fallingblood

Oh, and all I meant about the homosexual lifestyle was how they had sex.

Infidelettante

Our thirteen year old just finished the 8th grade at a Catholic school. Next year she goes to public school. She has picked up not a few things from the RCs that her Mom and I will have to work on lest she remain warped for life. One of them is a distaste for sex, well really a distaste for talking about sex. This has revealed a true distrust of homosexuality. Here is how we are dealing with it.

‘Sweety, it is hard to find someone to share your life with that you can trust and depend on. You will understand how true this is in a few years. Relationships are tough. It takes a lot of effort to succeed in one and to be honest lots of people don’t want to put in the work it takes to keep a relationship going. You have to pay attention to it every day. You have to learn to appreciate the little day to day stuff that goes into keeping your partner happy.

You will discover that sex is important in a relationship but honesty is more important. And trust. And humor. And patience. We hope you find someone you can trust. Somebody you can depend on. Somebody who loves you and wants to spend the rest of his life helping you get through the rest of your life.

People like that are hard to find. They are treasures dearer than gold or diamonds. If two people can find that in each other they have found riches greater than you can imagine. And it doesn’t matter if they are a man and a woman or two women or two men. This world can only be improved when people love one another. We need to learn to celebrate those loves. They are rare and priceless. And they can never, ever be wrong.’

We hope it works.

JT

southernhybrid

How creative to use self lubrication as an argument against gay sex. You do realize that many heteros practise anal sex and from what I've been told, many gays do not prefer this type of sex. What about Lesbians. I would think that same sex females include their self lubricating sanctified vaginas when they have sex so are you saying that Lesbian sex is sanctified but male same sex is not?

I've been happily practising sex with my husband for decades and I had no idea that my vagina had been sanctified. I hope it's okay with you that we use a little artificial lubrication to enhance the experience. Thank gawd for technology.

In any case, I will never understand why some people care about or judge the sexual behavior of other consenting adults. How others practise their sexuality can't harm you. The hate and prejudice against gay people only causes harm and suffering and does nothing to improve the condition of humanity.

diana

Oh. I see. Thanks.

It's just another way of saying it isn't for you. Let me try it.

I don't agree with the liver lifestyle. I don't agree with the Republican lifestyle. I don't agree with the Christian lifestyle.

I'd rather like steak, vote democrat, and go through life unladen with guilt. It's okay for other people. If it works for them, that's cool.

I'm focusing on your phraseology for a couple of reasons:

1. Homosexuals are not defined by their sexuality any more than heterosexuals are. They are complex people. Those who say "the homosexual lifestyle," are suggesting homosexuals are ruled by their homosexuality, to the exclusion of all else--which is no more true for homosexuals than for heterosexuals, afaik. It also labels them according to one part of their lives, which is not only ignorant but insulting as well. It's rather like calling a woman a "cunt"; yes, that's part of the woman, but she's far more than that. It's insulting to reduce her to being defined by her genitelia alone.

2. Like many people, you blurred the distinction between "what is just fine for other people" and "what is just fine for [you]" by using the words "I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle." No one asked what you'd personally prefer, nor by saying "I don't agree with"--regardless of what you meant--means far more than "fallingblood himself/herself is heterosexual." What it says is that you feel no one else should be homosexual because you aren't.

3. Your comment that you'd "just rather like girls" suggests you have a choice in the matter. Do you? Most homosexuals and heterosexuals alike would tell you point blank that they simply aren't attracted to their unpreferred sex, and it isn't something they chose. If you had the option of choosing which you "prefer," you're bisexual.

d

premjan

just because they can't help it, does that make it natural or right? is man the only measure of all things?

diana

Heterosexuals can't help it, either. Just because they can't help it, does that make it "natural" or "right"? Is man the only measure of all things?

The answer, of course, is yes. Man is the measure of what is right for man. Even those with religious beliefs stoop to their own feelings about which bits to obey and which bits to ignore. Just because they presume to have a holy book to back up what they've decided to believe doesn't mean they arrived at that conclusion based solely on what that book says. If they did, they'd stone their children, not wear clothes made of more than one material, and not eat shellfish or pork.

The discussion of the "rightness" of homosexuality with Christians/believers invariably (if you give them long enough--and seebs, I know I'm generalizing here) comes down to their personal feelings of revulsion at the idea. Those feelings are simply backed up by certain "scriptures" that can be interpreted so as to condemn homosexuality.

(Let me toss in something here that should be obvious, but probably isn't: just because you can't help being attracted to a member of the opposite sex, does that make it natural? The joke lies in the fact that the question itself is tautological. Obviously, it's natural for you. Duh. Then we get to the sticky question of what's right. My rules are that it's right so long as I'm not hurting others unnecessarily. Who's right, then? How do we know?)

d

premjan

although present in nature, appears to go against a rather hoary trend of gender individuation. seems unsatisfactory from a conceptual point of view. an apparent misalignment of the body and mind, effectively. of course, it depends whether you take the world as it is, as your guide, or the world as it could be best envisioned by our minds. It appears to create some conceptual strife. Robs us of our "destiny" as evolutionary survivors. Leaves us a little bereft of meaning. This is not a reason to persecute a homosexual or anyone. But, e.g., should research funds be allocated to figure out how to prevent homosexuality arising in infants? Funds are spent on many other health issues: how to prevent obesity, for example, which is another maladjustment of the human physiology to its nutritional conditions.

diana

I don't claim to know a great deal about evolution, but it seems to me that not every member of any given species is "destined" to contribute biologically to its perpetuation. Has it occurred to you that there are other contributions people can make, other than their genes?

Another thing you might consider is that environment changes drive evolutionary development. Our species is quickly out-breeding its environment. I.E., we're running out of planet. Perchance, increased rates of homosexuality result, as it tends to cut down on unwanted pregnancies...?

I don't know, to be honest. But the "evolution" argument against the naturalness of homosexuality has never struck me as convincing. People are born with their hearts outside their chest cavity, too. It isn't really conducive to survival, let alone reproduction later--but it is natural. Siamese twins are natural, too. All sorts of anomolies are natural.

Evolution doesn't have a goal, and it isn't a continuous upward ladder. Some members of a group are naturally selected to carry on the species and others are not. The ones who are not are not any less "natural" (or "right") than those who happen to be selected.

I don't remember the species, but there were moths in England that were born either white or dark grey. The white ones flourished for a long time (with the occasional dark grey ones being born occasionally, nonetheless), until some disease destroyed the trees that allowed the white ones to be camoflaged. Within a couple of generations, the dark grey ones had taken over, with only the occasional white one being born still, nonetheless. The white ones were no less "natural" or "right" than the dark grey ones, but they were doomed to die an early death almost every time, because they couldn't camoflage.

Do homosexuals have any evolutionary advantages? To the species, I think they do. The fill needs other than genetic while not further over-populating the planet. Will they "take over" if some environmental catastrophe happens? No. But is their ongoing presense beneficial to the whole? Yes. (Think economics, as well. Art. Science. Literature.)

No.

d

Autonemesis

We homos just call that the club scene. I think you straights have a similar phrase for yours.

MrDarwin

If that's the case, one has to wonder why the plumbing was "designed" to fit together so well, and to feel so good...

The anus is "self-lubricating," otherwise you would have a lot more trouble taking a poop... (which is not to say that a little extra lubrication doesn't help--saliva is remarkably lubricating--but then again wasn't KY jelly originally marketed for presumably "self-lubricating" heterosexuals?)

And let's face it, sex in general isn't the most "sanitary" activity.