It seems inconsistent to me that you elevate us as a species when it suits you then imply that we are just like other species when it suits you. Did your god create us or not? If so, stop comparing us to apes ( or whatever lower life form you would like plug in here)
I don't think comparison of human sexuality to those of other species really makes a lot of sense.
The body, and even the mind, to a certain extent, are biological machines. They are ultimately nothing more, and nothing less. They work according to their function and towards their purpose, as any other machine does.
In this regard, we are no different than any other organism on this planet. We live, reproduce, die, and the cycle repeats itself again with our offspring ad infinitum.
If we are "special" at all, it would be with regard to the soul, which is a factor difficult to quantify in the first place.
Not in the least. The penis (unless the man in question has some medical condition) always shoots fluid chock full of reproductive cells at climax regardless of the context in which sex takes place. Likewise, women are pretty much always more likely to seek out sexual activity at the times of their menstrual cycle when they are most likely to conceive, and the vagina is also lubricated with fluids specifically adapted to facilitate the passage of male reproductive cells regardless of a woman's time of the month.
As I already pointed out, the instinctual side of physical attraction tends to be rather heavily skewed towards reproductive ends as well.
The reproductive element of human sexuality is basically omnipresent. This is true regardless of whether we choose to actively acknowledge it or not.
If you can do this please take a step back for minute and look at this more objectively. So much of what you see as a "logical" or obvious conclusion is based on the first fundamental belief you've formed about the existence of a creator. Everything you say here only makes sense if there some an intelligent guiding force behind it. Without that it falls apart.
The fact of the matter is that our species - and life in general, for that matter - only exists at all because of the principles I have set forward. Just because people want to pretend like they don't exist all of the sudden doesn't make this reality any less valid.
You can attribute that to "God" or you can attribute it to simple chance, but the fact that nature
does seem to be naturally inclined to drive towards certain ends is basically undeniable.
Every organism on this planet seeks both its own survival, and (on a subconscious level) the survival of its lineage.
The regardless part of your response makes me think you have dismissed my point. It's not a sign to anyone other than the person looking for the evidence to support what it is that they want to believe in
Would you argue that color blindness or dwarfism were not signs of something going "awry" on either a genetic or developmental level?
Biology is a messy and imperfect medium. It is far from "foolproof." For that exact reason, it sometimes screws up.
I really don't see how anyone could try to deny that. :shrug:
If they don't consider it "harmful" why do we need to cure them? Because YOU think it's harmful? That sounds like a pretty dangerous precedent. BTW, I consider your faith a lot more dangerous, should we seek to cure you of it? Of whatever part of you draws you to it?
You could certainly make the attempt, I suppose, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone actually tried it at some point in the future.
We are off the chart now, I'm afraid. "There be monsters" here.
However, even if you were to attempt such a thing, it wouldn't necessarily be the same as what I have suggested. Unlike homosexuality, religious devotion (or at least inclination) is the norm, not the exception.
You would be altering the fundamental nature of humanity, not bringing certain off-shoots and anomalies back in line with the rest of the group.
Wow, now you're just scaring me.
:shrug: It's true.
Societies with a greater degree of homogeneity tend to function more efficiently than societies with a large degree of "diversity." Homosexuals also routinely fail to accomplish certain human biological imperatives.
Homosexuality, as a personal trait, really does not serve any useful purpose.
Like most people you're most likely remember your interpretation of what I said. As I recall, my point was that I could understand why a person of sane mind would feel like taking their life was the best course of action for them and that I could understand also how some who've led a painful life that has left them utterly depleted and damaged may feel like the pain they've endured and see themselves being forced to continue to endure may now be a life they wish to have lived had they a choice.
As I recall, it was a point you raised within the context of abortion, and why a woman might feel it is better to abort her unborn child rather than give it up for adoption or some other, similar, non-lethal alternative.
Again, within that context, I really don't see how choosing to simply alter a child's character for the "greater good" is any less acceptable than denying them a chance at life outright for the same reason.
