statistics on homosexuality

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 19 2005, 02:37 PM']I wouldn't make fun of that ape if I was you!  That's not Melchisidec's friend, he's [b]family[/b]!  (See the avatar!)
[right][snapback]650071[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I dun take kindly to people talkn bout ma kin ...

[Didacus]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Jul 19 2005, 05:07 PM'][snip]
why do you refer to things like [b]family[/b] and [b]procreation[/b] as burdens? :angry:
[right][snapback]650208[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Just bad wording on my part, my intent was to refer to the burden of responsibility. Now pipe down, i'm on your side.

Oh, and try to learn to use thems qote things... ask a moderator to help if required.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jul 19 2005, 07:17 PM']Didacus,

That still doesn't make homosexuality the cause of all this. What I mean is that homosexuals are not by nature any more promiscuous or horny than heterosexuals.

Besides, contraceptives and abortion are so widely used that I don't think pregnancy is viewed as much of consequence anyway.
[/quote]

What are the potential consequences of an irresponsible sex life? Getting pregnant and disease? Any other sizeable consequence?

Have you ever gone through the trouble of having an abortion? I know a few and it is very unpleasant regardless of your beliefs.

Though birth control is rampant, is it not 100% effective so if a woman wishes to have sex 100 times, the chances of her getting pregnant, even with using contraceptives, are very real.

Removing such a potential consequence from the mix promotes promiscuity because there is an element of 'fear' that is not present. Fear causes people to think twice about what they do.

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jul 19 2005, 07:17 PM']
Reasons for this are religious.
[right][snapback]650336[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, reasons for this are simple logic. A sexaul relationship open to procreation is a biologically normal function of the human bodies engaged in the act.

When an act is not opened to procreation, the biological function of the human bodies engaged in the act are not being respected and thus perversion is the result.


And if you brush things off as 'religious' may I ask if you are an atheist? What religion then, if you are not?

[Didacus]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jul 19 2005, 08:13 PM']I dun take kindly to people talkn bout ma kin ...


[right][snapback]650398[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I bet your dad had a hard time finding work with a face like that one!

[Semalsia]

[quote]What are the potential consequences of an irresponsible sex life? Getting pregnant and disease? Any other sizeable consequence?[/quote]

Ok, you are sort of right. But that\s still not a direct cause.

[quote name='Didacus']the biological function of the human bodies engaged in the act are not being respected and thus perversion is the result.[/quote]

And to respect some arbitrary biological functions is only of religious reasons. Same with words like "perversion".

[quote]And if you brush things off as 'religious' may I ask if you are an atheist?[/quote]

Yes, I am an atheist.

[quote]Have you ever gone through the trouble of having an abortion?[/quote]

No, I haven't. And I don't know what it feels like. I wasn't arguing for it, anyway. I just said what some people think of it.

[quote name='infinitelord1']do you think maybe that subconsciously you would be scared to go through the pain of giving birth? just a question thats all.[/quote]

Pregnancy does look pretty awful. I don\t know if I would want to go through one.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jul 22 2005, 02:40 PM']Ok, you are sort of right. But that\s still not a direct cause.
[/quote]

Then what is the direct cause in your view?

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jul 22 2005, 02:40 PM']And to respect some arbitrary biological functions is only of religious reasons. Same with words like "perversion".
[/quote]

The disrespect of an 'arbitrary' bioogical function is just what forms the perversion.

per·ver·sion (pər-vûr'zhən, -shən)
n.

The act of perverting.
The state of being perverted.
A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant.



It is not an arbitrary biological function, it is THE function of sex organs to procreate. (is the function of the heart ARBITRARILY to pump blood... of course not, it just happens to pump blood which is incidental in being useful to the human body, the actual function of the heart is to fill in that space between the lungs so that everything fits in nicely...)

The homosexaul act is deviant from the intended purpose of procreation which is the function of human sexuality, thus is a perversion. Notice I ain't using any religious terms here. You jsut use religious terms as an ad-hominen against the religious you argue against.

Anyone that says its 'normal' for a man's penis to enter another man's anus is bewildered in confusion that borders insanity and certainly is beyond the grasp of the mere ridiculous. I challenge you to prove to me that such a practice is biologically normal - you up to that?


[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jul 22 2005, 02:40 PM']No, I haven't. And I don't know what it feels like. I wasn't arguing for it, anyway. I just said what some people think of it.
[/quote]

And what do you think of it?


[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jul 22 2005, 02:40 PM'][quote name='infinitelord1']do you think maybe that subconsciously you would be scared to go through the pain of giving birth? just a question thats all.[/quote]

Pregnancy does look pretty awful. I don\t know if I would want to go through one.
[right][snapback]654592[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Pregnancy being awful is an atheist self-told lie that plays its part in the culture of death that has arisen in modern liberal sick and faulty ideologies.

[ergosum]

Someone on here said that biological function of sex organs is the ONLY appropriate use of those functions... anything else is a perversion.
Obviously, this person has an animalistic view of humans...lacking the choice and ability to use his body for means beyond what animals with instincts have to use them for.

SO, I''ve pasted this thing from my blog site... it's entitled "Understanding Human Existence" at ergosum.blogspot.com
==========
"Merely having life and therefore existing should not be a cause for much awe and wonder. Though it definitely is a valuable thing - to have life, there is something immensely more valuable than living: Being radiantly aware of your life.

What is having life? Animals have it. Even plants have life. Animals and plants live. We are a kind of animal. And as such, we can exist as mere animals, living our life away, simply waiting for life to pass because that is what animals do. Or we can LIVE LIFE like HUMANS. The subtitle to my blog, my personal credo, and the quote of Ayn Rand is "Living life is not the same thing as avoiding death."

Just the mere act of breathing and living is not worthy of much praise. Dogs do that, and the trees do that. The scientific definition of death is not just the stopping of the heart, but also the ceasing of the brain waves. Technically, a human being could survive with just a beating heart and no brain activity. Infact, I would go so far as to say that there are millions on this earth who are doing just that: living as creatures that breath and have beating hearts.
The difference worthy of all awe, wonder, and praise is the witness of that Human who not only demonstrates a clear evidence of life, but also a celebration of that AWARENESS of LIFE -- manifested in his/her productive and rational achievement. The awareness of life by the faculty of self-consciousness that is ONLY possible to Human Beings, not to any other creature on this earth, and therefore differentiates a self-conscious THINKING Human from any other creature (human or animal).
It is only proper for a human to think. To use his/her faculty of thinking and intelligence to enhance his/her experience of living. Anything less is not good enough."

And here's another article I wrote. Might help:
==========
"OKay, let's look at sex purely from an animalistic (or naturalistic) perspective.

We are human beings capable of having sex for reproduction. THus, we are just like any other animal. The fact that we engage in sex for REPRODUCTION, DOES NOT differentiate HUMANS from ANIMALS.

So, what is the defining quality of Humans as different from animals? It is THIS:

WE CAN CHOOSE TO HAVE SEX, or NOT HAVE SEX, based on WHATEVER MOTIVATION WE SO CHOOSE -- Reproduction or PLEASURE or PAIN.
Animals do not engage in a VOLITIONAL, conscious CHOICE to have sex or not to have sex. A dog cannot go up to a she-dog (can I say beesh?), and ask for her permission in the matter of sex, nor can the she-dog make a choice to say yes to sex or NO to sex.
Animals function on instinctual patterns of their intrinsic motivations and the environment. ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE SEX FOR THE PURE PURPOSE OF PLEASURE! Yes, animals MAY experience pleasure while having sex, BUT THAT IS PURELY A BY-PRODUCT of their INSTINCT to have sex to pro-create. Natural evolution requires that ANIMALS have an instinctual need to pro-create! That is the only instinctual purpose of their sexual act.

A Human is NOT constrained by the natural evolutionary pressure to pro-create BECAUSE WE CHOOSE! We choose to have sex for pro-creation, or we choose to have sex for pleasure... or to cause pain... whatever the case is.
We are different from animals because our PRIMARY MOTIVATION to have sex is NOT INSTINCTUAL but fully CONSCIOUS choice! And based on this choice, we can choose to engage in sex for pleasure or for procreation.

Also, all acts of sex DO NOT LEAD to reproduction. Humans can have sex in a variety of natural ways and still not reproduce. For example, unless the sperm meets an egg that is available in the female at the right time of the month, she will NOT conceive! So, the sexual act has not necessarily resulted in reproduction even though there was no "unnatural tampering" involved. Infact, this absurdly risky practice is the only kind of sex encouraged by the fundamentalist stance of the Catholic Church.
Thus, when you say, "it is only through tampering with nature that reproduction is prevented", quite frankly, you are absolutely wrong!

Also, what do you deem as "unnatural"? Why do you say that? And on what basis of authority do you claim certain things as natural and unnatural?
You probably assume that the male and female genitals are a "natural" fit for each other, and serve the evolutionary purpose of procreation (but you don't believe in evolution, right?)and therefore it must be concluded that nature has decreed that any use of the genitalia other than penile/vaginal penetration for purposes of procreation is unnatural.
In making this assumption you are reducing the sexual experience among humans to that of barnyard, animalistic sex. As I said earlier, you must realize that one of the things that makes us HUMAN and different from a mere ANIMAL is that WE CAN CHOOSE based on our real dispositions! We can choose to have sex for procreation, or we can choose not too! You cannot FORCE it upon me to ONLY have sex for pro-creation because that is what ANIMALS do. They have sex ONLY to pro-create (though they are not aware of doing that, it is instinctual, and they derive pleasure as a consequence not as a GOAL achieved). You cannot make me have sex like an animal. You cannot treat a HUMAN as a mere ANIMAL by saying that sex is ONLY for pro-creation because that is how the rest of animalistic nature does it.
ALso, how do you decide natural versus unnatural acts? It is natural to masturbate deliberately? No? Well, then, is it natural to ejaculate unwittingly, like in your sleep? If the latter is okay and the former is not, then I ask you what is the difference between the two acts? The difference is the act of choice in the former and the lack of willful choice in the latter. So, this has nothing to do the "naturalness" of the act, but it has to do with the MORALITY of the act. You think it's not MORAL -- under your system of morals -- to choose to masturbate (the Catholic Church shares that with you)...
So, don't claim any artificial argument based on naturalness when what you are truly referring to is the morality of the act. And that is a whole other issue!"

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='ergosum' date='Jul 22 2005, 05:37 PM']Someone on here said that biological function of sex organs is the ONLY appropriate use of those functions... anything else is a perversion.
Obviously, this person has an animalistic view of humans...lacking the choice and ability to use his body for means beyond what animals with instincts have to use them for.

SO, I''ve pasted this thing from my blog site...  it's entitled "Understanding Human Existence" at ergosum.blogspot.com
==========
"Merely having life and therefore existing should not be a cause for much awe and wonder. Though it definitely is a valuable thing - to have life, there is something immensely more valuable than living: Being radiantly aware of your life.

What is having life? Animals have it. Even plants have life. Animals and plants live. We are a kind of animal. And as such, we can exist as mere animals, living our life away, simply waiting for life to pass because that is what animals do. Or we can LIVE LIFE like HUMANS. The subtitle to my blog, my personal credo, and the quote of Ayn Rand is "Living life is not the same thing as avoiding death."

Just the mere act of breathing and living is not worthy of much praise. Dogs do that, and the trees do that. The scientific definition of death is not just the stopping of the heart, but also the ceasing of the brain waves. Technically, a human being could survive with just a beating heart and no brain activity. Infact, I would go so far as to say that there are millions on this earth who are doing just that: living as creatures that breath and have beating hearts.
The difference worthy of all awe, wonder, and praise is the witness of that Human who not only demonstrates a clear evidence of life, but also a celebration of that AWARENESS of LIFE -- manifested in his/her productive and rational achievement. The awareness of life by the faculty of self-consciousness that is ONLY possible to Human Beings, not to any other creature on this earth, and therefore differentiates a self-conscious THINKING Human from any other creature (human or animal).
It is only proper for a human to think. To use his/her faculty of thinking and intelligence to enhance his/her experience of living. Anything less is not good enough."

And here's another article I wrote. Might help:
==========
"OKay, let's look at sex purely from an animalistic (or naturalistic) perspective.

We are human beings capable of having sex for reproduction. THus, we are just like any other animal. The fact that we engage in sex for REPRODUCTION, DOES NOT differentiate HUMANS from ANIMALS.

So, what is the defining quality of Humans as different from animals? It is THIS:

WE CAN CHOOSE TO HAVE SEX, or NOT HAVE SEX, based on WHATEVER MOTIVATION WE SO CHOOSE -- Reproduction or PLEASURE or PAIN.
Animals do not engage in a VOLITIONAL, conscious CHOICE to have sex or not to have sex. A dog cannot go up to a she-dog (can I say beesh?), and ask for her permission in the matter of sex, nor can the she-dog make a choice to say yes to sex or NO to sex.
Animals function on instinctual patterns of their intrinsic motivations and the environment. ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE SEX FOR THE PURE PURPOSE OF PLEASURE! Yes, animals MAY experience pleasure while having sex, BUT THAT IS PURELY A BY-PRODUCT of their INSTINCT to have sex to pro-create. Natural evolution requires that ANIMALS have an instinctual need to pro-create! That is the only instinctual purpose of their sexual act.

A Human is NOT constrained by the natural evolutionary pressure to pro-create BECAUSE WE CHOOSE! We choose to have sex for pro-creation, or we choose to have sex for pleasure... or to cause pain... whatever the case is.
We are different from animals because our PRIMARY MOTIVATION to have sex is NOT INSTINCTUAL but fully CONSCIOUS choice! And based on this choice, we can choose to engage in sex for pleasure or for procreation.

Also, all acts of sex DO NOT LEAD to reproduction. Humans can have sex in a variety of natural ways and still not reproduce. For example, unless the sperm meets an egg that is available in the female at the right time of the month, she will NOT conceive! So, the sexual act has not necessarily resulted in reproduction even though there was no "unnatural tampering" involved. Infact, this absurdly risky practice is the only kind of sex encouraged by the fundamentalist stance of the Catholic Church.
Thus, when you say, "it is only through tampering with nature that reproduction is prevented", quite frankly, you are absolutely wrong!

Also, what do you deem as "unnatural"? Why do you say that? And on what basis of authority do you claim certain things as natural and unnatural?
You probably assume that the male and female genitals are a "natural" fit for each other, and serve the evolutionary purpose of procreation (but you don't believe in evolution, right?)and therefore it must be concluded that nature has decreed that any use of the genitalia other than penile/vaginal penetration for purposes of procreation is unnatural.
In making this assumption you are reducing the sexual experience among humans to that of barnyard, animalistic sex. As I said earlier, you must realize that one of the things that makes us HUMAN and different from a mere ANIMAL is that WE CAN CHOOSE based on our real dispositions! We can choose to have sex for procreation, or we can choose not too! You cannot FORCE it upon me to ONLY have sex for pro-creation because that is what ANIMALS do. They have sex ONLY to pro-create (though they are not aware of doing that, it is instinctual, and they derive pleasure as a consequence not as a GOAL achieved). You cannot make me have sex like an animal. You cannot treat a HUMAN as a mere ANIMAL by saying that sex is ONLY for pro-creation because that is how the rest of animalistic nature does it.
ALso, how do you decide natural versus unnatural acts? It is natural to masturbate deliberately? No? Well, then, is it natural to ejaculate unwittingly, like in your sleep? If the latter is okay and the former is not, then I ask you what is the difference between the two acts? The difference is the act of choice in the former and the lack of willful choice in the latter. So, this has nothing to do the "naturalness" of the act, but it has to do with the MORALITY of the act. You think it's not MORAL -- under your system of morals -- to choose to masturbate (the Catholic Church shares that with you)...
So, don't claim any artificial argument based on naturalness when what you are truly referring to is the morality of the act. And that is a whole other issue!"
[right][snapback]654944[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You are funny. Oh my look at all that long writing, and goodness, look! all capitalized words! That must mean you are pretty smart

You have pretty strong faith that the human mind can understand everything, dont you?

[ergosum]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Jul 22 2005, 05:44 PM']You are funny. Oh my look at all that long writing, and goodness, look! all capitalized words! That must mean you are pretty smart 

You have pretty strong faith that the human mind can understand everything, dont  you?
[right][snapback]654951[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Umm.. no, I think youo forgot how many times I repeated that I AM LAZY!! Hence, I usually refer you to my blog site where I've practically covered all these topics at length some time ago.
But since my refering you to my blog is being construed as self-effacing actions to promote my site, I've started just copy/pasting stuff!

But yeah, I do revere the ability of the human mind to perceive the reality that exists and is available to our perception.

[Semperviva]

[i]the [color=blue]only[/color] kind of sex encouraged by ... the Catholic Church[/i]

Ha! not exactly...

[Semperviva]

[quote name='ergosum' date='Jul 22 2005, 05:37 PM']Someone on here said that biological function of sex organs is the ONLY appropriate use of those functions... anything else is a perversion.
Obviously, this person has an animalistic view of humans...lacking the choice and ability to use his body for means beyond what animals with instincts have to use them for.

SO, I''ve pasted this thing from my blog site...  it's entitled "Understanding Human Existence" at ergosum.blogspot.com
==========
"Merely having life and therefore existing should not be a cause for much awe and wonder. Though it definitely is a valuable thing - to have life, there is something immensely more valuable than living: Being radiantly aware of your life.

What is having life? Animals have it. Even plants have life. Animals and plants live. We are a kind of animal. And as such, we can exist as mere animals, living our life away, simply waiting for life to pass because that is what animals do. Or we can LIVE LIFE like HUMANS. The subtitle to my blog, my personal credo, and the quote of Ayn Rand is "Living life is not the same thing as avoiding death."

Just the mere act of breathing and living is not worthy of much praise. Dogs do that, and the trees do that. The scientific definition of death is not just the stopping of the heart, but also the ceasing of the brain waves. Technically, a human being could survive with just a beating heart and no brain activity. Infact, I would go so far as to say that there are millions on this earth who are doing just that: living as creatures that breath and have beating hearts.
The difference worthy of all awe, wonder, and praise is the witness of that Human who not only demonstrates a clear evidence of life, but also a celebration of that AWARENESS of LIFE -- manifested in his/her productive and rational achievement. The awareness of life by the faculty of self-consciousness that is ONLY possible to Human Beings, not to any other creature on this earth, and therefore differentiates a self-conscious THINKING Human from any other creature (human or animal).
It is only proper for a human to think. To use his/her faculty of thinking and intelligence to enhance his/her experience of living. Anything less is not good enough."

And here's another article I wrote. Might help:
==========
"OKay, let's look at sex purely from an animalistic (or naturalistic) perspective.

We are human beings capable of having sex for reproduction. THus, we are just like any other animal. The fact that we engage in sex for REPRODUCTION, DOES NOT differentiate HUMANS from ANIMALS.

So, what is the defining quality of Humans as different from animals? It is THIS:

WE CAN CHOOSE TO HAVE SEX, or NOT HAVE SEX, based on WHATEVER MOTIVATION WE SO CHOOSE -- Reproduction or PLEASURE or PAIN.
Animals do not engage in a VOLITIONAL, conscious CHOICE to have sex or not to have sex. A dog cannot go up to a she-dog (can I say beesh?), and ask for her permission in the matter of sex, nor can the she-dog make a choice to say yes to sex or NO to sex.
Animals function on instinctual patterns of their intrinsic motivations and the environment. ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE SEX FOR THE PURE PURPOSE OF PLEASURE! Yes, animals MAY experience pleasure while having sex, BUT THAT IS PURELY A BY-PRODUCT of their INSTINCT to have sex to pro-create. Natural evolution requires that ANIMALS have an instinctual need to pro-create! That is the only instinctual purpose of their sexual act.

A Human is NOT constrained by the natural evolutionary pressure to pro-create BECAUSE WE CHOOSE! We choose to have sex for pro-creation, or we choose to have sex for pleasure... or to cause pain... whatever the case is.
We are different from animals because our PRIMARY MOTIVATION to have sex is NOT INSTINCTUAL but fully CONSCIOUS choice! And based on this choice, we can choose to engage in sex for pleasure or for procreation.

Also, all acts of sex DO NOT LEAD to reproduction. Humans can have sex in a variety of natural ways and still not reproduce. For example, unless the sperm meets an egg that is available in the female at the right time of the month, she will NOT conceive! So, the sexual act has not necessarily resulted in reproduction even though there was no "unnatural tampering" involved. Infact, this absurdly risky practice is the only kind of sex encouraged by the fundamentalist stance of the Catholic Church.
Thus, when you say, "it is only through tampering with nature that reproduction is prevented", quite frankly, you are absolutely wrong!

Also, what do you deem as "unnatural"? Why do you say that? And on what basis of authority do you claim certain things as natural and unnatural?
You probably assume that the male and female genitals are a "natural" fit for each other, and serve the evolutionary purpose of procreation (but you don't believe in evolution, right?)and therefore it must be concluded that nature has decreed that any use of the genitalia other than penile/vaginal penetration for purposes of procreation is unnatural.
In making this assumption you are reducing the sexual experience among humans to that of barnyard, animalistic sex. As I said earlier, you must realize that one of the things that makes us HUMAN and different from a mere ANIMAL is that WE CAN CHOOSE based on our real dispositions! We can choose to have sex for procreation, or we can choose not too! You cannot FORCE it upon me to ONLY have sex for pro-creation because that is what ANIMALS do. They have sex ONLY to pro-create (though they are not aware of doing that, it is instinctual, and they derive pleasure as a consequence not as a GOAL achieved). You cannot make me have sex like an animal. You cannot treat a HUMAN as a mere ANIMAL by saying that sex is ONLY for pro-creation because that is how the rest of animalistic nature does it.
ALso, how do you decide natural versus unnatural acts? It is natural to masturbate deliberately? No? Well, then, is it natural to ejaculate unwittingly, like in your sleep? If the latter is okay and the former is not, then I ask you what is the difference between the two acts? The difference is the act of choice in the former and the lack of willful choice in the latter. So, this has nothing to do the "naturalness" of the act, but it has to do with the MORALITY of the act. You think it's not MORAL -- under your system of morals -- to choose to masturbate (the Catholic Church shares that with you)...
So, don't claim any artificial argument based on naturalness when what you are truly referring to is the morality of the act. And that is a whole other issue!"
[right][snapback]654944[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ergo...
i actually posted this for you already--hehe-oopsie- its under please define sex- page one- LOL-- at least half of the above is there...

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jul 19 2005, 07:17 PM']Didacus,

That still doesn't make homosexuality the cause of all this. What I mean is that homosexuals are not by nature any more promiscuous or horny than heterosexuals.

Besides, contraceptives and abortion are so widely used that I don't think pregnancy is viewed as much of consequence anyway.
And this is a good thing, right?

(Funny thing, though. Last night I had a dream in which I gave birth. It hurt a bit..)
Reasons for this are religious.
[right][snapback]650336[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
the fact that homosexuals are getting most of these std's says they are more promiscuous. my mother who is a lesbian told me that she doesnt like to hang out with gay men because they are so perverted and promiscuous.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Didacus']Then what is the direct cause in your view?[/quote]

I don't know. Perhaps there isn't any. I just think that blaming it on homosexuality is unfounded.

[quote name='Didacus']it is THE function of sex organs to procreate.[/quote]

Yes, but why can't they be used for other purposes?

[quote name='Didacus']I challenge you to prove to me that such a practice is biologically normal - you up to that?[/quote]

Well no. But why should people be normal?

[quote name='Didacus']You jsut use religious terms as an ad-hominen against the religious you argue against.[/quote]

No I'm not saying that it is wrong simply because it is religious. I just pointed out the religiousness, because that is the only reason to think homosexuality and heterosexuality are somehow different. And the website (in the original post) is trying to make some huge difference between them using non-religious arguments.

[quote name='Didacus']And what do you think of [abortion]?[/quote]

Well I can't really tell someone not to do it. If we lived in a ideal world, then maybe it would not be necessary and we could keep all the babies. But life is complicated.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jul 23 2005, 06:27 PM']Well no. But why should people be normal?
Well I can't really tell someone not to do it. If we lived in a ideal world, then maybe it would not be necessary and we could keep all the babies. But life is complicated.
[right][snapback]656070[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
dont you think any basis of morality is religous?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='ergosum']A dog cannot go up to a she-dog (can I say beesh?), and ask for her permission in the matter of sex, nor can the she-dog make a choice to say yes to sex or NO to sex.[/quote]

Actually it can. Just not in human languages. And animals don't have that many reasons not have sex, but I don't think it is uncommon for an animal to refuse invitation for sex.

[quote name='ergosum']ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE SEX FOR THE PURE PURPOSE OF PLEASURE![/quote]

No, this is wrong. Sometimes animals do have sex for pleasure. This behavior can be seen at least in dolphins and some monkies.

Also, some animals have sex for social reasons. To strenghten relationships, for their struggles for power, etc. Some males play the role of a female so that the alpha male would let it stay in the herd (so these two males will have sex). Animals have sex for more reasons than just procreation.

[quote]A Human is NOT constrained by the natural evolutionary pressure to pro-create BECAUSE WE CHOOSE![/quote]

We choose the thing what we want to choose. We can't choose what we desire (want). Can you choose not have any sexual feelings? Not to fall in love? Not to feel hungry? You are not as free as you'd like to believe.

[quote]Animals function on instinctual patterns of their intrinsic motivations and the environment[/quote]

Actually the smartest animals have the intelligence of a human child (around six years of age). Just wanted to point that out.