Because you use the word "design" as an absolute. I am challenging you on the absolute.. Listen, most discussions of sexual intercourse from a clinical perspective, outside the homo/hetero context will tell you this. Why does it not apply in this context?
And I have already demonstrated how neither of these things apply.The biological component is procreation+anatomy.
mac... again, we are talking about behavior, behavior that can be done by anyone in any context. You cannot make a direct correlation, here, which is why this part of your argument doesn't apply.I didn't say it is exclusive to homosexuals. What I said was that is was dangerous, and it seems less natural as a primary method of sexual activity than vaginal intercourse. To me That could be a reason to lean toward heterosexuality.
No, I'm pretty sure I do. I've read nearly every post you've made on this topic in this and the other thread. When you discuss that your objections to homosexuality are moral/religious, I have no argument with you. In fact, I have a lot of respect for you saying that. But when you attempt to present that or other aspects of the argument in a logical sense, though I understand what you are doing, not only do I disagee, but I can demonstrate how/why you are wrong. If I were you, I'd stick to the moral/religious position.I don't think you do understand, to be honest, but thank you for being gracious.