Confusion strikes again: What is a couple?

My paragraph that begins with "In every mammal..." speaks of reproduction, coupling, and copulation. It does not discuss behavior, sexual or otherwise, normal or nonconformant. It does not mention, either to support or attack, the view that nonconformant behavior should be penalized.

I ended by expressing my opinion that queer sexuality and behavior is perverted because it is this opinion that makes me care so much about the news that we are discussing. Also, I voiced it because it is an opinion that is ruthlessly silenced by a closed minded population.

I would prefer to leave those issues for another conversation and focus on my "In every mammal..." paragraph. If you don't agree with my definition of a "couple", put your own into words for us. We agree that a male-female pair are a couple. We disagree about whether a male-male pair should also be called a couple. What, according to your definition, about a male-horse pair, i.e. a male who practices bestiality? Is that a couple? Just what IS your definition of "a couple"?

I don't deal in "definitions" unless they are actually useful to some meaningful end. You need to actually say why making a distinction between "coupling" and "copulation" is somehow a meaningful distinction.

The Oxford Dictionary says a couple is "two people who are married or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually", which obviously includes same-sex couples. Your definition of couple excludes same-sex couples. I don't particularly care that you use words in a funny way. Simply appealing to your strange definition of words is not going to suddenly convince me that being gay is wrong.

Please do tell me how you are being ruthlessly oppressed. I'm sure it will be most entertaining.

The Oxford Dictionary definition accurately represents how the word "couple" is used in general conversation. I am using the term in a more precise way, as a social scientist might use it. (I am a social scientist.) I attempted to define the word, as I am using it, to aid our understanding each other.

I agree that it is pointless to argue over what the definition of a word should be. But you evidently do understand how I am using the word. My claim is that the concept of a "couple", as I have defined it, is useful in bringing into sharp relief a fundamental issue that is raised by the news of a Christian Church embracing and legitimizing queer sexuality. To embrace the idea that queer sexuality is legitimate, i.e. that "anything goes", one must reject the idea of the couple, as I have defined it. If, in nature, the male-female couple is something special and significant, and can be distinguished from, say, male-male intimacy or male-horse intimacy, then it is important and useful to remember that ideas about "couple" might not apply, or not apply as well, to other kinds of pairings.

Please note that, according to the Oxford Dictionary, a male-horse pair is a "couple" if the male has such close feelings for his horse that he engages in acts of sexual bestiality.

Set aside the distraction that we are discussing something that both of us care deeply about, so our personal stakes are high. Just enjoy with me this intellectual banquet.

Another intriguing feature of the Oxford Dictionary definition is that it does not contain any basis for the idea that the number 2 is significant or special. "Married or closely associated romantically or sexually" could equally as well be applied to a sex commune of twenty people who live together. In contrast, the reproduction paradigm that I use to define "couple" contains a wealth of biological and institutional detail from which we can construct rationales for why a male-female pair is distinct and important. You correctly see that the same biological and institutional detail provides a solid foundation for rationales for why male-male, female-female, male-horse, female-donkey, 10-male-10-female, male-female-cadaver, female-male-child, male-female-child (and the list goes on) combinations are morally wrong (perverted). In each of these queer sexuality modes, the biological and institutional detail supports arguments that queer sexuality of the mode being considered harms the individuals involved and/or the community in which they live.