Suseonline,

The point I am making is quite easily understood. That other stuff is quite unnecessary.

No OTB, with someone like you I really do need to spell it out....

Suzeonline:

“Phanto, heterosexual sex is a natural behavior for straight people, while homosexual sex is a natural behavior for gay people.
It isn't rocket science...”

Well if it not rocket science should be able to answer my question. What is the natural purpose of homosexual behaviour? Who said there are ‘gay people’? They may be just heterosexual people doing homosexual things. Why would nature want gay people what would be the point of that?

“You must surely know that some heterosexual couples engage in all different sorts of sex, purely for pleasure apparently. One doesn't need to be gay to have anal sex.”

What is nature’s purpose for anal sex? We can work out what the purpose is for vaginal sex. It is the only way to continue the species in the numbers required. What does anal sex do? Just because people have anal sex it does not mean that it is natural. People also inject themselves with harmful drugs.

In order to maintain such huge and unprecedented numbers, mankind had to resort to tons of the most unnatural technologies, which gradually quells all meaning and purpose out of our lives.

The last thing we need is further procreation - and the extra technology that would be needed to compensate for it.

Already living so unnaturally, having anal sex is relatively more natural than typing on our computer keyboard as I do this very moment, thus for now should be the least of our worries.

Suseonline, "..I really do need to spell it out"

What you need to spell out is how a person who claims to be a registered nurse working with the WA State community health in some way (to a private provider?) is so crass and irresponsible as to promote anal sex for hereosexual women, especially young women.

Your previous assertions for instance that, 'if the hole allows it, it must be ok and normal' is plain dumb and demonstrates a casualness and disregard for the health and welfare of women (men too) and would NOT be in accord with the advice of the WA health service, as I have explained on the previous occasions you have prosletysed for anal sex.

It is unconscionable behaviour for anyone who is delivering health services and advice to the public to be doing so (promoting anal, or any other risky sex) and carelessly diminishing the risks while doing so.

Quite apart from that, there would be very few young women who would choose to be 'bum girls'. You are doing them a very great disservice encouraging men themselves to falsely believe that anal sex is normal, or common, for hereosexuals. It is NOT medically advised because of many serious risks, just one serious risk being the man who proposes it in the first place, given the likelihood he experiments in other risky sex and probably with other men.

It should be law for any man who has ever had sex with another man to declare it plainly and clearly to a woman before obtaining consent to any sex whatsoever.

Phanto,

You are committing the Appeal to Nature fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature), so your argument is invalid.

That aside, homosexuality has been known to occur in hundreds of different species, so to that extent, yes, homosexuality is natural.

There are many credible hypotheses with regards to the function/role that homosexuality plays from an evolutionary perspective too (http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=evolution+of+homosexuality&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp), if that’s how you want to define what is and is not natural.

Not that it matters though. There are acts that are not natural that we would consider to be good/right (e.g. flying in planes), just as there are acts that are natural that we would consider to be bad/wrong (e.g. ephebophilia, rape).

Hence why the Appeal to Nature is an invalid argument.