Gay Marriage Discussion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

  1. Sex is used for procreation.[/quote]

“Used for”?

By whom? You?

I use it for fun.

So, “sex is used for both procreation and fun.”

Proceed from there.

[/quote]

What is sex designed for? Simple.
[/quote]

Sex is “designed”?[/quote]

So it’s just coincidence that sex leads to fertilisation? It’s just incidental? Come off it. Sex is a biological process of procreation. Who or what “designed” it; whether it was “designed” at all is irrelevant to the fact that it is the process by which the human species perpetuates itself. To argue otherwise is disingenuous.

262

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

  1. Sex is used for procreation.[/quote]

“Used for”?

By whom? You?

I use it for fun.

So, “sex is used for both procreation and fun.”

Proceed from there.

[/quote]

What is sex designed for? Simple.
[/quote]

Sex is “designed”?[/quote]

Yes. By our Creator. Or Nature. Mother Earth. Et Cetera.
[/quote]

But not gay sex, right? That’s not “designed” in the same way?

What about gay sex among Bonobos? Where’d that come from? Master plan of bearded wizard in the sky OR moral decay present in primate societies?

Not debating ID with you here (which would need a new thread), just curious about your thoughts here.

263

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s all in the act of “sex”. Intercourse is the consummation.

Of course that’s totally good. [/quote]

I guess I’m still confused by your position. A blow job is definitely not consummation and it isn’t intercourse in my book either. If you use a condom you are actively avoiding procreation. So shouldn’t these things be labeled deviant using your definition? [/quote]

See above post concerning forplay. Using a condom/birth control to circumvent nature is another topic, but you are practicing NATURAL SEX. No biggie.

264

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

  1. Sex is used for procreation.[/quote]

“Used for”?

By whom? You?

I use it for fun.

So, “sex is used for both procreation and fun.”

Proceed from there.

[/quote]

What is sex designed for? Simple.
[/quote]

Sex is “designed”?[/quote]

Yes. By our Creator. Or Nature. Mother Earth. Et Cetera.
[/quote]

But not gay sex, right? That’s not “designed” in the same way?

What about gay sex among Bonobos? Where’d that come from? Master plan of bearded wizard in the sky OR moral decay present in primate societies?

Not debating ID with you here (which would need a new thread), just curious about your thoughts here.
[/quote]

Hence the deviation.

265

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s all in the act of “sex”. Intercourse is the consummation.

Of course that’s totally good. [/quote]

I guess I’m still confused by your position. A blow job is definitely not consummation and it isn’t intercourse in my book either. If you use a condom you are actively avoiding procreation. So shouldn’t these things be labeled deviant using your definition? [/quote]

See above post concerning forplay. Using a condom/birth control to circumvent nature is another topic, but you are practicing NATURAL SEX. No biggie. [/quote]

I’ve read the subsequent posts. Foreplay is not a necessity for procreation. Birth control is actively avoiding procreation, which by your definition is the point, in order to have fun. How is that not deviant?

266

What if I’m infertile so I set up a gangbang for my wife with the express purpose of getting her pregnant so we can have a baby, is that deviant?

267

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Again though, what if you actively avoid procreation through birth control, is that deviant?

[/quote]

Depends what you mean by “deviant”. Obviously, people have sex for pleasure and avoid the procreative outcome. If your question is, is this wrong in some way - I’d say, technically it’s an “abnormal” thing to do. Technically, any species should be producing as many offspring as it can. It’s only our modern lifestyles that lead us to prevent fertilisation. So yes, ideally contraception should not be used.

[quote]

Forepaly isn’t necessary for procreation. It’s necessary for fun though. [/quote]

See above. Ideally, people should be having as many children as they can. If foreplay leads to procreation all well and good. If it doesn’t; if fertilisation is deliberately prevented then I would say that’s technically unnatural.

268

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s all in the act of “sex”. Intercourse is the consummation.

Of course that’s totally good. [/quote]

I guess I’m still confused by your position. A blow job is definitely not consummation and it isn’t intercourse in my book either. If you use a condom you are actively avoiding procreation. So shouldn’t these things be labeled deviant using your definition? [/quote]

See above post concerning forplay. Using a condom/birth control to circumvent nature is another topic, but you are practicing NATURAL SEX. No biggie. [/quote]

I’ve read the subsequent posts. Foreplay is not a necessity for procreation. Birth control is actively avoiding procreation, which by your definition is the point, in order to have fun. How is that not deviant? [/quote]

No biggie. You would be practicing a behavior that is a prelude to intercourse. Just because you stop short, doesn’t make in “un-natural”.

If male and female dogs are sniffing each other’s butt and then decide not to hump (or a human break it up), is that not natural? Is all on the course of natural sexual practices.

269

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

  1. Sex is used for procreation.

  2. Procreation is done through sex with males and females.

  3. Pleasure is a simple byproduct of the act.

  4. This would be the norm.

  5. Sex between males or females would be a deviation from the norm. [/quote]

From a biological perspective, I think it would make more sense ordered like:

  1. Sex is pleasurable, nerve endings and all that

  2. This is advantageous because continuation of the species depends on sex between the genders, and if something is pleasurable, it will be an act repeated by the members of the species, more often.

  3. While sex between the genders is the statistically more likely occurrence, and the way to continue survival of the species, it is/has been the norm.

  4. However, because it is pleasurable, there will be deviations from the norm

So let’s take this out of a strict list type form and look at it in real life. In fact, the norm for sex has long been held, by many people across time and civilizations as a pleasure activity first, and procreation activity second. This has not lead to the end of the species, nor to significant downfall of other social norms and behaviors. It can be reasonably concluded that deviations from the norm of intra-gender will have a similar effect on overall society as a whole, little to none.

In short… there is jack and shit wrong with consensual sex between people capable of giving consent, whether it piques your interests, involves activities you approve of or not.

270

Eh, I’ll just skip through it all:

What you’re finally going to get at is that you think sex is supposed by a god to be for one thing. Without the god, there is no authoritative conscious assigner of value to the various functions sex serves in our society. My pleasure is as “biological” an event as is my generating a child. “Mother nature,” which is a misleading euphemism for natural physical-biological processes, does not and cannot assign more or less moral or objective or teleological value to one sex act vis-a-vis another. You can say that gay sex – sex for pleasure only – does not carry the possibility that the reproductive function of sex will be fulfilled, but you cannot say that it is “wrong” or contrary to some ambiguous and undefined “purpose” by appealing simply to the laws of physics and biology. For right and wrong, you need moral teleology.

So, either you can show me that there is a god and this god thinks gay sex is wrong, or you can try swimming against a different current.

271

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
The Left just believes in smoke in mirrors not to put constrains on behavior.
[/quote]

Says the guy on the “right” that apparently thinks two chicks shouldn’t be able to go down on each other.

272

What I like and what I consider wrong are two different things!

273

But my point is this: one can have a strong basis for what a society deems acceptable based on nature and biology.

That’s all.

274

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
What I like and what I consider wrong are two different things![/quote]

Religious Right cognitive dissonance at its most absurd.

Well, that’s a bold statement – absurdities fucking abound. Call it “Religious Right cognitive dissonance at its more absurd.”

275

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Again though, what if you actively avoid procreation through birth control, is that deviant?

[/quote]

Depends what you mean by “deviant”. Obviously, people have sex for pleasure and avoid the procreative outcome. If your question is, is this wrong in some way - I’d say, technically it’s an “abnormal” thing to do. Technically, any species should be producing as many offspring as it can. It’s only our modern lifestyles that lead us to prevent fertilisation. So yes, ideally contraception should not be used.

[quote]

Forepaly isn’t necessary for procreation. It’s necessary for fun though. [/quote]

See above. Ideally, people should be having as many children as they can. If foreplay leads to procreation all well and good. If it doesn’t; if fertilisation is deliberately prevented then I would say that’s technically unnatural.[/quote]

I had asked and was trying to understand Norcal’s definition of sexual deviance. The way the phrase was used it came across as wrong so I confused since I know I act, by this definition, sexually deviant all the time. I’m a big fan of the blowjay.

Your position seems logically consistent in this regard and makes sense.

276

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
But my point is this: one can have a strong basis for what a society deems acceptable based on nature and biology.

That’s all. [/quote]

Sure… They also used similar tactics to put a whole bunch of Jewish people in ovens.

Just be careful with it.

That’s all.

277

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s all in the act of “sex”. Intercourse is the consummation.

Of course that’s totally good. [/quote]

I guess I’m still confused by your position. A blow job is definitely not consummation and it isn’t intercourse in my book either. If you use a condom you are actively avoiding procreation. So shouldn’t these things be labeled deviant using your definition? [/quote]

See above post concerning forplay. Using a condom/birth control to circumvent nature is another topic, but you are practicing NATURAL SEX. No biggie. [/quote]

I’ve read the subsequent posts. Foreplay is not a necessity for procreation. Birth control is actively avoiding procreation, which by your definition is the point, in order to have fun. How is that not deviant? [/quote]

No biggie. You would be practicing a behavior that is a prelude to intercourse. Just because you stop short, doesn’t make in “un-natural”.

If male and female dogs are sniffing each other’s butt and then decide not to hump (or a human break it up), is that not natural? Is all on the course of natural sexual practices.

[/quote]

I’m still confused. If I have sex with a condom on it isn’t a prelude to intercourse, it is intercourse. Yet, I actively avoid the biological purpose of intercourse. So that made it a deviant sexual act by your definition, right?

Same thing with a blowjob. If the “encounter” ends after the blow job without intercourse occurring wouldn’t that make the act deviant?

278

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I’m still confused. If I have sex with a condom on it isn’t a prelude to intercourse, it is intercourse. Yet, I actively avoid the biological purpose of intercourse. So that made it a deviant sexual act by your definition, right?

Same thing with a blowjob. If the “encounter” ends after the blow job without intercourse occurring wouldn’t that make the act deviant? [/quote]

Look at it like this:

If purpose precluded pleasure, you wouldn’t need foreplay, nor would there be any pleasure derived from popping off in someone’s mouth or anus rather than a vagina. And anyone that did derive pleasure from no procreative activities would be a mutant, if pleasure was a byproduct.

But…

The five knuckle shuffle and BJ’s feel pretty damn good, assuming everyone involved knows what they are doing. And because people like titty fucking, finger banging, stockings, oral, anal, feet, ejaculating everywhere they possibly can get away with… The obvious conclusion is the pleasure precludes the purpose.

As in “mother nature” designed it to feel good, so we’d do it a lot. And it is also designed where deviations from purpose (anything but inter-gender vaginal ejaculation) are so statistically insignificant, that “mother nature” really isn’t too concerned with it.

279

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I’m still confused. If I have sex with a condom on it isn’t a prelude to intercourse, it is intercourse. Yet, I actively avoid the biological purpose of intercourse. So that made it a deviant sexual act by your definition, right?

Same thing with a blowjob. If the “encounter” ends after the blow job without intercourse occurring wouldn’t that make the act deviant? [/quote]

Look at it like this:

If purpose precluded pleasure, you wouldn’t need foreplay, nor would there be any pleasure derived from popping off in someone’s mouth or anus rather than a vagina. And anyone that did derive pleasure from no procreative activities would be a mutant, if pleasure was a byproduct.

But…

The five knuckle shuffle and BJ’s feel pretty damn good, assuming everyone involved knows what they are doing. And because people like titty fucking, finger banging, stockings, oral, anal, feet, ejaculating everywhere they possibly can get away with… The obvious conclusion is the pleasure precludes the purpose.

As in “mother nature” designed it to feel good, so we’d do it a lot. And it is also designed where deviations from purpose (anything but inter-gender vaginal ejaculation) are so statistically insignificant, that “mother nature” really isn’t too concerned with it.
[/quote]

Ya, I agree.

I was mainly looking for a definition of deviant sexual act because NorCal’s statement reads to me like said acts are destroying the very fabric of our society:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
The unraveling on the family unit is a brick by brick process. Equate deviant sexual practices with traditional civil rights. Then brand anyone who opposes as a bigot and a homophobe. [/quote]

His definition leaves much to be desired, imo.

280

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It is beyond obvious that the teleology of sex is procreation.
[/quote]

Argument by assertion.

Neither “Certain kinds of intercourse lead to procreation” nor “Procreation is impossible without intercourse”* entails that “Procreation is the only moral purpose (again, in whose estimation and by whose decree?) of intercourse and intercourse under non-procreative conditions is wrong or bad or a betrayal of teleology.”

  • Let’s forget, for a moment, that this proposition isn’t even true.