tube party on june 1st?

[untethered]

You think that people choose their sexuality then?

People choose who they sleep with.

 

[rich!]

People choose who they sleep with.

So you favour repression?

 

[untethered]

So you favour repression?

I favour sexual continence, and that goes for heterosexuals too.

 

[rutabowa]

I favour sexual continence, and that goes for heterosexuals too.

you are being very mealy-mouthed. why don't you just say what you really think?

 

[Roadkill]

People choose who they sleep with.

Answer the question, please.

 

[untethered]

you are being very mealy-mouthed. why don't you just say what you really think?

How do you know what I really think?

 

[untethered]

Answer the question, please.

Like everyone that doesn't take a prejudiced view of the complex construct of sexual attraction, I'm not convinced that people are entirely "born homosexual" (or, indeed, not).

What I can say for certain is that people choose who they sleep with.

Clear?

 

[Roadkill]

Like everyone that doesn't take a prejudiced view of the complex construct of sexual attraction, I'm not convinced that people are entirely "born homosexual" (or, indeed, not).

What I can say for certain is that people choose who they sleep with.

Clear?

No. You're conflating being and doing. Of course people choose who they sleep with, but that's not the same as who they're attracted to. Do you think people choose that?

 

[ymu]

What I can say for certain is that people choose who they sleep with.

Why does it matter to you who they choose to sleep with? As long as it's with consenting adults, I can't see how it could possibly concern you.

 

[untethered]

No. You're confusing being and doing.

I think I have made the distinction entirely clear twice now.

Of course people choose who they sleep with, but that's not the same as who they're attracted to. Do you think people choose that?

I believe my earlier answer, in summary, was "we don't entirely know".

But the question is immaterial unless you believe that people should be permitted to sleep with everything to which they're sexually attracted. Do you?

 

[untethered]

Why does it matter to you who they choose to sleep with? As long as it's with consenting adults, I can't see how it could possibly concern you.

I'm quite sure you can't.

 

[Roadkill]

I think I have made the distinction entirely clear twice now.

No, you haven't. All you've done is to say 'people choose who they sleep with,' which is nothing more than stating the obvious.

I believe my earlier answer, in summary, was "we don't entirely know".

But the question is immaterial unless you believe that people should be permitted to sleep with everything to which they're sexually attracted. Do you?

It's not strictly true to say that 'we entirely don't know.' A fair amount of research has been done over the last couple of decades. Much of that has pointed to a genetic or biological influence on sexuality. That cannot be ignored, surely? Nor is it any use trying to bat it aside as 'immaterial,' because if homosexuality is an inborn trait what grounds can there be for disadvantaging people on the basis of it?

No, of course people can't sleep with everyone they're attracted to - what about paedophiles? - but I can't see what you're driving at. You seem to be hinting that you don't like the legal position that gay people are in these days. If so, what do you think the law should be?

Rutabowa's right. You are being very mealy-mouthed about this.

 

[untethered]

It's not strictly true to say that 'we entirely don't know.' A fair amount of research has been done over the last couple of decades. Much of that has pointed to a genetic or biological influence on sexuality. That cannot be ignored, surely? Nor is it any use trying to bat it aside as 'immaterial,' because if homosexuality is an inborn trait what grounds can there be for disadvantaging people on the basis of it?

An influence isn't deterministic. You seem to want to greatly simplify something that is complex and to a degree, unknown.

No, of course people can't sleep with everyone they're attracted to - what about paedophiles? - but I can't see what you're driving at. You seem to be hinting that you don't like the legal position that gay people are in these days. If so, what do you think the law should be?

Rutabowa's right. You are being very mealy-mouthed about this.

Frankly, you've been asking simplistic questions and getting answers that more than do justice to the quality of the questions.

I believe that sex outside marriage is immoral and the law should prohibit it. I believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

 

[Fez909]

But the question is immaterial unless you believe that people should be permitted to sleep with everything to which they're sexually attracted. Do you?

Between consenting adults, or between an adult and an inanimate object (pavement, bicycle, whatever ), yes.

 

[untethered]

Between consenting adults, or between an adult and an inanimate object (pavement, bicycle, whatever ), yes.

Didn't a fellow get prosecuted for having sex with a bicycle?

 

[Fez909]

I believe that sex outside marriage is immoral and the law should prohibit it. I believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

LOL

 

[Fez909]

Didn't a fellow get prosecuted for having sex with a bicycle?

Yep. I feel he shouldn't have. What's your view?

 

[rich!]

Didn't a fellow get prosecuted for having sex with a bicycle?

In a room in a hotel that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in, as well.

 

[untethered]

LOL

It's amusing, until you consider that this view is almost certainly shared by the majority of the world's population and in our increasingly globalised world you're going to meet a lot more people like me.

 

[untethered]

Yep. I feel he shouldn't have. What's your view?

I think I'd want to know more about the facts of the case, but there's something not right about having sex with bicycles.

 

[ymu]

Didn't a fellow get prosecuted for having sex with a bicycle?

I don't believe there is a law against having sex with inanimate objects. If there is, there are an awful lot of people who are criminals as a result of their private sex lives.

IIRC he was prosecuted for some form of indecency purely on the basis that he was witnessed by two other people, who entered his room when he did not answer to them knocking on the door.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

It's amusing, until you consider that this view is almost certainly shared by the majority of the world's population and in our increasingly globalised world you're going to meet a lot more people like me.

I've never met anyone like you. To the extent that I don't think you even exist.

 

[Roadkill]

An influence isn't deterministic. You seem to want to greatly simplify something that is complex and to a degree, unknown.

I used the word 'influence' rather than 'determinant' for a reason... I'm certainly not simplifying what you rightly say is a very complex issue. What I am trying to point out is that saying 'we just don't know' is not a truthful answer to the question of what determines sexuality, and that the question is far from immaterial. If there is strong evidence that homosexuality is an inborn trait and none at all of its being a conscious choice, then that pulls the rug out from under the feet of those who would insist that it's purely a matter of behaviour that the law should be used to control. You know this full well, which is why you've been bobbing and weaving around the question rather than giving a direct answer.

I'm gay, and I can assure you I didn't choose to be. If you're going to carry on implying that I must have done, I have to ask, are you calling me a liar, or just suggesting you know me better than I know myself?

Frankly, you've been asking simplistic questions and getting answers that more than do justice to the quality of the questions.

I believe that sex outside marriage is immoral and the law should prohibit it. I believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

No, I've asked you direct questions that you're apparently incapable of or unwilling to answer. However, from that it seems clear enough that you think gay sex should be illegal, since gay people cannot get married - unless you count a civil partnership a marriage, which I very much doubt.

Thankfully, most people find the idea that the state should be regulating what consenting adults get up to in private repellent.

 

[untethered]

I don't believe there is a law against having sex with inanimate objects. If there is, there are an awful lot of people who are criminals as a result of their private sex lives.

IIRC he was prosecuted for some form of indecency purely on the basis that he was witnessed by two other people, who entered his room when he did not answer to them knocking on the door.

I think that's about right.

And I'd agree with the people here (presumably most of them) that this prosecution seems unreasonable given the wide range of perversions that are permitted, if not encouraged.

 

[untethered]

I used the word 'influence' rather than 'determinant' for a reason... I'm certainly not simplifying what you rightly say is a very complex issue. What I am trying to point out is that saying 'we just don't know' is not a truthful answer to the question of what determines sexuality, and that the question is far from immaterial.

In which case perhaps you could point me to an unassailable study of the matter around which there is no serious dispute.

If there is strong evidence that homosexuality is an inborn trait and none at all of its being a conscious choice, then that pulls the rug out from under the feet of those who would insist that it's purely a matter of behaviour that the law should be used to control.

Hardly. In fact, you could barely be more wrong.

All forms of social control are there to restrain people from acting on their instincts, whether those instincts are inborn and enduring, or transient.

The issue for people like me is absolutely not about whether or to what extent a behaviour is "natural" or instinctive. It's about whether it's good.

You mentioned earlier the matter of paedophiles. The underlying principle is the same.

You know this full well, which is why you've been bobbing and weaving around the question rather than giving a direct answer.

I know nothing of the sort, as I've explained above.

I'm gay, and I can assure you I didn't choose to be. If you're going to carry on implying that I must have done, I have to ask, are you calling me a liar, or just suggesting you know me better than I know myself?

I'm absolutely not implying that you chose to be "gay". I know nothing about your personal circumstances (and I'm not asking.)

I believe my first comment on the matter was that we don't know but that there's evidence that people's sexual instincts are not the product of any single factor or process.

What I do know is that we shouldn't do wrong things just because we are inclined towards them. From time to time I may covet my neighbour's ass, but I would be rightly condemned should I seize it.

I take it you disagree with the idea that homosexuals should "recruit"?

No, I've asked you direct questions that you're apparently incapable of or unwilling to answer. However, from that it seems clear enough that you think gay sex should be illegal, since gay people cannot get married - unless you count a civil partnership a marriage, which I very much doubt.

I think I made that point clear when I said that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Thankfully, most people find the idea that the state should be regulating what consenting adults get up to in private repellent.

So I take it you have no objection to regulating public behaviour such as:

- employment
- adoption
- marriage, "civil partnership", divorce
- inheritance
- education policy
- public health policy
- public order and decency
- publications and obscenity
- behaviour in de facto public places such as clubs

 

[ymu]

- employment
- adoption
- marriage, "civil partnership", divorce
- inheritance
- education policy
- public health policy
- public order and decency
- publications and obscenity
- behaviour in de facto public places such as clubs

These are all things/situations which affect others, potentially in a negative way. Having sex with one or more consenting adults in private does not. Very poor effort.

 

[untethered]

These are all things/situations which affect others, potentially in a negative way.

Having sex with one or more consenting adults in private does not.

So how do we get from what consenting adults do in private to (for example) the demand from a group of adults to have what they do in private protected and to a degree privileged in law?

This concept of "private" behaviour is arbitrary and facile anyway. The law doesn't support people doing whatever they like provided that there is consent, even among adults. Nor would any reasonable person suggest that the things people do in private may not have public consequences.

You can choose to take a wholly libertarian view if you like, but the law certainly doesn't.

 

[Onket]

We're we talking about drinking on the tube a few pages back?

 

[Roadkill]

In which case perhaps you could point me to an unassailable study of the matter around which there is no serious dispute.

Not one single study, no. I could, however, point you to the research done by people such as Simon LeVay and the study a couple of years ago that suggested some pre-birth hormonal influences (BBC story). There's a useful summary of research findings on Levay's page here. Together, it adds up to a body of evidence you can't just bat aside as 'immaterial.'

Hardly. In fact, you could barely be more wrong.

All forms of social control are there to restrain people from acting on their instincts, whether those instincts are inborn and enduring, or transient.

The issue for people like me is absolutely not about whether or to what extent a behaviour is "natural" or instinctive. It's about whether it's good.

You mentioned earlier the matter of paedophiles. The underlying principle is the same.

So, you're prepared to countenance people being placed in a disadvantageous position because of a characteristic they did not choose and cannot change? Isn't that a very dangerous precedent to set?

The comparison with paedophilia is nonsense, because it ignores the question of consent. Children are rightly deemed incapable of giving informed consent to sex, so it's illegal. But what grounds are there for making sex between consenting adults illegal, except for some self-referential moral code that defines actions as 'good' and 'bad' arbitrarily, without any reference to their consequences in reality.

I know nothing of the sort, as I've explained above.

Then try harder. It's pretty obvious.

I'm absolutely not implying that you chose to be "gay". I know nothing about your personal circumstances (and I'm not asking.)

I believe my first comment on the matter was that we don't know but that there's evidence that people's sexual instincts are not the product of any single factor or process.

What I do know is that we shouldn't do wrong things just because we are inclined towards them. From time to time I may covet my neighbour's ass, but I would be rightly condemned should I seize it.

I take it you disagree with the idea that homosexuals should "recruit"?

How do homosexuals recruit, then?

I think I made that point clear when I said that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Just thought I'd clarify...

Tell me, are you aware of the Montagu trials and the aftermath of them...?

So I take it you have no objection to regulating public behaviour such as:

- employment
- adoption
- marriage, "civil partnership", divorce
- inheritance
- education policy
- public health policy
- public order and decency
- publications and obscenity
- behaviour in de facto public places such as clubs

Where did I say or imply that, please?

 

[ymu]

So how do we get from what consenting adults do in private to (for example) the demand from a group of adults to have what they do in private protected and to a degree privileged in law?

Pretty sure they just want to be able to have a sex life like anyone else, which includes being able to show affection in public without getting beaten up for it purely because they happen to have the same type of genitals.

This concept of "private" behaviour is arbitrary and facile anyway. The law doesn't support people doing whatever they like provided that there is consent, even among adults. Nor would any reasonable person suggest that the things people do in private may not have public consequences.

I believe I've already asked you to explain how sex between consenting adults in private can impinge on you, or anyone else.

If private behaviour has negative public consequences and these are sufficiently serious to merit regulating that private behaviour, then some form of regulation is justified. Otherwise it's not. You believe that people should be prevented from performing homosexual acts. I would like to know your justification for this.

You can choose to take a wholly libertarian view if you like, but the law certainly doesn't.

It would be hard for the law to take wholly libertarian view , and as I'm not arguing against the existence of law per se (and implicitly support it here in my use of the term "consenting adults"), I don't think you can call my views wholly libertarian either.

Try again? Maybe a bit harder this time.