Dear Proxy,

"There is no such thing as a homosexual or
a heterosexual person. There are only
homo--- or heterosexual acts.
Most people are a mixture of impulses if not
practices."
(Gore Vidal).

Severin - do you think that our resident homophobic troll is one of those "dire straights" that Peter Sellick writes about in his latest incomprehensible article?

CJ

YES! The most dire of heteros - do you suppose the Title was a Sellick oooops or an OLO one? Either way, continue to chuckle over that as well.

Havagooweegend, my friend.

Aaaah,
I can feel the textual oxygen invigorating me for a fresh bout of trolling.
Stay tuned while I polish the facets of my bigotry.
I'll be strait back into it soon.

Dearest Proxy, whenever I wander back to check out how some discussions are going, I always find you discussing your favourite topic- homosexuality.

It never seems to matter what the subject of the day is does it?
Ignorance is bliss it seems.

Proxy
The idea of having sex with animals completely disgusts me, as it does most people. However I once read a book whose author interviewed a guy who loved to have sex with dogs. Although it disgusts me, I see no reason why he should be stopped from doing it, so long as he’s not hurting the dog. Yes we can and do say it’s disgusting, and immoral, and we may castigate or ostracise him. But I would be against any legal penalty, which in the final analysis, is about people’s disgust. I don’t see why he should be forcibly prevented from doing what he wants, for no other reason than that it offends the sensibilities of people when it’s none of their business.

Similarly with adult incest.

No doubt children do benefit most from the loving marriage of their parents. But that is no reason for other consensual behaviours to be prohibited. It is a reason for heterosexual monogamy to be valued, not enforced. If it cannot be achieved without the voluntary consent of each party, then the children have no moral right to it. Those who want to look after the children voluntarily should do it. In particular, men are not just milking-cows and beasts of burden for the benefit of women and children.

Foxy
I agree with all of that. And I’m all for intimacy and deep relating.

Yabby
>... to spread the risk of you having dud genes.

… that unlikely event :-)

Cornflower
There’s no question men have, or may have a reproductive and emotional interest in loving marriage and family life. However during the time a woman is pregnant, she cannot get pregnant again, but a man can impregnate a second and third woman during the pregnancy of a first woman he impregnated. And the behavioural difference that we would predict as a result of that sexual difference – men’s far greater readiness and willingness for promiscuous sex - we do in fact see in the real world.