Immorality of Homosexuality

This is abundantly false. Much evidence leads us to conclude that, in fact, the purpose of sex in humans is for pleasure, for closeness and intimacy, and that reproduction is almost an afterthought. Several idiosyncrasies of human/primate reproduction lend this conclusion:1) Humans, like many (most? all) primates, are receptive to sexual activity at any time following puberty (and potentially before); the vast majority of organisms experience specific seasons of sexual activity (estrus) with long periods of complete sexual disinterest in between (anestrus). Humans, on the other hand, can be persuaded to engage in the sexual act year-round.2) The majority of mammals have sex only during estrus, as before specified. This period coincides with ovulation of the female; as a result, estrus is the only portion of the female's life cycle when she can become pregnant. On the other hand, humans have sex year-round, regardless of when the female is most likely to achieve pregnancy. Some humans specifically abstain during this time to avoid pregnancy; others render themselves or their activity sterile by numerous means.3) It's quite difficult for most human women to become pregnant during sex, for a number of reasons. Vaginal pH is actively hostile to sperm, which must survive in the vaginal tract for three whole days to have their best shot at fertilization. Human females generally have little to no physical indication or warning of ovulation, so the best time to have sex for pregnancy is generally achieved only by accident.A text on the subject suggests that, even among couples specifically intending to produce children, less than 1 in 500 copulatory acts results in a successful pregnancy. If sex in humans is specifically for the production of offspring, why would it so infrequently result in that state? The female body appears to almost operate under a state of natural birth control.A woman's body, while nursing, suppresses ovulation. Again, the presumption here seems to be that a nursing woman would engage in sexual activity, but her body works to protect her against having too many pregnancies in too short a time, lest she be overwhelmed by nursing demands.The evidence is abundant that sex is humans is not about children; that what is a reproductive act in other organisms has been extended, almost completely co-opted, into a mechanism for pleasure. Indeed, the presence of the female clitoris - not to mention the female orgasm - is completely irrelevant to reproduction, but an integral part of the pleasurable sexual experience for women. So you think he's a liar?And you don't notice, apparently, that the testimony of your gay friend shoots down your theory completely? Paul likes muscular guys. He doesn't like similarly muscular women. That wasn't enough to prove to you that it's not just that he likes shoulders, they have to be a guy's shoulders? Correction - what is best for you. If your girlfriend goes out in something she looks goofy in, that makes you look bad. I mean why else would you give a damn whether or not she crams her fat ass into some tiny jeans, if it was about to make her feel better about herself? Why else would you be so desperate to hurt her feelings, all in the name of "honesty"?Because you think people would look at you and say "there goes a guy with a fat girlfriend." For you, love isn't about pandering to someone's emotions - it's about ensuring that your emotions are pandered to, always.No surprise that you have no idea what love truly is; the only love you know is self-love. I find that to be a universal condition among people, like yourself, who get such a hard-on about homosexuality.

No. If sex in humans was for procreation, we would expect humans to have sex only when it would be fertile, like other mammals.Females in other species reject - often violently reject - the advances of males that try to mate with them when they're not in estrus. Human females, on the other hand, are known to have sex during all periods of their menstrual cycle, including the obviously non-fertile period.Obviously, they're doing so for pleasure, not out of a desire to reproduce. Right now? All at once? I doubt it, somehow. Well-designed to limit human reproduction to tolerable levels, assuming frequent human activity. I agree. Not well-designed for maximizing fecundity.If sex is for children, we should see maximized fecundity. Rather, we see a biological presumption of frequent sexual activity for pleasure and biological realities that restrict how often those activities result in offspring.That indicates that humans evolved to have sex for pleasure - for the sake of the act itself - and not primarily in order to reproduce. Sex for reproduction is very, very infrequent among humans, compared to sex for pleasure. Of course that's what it suggests. In species where sex is purely for reproduction, females give birth to many offspring at once and have the mammaries to feed that many offspring. They experience estrus - "going into heat."Human women don't "go into heat." They're constantly able to have sex. And their ovulation is concealed from them - it's "cryptic." In other species, individuals signal ovulation so that the males know to begin trying to mate with them.Human females have almost no idea when they're ovulating, unless they're making detailed examinations of vaginal mucus, temperature, and hormone levels. Observations that you need a medical lab to make. A human woman almost has to be "tricked" into getting pregnant, by her own body.Why would the female body be so resistant to getting pregnant if getting pregnant is the whole point? That doesn't make any sense. No, that's what Paul said to you. That he's into men, and not into women. He likes buff shoulders - but only on men.He proved you completely wrong about everything you thought was true about gay people, and you completely ignored him. What kind of friend are you, exactly? No, I don't. I'm into tits; I'm not attracted to fat guys.Which completely proves you wrong. I'm not attracted to just certain physical features. I'm attracted to those features when they're on the right sex - women, in my case. The breast-like curve of a fat man's man-boob isn't at all attractive to me.Which completely disproves the point you were trying to make. Explain how. Why would it be such a big deal that your girlfriend might "make a mistake", as you put it, by wearing jeans that don't flatter her? Such a big deal, in fact, that you would deliberately ignore her feelings and tell her what a fat ass she has?Why is it such a big deal that she might wear something unattractive? Because it would make you feel bad. It would make you look bad. So naturally, you have to hurt her feelings - because otherwise, she's about to hurt yours.Never mind that love is putting others first. You don't know what love is, because you're obsessed with your own feelings. You're a very selfish person, as far as I can tell. God forbid "your woman" walk out of the house in jeans that she thinks make her look good; you've got to let her know what a fat cow you think she is, "for her own good." No, it's for your own good - the only person's good you've ever bothered to think about, I'm sure.

If you'll accept sibling marriage as a substitute, how about the example of your own civilization, where incestuous marriage among royal families was common? I can grab a dozen examples from the royal families of England, France, and Prussia, just for starters. (Ever heard of the "Hapsburg lip"?)

I don't think anybody's saying that at all, and I thought we had this conversation already.Nobody's saying that gay people, or any people, shouldn't be able to make the same public committment that straight people make. Or rather, nobody who's advancing HM's position says that. Conservatives, obviously, do say that. I guess I could have been clearer right there.Let me start over and simplify. The reason that we're suggesting that government civil unions and social marriage be considered two different things isn't to preserve the cachet of marriage from being "diluted" by extension to gay people; it's being proposed so that the government won't be forced to defer to religious bigotry in terms of who gets married.It takes the churches out of the issue altogether. Churches gain the freedom of congregational conscience in terms of which marriages they consider spiritually valid because there's no longer a need to force all the different religious postures on marriage into one legal mold. The government recognizes civil unions. If you want a marriage, since it's a legally-meaningless social construct (like "knitting circle"), you're married if you say you are. Since marriage no longer connotes any legal privileges, government no longer has an interest in validating marriages. They just don't care any more.And we can expand the qualifications for "civil unions" without church objections, because civil unions are legal constructs with no social meaning.It really is the best of both worlds. Instead of one church being unable to perform gay marriages simply because another church objects, and the government has to negotiate their disagreement; now everybody who wants the legal construct can get it, and everybody who wants the social contract can get it, too. Nothing. That's what this accomplishes, by removing the obstacle of government-church entanglements. It cuts the Gordian knot. Who on Earth is saying that gay people have to get married in back alleys? If the government no longer invalidates marriages, why wouldn't they get married where they chose, the way everybody else gets to?