Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Owlswing]

You're quiet right Owl, but the trouble is where supporting evidence is required for any of the religions it's so thin on the ground which in turn makes any of these delusional people that have chosen religion tend to fall back on clutching at straws,

You always know it's going to be a gem coming from the lips of a religionist when you hear those tired old words Starlin, Pol Pot and Hitler.

Regards, ippy.

Anybody who considers the Bible to be a book worth following as "the revealed word of God" is deluded - you only have to look at the Sixth Commandment and Exodus 22:18 to see what a load of rubbish it is.

I have lost count of the number of different explanations for the existence of those two verses that have been served up! Somehow they either dismiss one or t'other or claim that one is not from God. Guess which one!

[Spud]

Spud,

You think?
 
No they are not. They’re very, very natural – homosexuality has been observed in over 1,000 species. What could be more “natural” than that?

That doesn't mean it's acceptable for humans. Animals also commit rape (no I'm not comparing homosexuality with rape).

….and he’s been corrected on his mistake too.

Absolute  idiocy. And nasty  idiocy too. If by “roles” you’re trying to imply that procreation is the only role sex has then you couldn’t be more wrong.

How you concluded that from what I wrote, I don't know. I wasn't talking about the role of sex but the different roles of men and women in the sexual act. But since you seem to want to talk about the role of sex, here's how I see it. Procreation can only happen two days a month for a woman, and she can't be expected to know exactly when that is every time. So it's not wrong for people to have sex that may not, or will not, result in procreation. Yet it doesn't follow that any form of sex goes. You see, everyday observation shows us that the only way to reproduce naturally is for the train to go up the tunnel; this is confirmed by biological observation. So it follows that the proper place to actively put the hose for the purpose of releasing the testicular contents, is in the funnel. Not in any other place. A sexual relationship ought then to be between a man and a woman. You might reply that people have a right to decide who they want a relationship with. But relationships by their nature involve all of society, meaning that any relationship has to happen with the consent of the participants and society. What I see happening is any member of society who does not consent to gay relationships being ostracized**, so that out of fear they accept them, leading to an apparent acceptance of them.

Sex – recreational as well as procreational – has many roles from pair binding to tribal cohesion to better overall success in protecting the genome.

And while we’re here, who on earth do you think is “dishonoured” by non-procreational sex? The participants? So long as it’s consensual and pleasurable, hardly.

Bearing in mind that I was talking specifically about unnatural sex. male-male or female-female, yes the participants because they become like the opposite sex. Consent and pleasure are irrelevant.

Why would someone deliberately use their body in a way for which it was not designed? Well, yes, for pleasure. But ask yourself, is pleasure worth a departure from reason?

You? What the hell has it got to do with you at all, let alone that you should even presume to exercise a moral judgement over it. Your god? First you need to demonstrate that such a thing exists, then that you know what it thinks, then that what it thinks is that how people have sex and with whom is any of its business. Good luck with that.
 
You know the only morally disgusting thing here? Your opinions about this. You really, really need to think hard about yourself here.

Classic example of **

[Aruntraveller]

Why would someone deliberately use their body in a way for which it was not designed? Well, yes, for pleasure. But ask yourself, is pleasure worth a departure from reason?

Clearly it was designed for the purpose I use it for, otherwise I wouldn't be able to use my body that way.

(Not that, for one minute I accept the notion that my body was designed, but that's another argument)

[Owlswing]

That doesn't mean it's acceptable for humans. Animals also commit rape (no I'm not comparing homosexuality with rape).

How you concluded that from what I wrote, I don't know. I wasn't talking about the role of sex but the different roles of men and women in the sexual act. But since you seem to want to talk about the role of sex, here's how I see it. Procreation can only happen two days a month for a woman, and she can't be expected to know exactly when that is every time. So it's not wrong for people to have sex that may not, or will not, result in procreation. Yet it doesn't follow that any form of sex goes. You see, everyday observation shows us that the only way to reproduce naturally is for the train to go up the tunnel; this is confirmed by biological observation. So it follows that the proper place to actively put the hose for the purpose of releasing the testicular contents, is in the funnel. Not in any other place. A sexual relationship ought then to be between a man and a woman. You might reply that people have a right to decide who they want a relationship with. But relationships by their nature involve all of society, meaning that any relationship has to happen with the consent of the participants and society. What I see happening is any member of society who does not consent to gay relationships being ostracized**, so that out of fear they accept them, leading to an apparent acceptance of them.

Bearing in mind that I was talking specifically about unnatural sex. male-male or female-female, yes the participants because they become like the opposite sex. Consent and pleasure are irrelevant.

Why would someone deliberately use their body in a way for which it was not designed? Well, yes, for pleasure. But ask yourself, is pleasure worth a departure from reason?

Classic example of **

What a load of bollocks trying to justify unjustifiable homophobic nonsense!

[Roses]

That doesn't mean it's acceptable for humans. Animals also commit rape (no I'm not comparing homosexuality with rape).

How you concluded that from what I wrote, I don't know. I wasn't talking about the role of sex but the different roles of men and women in the sexual act. But since you seem to want to talk about the role of sex, here's how I see it. Procreation can only happen two days a month for a woman, and she can't be expected to know exactly when that is every time. So it's not wrong for people to have sex that may not, or will not, result in procreation. Yet it doesn't follow that any form of sex goes. You see, everyday observation shows us that the only way to reproduce naturally is for the train to go up the tunnel; this is confirmed by biological observation. So it follows that the proper place to actively put the hose for the purpose of releasing the testicular contents, is in the funnel. Not in any other place. A sexual relationship ought then to be between a man and a woman. You might reply that people have a right to decide who they want a relationship with. But relationships by their nature involve all of society, meaning that any relationship has to happen with the consent of the participants and society. What I see happening is any member of society who does not consent to gay relationships being ostracized**, so that out of fear they accept them, leading to an apparent acceptance of them.

Bearing in mind that I was talking specifically about unnatural sex. male-male or female-female, yes the participants because they become like the opposite sex. Consent and pleasure are irrelevant.

Why would someone deliberately use their body in a way for which it was not designed? Well, yes, for pleasure. But ask yourself, is pleasure worth a departure from reason?

Classic example of **

You homophobic bigot. I know I have said it boringly often, but I do hope Jesus was gay and had a wonderful sex life.

[Gordon]

That doesn't mean it's acceptable for humans. Animals also commit rape (no I'm not comparing homosexuality with rape).

Then you had no need to mention rape at all.

I wasn't talking about the role of sex but the different roles of men and women in the sexual act. But since you seem to want to talk about the role of sex, here's how I see it. Procreation can only happen two days a month for a woman, and she can't be expected to know exactly when that is every time. So it's not wrong for people to have sex that may not, or will not, result in procreation.

You do realise that both women and men can make use of options to avoid (bar error) the risk of unintended pregnancy: maybe you haven't got to that chapter yet,
     

Yet it doesn't follow that any form of sex goes.

Provided it is between consenting adults, Spud, it really is none of your (or anyone else's) business.

You see, everyday observation shows us that the only way to reproduce naturally is for the train to go up the tunnel; this is confirmed by biological observation. So it follows that the proper place to actively put the hose for the purpose of releasing the testicular contents, is in the funnel. Not in any other place. A sexual relationship ought then to be between a man and a woman.

I think you need to get out a bit more, Spud.

You might reply that people have a right to decide who they want a relationship with. But relationships by their nature involve all of society, meaning that any relationship has to happen with the consent of the participants and society. What I see happening is any member of society who does not consent to gay relationships being ostracized**, so that out of fear they accept them, leading to an apparent acceptance of them.

Here in the UK anyway, given the legality of same sex marriage, perhaps it is you that is out of step with society, and of course 'society' isn't static and the zeitgeist constantly shifts. As I recall a main source of objections to legalising SSM came from those with religious affiliations, and they were perfectly free to object, but as events played out 'society' concluded that their minority theological stance wasn't as compelling an argument as was the case that marriage laws were discriminatory.   

Bearing in mind that I was talking specifically about unnatural sex. male-male or female-female, yes the participants because they become like the opposite sex. Consent and pleasure are irrelevant.

Who are you to define 'unnatural'? By the way, consent and pleasure are highly relevant.

Why would someone deliberately use their body in a way for which it was not designed? Well, yes, for pleasure. But ask yourself, is pleasure worth a departure from reason?

Leaving aside the 'design' nonsense, perhaps you'd explain how 'pleasure' and 'reason' are incompatible, and were it not for the 'pleasure' aspect: and presumably you do realise that people can have sex purely for pleasure, then many of us wouldn't be here - so let's have a big hand for 'pleasure' when it comes to sex.

[Owlswing]

You do realise that both women and men can make use of options to avoid (bar error) the risk of unintended pregnancy: maybe you haven't got to that chapter yet,
     

And you do realise that the Church still sees contraception (except for guesswork) is a offence against God and thus every fuck must be for the purposes of procreation!

God made a good fuck pleasurable so that you would keep sinning so he could keep Heaven from being overpopulated with loads of randy old sods and oversexed women!   

[Sebastian Toe]

- so let's have a big hand for 'pleasure' when it comes to sex.

....other size hands are also available, and in no way detrimental!!
 

[Outrider]

That doesn't mean it's acceptable for humans. Animals also commit rape (no I'm not comparing homosexuality with rape).

Given that the crime of rape is about the boundary of consent, and how little we understand about whether animals have sufficient awareness to give or withhold consent, that's debatable.

How you concluded that from what I wrote, I don't know. I wasn't talking about the role of sex but the different roles of men and women in the sexual act.

Yet you're doing so from a puritanically naive stance - not all sex is penetrative, when it is there any number of body-parts and artificial tools that can be penetrated or used for penetration, by any combination of one, two or more people.

But since you seem to want to talk about the role of sex, here's how I see it. Procreation can only happen two days a month for a woman, and she can't be expected to know exactly when that is every time.

Sex isn't just about procreation; in particular, sex between gay people REALLY isn't about procreation.

So it's not wrong for people to have sex that may not, or will not, result in procreation. Yet it doesn't follow that any form of sex goes. You see, everyday observation shows us that the only way to reproduce naturally is for the train to go up the tunnel; this is confirmed by biological observation.

But if it's not wrong for people to have sex that will not result in procreation, why should they be restricted to the particular methodology that would result in procreation if it were Tuesday and not Sunday?

So it follows that the proper place to actively put the hose for the purpose of releasing the testicular contents, is in the funnel.

No, it doesn't follow, that's another attempt at the naturalistic fallacy, and one that explicitly contradicts your own conclusion two sentences before that sex that isn't about procreation isn't wrong.

Not in any other place. A sexual relationship ought then to be between a man and a woman.

Why? Even if you were to have a case about sex necessarily mimicking the mechanics of reproduction, why should the mechanics be restricted to particular organs?  Why is fingering not an acceptable form of sexual activity, given that it's penetrative into a 'funnel'?  Is it only the fingerer that's transgressing?

You might reply that people have a right to decide who they want a relationship with.

I might. I might also suggest that they have a right to decide what they want from their relationship, too.

But relationships by their nature involve all of society, meaning that any relationship has to happen with the consent of the participants and society.

Yes and no.  Relationships impact on society, and society impacts on relationships, but that doesn't give either the implicit right to dictate to the other; any restrictions or new attempts have to be justifiable.  Whilst a relationship might impact on society, it's difficult to see how the sexual activity within a relationship - presuming it's done in a relatively private setting - has an impact on society outside of producing children (which isn't an issue, here).

What I see happening is any member of society who does not consent to gay relationships being ostracized**, so that out of fear they accept them, leading to an apparent acceptance of them.

Instead of the people who wanted to have a gay relationship being ostracised, criminalised and in many, many instances physically chastised or punished.

Bearing in mind that I was talking specifically about unnatural sex.

Either, given humanity's capacity for abstraction, nothing humans do is 'unnatural', or pretty much everything that is 'culture' or 'social' is unnatural - wearing shoes is unnatural, using a computer to fail to justify homophobia is unnatural.  Given that we see homosexual activity in a range of different species it's difficult to justify the claim that, of all the things humanity does, gay sex is unnatural.

male-male or female-female, yes the participants because they become like the opposite sex.

Because of who penetrates who?  What about those men who like to have a finger inserted at the culmination of the act, even it they're with a woman?  What is different about women and men giving a hand-job? Who gets to decide what's justifiable and what's not?

Consent and pleasure are irrelevant.

Consent and pleasure are everything - why do you get to determine what's acceptable for two other people to do that has no impact on you whatsoever because you've got a book?

Why would someone deliberately use their body in a way for which it was not designed? Well, yes, for pleasure. But ask yourself, is pleasure worth a departure from reason?

What reason?  You're citing the subjective whim of a mercurial character from a bronze-age mythic figure as justification for restriction the private activity of 21st century willing, consenting adults.

Classic example of **

That whole trail is  just wrong on so many levels that it starts to be almost as distasteful as the homophobia it fails to justify.

O.

[Samuel]

....other size hands are also available, and in no way detrimental!!
 

Its all in the wrists

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you do realise that the Church still sees contraception (except for guesswork) is a offence against God and thus every fuck must be for the purposes of procreation!

When you talk about 'every fuck' are you talking about celebrity atheists?

[Roses]

And you do realise that the Church still sees contraception (except for guesswork) is a offence against God and thus every fuck must be for the purposes of procreation!

God made a good fuck pleasurable so that you would keep sinning so he could keep Heaven from being overpopulated with loads of randy old sods and oversexed women!

The Catholic Church sees it that way, I don't think other denominations do. I reckon many Catholics these days stick up two fingers to their church when it comes to using contraception.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

That flat surface in front of you supported by four legs that has a cup of tea on it: do you “label” it “table”? You’re trying to imply that “labelling” is the problem, but sometime the labels – ie, the descriptions – are appropriate.

No. Not trying to imply that labelling is the problem. Label away if doing so adds some meaning to your day. I just don't think a label is relevant as I am more interested in the ideas than the label. But for you labels are relevant. That's ok as there's room on here for diversity in opinions.

Here for example if someone wants arbitrarily to assert marriages that can’t produce children to be “not on a par” with those that can, but then relates that to gay marriage but not to other types of non-procreational marriages then he’s pretty much providing a textbook example of homophobia: he’s selected one criterion for parity (albeit spuriously) and then applied it just to one sub-set of the various groups within that category.

No-one has, and you’ve missed the point again. Discussion about which types of marriages are “on a par” with other types is one thing; having decided that though, selecting just one-sub-set that (supposedly) fails that test is discriminatory. If you want to decide that non-procreational marriages are not on a par with procreational ones, the former must include not only gay marriages but marriages of infertile couples, of pensioners, of people who choose not to have children etc.

Regarding your point that it's only same sex marriages that are seen as not on par. That may be true for some/many of the people you refer to, but not all. There are still a sizeable chunk of people/ communities who think that based on the criteria that procreation is a biological imperative for the survival of the species and for passing on of culture and values (which is something humans seem to have evolved to prioritise) that any relationship that does not have this as a goal is not on par with relationships that do. Therefore they think same-sex marriage is wasting time on an unproductive tangent, based on that criteria. I already addressed the point about marriage for people who might not be able to procreate - on a practical level it would not work to test everyone for fertility and child-bearing plans before society accepts the marriage so it can be done on the basis that statistically same-sex couples can never procreate with each other, whereas opposite sex couples are statistically much more likely to procreate with each other. Yes an arbitrary criterion - but marriage is full of arbitrary criteria - some countries allow legal polygamy and others don't, some countries while not allowing legal polygamy, tolerate societies which allow polygamy even if the spouses do not have the legal rights that a civil marriage would give them. Some countries tolerate people marrying non-humans, though again there are no legal regulations around this and no offspring https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/31/legal-marry-animals-inanimate-objects-10493582/   

If you are looking at civil marriage, for the government's purpose it is a legal contract that sets out the rights of the parties to certain benefits - immigration status, tax especially relating to spousal inheritance, property rights, next of kin decisions. So it makes sense on that basis to extend civil marriage to include same-sex couples. It also makes sense to extend it to polygamous marriages.

No – again, I describe something as homophobic when it is homophobic for the same reason I describe racism as racist, ageism as ageist etc. And if you don’t care about how civil marriage is defined, why do you care about how traditional marriage is defined?

Not sure I understand the question. Same-sex civil marriage and traditional marriage just seem to be abstract social constructs that attract diverse moral opinions so I think they are interesting topics for discussion to explore the different moral views, and to explore how arbitrary the prioritisation of different values can be.

Still missing it. If you want to claim “hysterical” behaviour then to justify the claim you need to provide examples of it (named or otherwise). I haven’t seen it here, and I suspect you haven’t either but you thought it was a useful straw man. It isn’t.

I think I have seen it so we will have to agree to disagree. It shouldn't surprise you that what you perceive to be hysterical behaviour might differ from what I perceive as hysterical behaviour, given that we don't share a brain.

You’ve shifted ground now, but in any case yes of course people interpret things differently but any field of communication – social, scientific, philosophical, whatever – requires commonality of understanding it it’s to function at all. For example you’ve had explained why the example “non-procreational marriage is not on a par with procreational marriage, but I’ll apply that test only to gay couples” is homophobic. You may be “interpreting” that differently but I have no idea why unless it's to avoid engaging with the argument, preferring instead endless evasions and diversions.

No not shifted ground. I kept my point brief, you didn't understand it, so I have elaborated to help you understand the point I was making. Happy to continue making my posts longer to try to minimise such misunderstandings. See above for the reasoning for only applying it to same-sex marriages as well as for the reasoning for allowing same-sex marriage.
 

That’s a non sequitur. No one said “it always happens”, but your concession to “sometimes” should bother you a lot more than it appears to I’d suggest. How many gay men being beaten up because of societal homophobia is ok would you say?

Firstly, given you argued on this forum that law-abiding theists provide intellectual cover for/ enable religious extremists it's unlikely that you and I are going to agree on this issue.

Secondly, that would be an interesting question to ask Parliament and the law enforcement agencies - how many gay men being beaten up because of societal homophobia is ok? There are lots of measures that could be taken to monitor the movements of people who express homophobic views to try to prevent actual criminal violence, but society chooses not to allow or fund the surveillance, so society seems to have some tolerance for gay men being beaten up. It could be because society arbitrarily chooses where to place the cursor to balance the interests of different parties. I note too that the discussion of certain unpalatable ideas are often tolerated and even encouraged in the hope of achieving compromise and agreement on some arbitrary values. For example doctors urging us to have discussions on whether as a society we want to prioritise funding of neo-natal care for very premature babies over for example care of the elderly or cancer treatments or fertility treatments - because there is not sufficient funding to ensure everyone who needs it has access to important medical procedures.

I’m very liberal when it comes to free speech, but free speech does not imply that people can express their various “isms” without being challenged on them. That’s not a denial of free speech – it’s the epitome of it.

I agree - I'm all for allowing challenging discussions in the interest of free speech - whether it's on the morality of same-sex marriages or whether it's calling people homophobic, or whether it's stating perceptions that some people's reactions to the discussion seem a little hysterical.

Where the hell did that come from? As you’ve just ducked it again, I’ll give it one more try:

1. For you to “tolerate” something there needs to be something to be tolerated.

2. When something doesn’t negatively affect you, your immediate circle, your society etc then it’s not tolerance-apt. It’s just irrelevant to you except in an abstract sense, so it’s misplaced and presumptuous to decide that you do or don’t tolerate it nonetheless.

3. As somewhere less than 2% of the population identify as gay and assuming that, say, half want to get married that’s around 1% of the population. Assuming they all did, you would go about your business as entirely unaffected by the fact of those equal marriages as you are by the fact of, say marriages between pensioners. What on earth then do you think it is that you’ve being expected to “tolerate” when it has nothing at all to do with you?   

For a person to tolerate something they need to perceive that there is something to be tolerated. I think we've established that everyone does not share one brain so individual's perceptions vary. Morality serves many purposes and presumably that's how humans evolved into morally pluralistic societies. So while I agree with your argument that there isn't anything to tolerate based on my perceptions, it's not a convincing argument for someone who perceives that the traditional meaning of marriage being eroded has an adverse effect on the arbitrary concept of marriage that developed in the last few hundred years and a knock-on effect on the values and morals in society that they perceive as important to them and that they want to preserve and pass on to their offspring in their circle of friends or communities because that serves a particular moral purpose for them that they prioritise over individuality. For those people, they certainly perceive same-sex marriage as something they need to tolerate.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This article contains a lot of the ideas that I was referring to regarding a social theory of moral autonomy:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260595818_Durkheim's_Naturalistic_Moral_Education_Pluralism_Social_Change_and_Autonomy

[ippy]

Anybody who considers the Bible to be a book worth following as "the revealed word of God" is deluded - you only have to look at the Sixth Commandment and Exodus 22:18 to see what a load of rubbish it is.

I have lost count of the number of different explanations for the existence of those two verses that have been served up! Somehow they either dismiss one or t'other or claim that one is not from God. Guess which one!

Both of them, god?

Regards, ippy. 

[ippy]

That doesn't mean it's acceptable for humans. Animals also commit rape (no I'm not comparing homosexuality with rape).

How you concluded that from what I wrote, I don't know. I wasn't talking about the role of sex but the different roles of men and women in the sexual act. But since you seem to want to talk about the role of sex, here's how I see it. Procreation can only happen two days a month for a woman, and she can't be expected to know exactly when that is every time. So it's not wrong for people to have sex that may not, or will not, result in procreation. Yet it doesn't follow that any form of sex goes. You see, everyday observation shows us that the only way to reproduce naturally is for the train to go up the tunnel; this is confirmed by biological observation. So it follows that the proper place to actively put the hose for the purpose of releasing the testicular contents, is in the funnel. Not in any other place. A sexual relationship ought then to be between a man and a woman. You might reply that people have a right to decide who they want a relationship with. But relationships by their nature involve all of society, meaning that any relationship has to happen with the consent of the participants and society. What I see happening is any member of society who does not consent to gay relationships being ostracized**, so that out of fear they accept them, leading to an apparent acceptance of them.

Bearing in mind that I was talking specifically about unnatural sex. male-male or female-female, yes the participants because they become like the opposite sex. Consent and pleasure are irrelevant.

Why would someone deliberately use their body in a way for which it was not designed? Well, yes, for pleasure. But ask yourself, is pleasure worth a departure from reason?

Classic example of **

Spud you seem to know a lot about the goings on between these people?

Do you remember Mary Whitehouse, is was OK for her to look into all of the salacious goings on from all sauces without it affecting her because your god idea thingy was protecting her, there seems to be  something very familiar while I'm reading in this post of yours Spud.

I think Mary managed to disappear up her own exhaust pipe too.

Regards, ippy.

[Owlswing]

Given that the crime of rape is about the boundary of consent, and how little we understand about whether animals have sufficient awareness to give or withhold consent, that's debatable.

Yet you're doing so from a puritanically naive stance - not all sex is penetrative, when it is there any number of body-parts and artificial tools that can be penetrated or used for penetration, by any combination of one, two or more people.

Sex isn't just about procreation; in particular, sex between gay people REALLY isn't about procreation.

But if it's not wrong for people to have sex that will not result in procreation, why should they be restricted to the particular methodology that would result in procreation if it were Tuesday and not Sunday?

No, it doesn't follow, that's another attempt at the naturalistic fallacy, and one that explicitly contradicts your own conclusion two sentences before that sex that isn't about procreation isn't wrong.

Why? Even if you were to have a case about sex necessarily mimicking the mechanics of reproduction, why should the mechanics be restricted to particular organs?  Why is fingering not an acceptable form of sexual activity, given that it's penetrative into a 'funnel'?  Is it only the fingerer that's transgressing?

I might. I might also suggest that they have a right to decide what they want from their relationship, too.

Yes and no.  Relationships impact on society, and society impacts on relationships, but that doesn't give either the implicit right to dictate to the other; any restrictions or new attempts have to be justifiable.  Whilst a relationship might impact on society, it's difficult to see how the sexual activity within a relationship - presuming it's done in a relatively private setting - has an impact on society outside of producing children (which isn't an issue, here).

Instead of the people who wanted to have a gay relationship being ostracised, criminalised and in many, many instances physically chastised or punished.

Either, given humanity's capacity for abstraction, nothing humans do is 'unnatural', or pretty much everything that is 'culture' or 'social' is unnatural - wearing shoes is unnatural, using a computer to fail to justify homophobia is unnatural.  Given that we see homosexual activity in a range of different species it's difficult to justify the claim that, of all the things humanity does, gay sex is unnatural.

Because of who penetrates who?  What about those men who like to have a finger inserted at the culmination of the act, even it they're with a woman?  What is different about women and men giving a hand-job? Who gets to decide what's justifiable and what's not?

Consent and pleasure are everything - why do you get to determine what's acceptable for two other people to do that has no impact on you whatsoever because you've got a book?

What reason?  You're citing the subjective whim of a mercurial character from a bronze-age mythic figure as justification for restriction the private activity of 21st century willing, consenting adults.

That whole trail is  just wrong on so many levels that it starts to be almost as distasteful as the homophobia it fails to justify.

O.

Could I suggest that you continue this discussion with the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem - you will get far more intelligent answers!

[Owlswing]

When you talk about 'every fuck' are you talking about celebrity atheists?

Ho Ho Ho!

[Spud]

Given that the crime of rape is about the boundary of consent, and how little we understand about whether animals have sufficient awareness to give or withhold consent, that's debatable.

Yet you're doing so from a puritanically naive stance - not all sex is penetrative, when it is there any number of body-parts and artificial tools that can be penetrated or used for penetration, by any combination of one, two or more people.

Perhaps a lot of that can be described as foreplay? Touch, along with sight, sound, smell, are all good things.

Sex isn't just about procreation; in particular, sex between gay people REALLY isn't about procreation.

But if it's not wrong for people to have sex that will not result in procreation, why should they be restricted to the particular methodology that would result in procreation if it were Tuesday and not Sunday?

I'm not saying they should, however, I think they do better if they do restrict it to that, because otherwise it becomes more about lust than about love.

No, it doesn't follow, that's another attempt at the naturalistic fallacy, and one that explicitly contradicts your own conclusion two sentences before that sex that isn't about procreation isn't wrong.

It follows because it gives a clue as to what is the best form for it to take.

Why? Even if you were to have a case about sex necessarily mimicking the mechanics of reproduction, why should the mechanics be restricted to particular organs?  Why is fingering not an acceptable form of sexual activity, given that it's penetrative into a 'funnel'?  Is it only the fingerer that's transgressing?

The issue was not about what is penetrating what, but about behaving in accordance with one's sex (gender). Which shelf a book in a library is kept on will depend on its category, in order to enable customers to find what they are looking for. Keeping it on a different category shelf defeats the object of having a library. So if two men or two women kiss in public or on TV, they are creating disorder. People watching expect men to kiss women.

I might. I might also suggest that they have a right to decide what they want from their relationship, too.

Yes and no.  Relationships impact on society, and society impacts on relationships, but that doesn't give either the implicit right to dictate to the other; any restrictions or new attempts have to be justifiable.  Whilst a relationship might impact on society, it's difficult to see how the sexual activity within a relationship - presuming it's done in a relatively private setting - has an impact on society outside of producing children (which isn't an issue, here).

The problem is that even if the setting is private, the effects spill out into society. The goal of society is to work towards and maintain order, so it helps if men and women act like what they are.

Instead of the people who wanted to have a gay relationship being ostracised, criminalised and in many, many instances physically chastised or punished.

Either, given humanity's capacity for abstraction, nothing humans do is 'unnatural', or pretty much everything that is 'culture' or 'social' is unnatural - wearing shoes is unnatural, using a computer to fail to justify homophobia is unnatural.  Given that we see homosexual activity in a range of different species it's difficult to justify the claim that, of all the things humanity does, gay sex is unnatural.

Because of who penetrates who?  What about those men who like to have a finger inserted at the culmination of the act, even it they're with a woman?  What is different about women and men giving a hand-job? Who gets to decide what's justifiable and what's not?

Consent and pleasure are everything - why do you get to determine what's acceptable for two other people to do that has no impact on you whatsoever because you've got a book?

What reason?  You're citing the subjective whim of a mercurial character from a bronze-age mythic figure as justification for restriction the private activity of 21st century willing, consenting adults.

That whole trail is  just wrong on so many levels that it starts to be almost as distasteful as the homophobia it fails to justify.

O.

Most of this I have answered. I am arguing without referring to God or the Bible. I don't think anyone should be ostracized, but people have to be able to say if they think something is wrong. And of course everyone has to remember the plank in their own eye before telling their brother about the speck in his  eye.

[Aruntraveller]

because otherwise it becomes more about lust than about love.

Oh lust - those were the days.

[Outrider]

Perhaps a lot of that can be described as foreplay? Touch, along with sight, sound, smell, are all good things.

If you're trying to isolate the two into distinct categories in order to get some sort of purely mechanistic part that's 'sex' then you're looking for the term 'coitus' - 'sex' is the range of activities which includes that, but isn't limited to it.

I'm not saying they should, however, I think they do better if they do restrict it to that, because otherwise it becomes more about lust than about love.

You're not saying they should restrict themselves, but they should restrict themselves?  It doesn't become more about lust than love necessarily, but for some (most?) people part of love is lust - certainly I can honestly say that my marriage would be harder to keep going if Mrs. O. weren't still attractive to me, and she gives me the same impression.

It follows because it gives a clue as to what is the best form for it to take.

Best for what? You're coming back to trying to make sex about procreation again, it seems.  Best for whom?  In what way is it the best way of having sex for people who don't like that kind of sex?  One size does not fit all.

The issue was not about what is penetrating what, but about behaving in accordance with one's sex (gender).

Which one, because they are different - and they are not the same thing as someone's sexuality.  The thing is, being a lesbian and having sex with women is absolutely in keeping with both someone's sex and their gender; a lesbian having sex with a man is in keeping with her sex (which she isn't changing) and her gender (which she isn't changing) but it's not in line with her sexuality.

Which shelf a book in a library is kept on will depend on its category, in order to enable customers to find what they are looking for.

Yes, but we categorise books by their content, not by the colour of the cover.  Saying 'that person has this format of genitalia, therefore they must have sex this way and this way only' fails to appreciate that within blue covers, books range from cookery to erotica to shoes to Gandalf.

Keeping it on a different category shelf defeats the object of having a library. So if two men or two women kiss in public or on TV, they are creating disorder.

No.  You are responsible for your response to someone else's actions.  If it disorders you, that's about your perception of it - that may or may not be justified, but it's not intrinsically about them.  A woman kissing the person they love in public is not a source of disorder - you can tell, because when the person they love is a man there's no issue.  When a woman is kissed by someone she loves in public it's not a source of disorder - you can tell, because when the person they love is a man there's no issue.  The act is the same, the target is the same, the perception - in some instances - overlays a difference.

People watching expect men to kiss women.

You watching expect men to kiss women.  I expect people to kiss people, under the right circumstances; the only time I have cause to object is if they're trying to kiss me, Mrs. O, or someone I don't think is into it.

The problem is that even if the setting is private, the effects spill out into society.

Of the sex, or of the relationship?  If the sex is in private, none of it spills out; you don't know if they're a celibate gay couple or a sexually-active gay couple.  You might presume, but again that's on you.  If the relationship is the issue, why are we talking about the physical acts?

And then... what is the 'effect' that spills out into society of gay people visibly having relationships?  What's the downside? Where's the harm?

The goal of society is to work towards and maintain order, so it helps if men and women act like what they are.

Wow! How do you pack so much authoritarian wrong into one short sentence?  The goal of society is whatever the people within the society collectively decide it is; that varies by culture, and time, and subculture.  If the goal is 'maintain order' (which I strongly question) then how is forcing men and women to act against their nature conducive to that?  Surely allowing - even encouraging - gay people into stable, loving, respected relationships where they can add to society and be a productive, active, welcome member of society is conducive to maintaining order?
 

Most of this I have answered. I am arguing without referring to God or the Bible. I don't think anyone should be ostracized, but people have to be able to say if they think something is wrong.

Which, in principle, I'd agree with - I just can't see where you get the idea that any of this is 'wrong' from.

And of course everyone has to remember the plank in their own eye before telling their brother about the speck in his  eye.

Homophobia in other people's eyes, though, is more thank a speck, and has been harming more than just my brother for a long, long time; I'd come back with 'evil only requires good men to stand by and say nothing.'

O.

[Aruntraveller]

The issue was not about what is penetrating what, but about behaving in accordance with one's sex (gender). Which shelf a book in a library is kept on will depend on its category, in order to enable customers to find what they are looking for. Keeping it on a different category shelf defeats the object of having a library. So if two men or two women kiss in public or on TV, they are creating disorder. People watching expect men to kiss women.

Who knew I was a library book?

As to watching kissing, you sir are a pervert.

[Aruntraveller]

The problem is that even if the setting is private, the effects spill out into society. The goal of society is to work towards and maintain order, so it helps if men and women act like what they are.

I am a man and I am acting as what I am. I don't see how I create disorder in society, in fact I'm pretty sure I don't, but do explain how you think I do.

[Owlswing]

 Spud

You do realise that every post that you make on this thread makes you look more and more like a brainwashed idiot who talks (writes) like a parrot that has learned the words but has abso-bloody-lutely no comprehension of what thoser words actually mean in terms of emotion and human love and interaction!

You would do well to hive yourself off to the nearest closed monastic-community and restrict your sexual ideas to solitary and hidden masturbation, I have absolutely no wish to see you procreate and brainwash your children with the sane load of old bollocks that you peddle here.

I sometimes wonder why the God you worship and kow-tow to bothered to give his followers brains capable of logical reasoning or. alternatively, why you appear to be incapable of such reasoning.

[jeremyp]

Which shelf a book in a library is kept on will depend on its category, in order to enable customers to find what they are looking for.

Putting a gay man in the same sexual category as straight men means that some people will not find what they are looking for. I've known several people whose (mixed sex) marriages ended after it was discovered that one partner was gay. Perhaps if there hadn't been such a lot of social pressure to be categorised with the straight men, there would have been no marriages but also far less unhappiness.

So if two men or two women kiss in public or on TV, they are creating disorder. People watching expect men to kiss women.

If you get incited to creating public disorder if you see two people of the same sex kissing in public, it's you that has a problem, not them.

The problem is that even if the setting is private, the effects spill out into society.

Hatred spills out into society is and is far more damaging than gay sex. Your opinions incite hatred.

The goal of society is to work towards and maintain order, so it helps if men and women act like what they are.

And some men and women are gay. Let them act like what they are. They'll be much happier.