The term sex finds it's context in the concept of reproduction. Some creatures are asexual. Some are heterosexual. And of course their are others...
Human beings are heterosexual. I thought you knew that.
No, the appropriate antonym to asexual in a biological context is sexual. I thought you knew that (or rather, you should know that unless you reject all of biology as false)
Of course, asexuality as an orientation is another topic for another time and place.
Btw, what are the "others..."?
Of course, we all know that reproduction between two members of the same biological sex is not possible (that is, right now).
That does not preclude a loving, sexual relationship between two people of the same sex.
Anyhow, this is off topic (mostly). If you wish to contribute something besides Bible quotes and innacurate biological terms to the debate, I would love to hear what you have to say on the topic.
{A continuing off-topic ABE:
Isn't it amazing also, that God called man and woman... man (or in the Hebrew, 'Adam'). It was only after sin entered the picture that the male decided to give his wife a diferent name from his own and rule over her.
Yes, they were "equal" before sin, so what gave "Adam" the right to "give his wife a different name" and "rule over her?" If they were equal, then "Eve" should still have as much rule over "Adam" as he does over her because they both "sinned" and aren't all sins equally egregious under the eyes of God?
And where in the hell does it say in Genesis that Adam named Eve after the incident with the fruit? It doesn't. The word for "woman" was used in Genesis
before said incident.
This little aside is just a more wordy elaboration on "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." How clever.}
Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.