//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.//

The Norse, who were known for their odd ideas at the time (e.g. bathing once a week, allowing women to own property) basically subscribed to this view: the taboo was more on being 'argr', which primarily denotes effeminacy, than it was on anal sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergi
http://jameserich.com/2012/07/18/what-was-it-like-to-be-a-gay-viking/

//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 ?//

Could it not be both, with the distinction depending on context? I smell a false dilemma.

//Well, the back-to-front requirement suggests somewhat less willingness and/or fulfilment on the part of one 'partner' than the other.//

But the Congress of the Hound is performed back-to-front, and a lot of women seem to like it. I certainly haven't heard any arguing that it's inherently rapey, at any rate. Except for the weird ones who think all sex is rape, but nobody cares about them.

I'm not a huge fan: my preferred position is Taking Tea with the Parson, which is traditionally performed face-to-face (although of course, there are the less conventional Reverse TTWTP, Sideways TTWTP, Upside-Down TTWTP, and for the particularly adventurous/kinky/disgusting freaks, there is the notorious Fully Asymmetrical Taking Tea with the Parson).

I do have to agree, though, that doggy does suggest a certain degree of unwillingness, but on both parties rather than just one: if you're not willing to look at each other while you're doing it, you'd probably rather be doing it with somebody else. And it is unfulfilling. That's I why prefer to Take Tea with the Parson in the conventional manner.

I shudder to think what people who state that anal sex is not filthy get up to in their own sex lives, bent or straight.

//Why not simply UNION? That word is not associated with anything wholesome.//

Sorry, I missed that little gem before.

There's a whole bunch of Rugby UNION players who would like to correct you on that misunderstanding. We think it's an entirely wholesome pursuit, and ask that you cease and desist from further denigration of our chosen football code.

//Am forced to bring up anal sex because so many SSM advocates such as yourself, foxy, AJ and TL refuse to believe it is a dirty sex practice and is what gives homos such a bad reputation.//

I still don't understand why it gives lesbians a bad reputation. I expect I never will.

//You can see from the number of posts that TL took some convincing about anal housed bacteria being the cause of Tetanus infections.//

Really? You think you managed to convince me that tetanus is an STD, in the absence of any medical literature to support your case? I abandoned the argument because I could see that I was arguing with the intellectual equivalent of a homeopath: one who thinks he know more about medicine than doctors.

Sometimes life is just too short to try and bother educating homeopaths. Let 'em believe in magic water and contagious tetanus if they want.

//So it is not anal sex that concerns me, it is the poor reputation that will transfer to marriage and ruining its status//

You're very concerned about status, aren't you?

Where I'm from, we have a term for people overly obsessed with status: 'pretentious wanke... snobs'.

I think what you fail to understand about status is that it's all about what other people think, not what you think. And if you really think that anybody will have less respect for the loving commitment betwixt you and your wife because the 'yes' vote wins... well, I think you're barking, mate.

I'll still have respect for every married couple, straight or gay. It's not like I'm going boycott my parent's sapphire anniversary just because gays can start folding nice origami for each other: that's patently ridiculous, and slightly offensive to boot.

Dear Josephus,

The following links may help clarify things.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/2013-11-01/tony-abbott-incorrect-history-marriage/5053844

And -

http://theconversation.com/talk-of-same-sex-marriage-impinging-on-religious-freedom-is-misconceived-heres-why-82435

Ah, Foxy, I love when you post extremely definitive articles, even books, like "Homosexual Marriage for Idiots", "Indigenous History for Slow Learners", "Our Constitution for Beginners", "A Child's Guide to ....", that sort of thing. It gives me the appropriate amount of confidence in everything ever written in books, by authorities, which means it must be true.

Thank you, Foxy :)

That’s perfectly fine, mhaze.

<<I'm writing a 350 word blog post, not something that I expect to be parsed to within a inch of its life in an attempt to discover some erstwhile error.>>

But don’t go pretending that others are are distorting your meaning when there are clear ambiguities in what you have written.

<<I was talking about the lifestyle choices of the homosexual community, not the choices between hetro/homo. The paragraph makes it clear.>>

No, it doesn’t make that clear. Let’s look at it again:

“It ought to be noted that if it wasn't for the efforts and historically unprecedented successes of western medicine over the past few decades, HIV/AIDS would have already wiped out most of the homosexual community and left that lifestyle choice as something few would choose. Modern medicine makes promiscuous homosexual behaviour possible.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7994#247597)

What it looks like you are saying is that, had it not been for modern medicine, HIV/AIDS would have wiped out most of the gay community; that the gay community would have therefore ceased being gay, or not chosen to be gay in the first place; and that the promiscuous behaviour of gay people is only made possible by Western medicine.

That’s how your paragraph literally reads.

Especially when one considers how frequently same-sex marriage opponents attempt to portray sexuality as a choice. They love inserting the words “choice” and “choose” in wherever they can (just read some of runner’s posts on the topic). For example, you could have simply said “lifestyle”, but you chose to refer to homosexuality - sorry, promiscuity (even though you hadn’t even mentioned it yet) - as a “lifestyle choice”.

So, don’t go pretending that your alleged real meaning was obvious to everyone except me.

<<I was being prosaic.>>

I figured you probably were, but some would not have seen it that way (and still agreed with a literal interpretation).

<<Penetrative homosexual sex is inherently dangerous.>>

But not when heterosexuals do it?

Before you pretend, once again, that I’m deliberately distorting what you’re saying, consider the possibility that I’m making another point.