In honor of Maine, and Gay Marriage

May 6, 2009 | By | 40 Replies More

This week marks another turning point in gay rights (go Maine, and we’re hoping New Hampshire’s Governor signs, too). A little reminder that there is still a lot of opposition from certain quarters, but with friends like John Stewart I’m certain things will continue to work out!

Share

Tags: , , , ,

Category: American Culture, Current Events, Entertainment, Humor, Sex

About the Author ()

I'm a technophile with an enduring interest in almost anything real or imagined. I suffer fools badly, and love trashy science fiction, plot-free action movies, playing guitar, and baking (especially scones. You haven't lived 'til you've eaten my scones. I've recently undertaken bread, and am now in danger of gaining in a matter of weeks the 60 pounds I've lost in the past 2 years). My wife & I are Scottish, living north of Atlanta, GA, with two children, one dog, and a growing collection of gadgets. I work for a living.

Comments (40)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. grumpypilgrim says:

    Further to my previous comment, it has always amused me to see people like Karl declare their belief that sexual preference is *always* a learned behavior for homosexuals, but is *never* a learned behavior for heterosexuals. Given that children are bombarded from birth with examples of heterosexual behavior, the suggestion that only homosexuality could be a learned behavior seems patently absurd. Far more rational is the notion that human sexuality is essentially inborn, and that social learning merely informs the *manner*, but not the direction, in which people express their sexuality. Indeed, given the persecution that homosexuals face in most western societies (mainly due to bigotry from people who claim to be followers of Karl's religion), the notion that homosexuality is merely a lifestsyle choice seems, again, ridiculous. It simply makes no sense for so many people to choose to endure so much hostility from their neighbors, religious leaders, politicians, etc., just to have sex with a partner of the same gender, unless homosexuality is more than merely a lifestyle choice.

  2. Mindy Carney says:

    But, but, but, Grumpy – if we allow that "social learning merely informs the *manner,* but not the direction" of aspects of life like sexuality, we have to admit that it's all complicated and messy and can't be crammed into RIGHT and WRONG boxes and judged accordingly.

    Do you know how hard that makes it? Life, and stuff?

    Sheesh. I'd really rather just allow that everything is taught, or not, because then we can CONTROL the thoughts and dreams and ideas and urges and desires of our children, and they will all grow up to be perfect, just like us. Please? Can't we do it that way?

    Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

  3. Karl says:

    Grumpy,

    Animals do not need to be conditioned or taught how to reproduce. On the contrary, those that learn other uses for sexual gratification emulate the behaviors of others. Reproduction is an instinctive behavior that occurs without formal conditioning. Humans however do enable themselves to condition themselves into finding ways to prevent reproduction and then pass that along as an admirable quality for emulation.

    Chances are those of the the animal world that carry on sexual behaviors that can not lead to reproduction of their own species are higher order animals which can take active roles mental rolls in their own conditioning. When the sexual drive becomes misdirected away from reproductive issues it renders the participants socially forced to seek approval for their actions and behaviors.

    I am not saying there isn't some degree of experiential conditioning in the human sex drive, but I am saying that when it is totally separated from matters of reproduction, this shouldn't be hailed as the next level of our progression towards a perfect society.

    So what that this behavior actually encourages individuals a drop out from the natural selection process, its progressive

    I guess we should be happy that parts of the gene pool are being severed from the human race.

    I guess we should agree with atheists that they are doing no harm to anyone else.

    I guess we should assume that the survival of the fittest will simply become matters of rationality and human altruistic compassion.

    I don't agree to such mindsets.

    A social emphasis upon sex for "the experience" first and only secondarily if ever for reproduction will be the undoing of any worldview as this runs directly in opposition to what is needed for the shear numbers and variation that make survival a possibility.

    • Erich Vieth says:

      Karl: I'm amazed at how you are not embarrassed to just make things up, without any substantiation. I don't have the energy to rewrite the dozens of posts and comments previously published at this site that have refuted the many points you've raised here.

  4. Mindy Carney says:

    Karl, are you really concerned about the survival of our species due to sexual gratification being considered a "goal" apart from reproduction? Your post sounds very much like you view sex as having that one purpose only. How sad for you. So if we only had sex to reproduce, and never used birth control to manage the number children each couple created, and the world continued toward bursting at its over-populated seams, what, then, would be your solution, as more people died of starvation, the resources disappeared at an ever-increasing rate – – I guess that would be us catapulting ourselves toward the End of Days? Or would your God intervene somehow and "fix" everything?

    Did it ever occur to you that maybe your God has already done that? Already intervened in managing out-of-control population growth by making certain not everyone strives for reproduction only? That perhaps your God created all those erogenous zones all over our bodies not to give us something to deny and fight against, but to allow us pleasure and connection without actually making babies every time we get close to one another? And don't forget the brains He gave us with which we've developed the science to manage the number of children a family might have.

    Just supposing, if I believed in your God, that you might have His intentions all wrong.

  5. Karl writes:—"but I am saying that when it is totally separated from matters of reproduction, this shouldn’t be hailed as the next level of our progression towards a perfect society"

    Why not? We're moving toward seven billion on this one little planet and most of those don't have the resources to sustain much of a life. It would seem to me anything that would "condition" people to stop making more (we're not Lays potato chips, after all) at the expense of the environment would go a long way toward ameliorating many of the resource-driven problems we face.

    As for what we would then do with sex, well, obviously I think sex for mutual pleasure is the best use of it. It wouldn't bother me if it were the only use of it. I believe people should screw more and fight less. One may be contingent on the other, providing the reproductive aspect be dealt with effectively.

  6. Ben says:

    Karl, BEING GAY IS NORMAL!!!

  7. Niklaus Pfirsig says:

    "Well, I'd much rather have a frog in my throat,

    Or a porcupine stuck to my face.

    I'd much rather have a bug in my ear,

    Than a dog making love to my leg. "

    "Don't pet the Dog" – Pinkert and Bowden

    Homosexuality has been documented in several species. (dogs and sheep just to name two) And if they practice sex only out of a reproductive instinct, what kind of puppies will result from the union of Fido and someones leg?

  8. Tony Coyle says:

    Normal sex in most animals appears to be –

    (1)find a hole.

    (2)fill it.

    (3)repeat from (1).

    Oral sex is rarer (probably because of all those sharp teeth) but apparently is common enough to be documented in goats, primates, hyaenas and sheep (see Wikipedia:Animal Sexuality, and is, of course the preferred approach for those humans who choose abstinence (along with anal sex) – see here, here, or here.

Leave a Reply