The Marriage Debate - The conjugal view of marriage leaves us just as free for companionship

[Biblepoe]

When it comes to the human body is not about what can do but what it was designed to do.

So if a hypothetically deity designed humans specifically to be tasty snacks for aliens from Alpha Centauri as they travel across the universe, you’d say that we should just do what we are designed to do (and let the aliens eat us)! I’d say I don’t care about what we are designed to do, I care about what we can do!

Try to live under the water or start eating paint everyday to see if your not to drawn or die of intoxication, why? Because your lungs weren’t designed to breath under water even though they can do it and your stomach wasn’t designed for paint.

The reason why is because our lungs aren’t capable of breathing underwater and our stomach aren’t capable of (healthily) ingesting paint. Just because something wasn’t designed with the intent to perform a task doesn’t mean that it cannot perform that task. For example, Viagra was originally intended to treat certain kinds of heart disease, now it’s used for something else after people discovered it had an effect other than the one it was designed for. Also, the Apollo Lunar Module was designed with certain purposes in mind, yet in unusual circumstances, it was what the vehicle was capable of doing that had to be considered to get the men home.

 

[Biblepoe]

In a male-male homosexual couple, could you please point to the genital tract specifically designed to accept a penis that leads to an organ where a fertilized human egg cell can implant and develop?

In a female-female homosexual couple, can you point to the penis specifically designed to deposit sperm - produced by its associated testes - within the aforementioned genital tract?

**That **is sexual complimentarity - two organs, entirely different from one another, designed specifically to fit together in order to facilitate sexual reproduction.

Complementarity broadly means that the individuals go together in such a way to fit their goals/wants/needs/desires. The particular kind of complementarity you are talking about can be an aspect of that if, and only if, the individuals want to procreate. Even then, there are so many more aspects of relationships other than the ability to procreate.

Perhaps the couple (mixed-sex or opposite-sex) love each other so much and complement each other in so many other ways that they would prefer to be lovers even though they know they won’t procreate. Perhaps the couple would prefer not a have a child at all. In that case, the ability to procreate can actually hinder their complementarity.

In general, whenever one says that two things are complementary, they are imputing some sort of desired goal or goals. Well, for sexual relationships, those goals will vary from person to person. Just because you list procreation as an extremely important goal for you if you have sex just means that same-sex sexual activities aren’t your cup of tea.

 

[Monkey1976]

Complementarity broadly means that the individuals go together in such a way to fit their goals/wants/needs/desires. The particular kind of complementarity you are talking about can be an aspect of that if, and only if, the individuals want to procreate. Even then, there are so many more aspects of relationships other than the ability to procreate.

In talking about the simplest, most basic level of complimentarity. Men and women - taken as general groups - physically fit together. Men and men do not, nor do women and women. There can be attempts by the partners to simulate this physical complimentarity, but in each case (assuming penetrative sex) either the penetrative organ or the penetrated orifice are not the body part which is clearly designed to facilitate the act. For non-penetrative “sex”, that’s simply frottage, not sexual intercourse.

Perhaps the couple (mixed-sex or opposite-sex) love each other so much and complement each other in so many other ways that they would prefer to be lovers even though they know they won’t procreate. Perhaps the couple would prefer not a have a child at all. In that case, the ability to procreate can actually hinder their complementarity.

This - the separation of the sexual act from procreation - is the first link in the chain that leads to even contemplating gay “marriage” as something reasonable. Don’t want to have a child? Then DON’T HAVE SEX. It’s 99.9999999991% effective! (Rate based on a postulated total human population, living and dead, of 108 billion) Seriously, for all of the propaganda being thrown at us by the media, people can and do live without having sexual intercourse. It isn’t a need, or a right, or anything else other than something that is designed (a term which can apply with either nature or God as “designer”) to be pleasurable so as to encourage us to propogate the species.

In general, whenever one says that two things are complementary, they are imputing some sort of desired goal or goals. Well, for sexual relationships, those goals will vary from person to person. Just because you list procreation as an extremely important goal for you if you have sex just means that same-sex sexual activities aren’t your cup of tea.

Procreation isn’t just a “goal” - it’s the basic biological reason for sexual intercourse. Any sexual activity that precludes procreation is simply the use of another person as a masturbatory aid.

 

[Biblepoe]

In talking about the simplest, most basic level of complimentarity. Men and women - taken as general groups - physically fit together. Men and men do not, nor do women and women.

If two people of the same-sex did not physically fit, they wouldn’t be able to have sex.

There can be attempts by the partners to simulate this physical complimentarity, but in each case (assuming penetrative sex) either the penetrative organ or the penetrated orifice are not the body part which is clearly designed to facilitate the act.

But are they capable of safely performing the act? That is much more relevant than whether or not the parts were designed with a different function intended.

I just want to point out that when you say something is designed, you are referencing the intent of whoever configured the thing in question. For example if you say that an organ was designed to make babies, you are saying that whoever made that organ that way intended it to be used to make babies. However, this only works if it was made by a person (and I don’t think that the human species was made by a creator), and it’s only relevant insofar as I care about the intent of that person.

For sex, I care more about what the body does (function) over whatever the intent of a hypothetical creator is (design + purpose).

This - the separation of the sexual act from procreation - is the first link in the chain that leads to even contemplating gay “marriage” as something reasonable.

well, are you willing to seriously entertain the possibility of the concept of same-sex marriage being reasonable?

Don’t want to have a child? Then DON’T HAVE SEX.

Don’t want to be in a car crash? Then DON’T GET INTO A CAR!
Don’t want to get mugged? Then DON’T LEAVE THE HOUSE!
Don’t want to become divorced? Then DON’T GET MARRIED!

For all these things, you can have the desired thing with the chances of having the unplanned/unwanted things sufficiently low.

Seriously, for all of the propaganda being thrown at us by the media, people can and do live without having sexual intercourse.

You can also live without a lot of other things, or you can take a few calculated risks in your life.

[Sex is] something that is designed (a term which can apply with either nature or God as “designer”) to be pleasurable so as to encourage us to propogate the species.

Procreation isn’t just a “goal” - it’s the basic biological reason for sexual intercourse.

If the designer is a god, then I would need to be convinced that the intent of the god is more relevant than how the parts function/work together. Like I said before, I don’t care if the god designed human bodies for the purpose of being tasty snacks for aliens, I’m not going to allow myself to be eaten!

I think you’re confusing design and specification/function, but for the sake of brevity, I’ll assume that by being ‘designed by nature’ you mean that forces of nature made it have the specification it has. Well, then I think that the function of procreation led to the human body being what it is now, but that doesn’t mean that you cannot/shouldn’t use them for another reason determined by the individuals.

Any sexual activity that precludes procreation is simply the use of another person as a masturbatory aid.

If that’s so, what you call mutual masturbation (and what most other people call sex) can greatly enhance and enrich the lives of couples (mixed-sex or same-sex).