same-sex love

But it's good for the voyeurs too. If the guy is hot, for instance, I get an giddy little thrill thinking about what ELSE he might be doing if he's going this far in public. Tripleplusgood if it's two guys making out. In Italy I saw two male teenagers holding each other while on a ferry to Capri. I stared basically the entire time. I'm sure the naked longing on my face was a bit off-putting, but in no way was it condemnatory.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Regarding natural ability to procreate as a criteria for the morality of the act, humanity has throughout history shown a great ingenuity in overcoming the restrictions placed upon it by nature. If it were possible some time in the future for two men or women to conceive, through some expensive and very involved medical procedure, for instance, does that change anything?

I ask because I don't think there's a clear line between what, with our technology, is merely working more efficiently with the natural functions that already exist, and what one would determine to be opposed. One could make the argument that advanced medical treatment of any kind is against nature. Lots of people would disagree, and then the question becomes at what level does technology change from working within the natural order to imposing our will upon it?

The objection from the gay perspective to traditional meaning of marriages and inheritance doesn't really have anything to do with love either. I think that objection stems more from an apparent contradiction between one of the founding principles of this country, that all men are created equal and everything that entails, and the idea that right now, only a specific class of couple of recognized as a single unit by the government and given all of the privileges that entails.

Granted, there's a undefined line there too between couples that are acceptable and couples that aren't. Undefined at least culturally. It is not yet a part of our cultural background, ie general things we all accept, that gay couples are ok. So really the discussion on the morality of the thing does need to come before the discussion on the rights that that entails, I agree with you there.

I realize the thread was really old, but DN's a smart guy. I want to hear him talk. ;_;

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1123

because i dont like the word gay... if you want to get technical gay is like to be happy and cheerful...ect... it doesn't mean homosexual... i prefer to call them homo's but for some reason that offends them.

There's this word called vernacular. I think it might be useful. There's another one called colloquial. That one might help too. Basically, people communicate with words that mean things. Sometimes these words used to mean other things. By choosing to be silly and pedantic about the evolution of words, and more to the point, some words and not others, you come off sounding like an arrogant prick what thinks 'e's better 'n the common man, so to speak.

Aside from which, if you really wanted to be stupid, "homo" technically means man, so you know, you're not really saying much unless you're talking to lesbians.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.