(February 12, 2013 at 5:55 am)Zen Badger Wrote: For the moment I'll just address one part of your bullshit
I think you mean:
"As you managed to construct a good argument - supported by impartial references (seperate post) - as to why homosexual people should be chaste, I no longer wish to dispute it and instead I will now conveniently change the subject, whilst muttering erroneously about "bullshit"".
Isnt that right?
(February 12, 2013 at 5:55 am)Zen Badger Wrote: So by that reasoning my wife and I, who are both incapable of having children should refrain from sex because it produces no benefit to society?
No.
As per my post to darkstar above, heterosexual intercourse has two inherent aspects:
1) Unifying act of love between partrners
2) Possibility of procreation
Somone who is incapable of having kids is no more to blame for that, than someone who is gay or who has downs syndrome is to blame for their condition. (ie not to blame at all).
A heterosexual couple who have sex but cannot conceive are not defying/misusing their bodies - their sex is still "ordered" (Homosexuality is disordered). Additionally, even if procreation is difficult or impossible, there is still the unifying aspect of the sex. And note that even if considered "infertile", there is always the slight chance the the couple might conceive.
In contrast, homosexuality has neither of these 2 aspects mentioned above.
- it is not genuinely unifying, as their bodies are not physically compatible
- they cannot - and can never -procreate.
And note that, homsoxuality doesnt just "provide no social benefit" - it actively harms public health. Infertile heteorsexual sex does not harm public health.
There is no comparison whatsoever between an infertile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple.
Cheers
GS
