Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Let Me Spell It Out For Liberal Noobies

Heterosexual sex does not damage the human body.

Anal sex aka gay sex damages the rectum.

Heterosexual sex = natural.

Gay sex = NOT natural.

Heterosexuality NOT EQUAL to homosexuality.


Friar Yid said...

Wow, there's a lot to unpack here.

1- There are cases where penetrative vaginal sex can damage the human body. Such as: an abnormally large penis/small vagina, or where the woman suffers from vaginismus. No one would seriously claim this disqualifies vaginal sex from being "natural."

2- If anal sex is done carefully and safely, it is not damaging to the human body. That's just a fact.

3- The fact that something CAN BE damaging is not magical proof that it is unnatural, or vice-versa. This is a silly standard to use. Let's use two examples from early human history: It can be damaging to chase after a large animal because it might turn around and kill you, but it's totally natural because early humans needed to eat. It can also be damaging to have children with a close relative, yet that is exactly what early humans did because of limited opportunities for coupling. Given the circumstances, this was "natural" as well. Since when is the test for deciding if something is "natural" based on "things that are not harmful to the body" as opposed to "things that happen in nature?"

I would submit it is "natural" for humans to do things that give them pleasure. Since humans are highly individualized, that "natural" tendency will play out in a wide variety of ways.

(...Need I even go into the fact that the anal ring is full of nerve clusters and that this is the primary way to reach the prostate? If you want to talk about natural, what is your explanation for men having a prostate gland full of nerves that can only be stimulated through the anus?)

4- You argument boils down to claiming that A-because anal sex (sometimes) damages the rectum that B- it is "unnatural" (despite it occurring in nature, which would seem to be the definitive standard) and therefore, C- this disqualifies homosexuality from being socially acceptable or legally recognized, despite the fact that not all gays are sexually active or have anal sex, and that plenty of straight couples also have anal sex.

I hope that stretch didn't hurt you too much, because it's a doozy.

SJ said...

>> 1- etc. etc. etc.

It would just mean that those particular indviduals should not copulate.

>> 2 and the rest of everything.

Fact is homosexuals can't have sex normally.

The fact that it damages the human body means that the human body was not meant to operate in such a way.

anal sex has big health risks for gays and straights. smoking has big health risks. I don't think these are natural behaviors even though people do it.

Friar Yid (not Shlita) said...

The fact that it damages the human body means that the human body was not meant to operate in such a way.

Except it doesn't damage it, and animals have anal sex. How does this prove your "natural" point?

You could apply this standard to just about anything: clothing, glasses, blood transfusions, circumcision. We aren't born with any of those things. The mere fact that something could be considered "unnatural" doesn't necessarily make for a good justification for saying it's bad.

anal sex has big health risks for gays and straights. smoking has big health risks.

False comparison. There are safe ways to have anal sex and avoid those health risks (to say nothing of the fact that there are health risks associated with straight sex, too). Try as they might, no one has been able to develop a cigarette that won't give you cancer.

You seem to have a few things going on here.

A- A sex act is not the same as the concept of hetero/homo-sexuality. So even if anal sex was the worst thing in the world, that doesn't mean that homosexuality is inherently bad.

B- Do homosexuality and heterosexuality need to be considered "equal" (however defined) in order for homosexuals to be given legal and social recognition and respect?

To me this whole "they aren't equal" argument is a red herring. Not only because it can't be proven, but also because it's irrelevant to the larger point.