The fact that most people pursue sex for wrong reasons doesn’t make it right. And to say procreation would be impossible without pleasure is laughably absurd. If people want children and know how to make them, they can and will do so, with or without finding pleasure in it. Of course, the fact is that the act is pleasurable, but to suggest that it could not function without the corresponding sensations is demonstrably false.
Also, saying that procreation is an unlucky byproduct of sex is ridiculous. Pleasure is the by product. Procreation is the purpose. The entire point of male genital stimulation is toachieve the ejaculation of semen. Semen carries sperm. Sperm carries the necessary genetic information to create a child.
Children are the most consequential, lasting, and throughout all animal species, including humans, universal result of sex. Unless you’re going to try and argue that the functionality of the reproductive system was an accidental development of tissues whose primary propose was to generate pleasure, but by some unfortunate mishap developed the ability to propagate the species by creating two perfectly complementary systems of genetic information transfer, I’d drop that argument.
Flying airplane s is an “unnatural” act. That does not make flying a “disorder”.
If this is what you consider an argument, wow.
Flying airplanes is not at all unnatural. It is actually the result of a very deep understanding of the laws of physics, which are a part of nature. Next, please.
Since procreation is secondary to pleasure seeking, this point is irrelevant.
Only in the subjective view of the hedonist. Objectively, sex is a physical act. The result of pleasure is transient and subjective. The creation of a child is long lasting, material and of greater consequence to objective reality than one’s own pleasure. Procreation is the scientifically demonstrable primary purpose of the sexual faculty from a completely materialistic perspective. So, again, barring theism from the equation, you lose again.
Now you really went off into the never-never land. According to your nonsense, elderly people beyond the procreative age, or couples who happen to be infertile are not supposed to have sex.
As tired an argument as any. You fail to entertains the difference between substantial and incidental circumstances. A crippled bird isn’t doing anything unnatural by trying to fly. A turtle, on the other hand, is. One intrinsically, by very nature of his being lacks the faculties to do something, the other does not. There is a difference.
You go on to state that homosexual behavior does not harm anyone. I would advise you to read the arguments counter to that claim. Societal acceptance of homosexuality leads to an observable decay in sexual ethics in general, helping to spread acceptance of promiscuity, which leads to the spread and development of STDs, and so on.