Female Masturbate

Female Masturbate – Nature and gay rights – Yahoo! News UK

August 31st, 2010 | Author: admin

Nature and gay rights – Yahoo! News UK

By Ian Dunt

This weekend, Labour and the Tories went to war on gay rights. It was a pretty interesting debate, all things considered. Labour desperately tried to figure out why gay voters would vote Tory after everything the government had done for them (the answer, of course, is that voters vote for the future, not the past). Meanwhile, David Cameron professed how sorry he was for Section 28, which banned the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality in schools, despite having voted to retain it as late as 2003.

But Cameron’s Section 28 vote is not as relevant as his decision, as Tory leader, to try and restrict access for lesbian couples hoping to conceive children through in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

The IVF vote is pivotal to understanding the true level of change in the Conservative mindset. As a deft political operator, Cameron would never suggest Section 28 should return, or a ban on civil partnerships. Both items are far off the political agenda, and would leave him destroyed in the eyes of the public. But the IVF vote dramatises his response to the gay rights issues on the horizon. The opposition to gay marriage (rather than partnerships) and gay parenting stems from the same place as the historical opposition to legalising gay sex, or securing legal equivalence.

The opposition to opening up access to IVF for lesbians came from an idea of what is ‘natural’. The argument is that the natural way for a child to be raised is by a man and a woman. The problem with the argument does not follow from its logical reasoning, which is non-existent, but from its intellectual foundations.

The word ‘natural’ has no place whatsoever in political discourse, outside of – arguably – the debate on climate change. There is no such thing as natural human behaviour. There are things it is possible for a human to do, like breathing or dancing, and things humans cannot do, like flying. Whatever is possible is by definition natural, because we are natural beings, produced by the planet earth. There are good and bad human behaviours. Killing old women is bad. Helping old women across the road is good. But neither is unnatural. Whatever a human decides to do is natural, because he is a natural being.

The use of the word natural in discussion surrounding human behaviour is almost always an attempt to exclude minority behaviour from the realms of acceptability. And so IVF treatment for lesbians is branded unnatural, because they are physically incapable of producing the child themselves. It is nothing of the sort. Natural beings are working towards a goal which was previously impossible via the use of technology. It is no more unnatural than early man building a bridge so he can move from one place to another faster. The world had forced him to wander farther to reach a spot across a river, so he used the tools available to him to overcome that handicap. In actual fact, the use of tools to overcome the limitations set on us by our environment constitutes one of the earliest known behaviours of mankind. You could even say there’s nothing more natural than lesbians seeking IVF treatment, except that wouldn’t have any more meaning than its opposite.

Occasionally the arguments about how unnatural this process is centre on the social effects of gay parenting. Critics usually cite the increased volatility of gay relationships, and claim that prevents them from being suitable parents. There is sometimes another argument about balancing male/female role models on the child, although this is so weak as to not be worth mentioning.

The first argument has been categorically falsified by several scientific studies. The American Psychological Association (APA) 2004 resolution on sexual orientation and marriage, for instance, concluded after exhaustive research that same-sex couples are entirely equivalent to heterosexual couples on standardised measures of relationship quality, commitment, stability and satisfaction.

Some sense intuitively that there’s something wrong with two women, or two men, becoming parents. They do so out of a sense that it hasn’t been done before (it has of course, but not in a transparent, conscious way). But something’s absence in our past is no indication whatsoever of its suitability for our future. Empirical data does a better job than intuition on societal suitability, and the empirical data suggests there are no problems whatsoever.

Nevertheless, either because of his own convictions, or in an attempt to not upset the party rank-and-file, Cameron is clearly uncomfortable with the practise. What does this mean? Labour statements that gays would “rue the day” they voted Tory are feeble. A Conservative government will not reintroduce Section 28, or scrap civil partnerships. But it will not push ahead the issues in the way Labour did.

This country has undergone a sea-change in its attitude to homosexuality in the last decade. Tony Blair didn’t create that change – it’s an innate characteristic of British society to be utterly uninterested in what people get up to behind their front door. But he realised it, harnessed it and got some real results.

The decision to introduce civil partnerships was extremely wise. It avoided a confrontation with religious groups – as far as possible, anyway – while securing the all-important practical rights for gay couples. It put real-life problems such as inheritance and pension benefits above the ideological considerations which could have created a backlash strong enough to scupper progress. But now the political space is open for another big push, with the creation of gay marriage. This shouldn’t involve forcing churches to conduct ceremonies for gay couples. We just have to repeal the clause on the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which specified, for the first time, that marriage had to be between a man and a woman (the Marriage Act 1949 didn’t specify sex).

The political opposition will be negligible. Some religious groups will make noise, of course, but it doesn’t involve them – the issue is about civil marriage. And besides which, the nation will not be behind them.

The change needs to come because of distinctions. Referring to gay friends today, we are forced to find odd new words for them, describing them as ‘his civil partner’, instead of ‘his husband’. That sounds trivial and flippant, given the seismic shift required of traditionalists if they are to accept this sort of change. It isn’t. Language, and our way of referring to the things around us, hugely informs the way we think. It forms part of our day-to-day consciousness and it embeds itself in our attitudes. The battle for gay rights – which has arguably progressed further in this country than any other in the world – won’t be complete until gay relationships are indistinguishable from heterosexual relationships. That’s the end goal. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

That requires gay marriage. It requires a government responsible enough to ensure no new legal threats to gay parenting are allowed to emerge. It requires the enforced teaching of homosexuality in sex education classes to be objective, unlike the caveats offered to faith schools by Labour.

Cameron’s vote on IVF treatment is a sign he shares that inner sentiment about what is natural – a sure sign that he will be less than energetic in his championing of the gay agenda once in office. The Tories won’t be the ones to finish the job. That is a great shame for those in the UK who want full equality. But it’s an even greater shame for this country’s reputation. We will be losing out on an opportunity to show the world what Britain values: reason and freedom.

Post 1001 – nubianjak – are you on medication or simply illiterate and just repeating the same garbage as previously.

1001 …sodomite denounces God. How can you denounce something that doesn't exist? I may as well denounce Hobgoblins as well, for all the good it will do. It's all supernatural clap trap.

I might be ungodly, but I am free from twisted need for some imaginary divinity.

Religion is the biggest corrupter of humanity, and throughout the ages has led to opression, misery and human suffering, Lest we forgat – we are now beginning to discover the evil deeds of unspeakable child abusers clothed in the robes of clerics.

I cant believe how many bigoted people there still are in this world. you cant see beyond the tip of your nose to see the actual person – all you see is their sexuality – wake up and smell the coffee. Oh and by the way, you would be surprised how many 'straight' wives/husbands dont know that their partner likes an afternoon of fun with someone their own sex. If you are that bloody clever – look the statistics up your self and then count how many people you know to see the average amount of people you know – quite an interesting excercise!!!! arggghhh Bleeding good fo nothing know alls get right on my nerves – all holier than though – till their own skeletons come out!!!

1002 -p.james05 -MORON !! We ARE animals (MAMMALS, just in case you have never heard that term) so if you are going to make comments such as you have please try and do some research prior to posting. Yet another bigot making themselves look ridiculous by a total lack of intellect or factual comment, yet still willing to spout garbage to defend the indefensible !

The argument that it is natural is just rubbish a man can love a man a woman a woman but what they cant do naturally is make love to each other or have a child without IVF in the women's case and to adopt in the men's case . I know you will say man can have sex with another man but not naturally and anyone who says that the act is natural knows full well it is not . I can think of nothing more revolting than man on man woman on woman that is not a natural act and never ever will be . Every sitcom on TV tries to coheres the general public that its natural to be gay , that's only because 90% of people in the television programming are gay , brainwashing is the name of the game and at the end of the day homosexuality gave us Aides which of course Gays refuse to talk about , but so called stars and celebrities raise money to fund the treatment of a condition that they themselves are responsible for , it is time for normal men and women to make as much noise against Gays as they the Gays do for it . There is nothing worse than to see a man on TV so obviously gay mincing about and talking in that ridiculous high pitched voice trying to convince us all he is normal , or a woman with no makeup who cuts her hair short to try and look more like a man . They the Gays have a sickness and like any other sickness it needs to be treated as such .

This debate does not need any religious comment. Homosexuality exists, so does heterosexuality and rape, murder and paedophilia. Existing does not justify it. What matters is where we are going. The direction given by the gay lobby is leading us to loss of free speech, re-defining the obvious (that human evolution depended on heterosexuality, both physically and socially), and the indoctrination of children. To those who are gay, be gay if you wish -but accept your reality. Please do not try and redefine biology, sociology, education, sexuality, and humanity to fit to your situation. To do so will damage us all.

May I stick my neck out a bit and say that we define sexuality by our laws, by that I mean that sex with 16 year olds is OK, with 15yr olds a crime. All the arguments used by the gay lobby could be applied by the paedophiles, -they could claim that sex with children has always existed, some children “consent” ….. they wake up in the morning being attracted to children ….etc. Is this to come next?

No, there are such things as morals and lack of morals has consequences. The only reason why we oppose sex with children is because public opinion says it is wrong. If the arguments that support homosexuality are taken up by the paedophiles we will allow that next. To the gays that read this and reply by saying that I am equating homosexuality with paedophilia I say, read it again and think. I am not, I am saying that your argument could be adopted by paedophiles, and if you find that offensive then it is you who should re-think. Be gay if you will, it may be your life and destiny, but please do not attack free speech, and common sense. Most situations in life have some advantages and disadvantages. The gay lobby is simply trying to remove its own disadvantages,– and the children will pay the price.

I had some natural Yogurt the other day – didn't check to see if it was heterosexual though. I know I will be denounced by religionists for dabbling in the Yakult.

p.james05 @ 1002: “we are not animals” ….. then what are we? Last I checked I wasn't a plant and I wasn't a rock.

Oh yeah, and I am probably a bigger, more unnatural pervert than any of you, because I am primarily asexual. I don't fancy the same sex any more than an average straight person and I don't fancy the opposite sex any more than an average gay person.

1008 You poor thing – your TV viewing is ruined by mincing homosexuals. Do you prefer to see toothless hairy arsed rugger players s@#$%ping and gobbing everywhere then. By the way – homosexuals may have brought us computers, wonderful works of art, fine music, medicines and countless other scientific discoveries, and even conquered continents and established whole civilisations, but they did not give us “Aides” (sic)

Derekwood1 if you have to type @#$% because you cant even use the word Sex I think you have a problem. Its not normal to get this upset about how other people are getting off. Please, Please, Please just go and masturbate or something to let off steam before you find youself outside Channel 4 studios with a bomb strapped to your chest.

Please sign in to add your comments.