SR,
How remiss of me not to answer a question that is irrelevent anyway.

A marriage between a male and female is valid, if both of age. There is no such thing as a marriage of two males, call it a union or a mateship. Whether either couple have sex or not is irrelevent.

Again the word marriage should not be used to denote a same sex union, I am quite happy for same sex couples to have a legal union but it is not a marriage. Marriage is reserved for a male and female and has a high public status.

Joe (Loudmouth),

Re anal sex, I agree that it is likely uncommon and while lesbians like the awful Zeil might like to dominate their partners with an over-large penis (black as well?) strap-on, it is hard to imagine that many women, lesbian or not, would be seeking and appreciating anal sex. Recxtal tears

Rule breakers and deviancy aside, no woman wants to be a 'bum girl' and run the health risks and leaky rear end requiring granny pants and pads. Women would find proposed anal as a rejection of their femininity and humiliating.

There are very good reasons why parents, the general public too, are so offended and concerned by efforts by Gay activists, the media and entertainment industry (which has obvious problems) and by Victoria's avowed Marxist 'Safe Sex'(sic) program to normalise anal sex and a host of other nasties, such as involvement in faeces, lowering/abolishing the minimum age for consent and for throwing all responsibility for safe sex onto others (as was evident in Zeil's posts).

The problem for the medical profession is that by having to provide advice to lessen the risks of ill-advised sex practices, that might be construed as supporting the practices, which they do not.

The very best advice for parents and mothers should as usual be the proactive ones, is to tell their daughters NOT to be duped or coerced into anal sex and 'slips' is absolute BS. If the religion prevents effective contraception, drop it like that risky partner, say NO!.

Joe,

Yes, the only gay couple that I know anything about the sexual practices of don’t practice anal sex. They see it as degrading to the receiver. But I think it’s safe to say that the practice is on the rise. I do enjoy watching the wowsers portray this trend as somehow a symptom of the decline of modern society, though.

--

leoj,

Plenty of heterosexual women engage in anal intercourse, too. So what? No-one has claimed that lesbians don’t engage in anal intercourse.

--

mhaze,

Yeah, because that happens so often, doesn’t it?*

<<Translation: I can't believe I failed to see how I could distort what mhaze said.>>

But, go on. Tell us how I distorted what you said.

<<Read the next sentence from my post...." Modern medicine makes promiscuous homosexual behaviour possible.">>

Okay, but before that you said:

“HIV/AIDS would have already wiped out most of the homosexual community and left that lifestyle choice as something few would choose.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7994#247597)

If “that lifestyle” comes before any mention of promiscuity (which also featured in a difference sentence), but after your mentioning of homosexuality, then it is fair to interpret the choice of which you spoke as one of sexuality.

<<The promiscuous homosexual lifestyle of multiple anonymous partners, the bath house culture, the mardi gras culture...these are choices.>>

More ambiguous wording.

"The promiscuous homosexual lifestyle...", or, "The lifestyle of homosexuals who are promiscuous..."? You'll forgive me if I'm very cautious now, won't you? We know how easily (and for how long) you'll run with the slightest error on someone else's behalf. But only if they disagree with you, naturally.

<<… those participating in it fall victim to nature's abhorrence of the activity.>>

Nature doesn’t feel abhorrence. You are implying or reading intent into what is pure chance. There is no connection between the riskiness of anal intercourse and the moral rightness or wrongness of it. The former is objective, the latter is subjective.

*Denotes sarcasm

Anal sex inevitably reminds one of the motorcycle pillion-rider tragedies that were happening years ago when bikes were made popular by the film and entertainment industry. Almost invariably the serious harm and deaths of pillion passengers affected young women and there were many such tragedies.

Authorities worked desperately to discourage young women against the practice, while knowing that their partners, always men, were supremely selfish, thought of themselves and had no regard for the dangers they exposed their partners to. The risk was that discouraging pillion riders might actually encourage more risk-taking as a reaction against authority. Law requiring helmets helped. Because the selfish SOB men wouldn't lay out the extra $$ for their girl (for the night!). Eventually the pillion-riding trend wore off as women realised that just one ride could in a instant mean life-changing disfigurement, brain injury and a wheelchair, or death.

Girls and young women need support to protect themselves against the partners who coerce, blackmail and in some cases just go ahead to penetrate their anus, claiming 'slips' for instance. The last mentioned is very unlikely and at minimum shows callous disregard for for the woman.

There should be a formal requirement for anyone, male or female, who has experience of anal sex to advise their partner as a part of obtaining consent (consent must be informed or it isn't really consent). And a requirement that anal sex will be with a properly applied and used condom (unless the partner specifically agrees otherwise) or else it is rape.

Hi Leoj,

This is all probably getting away from the purpose of this thread, but I was just thinking about the similarities between anal intercourse and rape. Anal intercourse (unless both parties are extraordinarily gifted) requires a passive 'partner' and an active one. I'm told in some cultures where it's common among young blokes (that or chickens and sheep) that the bloke on the bottom is considered be to be a homosexual, but the bloke on top isn't. Go figure. It would probably follow that, in some societies, the bloke on the bottom is regarded socially as 'the woman' while of course the bloke on top is the Man.

So is that form of sexual activity really a matter of dominance and submission, i.e. power, or just lust ? Or is it form of luuurve, as so many advocates might assert ?

So how is that in any way similar to rape ? Well, the back-to-front requirement suggests somewhat less willingness and/or fulfilment on the part of one 'partner' than the other. Maybe I'm wrong there. If it's a form of power play, then it verges on Weinsteinlichheit. Wow, that has some miles to run.

Joe

Foxy, you are behind the times we are not talking about the plebiscite, we are talking about discrimination on the basis of race.

To which I am posing that once SSM is legalised; those that do not accept SSM on religious grounds, conscience or scientific biological grounds will be discriminated against.

There is a difference, and the criminalising of honourable citizens will be even greater. In fact discussions like this will be deemed offensive and illegal. Freedom of ideas like this will be controlled by the thought police and penalised. Parents will no longer have the say over their children's lives. We will resemble a Marxist State similar to North Korea, where dissent of ideas will be punishable.