Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[Wootah]

Let me make sure I understand you. A man has a vasectomy precisely to make sure he will not father any children, but when he then has sexual intercourse, the his purpose is to father children? Is that really what you are saying?

That's correct. I am saying that implicit to sex is the possibility of having children. Even oral sex, anal sex, sex with contraception, etc.

[Deadclown]

Let me make sure I understand you. A man has a vasectomy precisely to make sure he will not father any children, but when he then has sexual intercourse, the his purpose is to father children? Is that really what you are saying?

That's correct. I am saying that implicit to sex is the possibility of having children. Even oral sex, anal sex, sex with contraception, etc.

Would you please explain your reasoning for how non-vaginal sex acts (oral sex, anal sex, etc), or sex with near zero chance of conception carries an implicit (able to be understood without being stated directly) possibility of having children?

It seems as though the exact opposite is the case. It is literally impossible for oral sex or anal sex to result in a child. I could buy that there is the 'possibility' even with a vasectomy or contraception (there are rare exceptions and few things are perfect), but if it is purposefully reduced to a near zero chance then the accepted assumption should be that a child will not result (as the individuals obviously do not want one).

I promise you that if I were to get a vasectomy or was declared medically sterile, and was to impregnate a woman, I would not only be surprised, but probably having extremely strong words or legal actions for the medical professionals in question.

[Wootah]

Let me make sure I understand you. A man has a vasectomy precisely to make sure he will not father any children, but when he then has sexual intercourse, the his purpose is to father children? Is that really what you are saying?

That's correct. I am saying that implicit to sex is the possibility of having children. Even oral sex, anal sex, sex with contraception, etc.

Would you please explain your reasoning for how non-vaginal sex acts (oral sex, anal sex, etc), or sex with near zero chance of conception carries an implicit (able to be understood without being stated directly) possibility of having children?

It seems as though the exact opposite is the case. It is literally impossible for oral sex or anal sex to result in a child. I could buy that there is the 'possibility' even with a vasectomy or contraception (there are rare exceptions and few things are perfect), but if it is purposefully reduced to a near zero chance then the accepted assumption should be that a child will not result (as the individuals obviously do not want one).

I promise you that if I were to get a vasectomy or was declared medically sterile, and was to impregnate a woman, I would not only be surprised, but probably having extremely strong words or legal actions for the medical professionals in question.

Here's my analogy. If you jump out of a plane with a parachute there is still a chance you might fall and die. You can't separate the fact that falling from great heights will kill you simply because we have invented parachutes and aeroplanes.

Or instead of pregnancy consider STDs. There is no sense in arguing how unfair it is that you got an STD even if you used protection. You did the deed and got the STD. It is a possible consequence of that action. Tragically, I think we accept this more than we accept that a pregnancy is a natural consequence of sexual activity and yet both have life long consequences.

If you do the crime you do the time seems crudely appropriate and analogous to my point.

[Deadclown]

Would you please explain your reasoning for how non-vaginal sex acts (oral sex, anal sex, etc), or sex with near zero chance of conception carries an implicit (able to be understood without being stated directly) possibility of having children?

It seems as though the exact opposite is the case. It is literally impossible for oral sex or anal sex to result in a child. I could buy that there is the 'possibility' even with a vasectomy or contraception (there are rare exceptions and few things are perfect), but if it is purposefully reduced to a near zero chance then the accepted assumption should be that a child will not result (as the individuals obviously do not want one).

I promise you that if I were to get a vasectomy or was declared medically sterile, and was to impregnate a woman, I would not only be surprised, but probably having extremely strong words or legal actions for the medical professionals in question.

Here's my analogy. If you jump out of a plane with a parachute there is still a chance you might fall and die. You can't separate the fact that falling from great heights will kill you simply because we have invented parachutes and aeroplanes.

This analogy is false, because it compares a dangerous situation to the possibility of pregnancy when engaging in non-vaginal intercourse. Comparing pregancy chances when having oral is more analogous to jumping out of a plane... when it's on the ground. There is just no chance of danger.

It is less of a false analogy when comparing to pregnancy chances when medically sterile/infertile, on the pill, or with a medical procedure to remove chances of pregnancy. The probabilities of failure and the set up of your analogy make me leery of the comparison.

Or instead of pregnancy consider STDs. There is no sense in arguing how unfair it is that you got an STD even if you used protection. You did the deed and got the STD. It is a possible consequence of that action. Tragically, I think we accept this more than we accept that a pregnancy is a natural consequence of sexual activity and yet both have life long consequences.

That's a red herring. We aren't talking about STD risk, which is very possible with non-vaginal intercourse. We are specifically talking about pregnancy and the comparison is inappropriate for that reason.

If there is a just an 'infinitely small' possibility of well protected sex or sex when one/both partners are incapable of having children, I can see your view point, and simply disagree that it is 'implicit'. Your point is that there is an implicitly understood *risk*, I believe. Which I disagree with because it assumes that people are not ignorant of the potential possibilities of pregnancy. It is simply incorrect that everyone who has ever had an accidental pregnancy while on the pill, with a vasectomy, or when declared medically sterile responded to the news with a lack of surprise, because they had sex with the implicit knowledge that a child could be produced. Their assumptions in those cases would be the exact opposite.

If you do the crime you do the time seems crudely appropriate and analogous to my point.

Do you see something inherently wrong with or 'sinful' regarding any sex acts so that it is analogous to crime?

Also you did not really answer the question, so I'll restate it concentrating on the important part.

Would you please explain your reasoning for how non-vaginal sex acts (oral sex, anal sex, etc)carries an implicit (able to be understood without being stated directly) possibility of having children when there is literally zero (not just close to zero) chance of a pregnancy occurring?

Maybe you can find me a medically documented case where someone was impregnated in these manners?

[Wootah]

Deadclown I disagree that my analogies are false and red herrings. If crashing is being related to getting pregnant then oral sex is like the flying in a plane, unlikely to crash but it can happen.

If there is a just an 'infinitely small' possibility of well protected sex or sex when one/both partners are incapable of having children, I can see your view point, and simply disagree that it is 'implicit'.

I just find it hard to accept that you don't regard the use of our sexual organs for sexual purposes doesn't imply the possibility of creation. The basic situation you are describing when you expressing the measures taken when we are trying our level best to not fall pregnant means that we know that the default position is the possibility of falling pregnant. Otherwise why would we use condoms at all?

Do you see something inherently wrong with or 'sinful' regarding any sex acts so that it is analogous to crime?

I'll try to think of an analogy using the word dirty or filth, oh, if you play in the mud you will get filthy. lol. I am sorry you might think I think that way. My God said go forth and multiply and I feel very strongly that sex is part of a very, very good creation.

Would you please explain your reasoning for how non-vaginal sex acts (oral sex, anal sex, etc)carries an implicit (able to be understood without being stated directly) possibility of having children when there is literally zero (not just close to zero) chance of a pregnancy occurring?

Do you think the penis knows that its sperm is going into a tissue or a mouth or a vagina? I just think you are immediately in the zone of getting someone pregnant when you are in one of any of the many sexual acts that are possible. There are plenty of cases of a man getting a woman pregnant through unexpected means. These may involve the woman wilfully misusing his sperm to get pregnant from it or the couple having intercourse for 'just a moment'.

But my argument rests most strongly on the basis of those analogies - the idea that what is typical should be presumed to be the most likely. And the fact that we are trying to prevent/avoid contraception implies that the sexual act is for contraception. Caveat empor applies as well.

[Board]

Deadclown I disagree that my analogies are false and red herrings. If crashing is being related to getting pregnant then oral sex is like the flying in a plane, unlikely to crash but it can happen.

Hold the phone... please show that oral sex can lead to pregnancy.

If Crashing = Pregnant then Oral sex is more like waiting to board the plane... there is no chance of crashing if you are not on the plane like there is no chance of getting pregnant if you are only partaking in oral sex...

[Deadclown]

Deadclown I disagree that my analogies are false and red herrings. If crashing is being related to getting pregnant then oral sex is like the flying in a plane, unlikely to crash but it can happen.

Hold the phone... please show that oral sex can lead to pregnancy.

If Crashing = Pregnant then Oral sex is more like waiting to board the plane... there is no chance of crashing if you are not on the plane like there is no chance of getting pregnant if you are only partaking in oral sex...

What Board said. Your analogy only works if you can show that oral sex can somehow lead to pregnancy (hint: you can't). What you should find in any relatively easy anatomy lesson is that it is *impossible* for a pregnancy to result from oral sex or anal sex. So I am all sorts of confused on where you are getting this from and want to know sources.

The only thing I can think of is like the Superman Sperm that can fly around impregnating women no matter where he ejaculates.

I just find it hard to accept that you don't regard the use of our sexual organs for sexual purposes doesn't imply the possibility of creation. The basic situation you are describing when you expressing the measures taken when we are trying our level best to not fall pregnant means that we know that the default position is the possibility of falling pregnant. Otherwise why would we use condoms at all?

You do not seem to be getting it, but I think I know where you are coming from now. You are saying that the baseline for vaginal intercourse (all other things being equal) causes reproduction. This is correct. You then make a wild logically fallacious leap of extrapolation to say that all sex carries the possibility of procreation, and thus it is implicit. That is totally and completely wrong. I am pointing out that there are lots of ways two completely heterosexual people can have sex and reproduction not be implicit or even a remote possibility. Thus your attempt to define sex within the bounds of reproductive necessity is completely fallacious.

I'll try to think of an analogy using the word dirty or filth, oh, if you play in the mud you will get filthy. lol. I am sorry you might think I think that way. My God said go forth and multiply and I feel very strongly that sex is part of a very, very good creation.

Well... there is a difference between wanting to make babies and wanting to have sex. Paul at least had a lot of opinions on the matter and I can't be sure what yours are until you tell me.

At least we have some common ground here. I hope we can agree that sex between consenting adults is very enjoyable by its own merits, without baby making *needing* to be implied? If I thought that every time I had sex I'd make a baby, I'd have a lot less of it. I am sure that if there was absolutely zero chance of conception during sex, you'd still do it.

Do you think the penis knows that its sperm is going into a tissue or a mouth or a vagina? I just think you are immediately in the zone of getting someone pregnant when you are in one of any of the many sexual acts that are possible. There are plenty of cases of a man getting a woman pregnant through unexpected means. These may involve the woman wilfully misusing his sperm to get pregnant from it or the couple having intercourse for 'just a moment'.

Look... Wootah, if every time you have sex you think, 'could be making babies', that's fine. I am trying to explain that a lot of people are not like that at all, and it is fallacious to extrapolate your personal feelings out to everyone (hasty generalization fallacy). If you are talking about an evolutionary drive for reproduction, we've already been over that. Sex has been co-opted for a lot of purposes by a lot of animals (not just us).

Animals do not have long term planning ability. A dog smells a bitch who is in heat, it causes sexual arousal, pleasurable feelings from sex result, and thus the animal is encouraged to have more sex. The dog will often just as soon hump a leg because it feels good. At no point does the idea of making babies need to enter the picture.

Also, I wasn't talking about artificial insemination by the woman or very brief vaginal intercourse. I was *specifically* talking about oral and anal intercourse, and non-specifically talking about any other non-vaginal intercourse. Notice how in both cases you describe there is vaginal penetration with sperm. You also need to present *actual evidence* instead of just 'there are plenty of cases', which is just hearsay. If you can't, don't make vague references to evidence you don't present.

But my argument rests most strongly on the basis of those analogies - the idea that what is typical should be presumed to be the most likely. And the fact that we are trying to prevent/avoid contraception implies that the sexual act is for contraception. Caveat empor applies as well.

The fact that your argument strongly rests on woefully false analogies is pretty much my entire point. You are going even further and making baseless generalizations. The fact that we use contraception implies the exact opposite of the idea that we perform sexual acts for conception. If you were right, we'd never have sex when we weren't specifically trying to make babies.

I agree, that if someone has unprotected vaginal intercourse when the woman is ovulating they should not be surprised at the result. In *that* situation, your whole 'buyer beware' commentary would apply.

Maybe I am just really not understanding you, if it still seems like I am not. Can you very plainly (without analogies, please) explain your position? As it stands, it makes no sense.

[Slopeshoulder]

Sex is like food.
It has a function.
And we enjoy it.
But unlike food, we can separate the function and enjoyment if we wish.
Between condoms, the pill, tubal ligations, luck, possible divine intervntion and vasectomy, I've had sex a bajillionzillion times, and no kids happened. Thank you Jesus. Now if you could make little slopeshoulder young again please...

[Wootah]

Deadclown I disagree that my analogies are false and red herrings. If crashing is being related to getting pregnant then oral sex is like the flying in a plane, unlikely to crash but it can happen.

Hold the phone... please show that oral sex can lead to pregnancy.

If Crashing = Pregnant then Oral sex is more like waiting to board the plane... there is no chance of crashing if you are not on the plane like there is no chance of getting pregnant if you are only partaking in oral sex...

Waiting to board the plane is like lying in bed and your girlfriend has to go powder her nose for an hour. haha. Or to switch metaphors 'it is like being asked to hold the phone for 1/2 an hour' before speaking to an operator.

[Wootah]

You do not seem to be getting it, but I think I know where you are coming from now. You are saying that the baseline for vaginal intercourse (all other things being equal) causes reproduction. This is correct. You then make a wild logically fallacious leap of extrapolation to say that all sex carries the possibility of procreation, and thus it is implicit. That is totally and completely wrong. I am pointing out that there are lots of ways two completely heterosexual people can have sex and reproduction not be implicit or even a remote possibility. Thus your attempt to define sex within the bounds of reproductive necessity is completely fallacious.

I don't think I am taking wild logically fallacious leaps of extrapolation by say that you are in the same ball park where baseball is played and home runs get it. Oh my, the pitcher is deliberately attempting not to get hit and yet despite all his efforts still does. But you are done with analogies.

Just so you can relax. Of course a woman can't get pregnant from non vaginal sex but it happens because in the moment a lot of things can go wrong. The pressure to put the penis in the vagina is omnipresent or at least overwhelming. It seems reasonable from the standpoints I have made that one who engages in these acts is also prepared for all consequences and one of them is pregnancy.

If you see my post in this thread that started our part of the discussion
ref:Re: Gay marriage I was the one that included more than reproduction in response to dianaiad's post.

At least we have some common ground here. I hope we can agree that sex between consenting adults is very enjoyable by its own merits, without baby making *needing* to be implied? If I thought that every time I had sex I'd make a baby, I'd have a lot less of it. I am sure that if there was absolutely zero chance of conception during sex, you'd still do it.

I assure you have I no Victorian era views of sex. If I find the article I'll post it but I read a good article about how those views were Darwinian anyway and not Christian. think along the lines of a stereotyped Victorian woman saying, 'oh I won't have sex like the common people do.' Anyway that is a digression.

Look... Wootah, if every time you have sex you think, 'could be making babies', that's fine. I am trying to explain that a lot of people are not like that at all, and it is fallacious to extrapolate your personal feelings out to everyone (hasty generalization fallacy). If you are talking about an evolutionary drive for reproduction, we've already been over that. Sex has been co-opted for a lot of purposes by a lot of animals (not just us).

It's far too convenient to label an argument as a personal opinion.

Animals do not have long term planning ability. A dog smells a bitch who is in heat, it causes sexual arousal, pleasurable feelings from sex result, and thus the animal is encouraged to have more sex. The dog will often just as soon hump a leg because it feels good. At no point does the idea of making babies need to enter the picture.

Animals are amoral to me.

Also, I wasn't talking about artificial insemination by the woman or very brief vaginal intercourse. I was *specifically* talking about oral and anal intercourse, and non-specifically talking about any other non-vaginal intercourse. Notice how in both cases you describe there is vaginal penetration with sperm. You also need to present *actual evidence* instead of just 'there are plenty of cases', which is just hearsay. If you can't, don't make vague references to evidence you don't present.

I am making the claim that these activities are within the set of sexual activities and intersect with the set of reproductive activities. Going back to your evolutionary point, one could argue that we put our penis in so many unnecessary places because we can't be sure that we won't produce babies when we do. But evolution is ripe for reductio ad absurdum like that. Oh or perhaps oral sex evolved as a way of getting the woman to consent to something and it is just a strategy of preparing her for vaginal sex later. Wow. Go evolution.

The fact that your argument strongly rests on woefully false analogies is pretty much my entire point. You are going even further and making baseless generalizations. The fact that we use contraception implies the exact opposite of the idea that we perform sexual acts for conception. If you were right, we'd never have sex when we weren't specifically trying to make babies.

When I go for a walk I do it because it is good, getting fitter happens from that action. Would you argue that if we found a method of walking that made us less fit that walking was no longer associated with getting fit (argh no more analogies ... sorry)? But yes I think people should be more conscious of what they are doing. It is reckless to engage in activities that can harm others and I do think that people should be able to acknowledge that they will raise a child should one occur from that action. If you can then - go for it.

I agree, that if someone has unprotected vaginal intercourse when the woman is ovulating they should not be surprised at the result. In *that* situation, your whole 'buyer beware' commentary would apply.

Maybe I am just really not understanding you, if it still seems like I am not. Can you very plainly (without analogies, please) explain your position? As it stands, it makes no sense.

I think we do understand each other. I am not arguing that non vaginal intercourse causes pregnancy just that the reproductive process should not be separated from the sexual acts. I think each analogy shows that there are risks implicit in many activities no matter how many precautions we take. I think the other analogies showed that we know those risks which is why we take actions to avoid them. I think it is debatable whether we have co-opted sex from its evolutionary purpose as opposed to using deception to get woman to spread their legs more easily.

Quite honestly I think it is an absurdity if a woman thinks pregnancy is not possible from a penis being inserted into her. Just the same as I think it is absurd to think that crashing is not possible when you get in an aeroplane. I think were one to crash or get pregnant they could express their dismay or displeasure but I also think they should be able to say, 'well that was possible and I took the risk'.