Is homosexuality harmful?

Discussion for Christian perspectives on ethical issues such as abortion, euthanasia, sexuality, and so forth.
User avatar
Storyteller
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:54 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

Postby Storyteller » Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:06 pm

Audacity wrote:
Storyteller wrote:
Audacity wrote:
Storyteller wrote:Another function for the female orgasm, I believe, is to aid the sperm on their journey, the contractions help apparently.

Believe what you like, but having looked into just this aspect of the female orgasm, I've found that it has an almost negligible effect. I invite you to Google the subject.

Audacity... forgive me if this comes across as obtuse but I am genuinely curious, you really think homosexuality is natural? I define it as unnatural, purely because if the human race was homosexual, we'd soon be extinct.

I think it's as natural as is left-handedness. As for the possibility of the whole human race becoming homosexual and leading to the extinction of our species, this is most likely true. Just as if the everyone started eating one another our population would plummet. However, people aren't eating one another, and the whole human race isn't homosexual. Most studies on homosexuality put its frequency at 1.6% - 3% of the population, leaving no chance the race would go extinct because of its few homosexuals.

To answer your question about attraction, no you don't "choose" who you fall in love with but that doesn't make it right.

Not right in what context? That it's a sin? That it offends your sensibilities?

What about paedophiles? I saw a heartbreaking film a while ago, a 22 year old guy who opted for chemical castration because he had sexual feelings for his six year old niece, he told his family, doctor and sought help. He didn't give in to his urges, could the same point not be argued for homosexuals?

What point? That homosexuals who care for, perhaps love one another should get castrated so to prevent them from physically enjoying each other? What purpose would be served?

As for why we women have a clitoris, sure, for pleasure. We, I believe, are the only species to have sex for fun, for pleasure.

You're mistaken. It's been shown that other animals do indeed have sex for pleasure.


I did say I believe, not I know, I stand corrected about the female orgasm, and being the only creature ti have sex for pleasure.

Don't know which of your "believes" you feel I took as knowing. Want to point it out?

Re the homosexuality... You misunderstand what I'm driving at, what I mean is here was a guy who did everything he could to not act on his urges because they are wrong. I assume we all agree his actions would be wrong.

The arraction thing was aimed more at things like paedophillia, not homosexuality. Homosexuals don't offend me, not much does tbh, bigotry, prejudice and intolerance do but I like to think im none of those things.

But you said "could the same point not be argued for homosexuals?" So, it appears to me that the "attraction thing" is indeed aimed at homosexuality.

Audacity, my brother is openly gay, I love him. He has been with his boyfriend for over twenty years, I love him too. I defend his right to love whoever he wants but even he views his sexuality as "different" I am NOT putting down or belitting homosexuals, anymore than I would an atheist just because our views differ.
Please dont assume that because I am a Christian I judge anyone. The only person I judge is myself.

Nah. Right here you've judged my reaction to your post as putting down or belittling homosexuals. Everyone judges others, and being a Christian doesn't free them of it. Yourself included.


My belief, apparently mistaken, that female orgasm aids the sperm.

I have never said homosexuality is wrong, just unusual.

And I didnt take your response as putting down or belittling homosexuals.

Audacity, I have been judged my whole life, I fought against God, Christ so hard, so long, not daring to believe, I needed proof, I do not have faith in God lightly. For you to tell me I judge hurts. I am insecure, needy and trust me, I know sin intimately. Judge someone for loving someone? No. Judge you? No, I'm interested in your pov and I am always willing to change mine.
Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof - Kahlil Gibran

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8855
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

Postby Kurieuo » Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:33 pm

Audacity wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Substitute "spiritual" with "psyche" if you prefer. Unless you don't believe in a psyche. In fact, are "we" really having this conversation? Is there even a conversation being had if a real "you" and a real "I" don't exist... y:-?

Why would I want to redefine a word you use so I could agree with your statement? No, your statement has to stand or fall on the words you use.


Audacity, for someone who doesn't think they really exist and make real choices, you seem awfully passionate and set to disagree at all cost. I won't entertain such foolishness further, since it's evident you aren't interested in reason or discussion. I'd again request you self-examine why you're really here.

Note: in fact after read STs post to you, and in reflection upon some complaints made, I won't have you at this board if you will continue to cause aggitation rather than befriend. You are upsetting other posters here who are trying to have a civil discussion with you despite your apparent contempt of us. We've been very patient, consider this a last warning.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
Audacity
BANNED
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:49 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

Postby Audacity » Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:49 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:Humans don't go through "heat" like animals do nor do human males have a "bone" in their penis like other mammals.
As such, pleasure and stimulation are crucial for there to be an actual sex act to begin with.
The fact that sex is very pleasurable to BOTH simply means that there is motivation to have sex, ie: procreate.

And as I pointed out in a post on 12/21

.....3) Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.

.....4) Therefore it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.

User avatar
Audacity
BANNED
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:49 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

Postby Audacity » Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:58 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Audacity wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Substitute "spiritual" with "psyche" if you prefer. Unless you don't believe in a psyche. In fact, are "we" really having this conversation? Is there even a conversation being had if a real "you" and a real "I" don't exist... y:-?

Why would I want to redefine a word you use so I could agree with your statement? No, your statement has to stand or fall on the words you use.


Audacity, for someone who doesn't think they really exist and make real choices, you seem awfully passionate and set to disagree at all cost. I won't entertain such foolishness further, since it's evident you aren't interested in reason or discussion. I'd again request you self-examine why you're really here.

Note: in fact after read STs post to you, and in reflection upon some complaints made, I won't have you at this board if you will continue to cause aggitation rather than befriend.

I'm sorry if someone has taken offense at a reasonable comment I've made about their post. However, if I've made an unreasonable comment to anyone here on any topic I would appreciate knowing about it. I've always tried to be honest and constructive in everything I've posted, and without being mean or antagonistic about it. That someone may be agitated by what I say is unfortunate, but it's certainly not my aim. My suspicion is that what I've said might have been simply too challenging to their position or beliefs. But if that's one of the caveats of posting here: Don't challenge anyone too much, then I'm certainly not the only guilty poster here. I couldn't count the number of times I've jumped on by members over a particular point I've made, and jumped on at the same time. However, I recognize this is part of interesting discussions, and wouldn't think of complaining about it.

You are upsetting other posters here who are trying to have a civil discussion with you despite your apparent contempt of us. We've been very patient, consider this a last warning.

Are you suggesting that what I've said hasn't been done civilly? If so I would appreciate your examples. And please don't mistake disagreement for contempt. I have absolutely no contempt for anyone here. Again, it would be helpful to have an example of any seeming comment I've made that's prompted you to raise the issue.

And just to put my apparent contempt and lack of civility for others in perspective, simply consider what
Jac3510 Image has said about me in this thread. He's called me a "first grader" and "ignorant, and implies I'm a fool and don't know what I'm talking about.

....."The point is that Audacity, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a first grader trying to lecture on .....Calculus."

....."He foolishly and ignorantly thinks it has something to do with. . . ."

And in the thread on free will he calls me obtuse

..... "What Audacity is simply too obtuse to see--"

Don't know what I'm talking about
A first grader
Foolish
Ignorant
Obtuse

All ad hominem arguments. And is this really acceptable treatment of a fellow member? I wouldn't think so, which is why I don't stoop to name calling.

Now, I couldn't care less what Jac3510 thinks of me, but expressing these less than admirable judgements my well color how others regard my posts. And, while I haven't complained, neither have I seen him rebuked for posting them. I would hate to think there's any kind of New Poster Vs Old Poster bias going on here, but it does give me pause to wonder how fairly I'm being treated.

Just as an aside, I note that this is a "last warning," which implies your normal operating procedure is to give prior warnings or at least to tell someone they've committed an infraction. Evidently I'm an exception. Any reason?
Last edited by Audacity on Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:13 pm, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
jenna
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:36 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

Postby jenna » Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:14 am

Audacity wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Humans don't go through "heat" like animals do nor do human males have a "bone" in their penis like other mammals.
As such, pleasure and stimulation are crucial for there to be an actual sex act to begin with.
The fact that sex is very pleasurable to BOTH simply means that there is motivation to have sex, ie: procreate.

And as I pointed out in a post on 12/21

.....3) Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.

.....4) Therefore it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.

i do believe that when they said it is pleasurable to both, they meant consensual sex, not forcible rape. procreation is not rape
some things are better left unsaid, which i generally realize after i have said them

User avatar
Storyteller
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:54 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

Postby Storyteller » Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:34 am

Audacity wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Audacity wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Substitute "spiritual" with "psyche" if you prefer. Unless you don't believe in a psyche. In fact, are "we" really having this conversation? Is there even a conversation being had if a real "you" and a real "I" don't exist... y:-?

Why would I want to redefine a word you use so I could agree with your statement? No, your statement has to stand or fall on the words you use.


Audacity, for someone who doesn't think they really exist and make real choices, you seem awfully passionate and set to disagree at all cost. I won't entertain such foolishness further, since it's evident you aren't interested in reason or discussion. I'd again request you self-examine why you're really here.

Note: in fact after read STs post to you, and in reflection upon some complaints made, I won't have you at this board if you will continue to cause aggitation rather than befriend.

I'm sorry if someone has taken offense at a reasonable comment I've made about their post. However, if I've made an unreasonable comment to anyone here on any topic I would appreciate knowing about it. I've always tried to be honest and constructive in everything I've posted, and without being mean about it. That someone may be agitated by what I may say is unfortunate, but it's certainly not my aim. My suspicion is that what I've said might have been simply too challenging to their position or beliefs. But if that's one of the caveats of posting here: Don't challenge anyone too much, then I'm certainly not the only guilty poster here. I couldn't count the number of times I've jumped on by several members over a particular point I've made, and jumped on at the same time. However, I recognize this is part of an interesting discussion, and welcome being challenged.

You are upsetting other posters here who are trying to have a civil discussion with you despite your apparent contempt of us. We've been very patient, consider this a last warning.

Are you suggesting that what I've said hasn't been done civilly? If so I would appreciate your examples. And please don't mistake disagreement for contempt. I have absolutely no contempt for anyone here. Again, it would be helpful to have an example of any seeming comment I've made that's prompted you to raise the issue.

Just as an aside, I note that this is a "last warning," which implies your normal operating procedure is to give prior warnings or at least to tell someone they've committed an infraction. Evidently I'm an exception. Why should this be?

No complaint has been made by me. If I had a problem with your post Audacity, I would tell you. As for challenging my beliefs, please do. We are told to test our faith and I am secure in mine. I am all for a constructive debate, I was just hurt that you seem to think I was judging, which is why I said so.
I have no problem with holding differing views and I am genuinely interested in why people believe what they do, inbcluding myself. I'm still, even now, finding my way and figuring it out. I don't have all the answers, and am open to the idea of being wrong. Audacity, if you knew me at all, you'd know this. Instead I got the impression you presumed you knew my feelings and rightly or wrongly your post could be construed as condescending. I don't take offence easily but being unfairly judged does get to me.
I actually like a lot of your posts, you're a smart guy but you do sometimes come across as somehow superior or mocking. Believing in God and Christ doesn't make us fools anymore than your non belief makes you a genius.

So re "Is homosexuality harmful?" Depends who, or what to.
Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof - Kahlil Gibran

User avatar
Storyteller
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:54 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

Postby Storyteller » Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:47 am

Audacity wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Humans don't go through "heat" like animals do nor do human males have a "bone" in their penis like other mammals.
As such, pleasure and stimulation are crucial for there to be an actual sex act to begin with.
The fact that sex is very pleasurable to BOTH simply means that there is motivation to have sex, ie: procreate.

And as I pointed out in a post on 12/21

.....3) Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.

.....4) Therefore it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.


Without the plesaure we get from sex what would urge us to procreate? As Paul says animals come into heat so the female "consents" but even then there is often a courtship of kinds.
You can't say because we are generally incapable of fighting off a determined male that it nulifies the need for pleasure as that isn't how it works. I've been raped and if that had been my only experience of sex I would have never of had my daughter. Forceful, non consensual sex wouldn't aid procreation.
Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof - Kahlil Gibran

Hortator
Senior Member
Posts: 655
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 5:00 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ohio

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

Postby Hortator » Sat Dec 24, 2016 11:03 am

♫♪♫♪Banta Claus is coming to town~♫♪♫♪

:fruitcake:

User avatar
Audacity
BANNED
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:49 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

Postby Audacity » Sat Dec 24, 2016 1:22 pm

jenna wrote:
Audacity wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Humans don't go through "heat" like animals do nor do human males have a "bone" in their penis like other mammals.
As such, pleasure and stimulation are crucial for there to be an actual sex act to begin with.
The fact that sex is very pleasurable to BOTH simply means that there is motivation to have sex, ie: procreate.

And as I pointed out in a post on 12/21

.....3) Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.

.....4) Therefore it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.

i do believe that when they said it is pleasurable to both, they meant consensual sex, not forcible rape. procreation is not rape

Gotta keep it in its context.

Kurieuo wrote:
"What is the natural function of sexes? What driving natural goal does such fulfil? Anything other, is unnatural -- male-male, female-female, human-sheep, dog-cat."

To which I replied:

Off hand question: Assuming the following:

.....1) Your suggestion (claim?) that the sole function of our sexual organs is for reproduction.

.....2) Aside from a desire to reproduce, men are driven to having sexual intercourse by the sexual pleasure they derive
........from it.

.....3) Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.

.....4) Therefore it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.

QUESTION: Why then did god give women a clitoris, whose sole function is to provide sexual pleasure?

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18101
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

Postby RickD » Sat Dec 24, 2016 1:28 pm

Audacity wrote:

QUESTION: Why then did god give women a clitoris, whose sole function is to provide sexual pleasure?


Maybe He had to. He had no choice, right?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
jenna
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:36 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

Postby jenna » Sat Dec 24, 2016 1:47 pm

Audacity wrote:
jenna wrote:
Audacity wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Humans don't go through "heat" like animals do nor do human males have a "bone" in their penis like other mammals.
As such, pleasure and stimulation are crucial for there to be an actual sex act to begin with.
The fact that sex is very pleasurable to BOTH simply means that there is motivation to have sex, ie: procreate.

And as I pointed out in a post on 12/21

.....3) Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.

.....4) Therefore it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.

i do believe that when they said it is pleasurable to both, they meant consensual sex, not forcible rape. procreation is not rape

Gotta keep it in its context.

Kurieuo wrote:
"What is the natural function of sexes? What driving natural goal does such fulfil? Anything other, is unnatural -- male-male, female-female, human-sheep, dog-cat."

To which I replied:

Off hand question: Assuming the following:

.....1) Your suggestion (claim?) that the sole function of our sexual organs is for reproduction.

.....2) Aside from a desire to reproduce, men are driven to having sexual intercourse by the sexual pleasure they derive
........from it.

.....3) Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.

.....4) Therefore it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.

QUESTION: Why then did god give women a clitoris, whose sole function is to provide sexual pleasure?

I am keeping in context with what YOU posted above. #3 and #4 is talking about when a man rapes a woman who is unwilling. that is not procreation.
some things are better left unsaid, which i generally realize after i have said them

User avatar
Audacity
BANNED
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:49 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

Postby Audacity » Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:52 pm

Storyteller wrote:
Audacity wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Audacity wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Substitute "spiritual" with "psyche" if you prefer. Unless you don't believe in a psyche. In fact, are "we" really having this conversation? Is there even a conversation being had if a real "you" and a real "I" don't exist... y:-?

Why would I want to redefine a word you use so I could agree with your statement? No, your statement has to stand or fall on the words you use.


Audacity, for someone who doesn't think they really exist and make real choices, you seem awfully passionate and set to disagree at all cost. I won't entertain such foolishness further, since it's evident you aren't interested in reason or discussion. I'd again request you self-examine why you're really here.

Note: in fact after read STs post to you, and in reflection upon some complaints made, I won't have you at this board if you will continue to cause aggitation rather than befriend.

I'm sorry if someone has taken offense at a reasonable comment I've made about their post. However, if I've made an unreasonable comment to anyone here on any topic I would appreciate knowing about it. I've always tried to be honest and constructive in everything I've posted, and without being mean about it. That someone may be agitated by what I may say is unfortunate, but it's certainly not my aim. My suspicion is that what I've said might have been simply too challenging to their position or beliefs. But if that's one of the caveats of posting here: Don't challenge anyone too much, then I'm certainly not the only guilty poster here. I couldn't count the number of times I've jumped on by several members over a particular point I've made, and jumped on at the same time. However, I recognize this is part of an interesting discussion, and welcome being challenged.

You are upsetting other posters here who are trying to have a civil discussion with you despite your apparent contempt of us. We've been very patient, consider this a last warning.

Are you suggesting that what I've said hasn't been done civilly? If so I would appreciate your examples. And please don't mistake disagreement for contempt. I have absolutely no contempt for anyone here. Again, it would be helpful to have an example of any seeming comment I've made that's prompted you to raise the issue.

Just as an aside, I note that this is a "last warning," which implies your normal operating procedure is to give prior warnings or at least to tell someone they've committed an infraction. Evidently I'm an exception. Why should this be?

No complaint has been made by me. If I had a problem with your post Audacity, I would tell you.

And I believe you would. Evidently Kurieuo is second guessing you, or . . . . . . . . . ?

I don't have all the answers, and am open to the idea of being wrong. Audacity, if you knew me at all, you'd know this. Instead I got the impression you presumed you knew my feelings and rightly or wrongly your post could be construed as condescending. I don't take offence easily but being unfairly judged does get to me.

I was simply pointing out what I believe is a mistaken notion of the character of judgement. You said that you don't judge others except for yourself, and I simply gave an example of you doing just that: judging others, ME.
As I said " Right here [meaning what you just posted] you've judged my reaction to your post as putting down or belittling homosexuals. Now, if this isn't a fair assessment of what you did, perhaps you could explain what kind of comment it is when one says:

....."Please dont assume that because I am a Christian I judge anyone."

If it isn't a judgement that: I assume that because you're a Christian you judge anyone?

You're judging that what I've said is an assumption.


I actually like a lot of your posts, you're a smart guy but you do sometimes come across as somehow superior or mocking. Believing in God and Christ doesn't make us fools anymore than your non belief makes you a genius.

I certainly don't mean to mock anyone. All I do is present my side of a discussion, which, because it may not be coming from a Christian standpoint, may very well conflict with a Christian perspective or belief. All I can ask is that no one take what I say as mocking them or their religion.

User avatar
Audacity
BANNED
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:49 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

Postby Audacity » Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:54 pm

jenna wrote:
Audacity wrote:
jenna wrote:
Audacity wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Humans don't go through "heat" like animals do nor do human males have a "bone" in their penis like other mammals.
As such, pleasure and stimulation are crucial for there to be an actual sex act to begin with.
The fact that sex is very pleasurable to BOTH simply means that there is motivation to have sex, ie: procreate.

And as I pointed out in a post on 12/21

.....3) Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.

.....4) Therefore it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.

i do believe that when they said it is pleasurable to both, they meant consensual sex, not forcible rape. procreation is not rape

Gotta keep it in its context.

Kurieuo wrote:
"What is the natural function of sexes? What driving natural goal does such fulfil? Anything other, is unnatural -- male-male, female-female, human-sheep, dog-cat."

To which I replied:

Off hand question: Assuming the following:

.....1) Your suggestion (claim?) that the sole function of our sexual organs is for reproduction.

.....2) Aside from a desire to reproduce, men are driven to having sexual intercourse by the sexual pleasure they derive
........from it.

.....3) Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.

.....4) Therefore it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.

QUESTION: Why then did god give women a clitoris, whose sole function is to provide sexual pleasure?

I am keeping in context with what YOU posted above. #3 and #4 is talking about when a man rapes a woman who is unwilling. that is not procreation.

Because I don't know how to put it any clearer, I'm going to have to give up.

Have a nice day

User avatar
jenna
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:36 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

Postby jenna » Sat Dec 24, 2016 3:07 pm

Audacity wrote:
jenna wrote:
Audacity wrote:
jenna wrote:
Audacity wrote:And as I pointed out in a post on 12/21

.....3) Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.

.....4) Therefore it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.

i do believe that when they said it is pleasurable to both, they meant consensual sex, not forcible rape. procreation is not rape

Gotta keep it in its context.

Kurieuo wrote:
"What is the natural function of sexes? What driving natural goal does such fulfil? Anything other, is unnatural -- male-male, female-female, human-sheep, dog-cat."

To which I replied:

Off hand question: Assuming the following:

.....1) Your suggestion (claim?) that the sole function of our sexual organs is for reproduction.

.....2) Aside from a desire to reproduce, men are driven to having sexual intercourse by the sexual pleasure they derive
........from it.

.....3) Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.

.....4) Therefore it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.

QUESTION: Why then did god give women a clitoris, whose sole function is to provide sexual pleasure?

I am keeping in context with what YOU posted above. #3 and #4 is talking about when a man rapes a woman who is unwilling. that is not procreation.

Because I don't know how to put it any clearer, I'm going to have to give up.

Have a nice day

:poke:
some things are better left unsaid, which i generally realize after i have said them

User avatar
Audacity
BANNED
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:49 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

Postby Audacity » Sat Dec 24, 2016 3:31 pm

Storyteller wrote:
Audacity wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Humans don't go through "heat" like animals do nor do human males have a "bone" in their penis like other mammals.
As such, pleasure and stimulation are crucial for there to be an actual sex act to begin with.
The fact that sex is very pleasurable to BOTH simply means that there is motivation to have sex, ie: procreate.

And as I pointed out in a post on 12/21

.....3) Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.

.....4) Therefore it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.


Without the plesaure we get from sex what would urge us to procreate?

Gotta go back to their original context.

Assuming:
that the sole function of our sexual organs is for reproduction.

And assuming: Aside from a desire to reproduce, men are driven to having sexual intercourse by the sexual pleasure they derive from it.

And assuming: Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.

THEREFORE it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.


Hence my question: Why then did god give women a clitoris, whose sole function is to provide sexual pleasure?


As Paul says animals come into heat so the female "consents" but even then there is often a courtship of kinds.

So what? Human females don't go into heat. Humans have menstrual cycles rather than estrous cycles.

You can't say because we are generally incapable of fighting off a determined male that it nulifies the need for pleasure as that isn't how it works.

Of course it doesn't. But my point is that it doesn't need to. Ever hear of rape with consequential pregnancy? It happens. Women can and do get pregnant without wanting to have intercourse. If women were never endowed with a clitoris or even any sex drive or pleasure they would still be getting pregnant.

I've been raped and if that had been my only experience of sex I would have never of had my daughter. Forceful, non consensual sex wouldn't aid procreation.

Not sure what you have in mind by "aid," but forceful, non consensual sex can certainly lead to procreation.


Return to “Moral and Ethical Affairs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests