Looks like you are just being obtuse to make other points about "sex" not being a traditional definition of sex. I think you are getting my drift, you may not agree with it, but it's a pretty simple statement of what normal is.
So normal in this case is the use of the equipment the way the equipment was designed to be used. Sure it's enjoyable to use the equipment in other ways as well, it may even be enjoyable to use the equipment with all sorts of other creatures, machines, etc., damn near anything, but that would not fit the definition of normal as I am using it.
Quote:
|
Not to mention the common sense reality that sex is much more motivated by: 1) the biological urge to experience pleasure; or 2) the emotional urge to express love than the aforementioned conscious urge to pro-create.
|
I actually don't necessarily agree with this statement. I might be convinced otherwise but I'm not sure how you can seperate such low-level biological urges so cleanly. You might even make a case (again I'm speculating) that individuals who do NOT respond to those low-level biological urges to procreate have a prediliction to be gay. Beats me, i'm speaking from ignorance here.
Quote:
|
Finally, you'd have to at least explore the notion that if homosexuals were evolutionary biologicial anomalies in the procreation sense, then you'd expect to see them less capable of procreating. And this, to the consternation of tut-tutting fundamentalists, is manifestly not the case.
|
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. I would expect that through history homosexuals did not procreate as much as heterosexuals. Again as per my above statement they may actually BE less emotionally capable of procreation. Not physically but because without a "sub-conscious" urge to pro-create they do not. I do not know the statistics but I would imagine that homosexuals do not procreate as much as heterosexuals.