I'm beginning to suspect Wiglaf might be on something.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
I think if he's not careful the mods are going to kick him in the arse so hard his pancreas will be giving foot massages!"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
Boris:
So infertile couples are wrong to have sex?
We can deduce then, BK, that in order to avoid hypocrisy on your part (heaven forbid), after you've gotten married, you won't have sex with your wife except for attempts to produce children?Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
Wiglaf's dilemma presumes that both men and the woman are fertile.
Why not simply make the two equivalent, in allowing all sex to have the possibility of children? That doesn't seem repulsive to me.
I think I'd like to hear your fundamental argument though as to why sex and love should only go hand in hand, and why (as far as they are concerned generally, not consequentially) it is necessarily superior to abstain otherwise?"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
Whaleboy:
I would suggest that sex for the purposes of love is more important than sex for the purposes of having children,
and to be utilitarian about it, you’d gain more personal utility by doing so.
Kant is useless when it comes to other people’s bedrooms… there must have been something in the waters of Konnigsberg. That is why your most straight-laced married heterosexual couple will usually have sex even though children are not the aim.
Giving another pleasure is a wonderful way to show how you feel about someone.
A modification of that would be if the gay man consents and the woman consents. Does that justify him cheating on his love?
As a general rule I feel a little off-put by your frequent application of your personal morality as a universal maxim regarding sex.
How is this presupposition any less valid than your own, that sex has the primary goal for love, and not for procreation?Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
I think I'd like to hear your fundamental argument though as to why sex and love should only go hand in hand, and why (as far as they are concerned generally, not consequentially) it is necessarily superior to abstain otherwise?
Japher has spoken, and thus it is law.
Comment
-
I dont want to speak for Boris but it seems the reasoning applies to couples who cannot, for whatever reason, have kids.
What if you want sex for physical pleasure? What is necessarily inferior with that to sex with the possibility of procreation (the difference of course being use of contraception)?
I think I'd like to hear your fundamental argument though as to why sex and love should only go hand in hand, and why (as far as they are concerned generally, not consequentially) it is necessarily superior to abstain otherwise?
Over time, this stickiness will wear off if you keep attaching and pulling the tape off your skin. Eventually, you will not be able to attach yourself to someone in the same way as you did at first. The intimacy will not be there.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
As for Obi Gyn's tortured attempt to impose his 16th century Puritan christian morality on us, well- here's to him getting any, and then perhaps giving the sex threads a rest for about an aeon or two.
Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Japher
I'm beginning to suspect Wiglaf might be on something.Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok
Comment
-
Why should one be any more important than the other? I think they are both important, and one should not take precedence over the other.
Only if you presumed this first presupposition to be true.
but what ought to be done. Is/ought and all.
True. However I would argue that holding something back deprives you of pleasure.
I agree with you on this, however I also believe that sexual preferences are not fixed.
and that to separate one aspect from the other deminishes the pleasure enjoyed by both.
How is this presupposition any less valid than your own, that sex has the primary goal for love, and not for procreation?"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
Excellent point. You are always holding something back in contraception, in saying that you want to have sex with someone, yet you do not trust them enough to have children with them.
I heard a good argument myself, written by Jay Budizewski, that a good friend showed me some time ago. He used the analogy of duct tape. When you have sex with someone, you invariably form a bond like duct tape sticks to skin. It hurts when you pull that duct tape off.
Over time, this stickiness will wear off if you keep attaching and pulling the tape off your skin. Eventually, you will not be able to attach yourself to someone in the same way as you did at first. The intimacy will not be there."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
...as a general rule BK, I think you should question these "old wives tales" a little more, analogy and metaphors are nothing without reasoning to back it, so it is subject to the same critical analysis."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
Comment