terrified and if the person doing it is a relative or “friend of the family”, the betrayal of trust is devastating. No matter what your previous relationship with the rapist is, you know in your heart that you are nothing to that person, just something to fuck, and you know it even if you are “innocent”. And the point is, that in most ways, except for the obvious physical damage that being smaller causes, it is no different than being raped as an adult.
And that is part of my rage at that phrase (again, Gus, I am not really yelling at you). In too many minds raping is child is so much worse because they are viewed as “innocent” whereas other rape victims aren’t and therefore… I don’t need to continue that sentence. You all know the way those people think.
“Innocence,” present or absent, has nothing to do with what is wrong with raping a child. Nor is innocence something to be treasured. Innocence is just ignorance. I agree that the innocence/ignorance of children needs to be removed slowly, lovingly, and in stages, but that does not mean that innocence/ignorance is something that should be viewed as the most important thing a child loses when they are raped.
Just so I’m clear on this:
You’re asserting that two adults have vastly different levels of power because they happen to be related?
Let’s grant this, then. Shouldn’t we, then, outlaw relationships between billionaires and, well, anyone else? The power difference is clearer, greater, and much more concrete.
McSkeptic, please don’t disparage the years of concentrated effort he put into becoming so ignorant. He’s a self-made imbecile.
A relationship with someone you’re actually receiving therapy from or just stopped receiving therapy from – yeah, there are issues.
But if you’re in your 40s, meet a counselor you saw in your 20s again at a party, catch up a bit and hit it off…
Yeah, the idea that this is a problem is just plain silly.
Obviously a censenting partner isn’t a big deal or anything like that. /sarcasm
I am interested in hearing people’s thoughts on why (or if) consenting incest is wrong, though. I saw a couple folks talking about it above, suggesting that because of the previous power disparity, an adult child cannot have a fully consenting relationship with a parent, but what about other forms of incest (siblings, cousins)? And is the previous power disparity sufficient to need intervention? Would/should we intervine in the case of a former student/teacher relationship, etc., too?
I think the innocence that’s lost when a child is raped is the innocence of thinking that other people are kind and loving. Sex has nothing to do with it, but it’s a huge loss.
*consenting. Whoo boy. Apologies for any other misspellings/typos. I need a nap. -.-‘
I also hate that phrase but for a different reason. It implies that children who are raped are forever irreparably damaged (and many people believe this). Some kids never get over it, and some adult rape victims never do either, but many are able to heal and go on to have healthy relationships and sex lives as adults. The idea that it’s something that will damage you for life makes it that much harder for victims to heal and move on with their lives if they feel like they have to hide what happened or people wouldn’t want to be with someone who’s “damaged goods” or that if they do feel like they have moved on that people tell them they must be wrong.
Rape of a child I do believe is more evil than raping an adult (though both are incredibly evil and I don’t mean to say that adult victims are less victimized) because children are more helpless and trusting so it’s easier for a rapist to victimize them. In cases of babies and toddlers they aren’t even capable of speaking for themselves when they are abused.
Seconded. Both serve in a tight spot.
Most adults who rape children are authority figures whom the children are taught to trust, and children generally have a more acute sense of powerlessness, less developed coping skills, and fewer avenues for escape.
“well I argue that it is not…as a matter of fact, there is no natural lubrication available for sodomy!”
Someone has never heard of spit.
Honestly, I’ve never seen an argument for why incest between consenting adults (or consenting same-age minors) should be prohibited that wouldn’t be just as applicable to other behavior that people generally don’t advocate prohibiting, but which is less “icky.”
I find it difficult to believe either are sufficient. O.o
Whoops didn’t see this one when I made my comment below.
But yes. Thirded.
(Also – tight spot… haha.)
I would say the problem and difference here is the amount of perceived power in the relationship. For example, in cases of severe physical and mental abuse, there is a SERIOUS difference between perceived power and actual power. No one thinks a millionaire golf buddy in their life has the right to beat them within an inch of their life for no reason, but an abuse victim will often justify the beatings, because they perceive their abuser as basically the God of their life. So a child who grows up in a situation of abuse, their parents will continue to have the same perceived power unless they get serious therapy. Wouldn’t necessarily call it the same situation as a therapist… although sometimes they too abuse their patients, I’m pretty sure (not totally sure, I have really no figures on this) it happens less.
So yeah, don’t discount psychology in your arguments. People are sometimes illogical. Perceived power can make people do dumb things, or let dumb things be done to them. This is why theists exist, and why atheists have continuous facepalm marks on their foreheads.
No, no. There’s like… white stuff.
I think plutosdad means: is there a difference between HAVING evil impulses, and DOING evil deeds? If there is, is there an equal difference between having good impulses, and doing good things?
If we *only* do good things because of the smug sense of satisfaction it gives us, rather than because it’s just a good thing to do… then is it really a mark of good? I’ve always thought it’s a very interesting question. I also think it might very well have a lot to do with how religious morality evolved, but that’s another, very long story…
What makes you think I’m discounting any of that?
I have a bit of theory about this- I think that there are well meaning people that just don’t get that things that make them incredibly uncomfortable and freaked out will make everyone else ever incredibly freaked out.
I also think there is a problem of projection- but I think it’s a lot more about their overactive superego than their dissatisfaction. They confuse internal feelings of guilt with external necessity for guilt- they punish themselves morally for certain actions and feelings (especially sex and asking questions) and because of that, they feel the source of the guilt is a bad action, rather than indoctrination. So instead of blaming the church for making them feel guilty about natural things, they blame themselves and everyone for being human and therefore being sinful.
That’s all just my theory. I think projection is a big part of it, but not all of it- especially since there are many Christians, even fundamentalists, who lead very happy lives, although they succumb to the logical fallacies that are programmed into them. Like they would say, love the sinner, hate the sin, except in this case the sin is being wrong a lot XD
I feel even worse for poor Christian girls who have my physiology. Since I’m VERY petite and have very narrow hips (at least that’s my assumption of why) so I literally cannot be involved in vaginal penetration without at least a little pain, and at most excruciation. I’m going to sex therapy to see if I can fix this, but you know what? Christian women aren’t allowed to do that. They have to be fucked, and if their partner is the model of a fundamentalist, he won’t care if he leaves her bloody and in tears by the end of it. The have to do it missionary, with the woman on the bottom, so she can’t have any control, even if she feels like she’s being ripped in half. I was told by a good friend to try to lose my virginity in the female superior position, but do fundamentalist brides get such a chance? Nope.
As a sidenote, I’ve considered buttsecks, because I think there’s a decent possibility that if I do it right, it might be significantly more comfortable for me. My “natural” vagina doesn’t fit an opening… So I’m gonna have buttsecks. STICK THAT IN YOUR FUNDAMENTALIST PIPE AND SMOKE IT!
I loved the title so much I didn’t even read the post. I knew it could only go downhill from there.
I think it’s also because the risk of having deformed children is WAY too high for people to be comfortable with it.
I think it isn’t in the same category as maybe Jerry Sandusky, but it would better be placed in the same category of matchmaking in fundamentalist Jewish (don’t remember which sect) communities with a high risk of Tay Sachs. It is restricting sexual freedom, but with the obvious benefit of avoiding birth defects.
Yeah, I guess I put that comment in the wrong place. It was mostly as a response to the why do millionaires get friends comment XD But yeah, it was mostly the why do millionaires get friends comment. Just saying, it’s not an equivalent metaphor.
If we were created naked and without fur shouldn’t we all remain au naturel? Or is somehow more natural to use God given human ingenuity to solve the problem of cold climate, but not the problem of too much friction?
At least it’s nice that they sometimes realize “Because God said so” is not a valid argument to secular people.
So why don’t we do genetic testing of all couples before allowing them to have sex?
(I mean, leaving aside the fundamentally ethically problematic aspects of eugenics and the fact that sex doesn’t imply reproduction…)
Simple probability would suffice for me. It is highly unlikely that someone will marry into a deleterious (non somatic) genetic disease unless it is within a tight community (as with the case of Tay-Sachs- in which case, matchmakers DO do genetic testing before approving a match) or if the couple is closely related. I believe the point at which blood relation stops giving a high probability of producing defects is at like, second cousins- might be more than that. And genetic testing isn’t that cheap yet. It’s a simple matter of risk. The risk is significantly higher in couples that are closely related, so they just aren’t allowed. It’s not like it’s a 25% chance, it’s seriously better to just not try because almost always your kids will be messed up genetically, and you pretty much don’t have to worry about that with unrelated couples because the chance is significantly lower. It’s just not practical or cost effective to test everyone.
But if it could become cost effective… Well then you would have the whole argument of whether it is ethical to abort a fetus because it may have defects. And I am not fucking touching that with a 9 foot pole.
Here’s hoping this is on my genetics exam so I can justify this time as “studying” and not as “fucking around on the internet” -_-
2 kinds of lubricant! Clearly natural.
Ha ha, I like this. No sex with the 1% !
This wins the Dumbest Thing I’ve Read This Week award (actually, that would make an interesting series of blog posts). That person isn’t even consistent with his/her bad grammar and punctuation. The lest an idiot can do for the rest of us is to be consistent in their stupidity.
*grumble grumble* I lost an ‘a’ in there:
lestleastOr the ethical problems with limiting who can have sex with who because you’re afraid of what might happen if a pregnancy results. Or assuming adults are too stupid to think of these things themselves and use contraception. Or assuming that all sex carries the risk of pregnancy. (I’m reasonably certain that a relationship between two brothers, say, is much less likely to produce a child with birth defects than any male-female relationship).
This is what I mean about it being obvious that people are trying to justify a visceral reaction backwards. And visceral reactions in and of themselves aren’t enough to morally justify interfering in the private lives of consenting adults.
Which is an apples-to-oranges comparison anyway because what you’re proposing is legal prohibition of sex between closely related consenting adults, but that later question is about what decisions adults “should” make about their own bodies in particular situations.
Unless you’re suggesting there’s a legitimate controversy over whether the law should mandate abortion in pregnancies where the fetus has or is likely to have birth defects. In which case…
*backs away slowly*
I would suggest consulting this site, if you haven’t found it already. The tips are pretty good.
And, errm, good luck. :)
I think you’re likely assuming there’s a lot more of a damn given about the woman’s enjoyment than fundie-types usually grant.
Jim? Jim Levenstein? That you?
No. Ze’s asserting that there are different levels of power when one of them is the parent of the other.
I thought that was any argument from fundies, based on where they pulled it from.
Google “Leon Kass” and “wisdom of repugnance.” He’s tried to elevate “Ick!” into some kind of irrefutable moral judgment.
Of course, this is the same trog who’s also repulsed by women eating ice cream in public…
You should ask your theologian why a gay-hating god would put access to the prostate (which, when stimulated, contributes to mind-exploding orgasms) inside the male body, reachable only by going inside the anus, say, with an erect penis.
Further, ask why a gay-hating god would design the male anus to dilate under sexual stimulation of other areas (or just in the mind)? It only makes sense if god expected the anus to need to dilate as part of sexual activity.
Further, ask why a gay-hating god would create so many gays — millions and millions of them.
Sheesh.
Excepting limiting cases like a history of abuse, I simply don’t buy this.
I appreciate that. It’s wrong and stupid but at least it’s more or less intellectually honest….
AGH! No. “Spit is not lube!” is a catchphrase in certain corners, with reason.
Seeing as he’s self-made that explains how he can be so blind.
We are talking about masturbation, right?
Two words; “in” and “breeding”.
If God is so anti gay why were David and Jonathan heroes in Kings I?
Then you have the tribe of Benjamin.
Argumentum a sexualis in anum
according to google translate at least.
With thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel can locate any details in posting and discus forum