Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

[Japher]

I'm beginning to suspect Wiglaf might be on something.

[Whaleboy]

I think if he's not careful the mods are going to kick him in the arse so hard his pancreas will be giving foot massages!

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

So infertile couples are wrong to have sex?

Wiglaf's dilemma presumes that both men and the woman are fertile.

We can deduce then, BK, that in order to avoid hypocrisy on your part (heaven forbid), after you've gotten married, you won't have sex with your wife except for attempts to produce children?

Why not simply make the two equivalent, in allowing all sex to have the possibility of children? That doesn't seem repulsive to me.

[Whaleboy]

Wiglaf's dilemma presumes that both men and the woman are fertile.

I dont want to speak for Boris but it seems the reasoning applies to couples who cannot, for whatever reason, have kids.

Why not simply make the two equivalent, in allowing all sex to have the possibility of children? That doesn't seem repulsive to me.

What if you want sex for physical pleasure? What is necessarily inferior with that to sex with the possibility of procreation (the difference of course being use of contraception)?

I think I'd like to hear your fundamental argument though as to why sex and love should only go hand in hand, and why (as far as they are concerned generally, not consequentially) it is necessarily superior to abstain otherwise?

[Ben Kenobi]

Whaleboy:

I would suggest that sex for the purposes of love is more important than sex for the purposes of having children,

Why should one be any more important than the other? I think they are both important, and one should not take precedence over the other.

and to be utilitarian about it, you’d gain more personal utility by doing so.

Only if you presumed this first presupposition to be true.

Kant is useless when it comes to other people’s bedrooms… there must have been something in the waters of Konnigsberg. That is why your most straight-laced married heterosexual couple will usually have sex even though children are not the aim.

True, I don't doubt the action in practice will happen this way. The question is not how things are, but what ought to be done. Is/ought and all.

Giving another pleasure is a wonderful way to show how you feel about someone.

True. However I would argue that holding something back deprives you of pleasure.

A modification of that would be if the gay man consents and the woman consents. Does that justify him cheating on his love?

I agree with you on this, however I also believe that sexual preferences are not fixed.

As a general rule I feel a little off-put by your frequent application of your personal morality as a universal maxim regarding sex.

What personal morality? I do nothing different from what you do, by stating the presupposition that sex should be both for the purposes of love and procreation, and that to separate one aspect from the other deminishes the pleasure enjoyed by both. I take this presupposition, and logically analyse the dilemma proposed by Wiglaf.

How is this presupposition any less valid than your own, that sex has the primary goal for love, and not for procreation?

[Japher]

I think I'd like to hear your fundamental argument though as to why sex and love should only go hand in hand, and why (as far as they are concerned generally, not consequentially) it is necessarily superior to abstain otherwise?

That's just stupid! If you only have sex to reproduce you are stupid!!!

Japher has spoken, and thus it is law.

[Ben Kenobi]

I dont want to speak for Boris but it seems the reasoning applies to couples who cannot, for whatever reason, have kids.

That is not the dilemma. The dilemma assumes that should the gay men want to have sex with the women, they would be able to preserve the species, ergo, that everyone is fertile.

What if you want sex for physical pleasure? What is necessarily inferior with that to sex with the possibility of procreation (the difference of course being use of contraception)?

Excellent point. You are always holding something back in contraception, in saying that you want to have sex with someone, yet you do not trust them enough to have children with them.

I think I'd like to hear your fundamental argument though as to why sex and love should only go hand in hand, and why (as far as they are concerned generally, not consequentially) it is necessarily superior to abstain otherwise?

I heard a good argument myself, written by Jay Budizewski, that a good friend showed me some time ago. He used the analogy of duct tape. When you have sex with someone, you invariably form a bond like duct tape sticks to skin. It hurts when you pull that duct tape off.

Over time, this stickiness will wear off if you keep attaching and pulling the tape off your skin. Eventually, you will not be able to attach yourself to someone in the same way as you did at first. The intimacy will not be there.

[Ben Kenobi]

As for Obi Gyn's tortured attempt to impose his 16th century Puritan christian morality on us, well- here's to him getting any, and then perhaps giving the sex threads a rest for about an aeon or two.

I'll accept that toast.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Japher
I'm beginning to suspect Wiglaf might be on something.

A cheap hooker of indeterminate sex.

[Whaleboy]

Why should one be any more important than the other? I think they are both important, and one should not take precedence over the other.

My position, I do not believe that one is more important than the other. However as far as I am concerned, other peoples have a value of 0. They decide what is right for them based on their own person, and that is, thus, right for them. I, being 19 years old and single, would rather have sex for fun than sex for kids (had to be careful there ), but that may not be the case for a married couple desperately wanting a kid. What's right for me is not right for them, but our respective positions in this regard are equally right for each other. I know I sound like i'm making the same regurgitated relativism again but I doubt you can find a more applicable context.

Only if you presumed this first presupposition to be true.

My apologies, I meant in the original context. Ultimately, the above holds, but personal utility is defined in that case by ones preference for love, sex or money. I find it self evident that utilitarianism would hold more water in this case than Kant's maxim, but you're free to disagree, I'd be interested in hearing how.

but what ought to be done. Is/ought and all.

Indeed, and we could list a thousand consequential reasons against it but still not deduce an "ought" from them. You'd want something inductive, an intent, but then basic utilitarianism and subjectivism would kick in to render it "is" and deductive on the basis of the subjectivism anyway! Hume rules!

True. However I would argue that holding something back deprives you of pleasure.

As a general rule? Perhaps as a personal statement. Having said that, I prefer tantra to S&M, though what you choose in the bedroom is your concern . Some can get greater pleasure for indulging yourself now, others prefer anticipation, but neither are more true than each other, again its personal preference alone that decides. Raphael or Michealangelo?

I agree with you on this, however I also believe that sexual preferences are not fixed.

That means nothing. Same goes for religion, opinion, or any feature of identity.

and that to separate one aspect from the other deminishes the pleasure enjoyed by both.

I didn't agree with that. I hold the two to be essentially unrelated though people can combine them as they wish. For example, the idea of sex with someone I loved to produce a kid would frankly scare, me, I'd prefer to use a condom.

How is this presupposition any less valid than your own, that sex has the primary goal for love, and not for procreation?

That's not it. I'm saying the two are effectively neutral, and only given "value" by the individual characteristics of each context, namely the beholder. It seems self evident that the beholder has different "wildcards" in this and thus there is no objective "right" or "wrong" regarding such decisions.

[Whaleboy]

Excellent point. You are always holding something back in contraception, in saying that you want to have sex with someone, yet you do not trust them enough to have children with them.

Always? So whenever you have sex with a condom, you're saying you dont trust that person to have your kid? I'm sorry but thats tenuous at best, and I think a lot of people in that position would not agree, so its hardly generalisable. That may be your view on it, but you're still subjective in this, and yet present your view as universal.

I heard a good argument myself, written by Jay Budizewski, that a good friend showed me some time ago. He used the analogy of duct tape. When you have sex with someone, you invariably form a bond like duct tape sticks to skin. It hurts when you pull that duct tape off.

I think that may be the case for some people, for others it is not. There are people for whom sex is akin to having a hug, making them feel wanted. For others it's nice to feel close to someone, if not anyone specific. For others still it is a complex equation of psychosexual premises and security reason.

Over time, this stickiness will wear off if you keep attaching and pulling the tape off your skin. Eventually, you will not be able to attach yourself to someone in the same way as you did at first. The intimacy will not be there.

Forgive me but I question your experience in such things. Sex is different every time with every different person, to use your analogy, it is not merely duct tape, but a worldly range of fabrics, among whom yes will be duct tape. The more times you have sex thinking you were in love, in my experience this is, the harder it is to commit next time you think you are in love. Sex with someone random does not do that to me.

[Whaleboy]

...as a general rule BK, I think you should question these "old wives tales" a little more, analogy and metaphors are nothing without reasoning to back it, so it is subject to the same critical analysis.

[Wiglaf]

Being gay hasn't been shown to be genetic.

Then what the hell is it? Not genetic?

[Wiglaf]

I'll have everyone know, that the sexual impuse is #1 on the things humans need to get right.

Otherwise we don't last long mating with toasters.

[MORON]

most people here mate with their right hand.....

I rest my case