Legislating Sexuality

[slave2six]

In this 2006 article in the NY Nightlife it is stated that, "The survey, released last year, showed that 38.2 percent of men between 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex. Compare that with the CDC’s 1992 National Health and Social Life survey, which found that only 25.6 percent of men 18 to 59 and 20.4 percent of women 18 to 59 indulged in it."

About.com also has a page where many women have left comments about this subject.

This is, perhaps, shocking to many people but it speaks to a broader issue.

The question for this OP is: Would it be morally or ethically appropriate to introduce legislation that would ban heterosexual couples who engage in this kind of sexual activity from being married?

1. Please explain your opinion
2. Please include how your opinion relates to existing legislation against homosexual marriage
3. Please also include your defense of whether this type of sex is "natural" or not any why you think so

 

[Kerr]

No. Sexuality is a private matter, and with a few exceptions (like rape) there should be no legislation against it.

 

[Kathryn]

I have no opinion on the matter - at least not one that I would dream of enforcing on anyone else. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is their own business, as long as it is not mandated that I participate in or subsidize their choices.

Therefore I am not opposed to gay unions that are protected by the same laws as heterosexual unions. They can call it a marriage if they like and it doesn't bother me. Personally, I define marriage as between one man and one woman, but I don't care if that's not someone else's definition. I can't see how a gay couple formalizing a union and calling it marriage would harm me, so more power to them.

Finally, is anal sex "natural?" I think any sex between a man and a woman is natural, unless it causes injury - then, in my opinion, that's nature's way of saying, "Hey, go easy there, buddy - them parts is delicate!"

As for others belief that anal sex between members of the same sex is natural - once again, more power to them. If the condom fits, wear it.

 

[TheKnight]

Would it be morally or ethically appropriate to introduce legislation that would ban heterosexual couples who engage in this kind of sexual activity from being married?

I believe that secular law should neither ban nor promote marriage whatsoever between any two people by giving a religious union the status of a binding legal contract.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In Indiana, anal (and oral) sex is illegal. I do not think there should be any laws about sex though, as long as it is consensual. What two adults do in the bedroom (or living room, kitchen, etc.) is of no one else's business or concern.

Finally, is anal sex "natural?" I think any sex between a man and a woman is natural, unless it causes injury - then, in my opinion, that's nature's way of saying, "Hey, go easy there, buddy - them parts is delicate!"

I know some women do enjoy anal, but I would think it would be more intended for men to be penetrated anally, since that is how the prostate gland (male equivalent of the g-spot) is stimulated.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Well, while I don't believe in universal morals and ethics, in my opinion, I'd say "NO" because it's the same thing as not allowing homosexuals to be married, and I think keeping consenting adults who are "in love" from being married if that is what they want to do is just childish. They are going to be together anyway, so why not let them have the same last name?

 

[Madhuri]

What's the point? It would be like legislating against nose picking. You can ban it but you cannot stop it, or even know who's doing it, and ultimately, a percentage of the population will continue to pick their nose.

 

[ChristineES]

A law that could never be enforced should not be a law in the first place. I know what you are getting at, though. When I first joined the Navy, we went through the UCMJ and I learned for the first time that certain sexual acts were illegal. I remember wondering how they could enforce such laws. I could not imagine someone spying on a couple in their bedrooms.

 

[slave2six]

I find it interesting that when the question is put the way it is in the OP that people have a hard time condoning laws against certain types of sex or whether two heteros who engage in those acts should or should not be married. But start a thread about homosexuality and people get all bent out of shape. To me, this is completely irrational.

I really have a hard time understanding things like California's Prop 8 that defines marriage as an exclusively heterosexual right and yet the only meaningful difference between a gay and hetero marriage is how two people perform sex.

How do we as a society begin to think with our heads instead of our religious dogmas and prejudices?

 

[TheKnight]

I find it interesting that when the question is put the way it is in the OP that people have a hard time condoning laws against certain types of sex or whether two heteros who engage in those acts should or should not be married. But start a thread about homosexuality and people get all bent out of shape. To me, this is completely irrational.

I really have a hard time understanding things like California's Prop 8 that defines marriage as an exclusively heterosexual right and yet the only meaningful difference between a gay and hetero marriage is how two people perform sex.

How do we as a society begin to think with our heads instead of our religious dogmas and prejudices?

The relationship between a man and a woman is different than that between two members of the same sex. While I agree that two members of the same sex can love each other just as much, the relationship itself is different. If for no other reason than the fact that men and women are different in nature and the difference in that nature makes the relationship itself different.

 

[slave2six]

The relationship between a man and a woman is different than that between two members of the same sex. While I agree that two members of the same sex can love each other just as much, the relationship itself is different. If for no other reason than the fact that men and women are different in nature and the difference in that nature makes the relationship itself different.

Have you ever hung around gay men who are the "feminine" half of the relationship? Women who choose to socialize with them typically look at them as simply "one of the girls." This is often the case (though not always). There are plenty of effeminate gay guys among whom the only difference between them and women is that they don't menstruate.

 

[TheKnight]

Have you ever hung around gay men who are the "feminine" half of the relationship? Women who choose to socialize with them typically look at them as simply "one of the girls." This is often the case (though not always). There are plenty of effeminate gay guys among whom the only difference between them and women is that they don't menstruate.

Whether they be similar or not, they are different. No matter how similar they get. One man's relation to a woman is entirely different then one man's relation to another man. Or vice versa for women.

 

[slave2six]

Whether they be similar or not, they are different. No matter how similar they get. One man's relation to a woman is entirely different then one man's relation to another man. Or vice versa for women.

Perhaps. I don't know for certain that this is true. Indeed, I don't know that one man's relationship to a woman is not entirely different from another man's relationship to another woman. I know one could that have been married for 15 years and the cuss and fight all the time. I know another couple that has been married for 20 years and she doesn't enjoy sex (and never has). I know another couple that are full-on Waltons and have the stereotypical "traditional" marriage including a whole pack of kids.

I know women who are very un-feminine as well.

I just don't know that one can't paint on the canvas of any group with such a wide brush without losing the detail necessary for a beautiful painting.

 

[TheKnight]

I just don't know that one can't paint on the canvas of any group with such a wide brush without losing the detail necessary for a beautiful painting.

I agree. And I believe that your statement concerning the meaningful differences between a same-sex relationship and an opposite-sex relationship does that.