Homophobia: valid opinion or mindless prejudice?

Well done, u have obviously managed to get to grips with the very difficult concept of contraception

You contradict yourself here



So here u say that procreation doesnt mean having sex



Here u say that different sexes need to have sex in order to procreate - hence it does mean having sex



Well done, u have obviously managed to get to grips with the very difficult concept of contraception

To procreate you have to have sex.

If you are to procreate you have to have sex.

So if you are procreating then you must be having sex.

Wrong. Obviously you haven't heard of a male, who is infertile and in a heterosexual relationship, has his partner fertiilised with a sperm donor's semen.

To procreate you have to have sex.
If you are to procreate you have to have sex.
So if you are procreating then you must be having sex.

So he was wrong

I didn't deny any of these points. My point was (and I'm sorry you just can't get it) that an act of sex does not necessarily equal an act of procreation. In simple language a fcuk does not always equal a baby. Still struggling?

On a separate note do you really think it necessary or appropriate to continue swearing at me.

Most certainly.

So yes i spose you can procreate without having sexual intercourse.

Yes.

Incidently, why do you have two gays swapping saliva as your avator for? I thought they were sub-human because they cannot procreate

In avatar they are not gay

Two women kissing aren't they?

It was Britney and Madonna

Lmao this thread has become hilarious since I last read!!

Piemonster - accept that Howard is not contradicting himself, you're making yourself look ridiculous...

A summary of the last two pages, showing your lunacy:
Gentilhomme said "the whole essence of sex is to procreate"; Howard (and I) pointed out that many (non-homosexual) sexual acts do not procreate; so Gentilhomme changed his definition of "procreation" to "two opposite-sex people having sex" (post 130), which is far from equivalent. Howard then gave the correct definition of procreation.

Re: your post (146) - there was no contradiction. Procreation does not mean sex, it is the possible result of some sexual acts.

Re: your post (151) - your argument works (provided you count artificial insemination etc as 'conception but not procreation')but the conclusion ("so if you are procreating then you must be having sex") does not prove Howard wrong...to do that you would have to achieve the much more difficult task of proving that "if you are having sex then you must be procreating", which is what Howard was denying.

Anyway, I believe Gentilhomme is yet to reappear and confirm that he is willing to define the sole aim of sex to be procreation and thus accept the consequences outlined in posts 128 (&129? from memory...). Because if he's relying on the 'fun' argument then that really doesn't rule out homosexual sex.

ZarathustraX

(Apologies to Howard if I have accidentally misrepresented you in the above).

EDIT: NDGAARONDI, I was wondering that too

Don't you find such behaviour disgusting?

Don't you find such behaviour disgusting?