//If you were designing the species and you wanted to make sure that it continued on by procreating wouldn’t you be sure to make certain that the method of procreation was the best of sexual behaviours?//

Nah, I'd make 'em do it like bees, where a drone dies shortly afterwards because his penis explodes during sexual intercourse. Or like Argonaut octopuses, whose 'penis arm' is detached during mating and kept by the female. Or maybe like deep-sea anglerfish: you can look them up for yourself. Much more amusing.

//It can never approach that sexual experience which is open to heterosexuals.//

There's only way you could speak with such authority and certainty, phanto, and that's if you've experienced it. I'm not keen to do that myself, so I'm prepared to trust the testimony of those who have.

//I don’t need to be certain.//

You do if you're stating certainties rather than possibilities.

Yuyutsu:

“I think that you are confusing "best" in the sense of highest-pleasure with "best" in the sense of goodness/virtue/righteousness. Why should they coincide?”

No I am not concerned with man-made values but only with what is observable in nature. It is observable that heterosexual sex is the way to procreate and continue the species. It is observable that heterosexual intercourse can be extremely pleasurable. It is observable that there are other types of behaviour which can give sexual pleasure but not as much as the pleasure that can be experienced when men have sexual intercourse with women. There are physiological reasons for this.

Two people of the same sex cannot experience the ultimate sexual pleasure because the physiological conditions are not present. What they do is to try and mimic the sexual behaviour of heterosexuals in the hope of achieving the same level of pleasure but it can never happen without those physiological conditions.

It is irrelevant whether or not there is a ‘designer’. These things are just observable facts and from these observable facts it seems to me that homosexual activity can never be as pleasurable as heterosexual behaviour can be. If homosexuals are born that way then they have been given a very poor deal by nature.

There are frequently issues of identity for those who are not raised by the people to whom they are genetically connected and for those who are never able to know their genetic history. This should not be overlooked. No amount of caring parenting can make up for the lack of information and/or connection with heritage. Many people around the world spend a great deal of time, energy and money tracing their family members and ancestors, yet we allow people to create children and cut them off from those to whom they are related by blood. The Australian government has already apologised to those who have suffered because of past adoption separations and yet we still allow people to create children who will never be able to know what it means to share a heritage with anyone. Many of these children are created for same-sex couples, who feel that they have a "right" to have children. No one has a "right" to raise a child, either their own or someone else's. We all understand, of course, that being a genetic parent doesn't make you a good parent, any more than being a non-genetic parent prevents you from being a good parent, but the issue of genetic connection is an important one which is too often overlooked.

phanto,

So it appears that my interpretation was the right one then.

<<No I am not concerned with man-made values but only with what is observable in nature.>>

Your observed observables are correct right up until the second claim in this statement:

<<It is observable that there are other types of behaviour which can give sexual pleasure but not as much as the pleasure that can be experienced when men have sexual intercourse with women.>>

What is the evidence for this?

I explained in my last post why your logic fails here, so surely you’re not relying on that anymore.

<<Two people of the same sex cannot experience the ultimate sexual pleasure because the physiological conditions are not present.>>

And, in light of the points I made earlier, how does the absence of such physiological conditions matter?

<<It is irrelevant whether or not there is a ‘designer’.>>

Actually, it’s not irrelevant if that designer is an imperfect process like evolution, that favours variety either way.

<<These things are just observable facts and from these observable facts it seems to me that homosexual activity can never be as pleasurable as heterosexual behaviour can be.>>

Okay, so now you’re at least acknowledging that your claim, that gay people cannot achieve the same level of sexual pleasure, is just something that seems to you to be the case. Because, before, you were talking about this as if it were an observable fact.

You are getting yourself into one almighty tangle here.

--

Banjo Paterson,

Thanks for taking the time to type all that out. Given that you have still only scratched the surface of these issues, I hope ttbn now has some appreciation as to why I link directly to the studies and primary sources.

today we read of a mother/son attracted to each other and having sex. Why can't they be married? I mean surely they were born this way.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/im-your-mum--but-im-falling-in-love-with-you/news-story/3b4f29f841dd9ee9a2450f457da4a4dd

Dear Phanto,

«It is observable that there are other types of behaviour which can give sexual pleasure but not as much as the pleasure that can be experienced when men have sexual intercourse with women.»

As I am not in a position, nor have the desire to verify this observation, I am happy to give it the benefit of the doubt.

«If homosexuals are born that way then they have been given a very poor deal by nature.»

Your implicit assumption here is that pleasure is good and the greater the pleasure the better. I disagree with this assumption.

In my view, those who feel no sexual urges at all, who are not bothered and agitated by it like their poor mates, who remain composed and direct their time and energy into higher pursuits, have been dealt the best hand by nature.

«What they do is to try and mimic the sexual behaviour of heterosexuals in the hope of achieving the same level of pleasure»

Firstly, most sexual activities are not entered into for the sake of pleasure anyway.

Heterosexuals commonly use sex to try and mimic love. The question is whether homosexuals mimic the heterosexuals or do they try to mimic love as well, only in a different way. Either way, both fail.

«It is irrelevant whether or not there is a ‘designer’.»

But it is relevant whether there is a designer whom one respects and wishes to serve. Having a blind/uncaring designer is indeed practically the same as having no designer at all.