[HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all.

Lee Kaiwen leekaiwen at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 21 12:03:39 UTC 2007


No: HPFGUIDX 178184


CJ:
  > Of *COURSE* heterosexuality is normative. We're all living, walking
  > proof of that truth.

leslie41:
  > No, we're not. Many gay people marry and have children.

Don't confuse the orientation with the act. Just like everyone else, 
homosexuals can produce children. And just like everyone else, they do 
it through heterosexual sex. Whether they enjoy it or not is, 
biologically speaking, irrelevant. Sexual reproduction requires a male 
and a female.

  > therefore any sex which *doesn't* contribute to propogation
  > of the species is ipso facto a deviation from that norm.

  > Leslie41:
  > So, are masturbators and those that use birth control
  > "deviants"? What about post-menopausal women who still enjoy sex?
  > Or the infertile?

Or coitus interruptus, or the simple fact that even many (most?) acts of 
heterosexual intercourse don't result in pregnancy.

First, I'm restricting my comments to acts, not people. So the question 
I'm addressing is "Is masturbation and [artificial] birth control 
'deviant'?"

The problem is, you can't argue from the general to the specific in that 
way. I'm speaking to the nature of hetero- vs. homosexual sex, not the 
quality or suitability of any individual sex act. What you're trying to 
do is the equivalent of disputing my assertion "Cars are vehicles of 
transportation," based simply on the fact that *your* car won't start. 
The fact that there are individual acts of heterosexual sex that don't, 
for whatever reason, result in children has no bearing on the question 
of whether species propogation requires heterosexual sex.

As to masturbation, the answer depends on how you define your terms. If 
you define masturbation as a sexual act equivalent to -- even a 
replacement for -- intercourse, then I suppose I would have to define it 
as "deviant". I don't see see masturbation that way.

Lee Kaiwen:
  > I get the impression that JKR is trying to show her
  > tolerance and support by throwing a bone to the homosexual
  > community while avoiding the hassle of actually have to write and
  > defend an openly homosexual character. I'm torn between calling that
  > clever or cowardly.

Leslie41:
> And showing tolerance and support to the gay community is wrong exactly
> how?

Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say it was wrong. I said the *way* in 
which she goes about it (if indeed that what she's trying to do) strikes 
me as two parts clever and three parts cowardly.

--CJ




More information about the HPforGrownups archive