http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1p3vE6aOmA

Do you think it is foolish to suggest that only the combination of a penis and a vagina can produce a baby?

Do you think it is racist, or something like that, to suggest that heterosexual sex is more biologically correct because it can produce a child?

(March 29, 2013 at 12:48 am)jstrodel Wrote: Do you think it is foolish to suggest that only the combination of a penis and a vagina can produce a baby?

Absolutely. A turkey baster and some volunteer semen will allow two lesbians to do without the penis. A test tube makes both unnecessary, though I believe a womb is still needed.

(March 29, 2013 at 12:48 am)jstrodel Wrote: Do you think it is racist, or something like that, to suggest that heterosexual sex is more biologically correct because it can produce a child?

Yes. You are taking some basic mechanical information and making it the basis for a value judgment. Before science (and turkey basters) good ole' penis in vagina sex was the royal road to reproduction. But guess what, reproduction isn't the end all and be all of why people get together. My wife and I never intended to reproduce, haven't done so and never will. Does that make our relationship "less correct"? (Rhetorical question. Obviously we don't care what anyone else thinks.)

Seems to me that as soon as you accept that view of the nature of human life, you retreat from a conception of value derived from biology and move towards a relativist conception of value in which value is socially constructed rather than biologically discovered.

In my experience, this has been very painful for me. I think that life is meaningful.

(March 29, 2013 at 12:48 am)jstrodel Wrote: Do you think it is foolish to suggest that only the combination of a penis and a vagina can produce a baby?

Do you think it is racist, or something like that, to suggest that heterosexual sex is more biologically correct because it can produce a child?

dafuq!?

Didnt you understand the titel of the thread?

You are the prophet of strawmanship!

He's our new Pippy.

Every major forum has one..

(March 29, 2013 at 12:48 am)jstrodel Wrote: Do you think it is foolish to suggest that only the combination of a penis and a vagina can produce a baby?

Maybe about 100 years ago, you would have been right. As whateverist noted, artificial reproduction is an effective means of producing a baby and has been used effectively with humans for decades. In fact, there have been experiments to create babies by inserting donor DNA into an empty ovum and inserting that into someone else's uterus, which, potentially, would not even involve the penis and the vagina. Granted, it's never been done on humans and even in the animals, they still haven't worked the bugs out.
In short, regardless of the ethics of the procedure, it works.

Quote:Do you think it is racist, or something like that, to suggest that heterosexual sex is more biologically correct because it can produce a child?

First of all, define "biologically correct" and what the fuck relation it has with ethics.
And your query opens up another one: What is the moral difference between a man who is in a relationship with a woman who is unable to bear children (or vice versa), and two men or two women in a relationship. I ask this because, if your basis for homosexuality being wrong is that gay sex cannot bear children, that would mean heterosexual sex where one partner is infertile is equally wrong.
Finally, the term would not be racist, but "heterosexist."
Also, given that, whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, homosexuality has been repeatedly shown to have at least a partially (if not totally) biological basis, and you can check out some of the studies that demonstrate this here; wouldn't that make it, to a degree, "Biologically correct"?

Sex is good for you. Gay sex, straight sex, it's all burns lots of calories. It's the best form of exercise. Also, lesbian sex really helps me with my upper body strength, which has never been my strong suit. And my stamina, because lesbians can go on literally all day.

(March 29, 2013 at 12:17 pm)futilethewinds Wrote: Sex is good for you. Gay sex, straight sex, it's all burns lots of calories. It's the best form of exercise. Also, lesbian sex really helps me with my upper body strength, which has never been my strong suit. And my stamina, because lesbians can go on literally all day.

.. and while we men admittedly have a longer refractory period, when we do cum we can lose lots of weight that way. I estimate I probably lose half a pound of baby butter each time. At that rate I could reach my ideal weight inside a year.

(March 29, 2013 at 1:24 am)jstrodel Wrote: Seems to me that as soon as you accept that view of the nature of human life, you retreat from a conception of value derived from biology and move towards a relativist conception of value in which value is socially constructed rather than biologically discovered.

In my experience, this has been very painful for me. I think that life is meaningful.

Too bad you are such a wuss that you can't take the necessary pain like a man, and prefer instead to swill Christianity for the wishthinking stupor it induces.