Wanting to remain celibate is a legitimate reason for not being a partner to someone of the opposite sex. But wanting to use sex for someone of the same sex when its biological purpose is for the opposite sex, even if one is inclined that way, seems like an offense against that biological purpose and against the opposite sex.
23 comments
We have long gone way beyond what our biological purposes mandate. We are human, we have highly evolved societies, that just don't give a sh*t about what is natural. Marriage is not natural, neither is medicine. And yet, I do not see many people denouncing those.
"Offense against biological purpose" = neither a crime, nor a sin, nor a good talking point. Biological purpose would mean we should all be breeding like rabbits, indiscriminately. That's not how human society works.
"Offense against opposite sex" = ?? Just because you couldn't get into the pants of a lesbian? Being turned down by any particular person, or by any of a class of persons, is the human condition. Probably everyone on earth has been rejected by someone at some time. Nobody owes you the use of their vagina. Get over it.
Natural processes don't have feelings (of their own,at any rate), as for the opposite sex, there's more fish in the sea.
seems like an offense against that biological purpose
So is medicine. Dear Spud, when your appendix ruptures, don't call any help, just die and fulfill the biological purpose.
> Wanting to remain celibate is a legitimate reason for not being a partner to someone of the opposite sex.
Ok, yes. So far, so good.
> But wanting to use sex for someone of the same sex when its biological purpose is for the opposite sex...
Whoa there, buddy. What, exactly, defines the "biological purpose" of sex? Evolution is a process , not an animate entity with a particular "purpose" or "goal" in mind, ergo your entire argument is already completely invalid. I don't even have to bother with the rest of it, and I'm not going to.
But I did notice you're avoiding the word "natural" here. Did you actually manage to figure out that the concept of "naturalness" is an incoherent and self-contradictory conflation of several distinct and unrelated concepts? If so, good for you. That would be a baby step in the right direction, at least.
Biology cannot be morally offended.
Human beings have sex not only for procreation but for recreation as well. The OP, likely being a conservative, would condemn the recreational aspects of sex - and he's such a miser for doing it.
Married couples who are either incapable of having children or who have had them and are now too old for more children will still have sex for fun.
It's ridiculous to argue homosexual sex is inferior to heterosex because the latter is procreative. That completely ignores almost every kind of sex act average people engage in on a regular basis (including masturbation, which is just as effective as abstinence in preventing pregnancy). Sex for pleasure is normal among humans - and some humans have preference for sexual activities only with members of the same gender. It makes no difference.
Contrary to what conservatives have been saying, I have yet to see all the societal harm they predicted would befall us for allowing homosexuals to legally formalise their unions and thus protect their mutual interests.
(If the world is falling apart for any reason, it's because of dangerous, self-righteous, miserly, narrow extremism making it so the rest of us can't have nice things.)
What biological purpose? Most people having sex do NOT intend to become pregnant at that particular moment, but are only having recreational fun with each other. That purpose can be served well, regardless of the genders involved.
A purpose can't be offended.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
