Yes it does, phanto.

<<Variety has no end in itself.>>

Boredom prevention.

<<Why would you choose to do something of lesser pleasure just for the sake of variety?>>

Because the supposedly more pleasurable activity becomes less pleasurable if it’s all you do.

<<Anyone who does not always choose the best when it is on offer would be a fool.>>

You have not yet demonstrated that heterosexual vaginal sex is the best. All you have done so far is fallaciously appeal to nature and design.

Perhaps the only person here you are trying to convince that heterosexual sex is the best is yourself?

http://www.homeworkmarket.com/sites/default/files/qx/15/04/24/01/adams_et_al_1996_homophobia_defense_mechs_article.pdf

*Phanto* you seem to fail to recognise that many aspects of the debate that you keep re-agitating are considered resolved by the majority.

And, it seems quite plain that you are failing to grasp much of what skilled writers are taking the time to tell you.

It was not that I meant to be patronisning in the first instance, but you did appear to me to be becoming emotionally perturbed and the cohesion between your ideas was starting to become strained.

I believe you can over do it in forums such as this and my genuine advice for you at that time was that you needed to take a breather and to re-balance your self.

..

AJ, interesting article, and I am in the process of reading it. I thought there were a few bits along the way worth quoting e.g.:

" ... Although the causes of homophobia are unclear, several psychoanalytic explanations have emerged from the idea of homophobia as an anxiety-based phenomenon. One psychoanalytic
explanation is that anxiety about the possibility of being or becoming a homosexual may be a major factor in homophobia
(West, 1977). For example, de Kuyper (1993) has asserted that
homophobia is the result of the remnants of homosexuality in
the heterosexual resolution of the Oedipal conflict. Whereas
these notions are vague, psychoanalytic theories usually postulate
that homophobia is a result of repressed homosexual urges
or a form of latent homosexuality. Latent homosexuality can be
defined as homosexual arousal which the individual is either
unaware of or denies (West, 1977)

Hi DreamOn,

A bit of heterophobia doesn't hurt, I suppose, us heteros can take it.

But we can also dish it out, we too can come up with bogus scientific explanations for homosexual behaviour: for example, is it possible that homosexuals tend to be only children, or from very small families, or the only boy or girl in their family ? That they don't like sharing or going without ? That they are accustomed to being indulged, and so have no desire to sacrifice their incomes to raising children ? Children cost money, heaps of it. And they take up your time too, so less time for your most important person, yourself. Just a thought.

After all, taking it up the clacker doesn't need contraception. Neither does oral sex. And much of the 'debate' around homosexual marriage skirts delicately around issues such as inheritance, pension and super. In other words, is even this issue a product of the self-obsession of homosexuals and preoccupation with their own comfort ?

I'm not suggesting that anybody in particular has any obligation to have children, just because our birth-rate is well below replacement rate. But let's face it: the more the homosexual example is followed, the more rapidly our population will stabilise and then plummet.

Heterophobia, allophobia, paidaeophobia, whatever you call it. You're entitled, DreamOn, to get stuck in, us heteros are a thick-skinned bunch.

Here's a shocking thought: are some homosexuals secretly terrified of being in any way heterosexual, and therefore that they might weaken and, horrors ! - decide to marry someone of the other sex and have children ? Perhaps only in their dreams.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi *LoudMouth*

I am hetero Joe but I wasn't sure that you realised that? But I have no concern about people who are not and do not seek to impose my preferences upon them, quite the contrary.

And, I am glad to see that you have some depth of feeling about this issue.

As for children, it is true as I said that I would have been just as happy to have not had children at an earlier time, but I did not say no to my step child coming into my life. And I have not said no to my UnBorn. Suffice to say, the roller coaster nature of it as well as the numerous other joys that a child brings into one's life has melted and outweighed by initial trepidations.

So, as I am hetero, you will have to make a stronger case to convince us that homos are latently selfish and self absorbed to the extent that they choose to be homo in order to avoid having children, in sufficiently large numbers to make it significant relative to the rest of the population.

But AJ has in my view put up (what I previously mentioned as an article but actually it is a study) some interesting material and I remain of the view that it raises some issues relevant to this thread.

That this appears to irk you Joe provides me with some measure of mirth, and I look forward to any efforts made to deconstruct it and identify any fallacies contained within.

Hi DreamOn,

Aah, just having you on :) No, I'm just surmising about homosexuals and their narcissism. And since they make up less than 2 % of the population, somewhat less in Muslim communities, especially those with tall buildings, their non-replacement is no big deal.

Homosexuals have as much right to practise their skills as I do, we both agree, without shoving it in our faces, or down our throats. They don't particularly irk me, I'm relatively unirkable, it's more a matter of chacun a son gout: et mon gout toujours implique des femmes, avec ses corps parfaites et ses bouches baisables.

As for marriage issues, it shouldn't be much trouble to find another word besides 'marriage' for homosexual unions: union, perhaps. After the plebiscite, Parliament could easily tidy up all the loose ends about inheritance, property, pension rights, etc.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

Why would a new word for same-sex marriage be necessary? I've seen this proposed many times before by those on OLO who have issues with gay people, but there never seems to be a reason for having a different word beyond a refusal to see such unions as legitimate.

They didn't come up with a new word for interracial marriage, why should it be any different in this instance?