Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.

[Rhiannon]

Disney made a film about gonorrhoea???

Seriously. You can find on Youtube.

[Spud]

Although I do remember the school showing a Disney film about gonorrhoea.

Morning Rhiannon
STD is surely evidence that strikes dumb anyone who says that sex outside a monogamous male-female relationship (marriage) is fulfilling?

[Sebastian Toe]

Morning Rhiannon
STD is surely evidence that strikes dumb anyone who says that sex outside a monogamous male-female relationship (marriage) is fulfilling?

What about monogamous same sex relationships?
Don't they count as fulfilling?

[Rhiannon]

Morning Rhiannon
STD is surely evidence that strikes dumb anyone who says that sex outside a monogamous male-female relationship (marriage) is fulfilling?

No it isn't. I've had very fulfilling sex outside of marriage and I didn't get an STD because it is possible to do one without risking the other.

STDs aren't gender exclusive, you know.

[Roses]

Morning Rhiannon
STD is surely evidence that strikes dumb anyone who says that sex outside a monogamous male-female relationship (marriage) is fulfilling?

You aren't likely to get an STD if you are in a gay or straight monogamous relationship, married or unmarried.

[Stranger]

STD is surely evidence that strikes dumb anyone who says that sex outside a monogamous male-female relationship (marriage) is fulfilling?

Are you actually suggesting that the chance of catching some sort of infection during the course of an interaction, automatically makes it unfulfilling?

That's pretty much all face to face human contact ruled out then...

[Rhiannon]

Are you actually suggesting that the chance of catching some sort of infection during the course of an interaction, automatically makes it unfulfilling?

That's pretty much all face to face human contact ruled out then...

I was thinking that. Are colds evidence that we should all just stay in our rooms?

[Aruntraveller]

Morning Rhiannon
STD is surely evidence that strikes dumb anyone who says that sex outside a monogamous male-female relationship (marriage) is fulfilling?

STD's are nothing more than evidence that bugs and viruses can affect all areas of the body. They should not be used as some sort of judgement based on 'moral' grounds. They are passed on during sexual activity. This can happen on the first occasion you have sex with someone else (eg Florence Foster Jenkins) or with the 400 th person you sleep with. STD infections are indiscriminate and arbitrary. Moral judgements made on that basis are lazy, wrong and themself immoral.

That said, clearly there is a correaltion between promiscuity and risky sexual behaviour with a higher chance of being infected. I fully acknowwledge that those behaviour patterns exist in the gay community, but that does not mean that being gay is any kind of indication that you will get STD's.

To summarise, it's the behaviour, not the sexuality.

[Rhiannon]

There seems to be a judgement that STIs are a morally worse form of illness to get than, say, a stomach bug caused by poor hygiene. We all indulge in 'risky behaviour' - having the odd drink, eating chips, even driving - far more likely to result in a fatality than unprotected sex. Yes,  there are some behaviours that are riskier than others but that is about personal responsibility, not moral judgement. Makes no sense to me.

[jeremyp]

Morning Rhiannon
STD is surely evidence that strikes dumb anyone who says that sex outside a monogamous male-female relationship (marriage) is fulfilling?

Did you not know that, the probability of getting an STD in a monogamous same sex relationship is about the same as for a different sex relationship? (Assuming that neither partner had the STD when they started.)

And, of course, your chance of getting an STD in what you perceive to be a monogamous heterosexual marriage is not zero.

[Nearly Sane]

There seems to be a judgement that STIs are a morally worse form of illness to get than, say, a stomach bug caused by poor hygiene. We all indulge in 'risky behaviour' - having the odd drink, eating chips, even driving - far more likely to result in a fatality than unprotected sex. Yes,  there are some behaviours that are riskier than others but that is about personal responsibility, not moral judgement. Makes no sense to me.

All of this is entirely irrelevant to the idea that a same sex relationship cannot be fulfilling. It's a pointles distraction from Spud's claim about that. And his mention of  STIs should just be ignored as an egregious non sequitur.

[Roses]

There seems to be a judgement that STIs are a morally worse form of illness to get than, say, a stomach bug caused by poor hygiene. We all indulge in 'risky behaviour' - having the odd drink, eating chips, even driving - far more likely to result in a fatality than unprotected sex. Yes,  there are some behaviours that are riskier than others but that is about personal responsibility, not moral judgement. Makes no sense to me.

STIs are much more likely if people sleep around, which is a daft thing to do, imo.

[Rhiannon]

All of this is entirely irrelevant to the idea that a same sex relationship cannot be fulfilling. It's a pointles distraction from Spud's claim about that. And his mention of  STIs should just be ignored as an egregious non sequitur.

But not irrelevant given that the discussion has moved on to what is and isn’t risky behaviour. And please don’t tell me what I should and shouldn’t ignore.

[jeremyp]

All of this is entirely irrelevant to the idea that a same sex relationship cannot be fulfilling. It's a pointles distraction from Spud's claim about that. And his mention of  STIs should just be ignored as an egregious non sequitur.

Yes but it's not irrelevant to the subject of same sex marriage. If we accept the idea that monogamous relationships reduce the incidence of STI's, which I think seems reasonable, then encouraging monogamous relationships is a good idea and if marriage helps promote monogamous relationships, surely we should all  be happy that gay people can now have marriage.

One of the facts of life that religious people don't seem to be able to understand is that people will have sex. You can try to ban it as much as you like but you really can't stop it. The tragic example of child abuse by priests in the Catholic church should be enough to make that obvious. 

Spud might as well be morally outraged at the tide coming in as be morally outraged at the fact of people having sex except within marriage.

[Nearly Sane]

But not irrelevant given that the discussion has moved on to what is and isn’t risky behaviour. And please don’t tell me what I should and shouldn’t ignore.

It's only moved on because people have engaged with a non sequitur. It let's him off the hook for his original statement. If you want to do that, find but it's just playing his game.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes but it's not irrelevant to the subject of same sex marriage. If we accept the idea that monogamous relationships reduce the incidence of STI's, which I think seems reasonable, then encouraging monogamous relationships is a good idea and if marriage helps promote monogamous relationships, surely we should all  be happy that gay people can now have marriage.

One of the facts of life that religious people don't seem to be able to understand is that people will have sex. You can try to ban it as much as you like but you really can't stop it. The tragic example of child abuse by priests in the Catholic church should be enough to make that obvious. 

Spud might as well be morally outraged at the tide coming in as be morally outraged at the fact of people having sex except within marriage.

Except his initial claim was abouf the relationship being fulfilling. If you want to follow the Gish gallop with his non sequitur, off you go. It just means the next comment can be a further irrelevance and you go off down rabbit hole.

[Rhiannon]

It's only moved on because people have engaged with a non sequitur. It let's him off the hook for his original statement. If you want to do that, find but it's just playing his game.

But Spud's POV is that sex outside of marriage results in STIs which therefore make the relationship unfulfilling. Not that sex outside of marriage is unfulfilling because of the risk of STIs. In other words how can you enjoy a fulfilling sexual relationship if it makes you sick. I really think that Spud is naive enough to think this a thing.

[jeremyp]

Except his initial claim was abouf the relationship being fulfilling. If you want to follow the Gish gallop with his non sequitur, off you go. It just means the next comment can be a further irrelevance and you go off down rabbit hole.

This is a message board. There's no time limit and that fact renders the Gish gallop tactic pointless. There's nothing to stop us from moving on to other aspects of same sex marriage and also keep on about Spud's "fulfilling" comment.

Not that continuing to hold his feet to the fire on that subject will get a straight answer out of him. You can go on for a thousand pagers and you won't get a concession out of him that his remarks on fulfilling sex outside heterosexual  marriage are wrong (and offensive to some).

[Spud]

There seems to be a judgement that STIs are a morally worse form of illness to get than, say, a stomach bug caused by poor hygiene. We all indulge in 'risky behaviour' - having the odd drink, eating chips, even driving - far more likely to result in a fatality than unprotected sex. Yes,  there are some behaviours that are riskier than others but that is about personal responsibility, not moral judgement. Makes no sense to me.

I am not saying that sexual behaviour outside monogamous hetero marriage is morally worse, just that STD's are as Flu says associated with such behaviour. This suggests that the ideal for sex is within a monogamous relationship. I doubt there are many who haven't contravened that ideal, but the ideal is there.

Did you not know that, the probability of getting an STD in a monogamous same sex relationship is about the same as for a different sex relationship? (Assuming that neither partner had the STD when they started.)

Yes. Sex within monogamous same sex relationships may be better insofar as there is less chance of disease transmission. However, there are some activities that can be risky in themselves. The fact is that the body is designed (whether by God or by chance) for heterosexual intercourse.

And, of course, your chance of getting an STD in what you perceive to be a monogamous heterosexual marriage is not zero.

True but the fact remains that STDs are significantly associated with sleeping around.

[Rhiannon]

I am not saying that sexual behaviour outside monogamous hetero marriage is morally worse, just that STD's are as Flu says associated with such behaviour. This suggests that the ideal for sex is within a monogamous relationship. I doubt there are many who haven't contravened that ideal, but the ideal is there.
Yes. Sex within monogamous same sex relationships may be better insofar as there is less chance of disease transmission. However, there are some activities that can be risky in themselves. The fact is that the body is designed (whether by God or by chance) for heterosexual intercourse.
True but the fact remains that STDs are significantly associated with sleeping around.

No, Spud, sex outside of monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is not associated with STDs. Why do you think that they are?

[Roses]

The more people with whom you have a sexual relationship, the more likely you are to get a STI.

[Sebastian Toe]

However, there are some activities that can be risky in themselves. The fact is that the body is designed (whether by God or by chance) for heterosexual intercourse.

Activities?
What activities?

[Aruntraveller]

The fact is that the body is designed (whether by God or by chance) for heterosexual intercourse.

Leaving aside the interesting concept of designing by chance.

This God of yours seems spectacularly bad at design. For example until modern healthcare  women were at an uncomfortably high risk of dying in childbirth. Why did God design women that way?

You seem to be straying close to an unnatural=wrong equation. I dont see the issue myself. God appears to have made it perfectly possible for 2 men to have intercourse. Just because you have an issue with the type of intercourse is no reason to discount or deny it.

[Rhiannon]

The more people with whom you have a sexual relationship, the more likely you are to get a STI.

Not if you practice safe sex.

 

[Roses]

Not if you practice safe sex.

Yes but something could go wrong like the condom bursting, for instance.


This is a bit off topic, but I have heard that Sainsburys is going to sell sex toys in its stores!