Re: OT: Sex, love and reproduction --

[Guest guest]

________________

: So is everyone else confounding - why do I have to be subject to different

rules than the rest.

_________________

,

I've criticized the views I disagree with equally in this thread without regard

to person.

______________________

: I think I have actually made some remarks of the need to qualify terms

such as what distinguishes the particular group in question.

______________________

I don't see how that's relevant to the point I made. You claimed that

" naturalness " could be attributed to certain types of sexuality or love based on

their " appropriateness " vis-a-vis the reproductive mechanism of the species. I

made the point that sex and love are independent phenomena, by both scientific

and Biblical standards.

___________

wrote: What is meant when the term is used? Who is and who isn't? Until

it is defined, all the presenting arguments are going to continue to be

confounding mixtures and blends of these concepts.

___________

Again, I don't see any remote connection between this reply and my statement,

but I'll answer it anyway.

Presumably in a discussion of homosexual marriage, a " homosexual " can be defined

as someone who wishes to marry someone of the same sex. That is, of course, a

simplified definition, but obviously has optimal accuracy and precision,

relative to other absurd and irrelevant definitions like " someone who lusts

after the same sex with uncontrollable sexual desire. "

That said, homosexuality is pretty clearly defined as a counterpart to

heterosexuality. A homosexual is someone who engages in sexual, romantic, or

marital relationships with someone of the same sex.

______________

: Now, I am not the one who started using biology as a supporting defense of

homosexuality. And if we are talking biology, then sexuality and reproduction

are hardly confounded but go together.

______________

Only in the sense that reproduction can but does not necessarily result from

sex. There is, however, neither biological nor Biblical basis to say that the

sole or " natural " " purpose " of sex is reproduction. In fact, biology clearly

refutes it by the mere fact that anal stimulation can lead to orgasm. What

reproductive value can that possibly have?

Thus, you are *confounding* the two concepts, by claiming a " naturalness " to

certain modes of sexuality consonant with the biologically 'ordained'

reproductive mechanism of the species, rather than simply associating them, in

which case you would recognize that biologically or in any other way there is

much more to sex than reproduction.

By the way, evolutionarily speaking, or, if you don't accept evolution (I'm

sorry I'm not sure of your view), in comparison to other animals, human

evolution, or the state of being human, quite clearly has completely dissociated

sex from reproduction. In most animals, estrus perfectly corresponds to peak

fertility so that animals engage in sex only during the proper point of the

ovulatory cycle, and do not engage in sex outside of it, whereas humans desire

sex without regard to the ovulatory cycle, and some women experience heightened

sexual desire during the times where they are least likely to get pregnant.

Chris

[Guest guest]

________________

: So is everyone else confounding - why do I have to be subject to different

rules than the rest.

_________________

,

I've criticized the views I disagree with equally in this thread without regard

to person.

______________________

: I think I have actually made some remarks of the need to qualify terms

such as what distinguishes the particular group in question.

______________________

I don't see how that's relevant to the point I made. You claimed that

" naturalness " could be attributed to certain types of sexuality or love based on

their " appropriateness " vis-a-vis the reproductive mechanism of the species. I

made the point that sex and love are independent phenomena, by both scientific

and Biblical standards.

___________

wrote: What is meant when the term is used? Who is and who isn't? Until

it is defined, all the presenting arguments are going to continue to be

confounding mixtures and blends of these concepts.

___________

Again, I don't see any remote connection between this reply and my statement,

but I'll answer it anyway.

Presumably in a discussion of homosexual marriage, a " homosexual " can be defined

as someone who wishes to marry someone of the same sex. That is, of course, a

simplified definition, but obviously has optimal accuracy and precision,

relative to other absurd and irrelevant definitions like " someone who lusts

after the same sex with uncontrollable sexual desire. "

That said, homosexuality is pretty clearly defined as a counterpart to

heterosexuality. A homosexual is someone who engages in sexual, romantic, or

marital relationships with someone of the same sex.

______________

: Now, I am not the one who started using biology as a supporting defense of

homosexuality. And if we are talking biology, then sexuality and reproduction

are hardly confounded but go together.

______________

Only in the sense that reproduction can but does not necessarily result from

sex. There is, however, neither biological nor Biblical basis to say that the

sole or " natural " " purpose " of sex is reproduction. In fact, biology clearly

refutes it by the mere fact that anal stimulation can lead to orgasm. What

reproductive value can that possibly have?

Thus, you are *confounding* the two concepts, by claiming a " naturalness " to

certain modes of sexuality consonant with the biologically 'ordained'

reproductive mechanism of the species, rather than simply associating them, in

which case you would recognize that biologically or in any other way there is

much more to sex than reproduction.

By the way, evolutionarily speaking, or, if you don't accept evolution (I'm

sorry I'm not sure of your view), in comparison to other animals, human

evolution, or the state of being human, quite clearly has completely dissociated

sex from reproduction. In most animals, estrus perfectly corresponds to peak

fertility so that animals engage in sex only during the proper point of the

ovulatory cycle, and do not engage in sex outside of it, whereas humans desire

sex without regard to the ovulatory cycle, and some women experience heightened

sexual desire during the times where they are least likely to get pregnant.

Chris