Sorry, here's another one.

[fillerbunny]

Amen. Honestly.. those of you who are married or otherwise engaged in sexually active heterosexual relationships (you don't have to answer, just ponder).. can you honestly say the only purpose for which you and your spouse / partner engage in sexual activity is the conception of children? Pleasure doesn't factor into the equation at all?

 

[beechy]

I echo what the other posters who feel that they "fit" with their same-sex partners. And second the observations that anatomy is generally not an arbiter of "right" or "wrong" ... or even "should" and "shouldn't."

One might argue, for example, that you "shouldn't" stick your finger in your eyeball because you might injure your eye. However, we do lots of things that (could at least potentially) injure our bodies all the time and nobody calls them "wrong." A baseball pitcher, for example, puts himself at increased risk of a rotator cuff injury, but nobody considers baseball to be "wrong" or immoral as a result ... I submit that "should" or "shouldn't" is often a cultural/political judgment. In sum, while I agree that heterosexual vaginal intercourse does seem to "make sense" from a biological perspective, I'd argue that that doesn't mean it's the only way to do things.

 

[Patzak]

Last time I checked, male homosexuals had no problem of fitting together, though maybe you could say so about lesbians. Not that physiology has anything to do with ethics; wearing shoes that are too small for your feet may be stupid and painful but definitely not immoral.

 

[TooCurious]

If you want to talk about anatomy and what "fits together" sexually, I'd say that both the male and female bodies are shaped in a fashion that's exceptionally conducive to oral sex. Since either type of oral stimulation can be administered by an individual of either sex, I see nothing anatomically impractical about homosexuality. And if some people choose to put other things in other places, then that's their business.

 

[loriersea]

I've been thinking about this, and I don't think anatomical "fitting" is really a concern.

There are straight married couples who don't "fit" because of the relative size of the husband and wife. We are all anatomically different, and some of us will "fit" better with some people than with others, but obviously we shouldn't go shopping around for whoever is the best fit. We choose our partners based not on how well they physically fit with us, but by how well they emotionally fit with us. And, when the emotional fit is there, any number of anatomical mismatches can be dealt with.

Besides, if we want to talk about a really bad fit, consider a head with a 15-inch circumference squeezing through a passage only 10 cm wide. Now that is a bad fit, but what could be more natural?

 

[llDayo]

Our bodies aren't properly designed to sit in chairs for hours on end (think of all the back problems people have) or do lots of heavy, manual later (farming). Maybe we should outlaw office/computer jobs as well as farming?

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Who decides what "fits together"? Obviously the parts in anal and oral sex "fit together", or else it would be impossible to do.