Hi Suse,

Yes, you're right - why should we care, as long as it's legal ? We don't have to like it, or throw ourselves on the battlements for it. Just as long as people don't shove it in our faces. It's legal to drink till you're blotto, but not many of us would advocate it.

And perhaps not for our kids through a "Fun Schools" Program, if one ever got up.

Joe

Hi Suse,

Intriguing. You rightly suggest,

"If these adults want to use whatever they like to insert in their orifices, despite medical opinions that might question that activity, then how is it any different to idiots wanting to ride a motorcycle over several buses for example? Or any other dangerous activity?"

I agree that people should be able to do whatever is legal, perhaps in the appropriate context, no matter how dangerous it may be, or how "idiotic" or distasteful or reprehensible we may consider it, the bottom line being that we don't have to like it or support it, merely the right of people to do dumb things.

As you suggest, nobody else should have to express their unconditional support for it: that is one of the differences between what is legal, what is our particular choice, or what we may find revolting.

Maybe I'm fairly common for blokes in that I have far more sympathy for lesbian relationships than for male homosexual relationships. My only slight regret is that almost all lesbians I've known (not many, consciously) have been very attractive and yet are thereby impervious to my charms. But on the other hand (and I don't know if this works with male homosexuals), some lesbians of my acquaintance have later married or been involved in heterosexual relationships quite happily. So while there's life, there's hope.

Perhaps male homosexuality is much more a matter of genetics, while lesbianism is much more a matter of choice, even a temporary arrangement ?

Cheers,

Joe

I must admit that I too find lesbians a much more interesting group than gay males Loudmouth. It is certainly far more difficult to suggest all lesbians are born with that sexual orientation when women are far more likely to happily have a foot in both camps!

I have to say though that the thought of lesbian sex to most heterosexual women is as abhorrent to them as gay sex is to most heterosexual men, so maybe bisexual females are more common than bisexual males?
It is all very interesting, but I am still sure that genetics are involved somewhere...

Hi Suse,

I have to say, from observing the behaviour of many blokes, that I can understand why some women may not want to enter into what might turn out to be an abusive, exploitative relationship for life. As you suggest, women may find solace and relatively equal and reciprocal treatment with other women.

So it could be that women are far more likely to be either semi-bisexual, or temporarily lesbian, than homosexual men are to change from homo- to heterosexual. I don't know, not ever having sny homosexual interests. Heterosexuality has been happily and bountifully adequate for me :) Mind you, I suspect that my late wife was tempted occasionally to abandon me for almost any other option available out of sheer frustration. Many times, probably.

Cheers,

Joe

Rhian writes; " “Natural law” holds basically that the “laws” and norms of nature reflect divine intent." This is the view of Thomas Aquinas. The element of "divine intent" is not a universally accepted tenet within Natural Law. As I see it, Natural Law derives from all we observe in the chemistry and physics of existence, how we describe and define the observed phenomena and draw inferences and conclusions therefrom.

Big Nana writes;"If it's natural because it has always been done, well beastiality, necrophilia, incest, pedophilia, sadism etc have also always existed but does that make them natural acts or deviations from normal?" If this is a "one-or-the-other" question then the activities you list are indeed all natural acts and deviations from the normal as well, though their always existing does not necessarily make them so. If you are offering an alternate description of "natural acts" in equating them with being "deviations from normal" then please be assured that "natural" and "normal" are not synonymous. Cont......

Cont......
Suseonline writes; "The adult male penis apparently is able to fit into the adult female or male rectum, so who says it isn't natural for some consenting adults?" Let me first thankyou for your timely admonishment of Plantagenet in the gay/pedophile issue. Your question about "natural" goes to the crux of the argument. Everything we are as a member of the Animal Kingdom [which is just one feature of all existence] is within nature and, to use a metaphor, is permitted by nature within its laws that derive from the chemistry and physics mentioned above at the beginning of this post. Everything in existence is a part of the whole. Humankind is a miniscule part of that whole and for this reason is incapable of anything un-natural.

We are still babes in a vast metaphorical sand-pit, projecting our curiosity beyond the little Ark we inhabit in a seemingly infinite Cosmos. So unprepared, naively trusting our intellects to eventually get it right before we set forth. We are constrained by nature's laws to explore, to be dissatisfied with our lot, to quench a persistant thirst for knowing, burdened with and driven by a force we call Life.

Humankind has embellished this rather glum scenario to make life more palatable. Our existence is now an heroic page in the Cosmos's history because we expect to write that history! I want with a vehement passion to be an observer a thousand years from now to see if we succeeded and to see if we have become just a little nobler for the experience.