I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all.

[sistermagpie]

CJ: 
> As I addressed later in my post, the intentions of the actor and 
the 
> purpose of the act are altogether different issues. Sometimes they 
> coincide, sometimes they don't. I'll repreat my analogy: If my 
daughter 
> asks me, "Daddy, what's a credit card for?" I will answer, "Why for 
> buying things, of course!" despite the fact that I just finished 
using 
> one to open a locked door. *My* intention is using a thing often 
has 
> nothing to do with the purpose *of* the thing.

Magpie:
Your daughter isn't asking you what a credit card is for, but what  a 
particular act is for that people do with each other is for. If you 
say "it's for getting a woman pregnant" you wouldn't be giving her a 
very accurate answer that I can see, since realistically people are 
probably more often than not having sex for some other reason than 
making a baby. (It's a bit silly, for instance, to say that the 
purpose of oral sex is to make a baby.) Credit cards are a lot easier 
because their creation was pretty easy. Making a baby is certainly 
part of the answer, I just don't think humans can always be reduced 
to something that simple when it comes to stuff we do. Maybe what we 
call sex today is actually a combination of a number of acts that 
evolved into one thing. 
> 
> Magpie:
> > I don't see why the cultural and social question should depend on
>  > that biological fact.

CJ:
> 
> As I've said, I haven't even attempted to touch on the socio-
cultural 
> issues surround the question of homosexual rights except insofar as 
to 
> say that, despite the best efforts of many to deny the obvious, the 
> biology of sex is NOT one of them.

Magpie:
But are you suggesting gay people are fighting for the right to have 
the same biology of sex as straight people? If they wanted that sex 
they'd be straight. It still seems...I can't put my finger on 
it...but it seems like if you see them trying to reduce biology to 
cultural norms that you're annoyed by their wanting cultural norms 
that aren't based on certain aspects of biology. Because they know 
they're not man/woman have sex and make babies. Isn't their point 
that the difference in biology between gay couples and straight 
couples exist but should not be the basis for all the cultural norms?
> 
> Magpie:
>  > I've never heard it used to state that males and females
> > don't exist.

CJ:
> 
> "Heteronormativity is a term that is used to describe situations 
wherein 
> variations from heterosexual orientation are marginalized, ignored 
or 
> persecuted by social practices, beliefs or policies. These include 
the 
> idea that human beings fall into two distinct and complementary 
> categories: male and female" (from Wikipedia)
> 
> Now, male and female are biological categories. And the antecedent 
of 
> "these" in the passage above appears to be "social practices, 
beliefs or 
> policies" (or possibly "situations", though I don't think that 
would 
> radically alter the intent). The thrust of the passage thus becomes 
the 
> reduction of the biology of sex (the "idea" of male and female) to 
> either a "social practice or belief" or a "marginalizing situation" 
> depending on preference in antecedent.
> 

Magpie:
I didn't get that thrust of the passage. 

> "Heteronormativity is a term that is used to describe situations 
wherein 
> variations from heterosexual orientation are marginalized, ignored 
or 
> persecuted by social practices, beliefs or policies. These include 
the 
> idea that human beings fall into two distinct and complementary 
> categories: male and female" (from Wikipedia)

To me that says heteronormativity is a term used to describe 
situations where non-straight people are marginatlized or persecuted 
by social practices beliefs or policies. These people include 
transexuals and hermaphrodites, in whom male and female not as 
distinct as people would like, and the complementary part refers to 
the idea that men are "supposed to be" with women.

But my understanding of the word comes more from use than the 
wikipedia definition.

> Magpie:
> > Male and female can be cultural conceptions and biases as 
>  > well as biological facts.

CJ: 
> Not in general usage, no. Male and female are biological categories 
(and 
> they're traits we share with nearly all species). For the related 
> cultural conceptions we generally use the terms masculine and 
feminine. 
> Thus, for example, I can ask whether your dog is male or female, 
because 
> they are biological categories. But we don't speak about masculine 
or 
> feminine dogs, because masculine and feminine involve human 
> socio-cultural conceptions which dogs DON'T share.

Magpie:
Since heteronormativity is about cultural norms I think they're 
talking more about stuff like the transgendered where they are 
physically one thing but identify as the other.

-m