Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote: Indeed, as I've said before, I'm as gay friendly as you can be without letting someone put their balls in your mouth and humming the national anthem.

Bwahahah. We may disagree sometimes Mattyrm, but you are and will likely always remain awesome.

Aw Shucks..

Don't we need to go back to considering sex as a basic concept. The whole premise of having sex, is to reproduce. Anything that doesn't ultimately provide a route to reproduction, technically isn't sex.

So, oral sex, anal sex, masturbation....all of these things can not "naturally" lead to reproduction and therefore should not come under the term sex.

Of course, like so many things, the word is in fact used as an umberella term and covers really anything one choses to do in private. (or not as the case may be).

Considering the state of homosexuality as natural, really depends upon which angle you approach it, I think. If you approach it from the sex angle (see above) then it is by no means natural....and this is where I think the problem in society occurs. If people could "get off" on hand-shaking and could derive an intimate connection from the act, would we consider this a natural sexual act?!?

In my mind homosexuality is about finding a deep connectivity with someone of the same gender, step 1. Step 2, is the expression of that connection....and I belive this is what we are discussing, whether this should be taught in the classroom.

Personally I don't think it should. My reasons for stating this are not based on puritan views, or homophobic tendancies....but on a practical level. Society always wishes to put everythiing into "boxes" so that they can be defined. Right now, and apologies for being blunt, we are really defining homosexuality as the act of (from a male perspective) having anal sex and oral sex......but don't you see, all we are doing is putting a label on homosexuality, and saying if you have strong feelings for someone of the same gender, this is how you should express it?!?!?

Should we also teach people HOW to express their feelings for every facet of life? And who is to say that one set of expressions fits for all?

Sex education is fine, its really mechanical....pop this in there, stir, and wham, you make another you. Thats's just science 101. You don't need to talk about the man loving the woman, seeing her as an equal, exploring her mindscape.....because these things defy schooling. So to does the important aspect of homosexuality.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Great White wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Absolute rubbish with no scientific evidence but these are often the same people who believe that the Earth is 5,000 years old, so scientific evidence doesn't factor into their world view.

Well that has to do with religion. While I believe it is crazy, Christians view being gay as a sin. Religion has no place in public school. And while it may be a shock to religious groups and Rick Santorum, not everybody believes what you believe in.

I wouldn't say that religion has no place in public school. It has no place in the running of a public school but there should be opportunities to learn about different religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam etc. Learning about religions is important, if only to reduce the ignorance of these religions which is perpetuated by the lies often spouted by members of an opposed religion or the actions of extreme elements of a religion which does not necessarily reflect the message of the religion or the views of those who follow the religion as a whole.

Oh, no I believe children should learn about religion. It is an important part of life to know that religion exists and to respect what other people believe in, and to learn the rights things about another religion from the lies. When I say it has no place in public schools I am saying in the running of the schools. If the principle is christian, he shouldn't let his religion get in the way of not allowing gay people in the school. Religion has a place in schools to keep students informed about them, but not in dictating right from wrong.

Delephont wrote:Don't we need to go back to considering sex as a basic concept. The whole premise of having sex, is to reproduce. Anything that doesn't ultimately provide a route to reproduction, technically isn't sex.

Yes it is. Sex itself is an intimate act between two people which often results in (or at least is intended to result in) sexual climax in one or more partners. Certainly that's how our bodies think of it! Claiming that two men or two woman literally cannot have sex is just nonsense.

You really have to understand, we don't belong to nature anymore.

Delephont wrote:Don't we need to go back to considering sex as a basic concept. The whole premise of having sex, is to reproduce. Anything that doesn't ultimately provide a route to reproduction, technically isn't sex.

Nah thats wrong mate, think about it, nowadays with all the contraception we use, its hardly ever a route to reproduction anyway!

Its not like if your wife catches you banging a two dollar hooker up against a dumpster you can go "Its alright love, Im wearing a rubber so.. technically it isnt sex!.... Nip in and get me some tic tacs will you? I'm almost done!"

Melissia wrote:

Delephont wrote:Don't we need to go back to considering sex as a basic concept. The whole premise of having sex, is to reproduce. Anything that doesn't ultimately provide a route to reproduction, technically isn't sex.

Yes it is. Sex itself is an intimate act between two people which often results in (or at least is intended to result in) sexual climax in one or more partners. Certainly that's how our bodies think of it!

You really have to understand, we don't belong to nature anymore. Hell, even the act of impregnation doesn't need to involve penetrative intercourse involving a man and woman's genitals at all anymore.

There's also the fact that there is at least one other animal on the planet which regularly has sex for reasons other than reproducing, which is the dolphin. This might be why they're considered one of the most intelligent animals on the planet, randy buggers that they are

Hell, even the act of impregnation doesn't need to involve penetrative intercourse involving a man and woman's genitals at all anymore-- and for that matter, it doesn't even require both genders anymore.

These days, we can turn male genetic material in to an egg or female genetic material in to sperm, and thus create children that are born of two men or of two women, with none of the other gender involved.

Science! *dons goggles, raises fist in to the air*

A Town Called Malus wrote:There's also the fact that there is at least one other animal on the planet which regularly has sex for reasons other than reproducing, which is the dolphin. This might be why they're considered as one of the most intelligent animals on the planet, randy buggers that they are

Also the bonobo and some other simian relatives of ours.

Yeah I was about to say monkeys do it for pleasure as well.. I know this because I once saw an organ grinders monkey humping a bottle of coke.

Would you also consider dogs in this category too? They hump just about everything.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah I was about to say monkeys do it for pleasure as well.. I know this because I once saw an organ grinders monkey humping a bottle of coke.

I'd say dogs probably get the best of both worlds; hump pretty much whatever they want and still get to sleep in the house. Though obviously this often comes at the price of a bag of veg... So swings and roundabouts really

Great White wrote:Would you also consider dogs in this category too? They hump just about everything.

Damn it, stop posting things I was going to post quicker than me

Great White wrote:Would you also consider dogs in this category too? They hump just about everything.

That isn't anything to do with sex IIRC...

They do, but that's questionable as that's a matter of dominance. In dolphins and monkeys it's more of a matter of intimacy.

Great White wrote:Would you also consider dogs in this category too? They hump just about everything.

Possibly, but I think they do it to prove their dominance don't they? I mean, I saw one frantically humping another dogs skull oncl, and they cant be dumb enough to think that's where the ovaries are!

@ Mellissia

I want to comment on your point "we don't belong to nature anymore".

I'm going to assume your being serious with that statement. I'm currently writing a paper on environmental sustainability. Its funny, because its ideologies exactly like that, that have brought us this close to the brink. In the eyes of "nature" and when I say nature, I don't just mean the bush growing in your garden, I'm talking Universal, man is a spec of dust. Even though we have evolved to the point where we (believe) we can chose to follow natures laws or not, does not mean we are free from them.

But lets play the game. Everything you stated about sex in your post, can also be awared to acts such as necrophilia, beastiality, and a whole host of fetishes that exist. Are they wrong? if so why? who are we to judge what should provide intimacy or not? And that was my whole point. When you start to teach one, you should then teach them all.....is it fair that Tommy who's gay gets a break, but poor Timmey who gets off touching his dog doesn't?

Thats why I believe you need to have a cut off point. Keep sex in the realms of the mechanical, and it serves its purpose. Start adding other elements to the brew and you will have problems.

I'm pretty sure 95%+ of sexual activity is done for non reproductive purposes.

Comparing homosexuality to necrophilia or bestiality isn't cool...
Don't be that guy...
No one likes that guy...

purplefood wrote:Comparing homosexuality to necrophilia or bestiality isn't cool...
Don't be that guy...
No one likes that guy...

Yeah, there is no comparison between those other than that they are all non heterosexual.

But of course everything that isn't heterosexual is evil and will send you to hell.

But there is a cut off point, and that point is where society en-masse decides it has become uncomfortable or causes uneccessary distress. Necrophilia is easy, because 99.95% of us would feel distressed if we found the undertaker plugging granny before he boxed her up.

Regards bestiality, the animal cant consent, and would probably be confused, so that counts as causing something sentient unnecessary distress as well surely?

I think your questions were trivially easy to answer. Society decides. Its a democracy after all.

If two sentient creatures consent to do things to each other, and said things cant possibly distress or harm others (for example, if they did it in public it could distress a child, ergo shagging each other in the street is illegal) then how can you make a good case for it being wrong?

Devil's advocate, what if someone consents to have their corpse used for sexual practices prior to death?

Amaya wrote:Devil's advocate, what if someone consents to have their corpse used for sexual practices prior to death?

Well, I suppose that's alright then as long as its in private?

Although, not likely to happen in the real world though is it?

Delephont wrote:@ Mellissia [sic; misspelled my name]

I want to comment on your point "we don't belong to nature anymore".

Your objection misses the point.

We chemically manufacture hormones to change our body's cycles to prevent impregnation. We physically manufacture barriers which prevent impregnation. This is something no creature in nature does. Our race, while still connected to nature as far as resources go, is very distinct from what is "natural".

Delephont wrote:But lets play the game. Everything you stated about sex in your post, can also be awared to acts such as necrophilia, beastiality, and a whole host of fetishes that exist.

Yes, and?

Delephont wrote:Are they wrong? if so why?

Necrophilia and bestiality, along with the unspoken pedophilia, are wrong because they involve a partner who cannot legally consent. And I will be honest here: I believe, rather firmly, that people who compare homosexuality to necrophilia, bestiality, and paedophilia are nothing more than worthless trolls to be ignored.

Delephont wrote:who are we to judge what should provide intimacy or not?

Did I give any statement that intimacy was right or wrong there? No, I only said that it was a requirement for sex. But intimacy alone does not create sex, nor does intimacy indicate something is right or wrong. Stop making gak up.

mattyrm wrote:

Amaya wrote:Devil's advocate, what if someone consents to have their corpse used for sexual practices prior to death?

Well, I suppose that's alright then as long as its in private?

Although, not likely to happen in the real world though is it?

Probably not, but then there have been people who have given consent for their remains to be eaten by other people. Though from what I recall the law still didn't look kindly on them

purplefood wrote:Comparing homosexuality to necrophilia or bestiality isn't cool...
Don't be that guy...
No one likes that guy...

Ahh...and here it is. In place of enlightened discussion we have the "WORD PLAYER"......ok, where in my post have I compared Homosexuality to anything else?

What I have done, is compare one type of social classification with another.

And may I add, you provide a wonderful spring board to my point. Why should we not compare homosexuality to necrophilia? or even hetrosexuality to bestiality? Are you suggesting those "sexual" acts are wrong? Why are they wrong? and who are you to judge?

So society has moved on, its nolonger "cool" to deride homosexuals, but its perfectly ok to marginalise other sexual acts? Where does it end?

My point is, either they're all "right" or they're all "wrong".......what you're doing is simply expanding the hoop of social acceptance. Fine as long as you don't fall outside that hoop don't you think?

Delephont wrote:Ahh...and here it is. In place of enlightened discussion we have the "WORD PLAYER"......ok, where in my post have I compared Homosexuality to anything else?

Right here,

Delephont wrote:But lets play the game. Everything you stated about sex in your post, can also be awared to acts such as necrophilia, beastiality, and a whole host of fetishes that exist. Are they wrong? if so why? who are we to judge what should provide intimacy or not? And that was my whole point. When you start to teach one, you should then teach them all.....

Don't be disingenuous.

They (necrophiliac, pedophiles, etc...) are wrong because they encourage a whole sleuth of diseases both psychological and physical.

The Artifice vs. Nature argument is mostly one of shifting semantics. There are natural values, and artificial values. Even natural values don't put that much focus on reproduction, just perpetuation of the group. Naturally, it can be very profitable for a being, and for his group, not to reproduce. No such advantages can be found in anyway in the cases of pedophilia (excluding pederastry), beastiality and necrophilia.

Delephont wrote:My point is, either they're all "right" or they're all "wrong"

Fallacious logic doesn't make for intelligent discourse.

Delephont wrote:where in my post have I compared Homosexuality to anything else?

I would say right about... here:

Delephont wrote:Everything you stated about sex in your post, can also be awared to acts such as necrophilia, beastiality, and a whole host of fetishes that exist.

mattyrm wrote:

Amaya wrote:Devil's advocate, what if someone consents to have their corpse used for sexual practices prior to death?

Well, I suppose that's alright then as long as its in private?

Although, not likely to happen in the real world though is it?

I don't it would occur even as frequently as 1 in a million, but as someone else kindly pointed people have consented to have their remains eaten.

Delephont wrote:
My point is, either they're all "right" or they're all "wrong"

They arent though are they?!

I don't really understand your point, WHY are they either all right or all wrong? Surely we can decide things on an individual basis?

Amaya wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Amaya wrote:Devil's advocate, what if someone consents to have their corpse used for sexual practices prior to death?

Well, I suppose that's alright then as long as its in private?

I don't it would occur even as frequently as 1 in a million, but as someone else kindly pointed people have consented to have their remains eaten.

It's freaky and I admit to being disturbed by it, but I wouldn't call it immoral. After all, they did consent.