The bonding aspect of sexual relations occurs regardless of whether genetic material is actually mingled into a fertilized egg. If bonding can occur independently of actual procreation, then exactly how are they inseparable?
Well no, actually. You are using the word “bonding” ambiguously.
Sexual bonding is a completely different kind of bonding from other types of bonding – friendships, business partnerships, parent-child, sports teams, teacher-student, etc., etc. Each kind of bonding carries with it a set of specific characteristics that allow the ends or goals of THAT particular bonding to be accomplished.
What you are trying to do is use sexual bonding and the crucial aspects of that bonding –where sexual intimacy is an aspect of a comprehensive union of mind, body and soul in order to create, sustain, nurture and form new life – to argue that those same aspects are necessary to further other types of bonding such as friendship between two males or two females.
Life-long male-male or female-female bonding does not REQUIRE sexual bonding to attain the specific ends or aims of that kind of bonding. Sexual intimacy is completely extraneous and unnecessary (some would argue counterproductive) to furthering the goals of friendship or other human relationships. Sexual intimacy is, on the other hand, essential to furthering the goals of marriage where “marriage” is understood to be the comprehensive union of a man and woman with the end goal of embodying their love in real and new human beings. That end has never been, nor can ever be, the goal of friendships or other kinds of bonding. To think otherwise radically confuses what the ends of differing relationships are with respect to intention.
A teacher-student bond does not require sexual intimacy; neither do tennis partners, business partnerships, piano duet performers, pilots of airplanes, television co-anchors, etc., etc. Likewise, all friendships – even those that have lasted a lifetime – simply have nothing to gain from sexual intimacy. Conjugal partnerships, on the other hand, have a great deal to gain – the existence of a new lives which embody aspects from both partners at the deepest ground of reality, existence itself.
Your so-called “argument” completely ignores what is at issue by assuming the only thing at issue – to be gained or lost – is sexual license. In other words, what you seem to be advocating is that the freedom to express oneself sexually ought not ever be restricted from any moral standpoint.
That would mean, by implication, that the role of sexual intimacy in human relationships ought not ever depend on the end goals for those relationships, but rather merely on the willingness for those involved to “bring it in,” so to speak. Meaning that such a freedom ought not, therefore, ever be excluded from being a part of every human relationship that depends upon some kind of bonding. I am not clear that such an argument is sustainable or, even, rational.
Your argument depends entirely on whether free sexual expression is, indeed, the absolute right of individuals to practice without restriction. Yet, if that is the case, why would sexual intimacy be acceptable in human friendships, but not in, say, business partnerships or sports teams if sexual intimacy necessarily fosters “bonding” as a positive quality? Why advocate bring sexuality into friendships but NOT into business or sports if it is a positive thing that fosters relationship building (aka bonding)?
NOTE: I hesitate to bring this up because I am beginning to think our culture has utterly lost its moral rudder and the last two paragraphs will be viewed as a “why not?” kind of positive argument by those who have completely gone off the rails in terms of moral sensibility. Moral blindness is quite incapable of distinguishing the edge of the cliff from solid ground and will, quite to be expected, go over the edge in its compulsion to dismantle all restraints. It is only an act of faith on my part that readers of this post still are capable of perceiving moral truth that I make this post.
:frighten:
