Artificial Sperm and Transhumanism

[Frank]

2) Creating artificial sperm permits procreation separated from sex (the unitive), which is the same problem I have with IVF.

And yet divorcing these two issues seems like the most sensible issue in the world. Except from the hard biology of it, what the dickens does hopping on the good foot to do the bad thing have to do with raising a nipper?

Separating sex and procreation seems like a solution, not a problem.

[jollytiddlywink]

2) Creating artificial sperm permits procreation separated from sex (the unitive), which is the same problem I have with IVF.

And yet divorcing these two issues seems like the most sensible issue in the world. Except from the hard biology of it, what the dickens does hopping on the good foot to do the bad thing have to do with raising a nipper?

Separating sex and procreation seems like a solution, not a problem.

I would like to point out that although the two examples you use (IVF and artificial sperm) are modern, people have been successfully separating procreation and sex for thousands of years. It's called 'being gay.'

I agree completely with Frank's point. Why is separating the two things bad?

[Haunted]

I would like to point out that although the two examples you use (IVF and artificial sperm) are modern, people have been successfully separating procreation and sex for thousands of years. It's called 'being gay.'

I thought it was called contraception?

[macgamer]

Firstly I'll just deal with homosexuality. Homosexuality is neither unitive or procreative. It is not unitive because it is not a meeting of two complementary individuals in love. Additionally it is also intrinsically closed to procreation.

On separating the Unitive and the Procreative aspects:

Some assumptions for the argument:

Firstly, sexual intercourse, it cannot be denied, is for the maintenance of the species or at very least if you like Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene the perpetuation of one's genome (do one's genes compete?). A species which does not produce members of the next generation goes extinct.

Sexual intercourse is an inherently unitive and complementary (and hopefully loving) union between the sexes. This reality has been reflected in numerous human cultures and expressed as a family unit to one extent or another. This has been an advantageous arrangement in which to nurture and raise children so that they are able to similarly go on and reproduce.

Contra discordia, pro unitas:

Procreation divorced from any unitive or sexual aspect is not grounded in principle that children have a need of a mother and a father. Whilst there are plentiful examples of sexual intercourse which is both unitive and procreative leading to single parent families, procreation without a unitive aspect is, from the very start, lacking the affirmation of the collaboration between a man and woman.

Indeed the family breakdown, especially amongst the poor, is large source of the social problems afflicting Britain today. Most single mothers in this position, who despite their best efforts, do not have the means with which provide their children the start in life that they need. Children need good role models from both genders if they are going to be able to participate adequately in society. On a mere economic outlook, two incomes are better than one.

The use of artificial sperm for reproduction would also permit exclusive same sex procreation. Again I would stress that children have a right and a need for both genders in their upbringing. To wilfully set about this is an abuse against the child. I would add that assisting same sex couple to procreate is going against the intrinsic nature of humanity and all other sexual / gendered species. This, I would class as a form of transhumanism.

[macgamer]

I want to pre-empt Frank with this:

[jollytiddlywink]

Firstly I'll just deal with homosexuality. Homosexuality is neither unitive or procreative. It is not unitive because it is not a meeting of two complementary individuals in love. Additionally it is also intrinsically closed to procreation.

It might be better to say that it was intrinsically closed to procreation. Lesbians have wombs, and now if they can get artificial sperm, away they go! As to homosexual sex (as distinct from homosexuality), I fail to see how it isn't unitive. If it isn't a meeting of two complementary individuals in love, then you're not doing it properly.

On separating the Unitive and the Procreative aspects:

Some assumptions for the argument:

Firstly, sexual intercourse, it cannot be denied, is for the maintenance of the species or at very least if you like Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene the perpetuation of one's genome (do one's genes compete?). A species which does not produce members of the next generation goes extinct.

Sexual intercourse is an inherently unitive and complementary (and hopefully loving) union between the sexes. This reality has been reflected in numerous human cultures and expressed as a family unit to one extent or another. This has been an advantageous arrangement in which to nurture and raise children so that they are able to similarly go on and reproduce.

Contra discordia, pro unitas:

Procreation divorced from any unitive or sexual aspect is not grounded in principle that children have a need of a mother and a father. Whilst there are plentiful examples of sexual intercourse which is both unitive and procreative leading to single parent families, procreation without a unitive aspect is, from the very start, lacking the affirmation of the collaboration between a man and woman.

Indeed the family breakdown, especially amongst the poor, is large source of the social problems afflicting Britain today. Most single mothers in this position, who despite their best efforts, do not have the means with which provide their children the start in life that they need. Children need good role models from both genders if they are going to be able to participate adequately in society. On a mere economic outlook, two incomes are better than one.

The use of artificial sperm for reproduction would also permit exclusive same sex procreation. Again I would stress that children have a right and a need for both genders in their upbringing. To wilfully set about this is an abuse against the child. I would add that assisting same sex couple to procreate is going against the intrinsic nature of humanity and all other sexual / gendered species. This, I would class as a form of transhumanism.

I am reminded of the saying (the provenance of which I cannot be bothered to look up) that if it wasn't for the male orgasm, humanity would have died out long ago. People don't have sex to procreate. People have sex because its really really good fun! If it wasn't, people wouldn't do it. You may disagree with this, but I offer two points of evidence. The average St Andrews student doesn't go out on the pull on a Friday night thinking, "This will provide me a chance to procreate and continue my genetic line." They go out thinking, "Hopefully I'll get laid. It'll be fun."
Secondly, if you are going to insist that sex is for making babies, you would be hard-pressed to explain the ever-lower number of babies being born all over the world each year. The population of some European countries is actually falling, because the people there are having so few babies. I believe the number of children per couple in Italy is hovering somewhere around 1.5, well below the generally assumed replacement rate of approximately 2.2 children per couple.

If you are going to suggest that sex isn't valid without procreation taking place, you might find you've upset not only the gays, but also every couple in which the woman is over the age of 50, or in which either partner is infertile for whatever other reason, or even couples who have decided not to have children, and have taken whatever contraceptive route they opted for to achieve that outcome.

Your repeated assertion that children need not only two parents, but one of each gender, is a further piece of dogma. Unfortunately for a scientific discussion, the evidence points the other way. Having two parents, may, I believe (I am not an expert on the issue) be better than having one, if only because it makes it likely that there will be a parent staying at home all day while the other works), but there is no evidence (or at least, no scientifically valid evidence) to suggest that a child needs parents of both genders.

[the Empress]

The use of artificial sperm for reproduction would also permit exclusive same sex procreation. Again I would stress that children have a right and a need for both genders in their upbringing. To wilfully set about this is an abuse against the child. I would add that assisting same sex couple to procreate is going against the intrinsic nature of humanity and all other sexual / gendered species. This, I would class as a form of transhumanism.

From lesbian albatross co-parenting to homosexual penguins . . . it's common in nature. There's plenty of recent research out there.

So . . . a woman gets pregnant and intends to single parent or have a female partner. You and your minions are going to take away the child because it's being abused. Because they're a single parent. You're an idiot. Do you ever take your 'arguments' to their logical conclusion? Or can you not actually articulate your bigotry agains 10% of the human population. Who are gay.

[Haunted]

...10% of the human population. Who are gay.

10% struck me as a little high and some digging (since it's pretty hard to quantify reliably) netted this 2005 government report.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/1 ... tionpolicy
Which puts the number at 3.6m or 6% of the UK population (how this extrapolates to the general world population is anyone's guess). Which, to be honest, surprised me as a little high as well, so I've learned something today.

[Humphrey]

to homosexual penguins . . . it's common in nature.

I think the homosexual penguins split up recently. One of them ran off with another penguin called Linda.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/ ... 5002.shtml

[Delts]

to homosexual penguins . . . it's common in nature.

I think the homosexual penguins split up recently. One of them ran off with another penguin called Linda.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/ ... 5002.shtml

So it was bi, the greedy bastard!

[munchingfoo]

Most single mothers in this position, who despite their best efforts, do not have the means with which provide their children the start in life that they need.

Please do show us the research which allowed you to assert most here! How many poor single mothers do you know personally?

Children need good role models from both genders if they are going to be able to participate adequately in society.

Why two though? Need these both be biological parents, would not other adults suffice? Why the necessity for them to be from different genders?

On a mere economic outlook, two incomes are better than one.

Working single mothers do get two incomes. One from their employer and another from the state. I know personally of single mothers who live quite comfortably on a minimum wage job. Sure, their kids can't afford the latest fashions or expensive electronic goods, but if you think that those are the basis of a healthy upbringing then it wouldn't be worth having this discussion. If you'd said that one parent could stay at home, then you'd probably have had a, small, point, but even then I feel a general sense of "family" is far more important and this could come from multiple sources, such as mother and gran.

[Jono]

Firstly I'll just deal with homosexuality. Homosexuality is neither unitive or procreative. It is not unitive because it is not a meeting of two complementary individuals in love. Additionally it is also intrinsically closed to procreation.

On separating the Unitive and the Procreative aspects:

Some assumptions for the argument:

Firstly, sexual intercourse, it cannot be denied, is for the maintenance of the species or at very least if you like Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene the perpetuation of one's genome (do one's genes compete?). A species which does not produce members of the next generation goes extinct.

Sexual intercourse is an inherently unitive and complementary (and hopefully loving) union between the sexes. This reality has been reflected in numerous human cultures and expressed as a family unit to one extent or another. This has been an advantageous arrangement in which to nurture and raise children so that they are able to similarly go on and reproduce.

Contra discordia, pro unitas:

Procreation divorced from any unitive or sexual aspect is not grounded in principle that children have a need of a mother and a father. Whilst there are plentiful examples of sexual intercourse which is both unitive and procreative leading to single parent families, procreation without a unitive aspect is, from the very start, lacking the affirmation of the collaboration between a man and woman.

Indeed the family breakdown, especially amongst the poor, is large source of the social problems afflicting Britain today. Most single mothers in this position, who despite their best efforts, do not have the means with which provide their children the start in life that they need. Children need good role models from both genders if they are going to be able to participate adequately in society. On a mere economic outlook, two incomes are better than one.

The use of artificial sperm for reproduction would also permit exclusive same sex procreation. Again I would stress that children have a right and a need for both genders in their upbringing. To wilfully set about this is an abuse against the child. I would add that assisting same sex couple to procreate is going against the intrinsic nature of humanity and all other sexual / gendered species. This, I would class as a form of transhumanism.

This is just a roundabout way saying "it's unnatural" for homosexuals to have kids, coached in philosophy-speak! Let's leave that aside for the moment, along with the rather shocking inference that homosexuals are incapable of complimentary love (I think you'll find plenty of such individuals throughout history, who risked heinous persecution (in this world and the next) for the sake of that love).

The Sexual act only has meaning when placed inside a cultural context. There is nothing inherent or natural about the idea of a dualistic unitive/procreative sexual act (Sex might biologically prompted, but there’s nothing in the hormones that prevents one party or the other from calling a cab once they’ve come. At least that’s my experience).
Historicising about numerous cultures is all well and good, but the official account rarely fits the practiced form. Christian official views on wedlock and bastardy have been pretty clear from the get-go , (or the twelfth century, if we want to be generous), but you can count the number of mediaeval English Kings who didn't have mistresses and/or illegitimate children one hand! They certainly didn't intend to drop any sprogs out of those relationships!

As for all the social problems, I'm aware of the theory that the breakdown of traditional marriage is the cause of all the world's problems. I think it's fairer to say that a lack of stability in the family and in wider society. That stability is *traditionally* provided by the two-parent hetrosexual family, and there is something to be said for it. But there is nothing to say that stability couldn’t be provided just as well by a gay couple, or an indomitable single mother working against all the odds. That said, the reasons for the “broken society” are more than just how many parents you have.

Please do show us the research which allowed you to assert most here! How many poor single mothers do you

It’d be pretty easy to do some quick research. I’d hypothesize that the majority of students at St Andrews, and/or other top universities come from the “traditional family” background. You could prove that pretty easily with a survey. I believe the university/UCAS already collect data on familial background. If not, any takers (I’d genuinely be interested to see the outcome)?

[munchingfoo]

Please do show us the research which allowed you to assert most here! How many poor single mothers do you

It’d be pretty easy to do some quick research. I’d hypothesize that the majority of students at St Andrews, and/or other top universities come from the “traditional family” background. You could prove that pretty easily with a survey. I believe the university/UCAS already collect data on familial background. If not, any takers (I’d genuinely be interested to see the outcome)?

And you think that only those that go to the University of St Andrews, or apply to go to University, are able to contribute to a stable society? Nice one. I've seen plenty of arseholes around here in 7 years (some might even put me in that catagory) to refute that claim. My gran, a psychiatric nurse, my mother, a sheltered housing warden, and my sister, a childcare worker, none of which attended University, might also have something to say against it. What have you done to ensure a harmonious society in your life so far?

[Frank]

I fail to see how it isn't unitive. If it isn't a meeting of two complementary individuals in love, then you're not doing it properly.

This strikes me as the important point. The definition of unitive used above doesn't seem to stem from some sort of pragmatic outlook on things.

An important point is the prevalence of homosexual behaviour across species. Now, I'm at a loss to find the report/evidence/study but I'd ask anyone else to have a try: ~ (or >) 90% of mammals had been documented as regularly 'harboring' same sex couples. The study put it as related to stressful environments (e.g. an abundance of males and insufficient females to permit equal coupling, but that's merely an intriguing association of the research, not the whole answer).

Anyhow, case is: Gays and gayness appear to be natural. Certainly, given the tentative results which can be drawn from things like "Evolution suggests this... therefore that must be...", I'd call the assumptions leading to 'unitive' in Macgamer's argument...flawed.

The family unit doesn't always prevail in modern humanity. Nannies, for instance. Harems, another. Them tribal groups which don't associate singular mother/father figures but instead draw upon a very wide 'family'.

One might note that 'procreation' on a longer timescale isn't just conception, gestation and birth. There is the important point of 'making the infant a proper, functionally mature member of the group' wherein procreative sex is utterly wasted if folks then go on to neglect said baby and make it die by age two, having stupidly accomplished very little of worth in its brutally short life.

Similarly one might look at those utterly incapable of procreative sex (the old biddies!) and wonder whether they'd be allowed to be gay. I know the being gay point wasn't an argument broached by Macgamer, but I feel the question needs be asked, given that being gay was such a jolly counterpoint to the artificial sperm conundrum.

And as for pre-empting me, I was thinking more along the lines of


Less relevant, but more in the spirit of the occassion.

[jollytiddlywink]

The use of artificial sperm for reproduction would also permit exclusive same sex procreation. Again I would stress that children have a right and a need for both genders in their upbringing. To wilfully set about this is an abuse against the child. I would add that assisting same sex couple to procreate is going against the intrinsic nature of humanity and all other sexual / gendered species. This, I would class as a form of transhumanism.

"All other sexual/gendered species"?
It seems, then, that you are unaware that scientists have documented homosexual activity and homosexual pairings in virtually every species they have studied: there are certainly plenty of examples to choose from amongst mammals and many other land animals... gay penguins in zoos being only the most famous example.

"the intrinsic nature of humanity"?
Same sex couples having children can hardly be against the intrinsic nature of anything, unless you are one of the deluded souls who believes that homosexuality and bisexuality are in any way 'a choice.' All the best research (and by 'best', I mean 'not conducted by religious loons') indicates that sexual orientation is either inborn or determined before puberty, and that regardless of the exact timing and process involved, at no point is there a choice.
Or maybe you think that homosexuals are somehow defying the intrinsic nature of humanity simply because they are a minority. The best figures I can find, which more or less correspond which those that have already been mentioned, indicate that 5% of the male population is gay, and 3% is bi. The figures for females are roughly 4% and 4%: in both genders, people with some level of same-sex attraction are 8% of the total. Maybe those numbers are small enough that you feel justified in discriminating?
I should point out that people with red hair make up only 4% of the European population... does this mean that we are twice as entitled to discriminate against them?

"an abuse against the child" Lastly, this old, revolting, chestnut is trotted out, with the implication that somehow 'subjecting' children to gays and lesbians is child abuse. Or, if you are going to suggest this has nothing to do with sexuality, but is a remark about the need for role models of both genders in a child's up-bringing, where is your blistering condemnation of single mothers? Of single fathers? Of widows or widowers?

Are you aware of how recently the nuclear family came into being? It is something that began, as so many modern things did, in Europe, and even here it didn't really get going until about 1750. Prior to that, almost all over the globe, children tended to be raised by entire families, with aunts and uncles present, cousins present, and grandparents as well, if they were still alive. But human migration has been steadily increasing since 1750, along with the rise of the nuclear family. Parents and children might move together, but the rest of the extended family don't. This has not caused a collapse of the family unit, nor a collapse of civilisation as we know it. So if you are going to suggest that altering this (very newfangled) mother-father-child-child family model is in any way dangerous, you will need to make some very careful and well-backed arguments.

Lastly, your suggestion that single parent families should be shunned because, historically, mankind has always preferred a two-parent family is historically absurd. Even in Western Europe, eye-wateringly high levels of maternal death during childbirth are not long out of living memory. Many millions of children were thereby deprived of their mother literally as they took their first breaths. Any argument you make will also need to address this point to have any hope of credibility.

[macgamer]

I've replied directly to some comments, but addressed others in sections below.

I am reminded of the saying (the provenance of which I cannot be bothered to look up) that if it wasn't for the male orgasm, humanity would have died out long ago. People don't have sex to procreate. People have sex because its really really good fun! If it wasn't, people wouldn't do it.

I agree but I fail to see how that disproves my point that sex is for procreation. I agree if sex were not pleasurable it would not be done. However I think it is pleasurable because sex is necessary for procreation, pleasurable so that humanity does procreation and survive. If it were not as you said, humanity would have died out long ago.

Secondly, if you are going to insist that sex is for making babies, you would be hard-pressed to explain the ever-lower number of babies being born all over the world each year.

Indeed, that is because people use sex for recreation, divorcing it from its full meaning. Worse still in the West there is a very high rate of abortion which adds to the low birth rate.

If you are going to suggest that sex isn't valid without procreation taking place, you might find you've upset not only the gays, but also every couple in which the woman is over the age of 50, or in which either partner is infertile for whatever other reason, or even couples who have decided not to have children, and have taken whatever contraceptive route they opted for to achieve that outcome.

I would firstly like to pull couples who are infertile out of the equation, just briefly. Homosexual sex and contraceptive heterosexual sex are, as you have identified, similar, by virtue that they are closed to procreation; first inherently and the second by deliberate choice. In both instances there is no, or in the latter case very little, chance of procreation. (Although abortion is there as a backup ) Amongst the (non-deliberately) infertile couples, provided they have sex without contraception, that is open, especially psychologically, to the remote potential of procreation, then they are doing so acknowledging the purpose of sex. Their situation can be ameliorated through adoption.

There is no evidence (or at least, no scientifically valid evidence) to suggest that a child needs parents of both genders.

Surely it is mere common sense, children learn by example, they need to understand how to interact with both genders. Freud, not that I'm a huge fan, spent a lot of his research on childhood interactions between the child and its mother and father.

Single Mothers issue

I'm not launching a crusade against single mothers, family breakdown happens and it is most regrettable. What I do condemn is planning to raise a child alone. I have said before on other threads, that society has made it seem unacceptable that unless women got back to work quickly after having a child, this is wrong. Childcare is expensive and so is the cost of living, which means often both parents must work. This leads onto a point about the nuclear family by jollytiddlywink, I, by advocating for a mother and father, am merely supporting the idea of the basic unit of a family: a father and a mother plus their children. I agree the nuclear family is a rather new phenomenon and quite regrettable really, for it would provide working mothers with access to free childcare in the form of the extended family, most often in the form of their own mothers. Extended families would make raising children so much easier and cheaper. With extended families there is even more variety of role models from both genders.

Stability of same sex unions

How stable are same sex unions? Given they are an untried concept, based on the principle that sex is for recreation than why limit it to just one partner? This point applies to contracepting heterosexual couples. The difference in marriage is that there is a commitment between a man and a woman to create a new family, which means children. This requires stability.

A harmonious society

It is probably not over generalising too much to say that 'broken homes' produce more NEETs (Not in Employment, Education and Training) and young criminals than stable ones. As an aside, I would say that the idea that unless one has gone to University, one has somehow failed in life, is a fallacy and a damaging one for society. It will breed resentment, devalue University education and produce a cohort of young people who are qualified for jobs that do not exist, but that's what you get from socialist governments - lots of things nobody wants.

Same sex attraction

Just because there are example of same sex attraction (SSA) amongst other species does not disprove my argument. I was not suggesting that SSA was a choice, acting on SSA is however. The frequency of SSA attraction was mentioned above, it is low enough amongst humanity and other species to understand homosexual acts as a maladaptive behaviour. That is not conducive to the survival of the species or the propagation of that individual's genes. There is no evidence to suggest that SSA is genetically linked, unlike red hair, although I wait to be proven wrong. It is more likely to be a consequence of childhood psychological development.

Abuse of the child

As I said to "[...] wilfully set about this is an abuse against the child". Single mothers / fathers through unavoidable circumstances are regrettable. However to attempt to raise a child single in a premeditated fashion is an abuse. For at very least the child has a right to be brought up by its mother and father. Additionally both are necessary for psychological development and subsequent successful interaction and integration with society.

[jollytiddlywink]

I've replied directly to some comments, but addressed others in sections below.

I am reminded of the saying (the provenance of which I cannot be bothered to look up) that if it wasn't for the male orgasm, humanity would have died out long ago. People don't have sex to procreate. People have sex because its really really good fun! If it wasn't, people wouldn't do it.

I agree but I fail to see how that disproves my point that sex is for procreation. I agree if sex were not pleasurable it would not be done. However I think it is pleasurable because sex is necessary for procreation, pleasurable so that humanity does procreation and survive. If it were not as you said, humanity would have died out long ago.

Sex is fun but raising children seems to be a long, difficult, expensive and trying 18 years... not to mention 9 months of pregnancy for the lady in question! I would argue, along with Frank, that any concept of procreating to replace ourselves must include the idea of years of child-care. Even biologically speaking, a child is entirely unable to care for itself until the age of at least three or four, and should probably be cared for by its parents at least until the beginning of adolescence, if not up to the age of 18-20, as occurs today. Your idea that 'procreation is fun' leaves out the trials and tribulations of raising the child, which is just as important.

Secondly, if you are going to insist that sex is for making babies, you would be hard-pressed to explain the ever-lower number of babies being born all over the world each year.

Indeed, that is because people use sex for recreation, divorcing it from its full meaning. Worse still in the West there is a very high rate of abortion which adds to the low birth rate.

Ah, I see. So you have conveniently defined sex as only being sex when people are intending to do it to become pregnant, or at least are open to the idea. I think you'll find that not many other people subscribe to that definition. Who have you ever heard say, "It wasn't real sex, she's on the pill!"

If you are going to suggest that sex isn't valid without procreation taking place, you might find you've upset not only the gays, but also every couple in which the woman is over the age of 50, or in which either partner is infertile for whatever other reason, or even couples who have decided not to have children, and have taken whatever contraceptive route they opted for to achieve that outcome.

I would firstly like to pull couples who are infertile out of the equation, just briefly. Homosexual sex and contraceptive heterosexual sex are, as you have identified, similar, by virtue that they are closed to procreation; first inherently and the second by deliberate choice. In both instances there is no, or in the latter case very little, chance of procreation. (Although abortion is there as a backup ) Amongst the (non-deliberately) infertile couples, provided they have sex without contraception, that is open, especially psychologically, to the remote potential of procreation, then they are doing so acknowledging the purpose of sex. Their situation can be ameliorated through adoption.

"The purpose of sex." We have a problem here. If you are going to argue that the natural basis of sex is procreation, then you ought, I feel, to explain why science has identified various species which have sex for fun: dolphins being the most famous example, I believe even doing something analogous to oral sex, involving blow-holes. Many types of primates masturbate, and several of them also have sex for fun. One species of primate has sex as a social greeting, a 'hello!' Clearly this is not an activity exclusively for procreation. It obviously has other functions in the animal kingdom, and does so among humans as well. Otherwise couples would cease to have sex the moment the woman had gone through menopause, and gay couples would never have sex at all.

There is no evidence (or at least, no scientifically valid evidence) to suggest that a child needs parents of both genders.

Surely it is mere common sense, children learn by example, they need to understand how to interact with both genders. Freud, not that I'm a huge fan, spent a lot of his research on childhood interactions between the child and its mother and father.

Pardon me for being difficult, but I'm not interested in common sense. Do you have any evidence?
And if they don't have both genders at home, do you think they never encounter men or women anywhere else in the wider world? At school, on TV, in the supermarket...

Stability of same sex unions

How stable are same sex unions? Given they are an untried concept, based on the principle that sex is for recreation than why limit it to just one partner? This point applies to contracepting heterosexual couples. The difference in marriage is that there is a commitment between a man and a woman to create a new family, which means children. This requires stability.

If you look up the numbers, you will find that same-sex unions are as stable as any other unions. They are not an untried concept, just one which is not often permitted in this time and place, although that is changing. The sex is not based on recreation any more or less than amongst heterosexual couples, but is rather a physical manifestation of the love and affection in the relationship.
I suggest you tread with great care if you are going to say marriage is a "commitment... to create a new family, which means children." Some married people I know are happy to be married to each other with no children, and unless you have a very odd interpretation of the wedding vows, the Church doesn't expect couples to commit to children, either.

Just because there are example of same sex attraction (SSA) amongst other species does not disprove my argument. I was not suggesting that SSA was a choice, acting on SSA is however. The frequency of SSA attraction was mentioned above, it is low enough amongst humanity and other species to understand homosexual acts as a maladaptive behaviour. That is not conducive to the survival of the species or the propagation of that individual's genes. There is no evidence to suggest that SSA is genetically linked, unlike red hair, although I wait to be proven wrong. It is more likely to be a consequence of childhood psychological development.

I scarcely know where to begin with this... "maladaptive behaviour"... And you seem to imply that gays and lesbians should just sit, celibate and self-loathing, on the sidelines so as not to clutter up your narrow, tidy little definition of sex.
I would like to propose to you that heterosexuality can be understood as a maladaptive practice, whenever heterosexual acts lead to a child. The world is grossly overpopulated, and each additional child that results from a heterosexual act further degrades the biosphere and has a detrimental impact on the health and likely continuation of the human species.

Abuse of the child
As I said to "[...] wilfully set about this is an abuse against the child". Single mothers / fathers through unavoidable circumstances are regrettable. However to attempt to raise a child single in a premeditated fashion is an abuse. For at very least the child has a right to be brought up by its mother and father. Additionally both are necessary for psychological development and subsequent successful interaction and integration with society.

Yet again: do you have any evidence to support your assertions?

[the Empress]

I've seen 1 in 10 quoted a few times, so went with it. 6% seemed like an underestimate though, as it relies on self-reporting - but New Scientist (1994) put this at 3%. 1% of the population may be asexual (as in, no sexual feelings), e.g. http://www.mg.co.za/article/2004-10-13- ... s-any-more. I love their slogan -> 'asexuality: not just for amoebas anymore'. Maybe in 10 years the sexual scale will look very different.

Lesbian albatrosses are good moms: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 514861.ece

Macgamer, your whole concept of role models is stupid. There is no place for gender-based role modelling in a rational society. The expectation that women should give up work or be the primary care-giver is insulting. A man could do that just as easily.

...10% of the human population. Who are gay.

10% struck me as a little high and some digging (since it's pretty hard to quantify reliably) netted this 2005 government report.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/1 ... tionpolicy
Which puts the number at 3.6m or 6% of the UK population (how this extrapolates to the general world population is anyone's guess). Which, to be honest, surprised me as a little high as well, so I've learned something today.

[Humphrey]

"The purpose of sex." We have a problem here. If you are going to argue that the natural basis of sex is procreation, then you ought, I feel, to explain why science has identified various species which have sex for fun: dolphins being the most famous example, I believe even doing something analogous to oral sex, involving blow-holes. Many types of primates masturbate, and several of them also have sex for fun. One species of primate has sex as a social greeting, a 'hello!' Clearly this is not an activity exclusively for procreation.

The classic is Bonobos:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sex ... l_behavior

These are some seriously filthy primates who use sex for a wide range of social functions.

[Cinema]

Macgamer, your whole concept of role models is stupid. There is no place for gender-based role modelling in a rational society. The expectation that women should give up work or be the primary care-giver is insulting. A man could do that just as easily.

Yes - and for some of us it is a goal!

Also, damn, seems like there are a lot of conservative gay-haters up in this. Is that what St. Andrews is like?