Political Crossfire Forums

[John Galt]

Jezebel wrote: John Galt wrote: Jezebel wrote: jimmyz wrote: I think the design of our bodies is conducive to natural functions.The decisions to use the body for non-reproductive purposes is a human decision with no basis in instinct.

God might say it is free will,regardless of the non-effects of the alternate uses.The same can be said of a sin.I could pluck out the eye of a man and copulate with the socket to get sexual gratification.Our two bodies are products of nature.However,the act is unnatural.The fact that God gave us bodies capable of alternate uses doesn't mean that those uses are what nature intended.They(the acts) are products of human free will.

Did you know the dolphins frequently engage is sexual activity with other dolphins, even dolphins of different species (obviously making it impossible for reproduction to happen). Are these actions products of dolphin free will? Is this act unnatural?

It seems a lot of people like to change the definition of the word natural.

Donkeys and horses make mules. Tigers and Lions make ligers. Reproduction can happen between two like-species, although it is rare and often ends up in sterility. Just a little FYI.

The dolphins in question do not do it for reproductive purposes. The animals you've listed would never produce a hybrid in the wild and only do so in captivity because of human intervention.

Then why point out reproduction can't happen? And more over, why do you say they don't do it for reproductive purposes? You know? Have they told you?

[F'losrix]

Valdimar wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Well, there are a number of factors to this. Neither I nor my partner want to live in a major urban area like that - if anything, we'd much rather retire to the countryside.

We have to balance our need for 'freedom to be openly gay' with a lot of other things, and so far the gay part is losing. We both have elderly parents that we don't want to leave, not to mention that most of both our families are in Michigan. The idea of leaving them all to move across the country tears at us terribly. If anything, we'd probably move east, as I have a friend in the Boston area that I've known since 1st or 2nd grade in elementary school.

Then there's the question of which way the political winds are blowing. If they become a hurricane of anti-gay sentiment we may leave the country entirely - it would totally suck but we're that afraid. As it is, things are so unstable that no place in the U.S. looks very attractive to us right now. Why uproot ourselves if we just end up having to move again?

Things are definitely heating up here. If the people fighting the court battle to preserve our domestic partnership benefits lose and our elected representatives manage to pass the conscientious objector law for physicians we'll have a lot more incentive to leave. I fully expect our side will lose the court case - I'm pretty convinced our benefits are going to be 'toast'.

I can see the time approaching when we'll have to make some really hard decisions about how and where we want to live - and I'm not looking forward to it in the least.
Totally understandable. I fortunately have had more optimal circumstances to make such decisions earlier in my life. I'm from Northwest Ohio. I felt I had to leave solely because I couldn't live my life to the fullest because I am gay. I was in DC and ultimately moved to San Francisco. I feel extremely liberated now, though my political inclinations make me unpopular anyway, lol

I did actually move at one point in an effort to get to a friendlier environment - that's how I ended up in the Ann Arbor area. It's like night & day compared to Grand Rapids, but no San Francisco. Even at that, I probably wouldn't have moved here if I hadn't had a cousin already living here. I was born & raised in a rural setting, so the idea of moving hundreds of miles away to a major city where I don't know anyone, far away from my family & friends still scares me fairly to death.

[Jezebel]

John Galt wrote: Jezebel wrote: John Galt wrote: Jezebel wrote: jimmyz wrote: I think the design of our bodies is conducive to natural functions.The decisions to use the body for non-reproductive purposes is a human decision with no basis in instinct.

God might say it is free will,regardless of the non-effects of the alternate uses.The same can be said of a sin.I could pluck out the eye of a man and copulate with the socket to get sexual gratification.Our two bodies are products of nature.However,the act is unnatural.The fact that God gave us bodies capable of alternate uses doesn't mean that those uses are what nature intended.They(the acts) are products of human free will.

Did you know the dolphins frequently engage is sexual activity with other dolphins, even dolphins of different species (obviously making it impossible for reproduction to happen). Are these actions products of dolphin free will? Is this act unnatural?

It seems a lot of people like to change the definition of the word natural.

Donkeys and horses make mules. Tigers and Lions make ligers. Reproduction can happen between two like-species, although it is rare and often ends up in sterility. Just a little FYI.

The dolphins in question do not do it for reproductive purposes. The animals you've listed would never produce a hybrid in the wild and only do so in captivity because of human intervention.

Then why point out reproduction can't happen? And more over, why do you say they don't do it for reproductive purposes? You know? Have they told you?

You are nitpicking. Just because it may be possible with some animals does not make it possible all the time. I could see how it would be very easy to get a horse to at least mount another animal. They use dummies to collect semen from stallions. If they don't have a problem mounting an inanimate object, they probably don't care too much about it being a donkey.

They basically have orgies with lots of other dolphins, and not just of their own species. Dolphins are the only other animal besides humans that have sex only for pleasure (ie they are doing it when they are not capable of reproduction such as when the female dolphins are not in their reproductive cycle, with different species of dolphins, and with the same gender). Watch PBS, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, or National Geographic Channel.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/2001-spinner%20dolphins.html

[John Galt]

No I'm not nickpicking. I don't see how you think it's easy for a horse to mate with a donkey and not two species of dolphin to mate together and you think the horseis doing it for reproductive purposes and the dolphins are only doing it for pleasure and have no intention of creating a calf.

[Jezebel]

John Galt wrote: No I'm not nickpicking. I don't see how you think it's easy for a horse to mate with a donkey and not two species of dolphin to mate together and you think the horseis doing it for reproductive purposes and the dolphins are only doing it for pleasure and have no intention of creating a calf.

Because they're doing it outside of their reproductive cycle. That makes reproduction of anything impossible, doesn't it?