Gay vs. Animal Marriage?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Dear JWayne625,

I'm wondering why the push for the consentual age to be lowered to 14.

I would think that there are a few factors in this besides 'informed decisions'.

Sexual physical development begins around 14, give or take, and kids are curious by nature. They will have 'sexual activity' because they want to experiment, not because they 'are mature enough to enter a loving relationship'. If they do 'experiment', at the age of 15-17, it could be considered any of a gamut of 'sexual deviance' charges, from rape to sexual interference to you name it.

There has to be an age limit, to be sure, to protect children. However, to suggest that the state make it 'illegal' for two 17 yr olds to engage in sex after prom night, well, good luck. Perhaps they could raise the age to 18, but expect it to be widely ignored. The solution lies in the home.

Actually I think there are several jurisdiction who set up their 'age of consent' laws to take into account the teen years by saying that the law doesn't apply if there is less that 2 years difference in age.

[Big Blue Machine]

We shouldn't lower the consentual age to 14. If anything we should raise it to 18. When people turn 18, they can do almost anything. Sex shouldn't come before beer and voting.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Big Blue Machine,

Sex shouldn't come before beer and voting.

For some reason, I had previously thought you were a male. In fact, sex before anything sounds good to me. You must be one of those 'late-bloomers' who hasn't, even yet, discovered what it feels like to 'touch' one's self.

[Black Dog]

We shouldn't lower the consentual age to 14. If anything we should raise it to 18. When people turn 18, they can do almost anything. Sex shouldn't come before beer and voting.

Lowering the AoC won't stop kids who are biologicallly ready for sex as young as 13 from acting on those biological urges.

Unlike voting and drinking, sex is a natural part of human development. You can't legislate against sexual desire, nor do I think it's wise to place unrealistic limits on human sexuality (between consenting individuals) in hopes of maintaining some sort of idealized state of innocence for the kiddies.

What confuses me is the relatively modern notion of children and "innocence". A couple of generations ago, teenagers were considered old enough to marry, hold real jobs etc. The period between childhood and adulthood now called adolescence is a social construct. In

[takeanumber]

Lowering the AoC won't stop kids who are biologicallly ready for sex as young as 13 from acting on those biological urges.

Unlike voting and drinking, sex is a natural part of human development. You can't legislate against sexual desire, nor do I think it's wise to place unrealistic limits on human sexuality (between consenting individuals) in hopes of maintaining some sort of idealized state of innocence for the kiddies.

What confuses me is the relatively modern notion of children and "innocence". A couple of generations ago, teenagers were considered old enough to marry, hold real jobs etc. The period between childhood and adulthood now called adolescence is a social construct. In

This is a rare instance where I agree with BD.

So savour it.

If kids are going to screw, and they usually do anyway, then three words:

Condoms.Condoms.Condoms

Have the baby talk with the kids as soon as they hit puberty.

Of course, what passes these days for 'parenting' isn't that good. LoL. Many parents don't even teach their kids about consequences, little though how to think. It's no surprise then why so many screw around without 'protection'.

Aw well. There should be an optional course available to all parents free of charge, and follow up courses for the parents a week before elementary/preschool and before they turn 12. Make it totally optional. Invite a number of teachers from the different schools of thought, or better yet, if there's demand, have the churches do it and offer a secular public alternative.

But, yet again, public education is just one of those things that don't really seem to work...so what to do about it.

[BigDookie6]

Penis does not belong in the ass, PERIOD! Lets be real here... Who really enjoys sodomy? Both men & women do it, and ask them if it's painful. S & M people do it because they like the pain!But it's still painful, and probably stinks!Self induced pain, just to get off? If people want to be homos, that's fine... I'm not discriminating that, so do not call me a biggot or whatever else. I have homosexual friends and I tell them the samething. It's a personal choice or lifestyle. It's never been proven that it's natural or unatural. Why does someone want feces on their shaft? Lesbians...samething... You strap on a dildo! Were you born with it? Homosexuality is all mental! Maybe it's a form of being handicapped?? I'm just trying to understand... I'm not knocking anybody here. I'm actually harder on the homosexual men, just because of the sodomy thing. I think it's more emotional with lesbians and can understand them better. What's your excuse gentlemen?

[Black Dog]

Penis does not belong in the ass, PERIOD! Lets be real here... Who really enjoys sodomy? Both men & women do it, and ask them if it's painful.  S & M people do it because they like the pain!But it's still painful, and probably stinks

Many, many people-gay and straight-do enjoy it. For dudes, anal sex can stimulate the prostrate, or "the male G-spot, as it is also known. Woman can also find anal sex to be quite pleasurable. If done correctly and with the right percautions, it is clean and safe.

Homosexuality is all mental! Maybe it's a form of being handicapped?? I'm just trying to understand... I'm not knocking anybody here. I'm actually harder on the homosexual men, just because of the sodomy thing. I think it's more emotional with lesbians and can understand them better. What's your excuse gentlemen?

Well, IANG, but I know not all gay men engage in anal sex. That aside, what does it matter? No one gives a crap what you do in your bedroom, why the concern with what goes on in anyone else's?

[BigDookie6]

Many, many people-gay and straight-do enjoy it. For dudes, anal sex can stimulate the prostrate, or "the male G-spot, as it is also known. Woman can also find anal sex to be quite pleasurable. If done correctly and with the right percautions, it is clean and safe.

Naturally speaking though... Our bodies are practically "perfect machines" and every limb, organ, tissue has a purpose. Vagina/ penis = orgasm/ reproduction. Anus has one purpose and one purpose only whether you get pleasure out of it or not. Would you agree that the anus (intestine, bowels, digestive system) carry more bacteria, and more septable to contracting STD's / AIDS versus oral & vagina sex? What would you say to those who have practiced sodomy; correctly & safely, and found no pleasure out of it? I'm not saying that is wrong or right, maybe perverted, and to each their own.

[Black Dog]

Naturally speaking though... Our bodies are practically "perfect machines" and every limb, organ, tissue has a purpose. Vagina/ penis = orgasm/ reproduction. Anus has one purpose and one purpose only whether you get pleasure out of it or not. Would you agree that the anus (intestine, bowels, digestive system) carry more bacteria, and more septable to contracting STD's / AIDS versus oral & vagina sex?

Ever recieved or performed oral sex? If yes to either, there goes the whole "unnatural" angle.

As to safety, if you practice unsafe sex regardles sof the method, your chances of contracting and STD/I are going to be higher then if you practice safe sex. Basically, you can take steps to significantly reduce risk by practicing safe sex.

What would you say to those who have practiced sodomy; correctly & safely, and found no pleasure out of it?

The same thing I'd say to people who don't enjoy oral sex, the missionary position, BDSM, or anything else: if you don't like it, don't do it.

[BigDookie6]

Ever recieved or performed oral sex? If yes to either, there goes the whole "unnatural" angle.

As to safety, if you practice unsafe sex regardles sof the method, your chances of contracting and STD/I are going to be higher then if you practice safe sex. Basically, you can take steps to significantly reduce risk by practicing safe sex.

Is oral sex unnatural? I mean, a girl could be giving a BJ just to erect the male. I've seen dogs lick themselves, and the little red pecker comes out.

If a male and female are clean of STD's & virus's, and have unprotected sex, are their chances very low of contracting a disease versus two men who are clean and perform anal sex? How is it that two clean men, "dook" each other in the butt, then six months later one of them is HIV infected? Both only had sex with each other; no one else.

The same thing I'd say to people who don't enjoy oral sex, the missionary position, BDSM, or anything else: if you don't like it, don't do it.

Then I guess homosexuals aren't born with the feeling. Chosen lifestyle & feeling for same sex.

[Hugo]

How is it that two clean men, "dook" each other in the butt, then six months later one of them is HIV infected? Both only had sex with each other; no one else.

A miracle? Seriously, what's your explanation - that HIV appears by magic wherever sodomy is to be had? HIV is transmissible by anal sex, but I've never heard it proposed that HIV is created from nowhere by anal sex!

I take back my earlier comments. Obviously we do need more sex-ed in schools.

I'm not discriminating that, so do not call me a biggot or whatever else. I have homosexual friends and I tell them the samething. It's a personal choice or lifestyle.

It's funny how everybody claims to have homosexual friends. Given that they're maybe 1-3% of the population, they would have to be really, really friendly people. Every gay man would have to befriend 30-100 straight men.

I don't believe that a marine who uses the term "faggot" for an insult has any homosexual friends, quite honestly.

Homosexuality is all mental! Maybe it's a form of being handicapped?? I'm just trying to understand...

Personally, I think the probable explanation is that homosexuality is a malfunction of the sex drive. We have sexual urges to get us to reproduce, thus ensuring the survival of the species, and homosexual attraction cannot produce or appear to produce offspring. This malfunction seems largely due to environmental factors beyond the control of the individual. Being a victim of sexual abuse in the formative years seems to be common among homosexuals, as do other symptoms of psychological disorder such as tendencies for substance abuse, severe self-esteem problems, extremes of promiscuity (usually a sign that the subject is searching for acceptance and affection) and suicide. There may be some kind of genetic predisposition, too, but hard evidence of that has been elusive.

However, that's assuming that humans are the same as animals, and we do have many characteristics that distinguish us from all other kinds of life on earth, for example, the use of representative pictures and other abstract concepts. Bearing that in mind, it may be that human sexuality is not like animal sexuality.

Anyway, regardless of the cause, it's no business of ours what consensual acts other people get up to, no matter how perverted or unnatural we consider them.

There's a good book you can read on this, BD6. It's called Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, and you can read it online.

Naturally speaking though... Our bodies are practically "perfect machines" and every limb, organ, tissue has a purpose. Vagina/ penis = orgasm/ reproduction. Anus has one purpose and one purpose only whether you get pleasure out of it or not.

You could also say that the purpose of the eyes is not to stare at VDUs for 8-16 hours a day, that the purpose of the digestive tract is not to ingest vast amounts of refined sugar and carbohydrates, that the purpose of the adrenal gland is not to give you road rage when some jerk cuts you off, and so forth.

What are you going to do - legislate us back into a Hobbesian "state of nature"? Is it naturally perfect if we suffer the Hobbesian short, brutal and nasty life, being eaten by mountain lions or dying of typhoid?

A lot of stuff isn't natural. Scientologists think that even the human race isn't natural.

What would you say to those who have practiced sodomy; correctly & safely, and found no pleasure out of it?

"Better luck next time"?

[August1991]

Personally, I think the probable explanation is that homosexuality is a malfunction of the sex drive.

Here's my theory, for what it's worth.

Alpha males dominate leaving other males without female partners.

This poses several questions:

1. Why are there Alpha males?

2. Why do males without females become homosexual?

3. Why are there lesbians?

----

The first question strikes me as the most interesting (and also gets back to the thread's title - animal marriage).

Birds are largely monogamous. Mammals are not. (Beavers are an exception - but beavers are weird.)

It is a common idea that men want to spread their plentiful seed whereas women want to husband their rare eggs.

More accurately, one woman can transmit her genes to about 20 children, at most. One man, conceivably, could transmit his genes to several thousand children or more.

BTW, female fish and female insects lay thousands of eggs. Most female birds require the critical participation of the male during the incubation of the egg.

[Black Dog]

Is oral sex unnatural? I mean, a girl could be giving a BJ just to erect the male. I've seen dogs lick themselves, and the little red pecker comes out

Still defies your earlier logic of "Vagina/ penis = orgasm/ reproduction".

If a male and female are clean of STD's & virus's, and have unprotected sex, are their chances very low of contracting a disease versus two men who are clean and perform anal sex? How is it that two clean men, "dook" each other in the butt, then six months later one of them is HIV infected? Both only had sex with each other; no one else.

Simple: it's impossible. It doesn't happen.

Then I guess homosexuals aren't born with the feeling. Chosen lifestyle & feeling for same sex.

No. You are mistakenly equating sexual desire and attraction with a singular sexual act.

[Black Dog]

Alpha males dominate leaving other males without female partners.

This poses several questions:

1. Why are there Alpha males?

2. Why do males without females become homosexual?

3. Why are there lesbians?

The big problem with your theory is that it fails to account for homosexuality among species with an ample female population. Your theory implies homosexuality is a learned behaviour: if so, it would be a temporary one in cases where females are unavailable. Furthermore, it fails to explain why we have homosexuality today in a society with an almost 50-50 male/female split.

It is a common idea that men want to spread their plentiful seed whereas women want to husband their rare eggs.

I don't really by this idea.. It seems that promiscuity would be beneficial to females at it maximizes the chances of conception. After all, what if the female picked her "Alpha Male", only to discover he was shooting blanks?

Personally, I think the probable explanation is that homosexuality is a malfunction of the sex drive.

I disagree. For instance, no one ever questions the "cause" of heterosexuality. Is it a choice? Genetic? Hormonal? Could it be that homosexuals are simply born with a different set of wiring? Could it be that there is no "normal"?

[BigDookie6]

Why is it that Lesbian partners seem to have a role? One plays "Butch" the other "Mary". Could it be that men need women, and women need men?

If everyone were homosexual, how would we reproduce? Animals do not know anything about artificial insemination.

After all, what if the female picked her "Alpha Male", only to discover he was shooting blanks?

Natural selection. She chooses another.

For instance, no one ever questions the "cause" of heterosexuality

Reproduction

[Black Dog]

Why is it that Lesbian partners seem to have a role? One plays "Butch" the other "Mary". Could it be that men need women, and women need men?

I don't think this is true, but a stereotype. For example, if the only types of lesbians you recognize are lesbians that conform to such a dynamic, then it's easy to assume "most" lesbians do. But that doesn't take into account the many who don't fit the profile and thus slip under the radar.

For instance, no one ever questions the "cause" of heterosexuality

Reproduction

That's a result or a purpose. Not a cause.

[takeanumber]

Let's just take a step back here and look at it from a public policy perspective.

Conditions in society used to be such that if somebody was gay (and it's NOT a choice, you feces chucking neo-cons) and did not have enough courage, they would get married, have children, then sneak out once in a while, play in the bushes, and bring back something nasty for his wife.

Recently, conditions have changed so that some people had less courage, or who have developed more courage throughout their lives, that they could come out of the closet, and get a divorce from their wives/husbands: which certainly isn't good for the children.

A big part of the decision to admit to everybody that you're gay is how much social anymosity you're going to come up against. Some people simply don't have the courage.

The solution is for complete acceptance, including marriage, right from the getgo.

Why?

By lowering the courage threshold (which is still high even when you're in a comfy environment) will keep more gay men and lesbian women from getting married to the wrong sex, and preven serious consequences down the road.

The neo-con, authoritarian alternative is to simply to repress homosexuals--based on the false premise that it's a choice. That has quite a bit in common with quite a few proud regimes.

[August1991]

The big problem with your theory is that it fails to account for homosexuality among species with an ample female population.

In such species, what is "female" and what is "male"? The individual, in general, contributes somehow to the future.

Your theory implies homosexuality is a learned behaviour: if so, it would be a temporary one in cases where females are unavailable. Furthermore, it fails to explain why we have homosexuality today in a society with an almost 50-50 male/female split.

I care little whether it is learned or not. It is. That's enough for me.

50/50 split explains it well. After terrorist destruction, you (a male I assume), Bill Clinton and three guys (randomly chosen from your place of work) survive on an island. Brittany Spears, your wife/sister/female cousin and three chicks (randomly chosen from your place of work) also survive. What happens?

I don't really by this idea.. It seems that promiscuity would be beneficial to females at it maximizes the chances of conception.

The idea confused me too.

1. Your life is at stake. You have two months to live. You have only three drugs available that cannot be taken simultaneously and require one month treatment. What do you do? (Get on the Internet and Google the drug names...)

2. Your life is at stake. You have two months to live. You have 500 drugs available that can be taken simultaneously and may save you. What do you do?

Conditions in society used to be such that if somebody was gay (and it's NOT a choice, you feces chucking neo-cons) and did not have enough courage, they would get married, have children, then sneak out once in a while, play in the bushes, and bring back something nasty for his wife.

It IS a choice, as Bush should have said in that debate. America means free choice. But who cares why anyone chooses what they choose.

A big part of the decision to admit to everybody that you're gay is how much social anymosity you're going to come up against. Some people simply don't have the courage.

The solution is for complete acceptance, including marriage, right from the getgo.

TalkNumb, once again, you say what is true. The issue is whether we strike a taboo and make it easier for individuals to choose.

IMV, Stephen Harper should say openly that he has no objection if two men marry in a municipal office somewhere - Canada is a big country, surely a municipal office somewhere will do the deed.

Not all municipal offices, nor even any church, synagogue, temple, mosque need do the deed. By saying this, Harper would make it plain that he is in favour of free choice. He would make the lives of some ordinary people better (with little /no cost to the rest of us).

And Harper would send a message to the idiots on our planet of 6 billion that he chooses Galileo, Newton and Copernicus. For heaven's sakes, what are we defending?

BD, I am willing to discuss this issue as long as it is clear that I have no objection to two people kissing in public, as long as their Garry Marshall moment is truly romantic. Call me ultimately naive, but I have no secret agenda other than honesty.

Why is it that Lesbian partners seem to have a role? One plays "Butch" the other "Mary". Could it be that men need women, and women need men?

Big Dookie 6, are we talking 6 cm or 6 inches?

[Hugo]

I disagree. For instance, no one ever questions the "cause" of heterosexuality. Is it a choice? Genetic? Hormonal? Could it be that homosexuals are simply born with a different set of wiring? Could it be that there is no "normal"?

Could be any or all. I think another possibility is that the biological purpose of sexuality is as I gave it, but homosexuality is also natural. For instance, God or nature or whatever you believe in seems to have given humankind a lot of checks and balances to control the population (diseases, ageing, etc), and homosexuality may be one of these things. In every generation a certain percentage may be homosexual in order to remove them from the pool of potential mates for procreation.

As to the cause of homosexuality, it's probably exactly the same cause as heterosexuality or even pedophilia: genetic predisposition combined with the right environmental factors and influences.

Let's just take a step back here and look at it from a public policy perspective.

Why do we need a public policy on sexuality?

[BigDookie6]

back to the main topic:

Taking it up the rear is just sick! Male or female! And if you want to marry animals...that's sick too! "Do as you will. If it feels good, do it." eh? No repression or self control. Lets give people unlimited choice! Liberalism is candy for society: "If you do what you wish, you not only will feel better but you'll be healthier and live longer because you will be liberated!" Even a dog will eat too much candy, get sick and die.

[Black Dog]

Taking it up the rear is just sick! Male or female! And if you want to marry animals...that's sick too!Do as you will. If it feels good, do it." eh? No repression or self control. Lets give people unlimited choice

No one's asking you to marry your dog or take it in the ass. So why do you care?

You Yanks crack me up: you love tossing the word "freedom" around everywhere, but when it comes right down to it, you don't even understand what it means.

[BigDookie6]

You are so right on BD! We don't know anything down here! I will never disagree with you again BD. Because if I do, I am ignorant, uneducated, homophobic, a war mongerer, human rights violator, a liar and ugly! And I can never live up to you or your country's standards! Please forgive me righteous one I'm just trying to make it to the "Big Leagues"

[Black Dog]

Ironically, your feeble attempt at sarcasm is the most intelligent thing you've said so far.

And for the record turd-boy: you too wil make the Big Leagues once you accomplish the oh-so-difficult feat of posting more than 250 times. At your current pace, you'll be breathing that rarefied air in a month's time.

[BigDookie6]

Ironically, your feeble attempt at sarcasm is the most intelligent thing you've said so far.

And for the record turd-boy: you too wil make the Big Leagues once you accomplish the oh-so-difficult feat of posting more than 250 times. At your current pace, you'll be breathing that rarefied air in a month's time.

We're getting somewhere BD! I'm trying man!

[Black Dog]

We're getting somewhere BD! I'm trying man!

No: you're trolling.