What about kissing? Isn’t that exactly analogous to non-reproductive sex? Mouths are “intended” for eating. Is it morally wrong for people to use them to share love and pleasure?
First of all, mouths are also intended for speaking, conveying facial expresions etc. etc. so this argument (as well as the following, for that matter) fails in its unnecessary restrictions. There is no reason to suggest that mouths are not also intended for physical expressions of love. Common sense tells us this is perfectly natural.
With that said, sex for pleasure is *not *against nature, and is not sinful! What is sinful is the artificial manipulation of the body in order to render the sexual act incapable of procreation. This poster’s analogy fails because it is incomplete.
Artificial contraception would be like wearing a ‘tongue condom’ (you laugh, but they do exist!) when kissing someone. This defeats much of the purpose of kissing, and is unnatural.
Rationality tells me that a human embryo does not feel pain, is not conscious, and does not have a will. Rationality tells me that I can use this embryo for research that one day can help millions of fully developed human beings who are suffering of unspeakable horrors. That’s what rationality tells me, is that moral?
This poster is exemplifying a hedonistic mentality, and they betray the hole in their argument in the first sentence, then cover up the actual immoral act. He admits a human embryo is human. Fine. Then he says that he can ‘use this embryo for research.’ Here is a subtle way to say that he will kill this *human embryo. *The immorality comes with the words ‘kill’ (subtly translated into ‘use’ by this poster) and ‘human.’ We are killing humans to help other humans? That doesn’t seem right now does it?
No, the “intended purpose” of legs is locomotion…
The intended purpose of legs is motion, plain and simple. That’s ther ‘biological function.’ Dancing is motion… therefore… this whole argument is nonsense. Dancing is perfectly natural.
Unlike homosexual sex, which most mammals and virtually all primates do
Don’t be fooled by the confidence with which secularists assert lies. There is no evidence to suggest that animals are ‘homosexual.’ Male primates may ‘mount’ (**not **sodomize) other males for purposes of expressing power and domination among the group–not for recreation.
Anyway, when the hell did we start using animals as models for human behaviour??? Shouldn’t we then condone rape and infanticide too? Secularist logic is *immorally motivated *and founders under close examination. The root of a lot of their ‘rationality’ is simple hedonism.
What amazes me (and I’m sure Gilbert Keith would wholeheartedly agree) is the utter lack of common sense which these sorts of arguments display. Truth is much easier to grasp if people would step away from their disordered desires and think.