Yes. If by “breed” you mean commit to raising families with every woman he lusts after.Londoner:
It is possible for a man to prefer a monogamous relationship to a polygamous one and still want to have sex with many women.
It is possible for a man to want to have sex with many women and yet not want to breed with them all.
No, by breed I mean have offspring.
Don’t tell me which posts I can respond to
Well, it was mentioned in post #13.
Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Piety, the duty to give gratitude to God, follows from justice.
Therefore, all have a duty to respect the religious duty/freedom of others in all reasonable pious activities.
It is an individual person’s burden if they choose to be offended by what another person thinks, and this stems from that own person’s insecurities and pride. It is not your ethical duty to make nobody offended.
What were they doing that you categorize as sexual activities? Like laying on the grass and licking their paws? What exactly these female to female sex in animals that you observe?
The farmer will go bankrupt if the males prefer males and females prefer females. Animals in the wild will extict very fast toofrancisca.chapter3:
Not true. It is observed in the wild. It is even observed in domesticated livestock (especially sheep) where the males are positively encouraged to mate with females.
From the above purposes you mentioned we can tell that it is not sex. It is social bonding and everything else but sex
The “sauce” cannot exist without the main course. If we serve the sauce as the main course it becomes unhealthy/ impossible meal. Souce as main course is not a meal. It has no purpose neither relevance.francisca.chapter3:
A biological process may serve more than one purpose. Humans (and some other species), for example, commonly have sexual intercourse during pregnancy when the likelihood of the female becoming pregnant again is negligible. It is argued that the benefit of this is bonding the couple and ensuring that the male stays with the female to help care for the offspring instead of breeding with other females.
Well at least you agree on this one
A sheep biologically is designed to eat grass. Suddenly this sheep decides it is no longer a grass eater. The sheep decide to “come out” as a carnivore. So it begins to try to catch the flies fly by or mice or anything it can catch. But it turns out all the things it does is not exactly a carnivore behavior. It can only mimic a carnivore because biologically its impossible for a sheep to consume meat.
Humans are mamals
Thank you, I think. And you are correct; I am not one in a million . I am one in over 100 billion ; as are you.
So, you are able to distinguish between persons and acts? I could not agree more and will go so far as to say many people are willfully blind on this issue.Thank you, I think. And you are correct; I am not one in a million . I am one in over 100 billion ; as are you.
The argument seems to be straying from the OP’s question: Do one’s religious freedom rights supersede the other’s right to non-discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity?
The full answer, it seems to me, is manifold.
May Religious People (RP) who reject as normal persons who are Homosexually Active (HA) deny HA’s products or services that would facilitate, celebrate, advertise, or promote HA? Yes.
May RP’s deny products or services that would not facilitate, celebrate, advertise, or promote HA? No.
May HA’s require RP’s to provide products or service that facilitate, celebrate, advertise, or promote homosexual acts? No.
May HA’s require RP’s to provide products or service that would not facilitate, celebrate, advertise, or promote homosexual acts? Yes.
God created science so I don’t see the issue
This is a hypothetical question, but yes, the religious beliefs of the parents should take priority. A lot of public schools see sex-ed as settled science; parents should (and do, in my mind) have the right (and responsibility) to protect their children from this “science”.
And in addition, a believing human being presupposes a living human being.francisca.chapter3:
This is a hypothetical question, but yes, the religious beliefs of the parents should take priority. A lot of public schools see sex-ed as settled science; parents should (and do, in my mind) have the right (and responsibility) to protect their children from this “science”.
Without the right to believe as we wish, we have no other rights.
Female bonobos rub their clitorises together. In humans this is called tribadism.
That’s my point. You suggested that homosexuality between non-humans occurred only where animals of the opposite sex were not available. I was pointing out that it is seen in livestock where the raison d’être for mature males is to breed with females. They are not deprived of females; they are encouraged to breed with them. I didn’t say that all wild animals are homosexual! I said that many animals have sexual activity with animals of the same sex, while a small number have exclusively homosexual activity. For the species to become extinct, all members of the species would have to be engaged in exclusively same-sex activity. You also overlook the fact that in many species not all males are able to breed all the time. In many species one dominant male establishes the right to breed with all the females in a group, meaning that many males are at least temporarily superfluous for breeding purposes.
They use sexual activity for these purposes. If you take the example of tribadism in bonobos, that is sexual activity that serves a purpose other than breeding.
I’m not sure where you’re going with this argument. You are rejecting the facts. Of course, the primary evolutionary reason for the development of male and female genitals is to enable animals to reproduce sexually. The basic function of sexual intercourse is to facilitate the bringing together of a sperm cell and an egg. Nobody denies that. What I am saying is that that is not the sole function of sex. The clitoris is present in all mammals and some other species. In most species the clitoris primarily produces sexual pleasure (in some species it may also contain the birth canal or urethra). Your analogy about the sauce and the main course doesn’t take us anywhere. You are wilfully ignoring the fact that sex is as much about pleasure and emotion as it is about achieving reproduction. It is not an accident that people enjoy having sex even when it doesn’t result in pregnancy.
I was thinking about a study conducted with rats. For three days they were fed a diet that was nutritionally adequate, but which involved using the same foods over and over. After three days a different food was offered in addition to the food with which they were familiar. The rats preferred the new food. It provided no additional nutritional benefit. Rats enjoy a varied diet not for nutritional reasons but simply because they enjoy variety and satisfying their curiosity.
Not all religions believe in God.francisca.chapter3:
God created science so I don’t see the issue
What do you see as the essential difference between the two?
I believe the poster meant that God created the universe, so the laws of nature flow from His act of creation, therefore nothing in creation goes against God. There is no conflict between faith and science, nor faith and reason. To the extent that another religion may pursue truth it will not find conflict with science.
I think you will find that many, even on this forum, have what they insist are Catholic beliefs that are in direct conflict with science. Just pop over to any thread discussing evolution and you will find enough science deniers to keep you occupied for quite some time.Wozza:
I believe the poster meant that God created the universe, so the laws of nature flow from His act of creation, therefore nothing in creation goes against God. There is no conflict between faith and science, nor faith and reason. To the extent that another religion may pursue truth it will not find conflict with science.