Is this philosophical?
My friend and I were having a discussion on homosexuality. Basically, he sees them as genetically inferior due to their predisposition to choose same sex romantic partners over heterosexual partnerships. His basic argument is that they are genetically inferior because their 'natural' urges, would lead them to sexual relationships which do not ultimately end in the ability to procreate at all.
My argument, has a couple of things I must explain.
1) Sex has two functions, the primary and the secondary function. The primary function of sex is to procreate, and while the secondary function of sex, which is pleasure, is an incentive towards sex and thus procreation, it is still secondary to the first.
a. Furthermore, the primary function of sex CAN be changed by the nature of the act (i.e. oral and/or anal sex) or by the use of a contraceptive. In these instances, and similar ones, the primary function of sex has now become one of pleasure as opposed to procreation.
2) Just because homosexuals tend to choose partnerships which do not generally lead to procreation, this does not lessen the desire to procreate and to have offspring.
3) Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can, and will, make life decisions which make it so that they do not procreate. Just because a homosexual chooses to pursue same sex relationships does not say anything towards whether or not they will procreate, or at the very least adopt.
Furthermore, there are also two things I must also explain.
1)We have sex to procreate, and
2) We procreate to have sex
Are not one and the same, though they do constitute a part of the cycle. We have sex to procreate refers to the primary function of sex, and we procreate to have sex refers to two things.
a) The secondary function of sex, and
b) The cycle of parent to child, and further making the cycle continue.
Here is the original entry, please don't join in though. I don't think he'd appreciate it, I just linked it just in case any part of my argument was misunderstood, or I misrepresented any of his argument.
My argument, has a couple of things I must explain.
1) Sex has two functions, the primary and the secondary function. The primary function of sex is to procreate, and while the secondary function of sex, which is pleasure, is an incentive towards sex and thus procreation, it is still secondary to the first.
a. Furthermore, the primary function of sex CAN be changed by the nature of the act (i.e. oral and/or anal sex) or by the use of a contraceptive. In these instances, and similar ones, the primary function of sex has now become one of pleasure as opposed to procreation.
2) Just because homosexuals tend to choose partnerships which do not generally lead to procreation, this does not lessen the desire to procreate and to have offspring.
3) Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can, and will, make life decisions which make it so that they do not procreate. Just because a homosexual chooses to pursue same sex relationships does not say anything towards whether or not they will procreate, or at the very least adopt.
Furthermore, there are also two things I must also explain.
1)We have sex to procreate, and
2) We procreate to have sex
Are not one and the same, though they do constitute a part of the cycle. We have sex to procreate refers to the primary function of sex, and we procreate to have sex refers to two things.
a) The secondary function of sex, and
b) The cycle of parent to child, and further making the cycle continue.
Here is the original entry, please don't join in though. I don't think he'd appreciate it, I just linked it just in case any part of my argument was misunderstood, or I misrepresented any of his argument.