Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch
I do see your point, and concede it's definitely valid. However, I hold to my statements; particularly the fact that homosexual unions cannot, in fact, have completed spiritual or physical unions.
|
Well, it depends on how you define spiritual/physical unions. I'm trying to infer your definition and all i can deduce is that you believe it to either be heterosexual vaginal intercourse or the merger of bodily fluids to create another human being.
While you are entitled to your own opinions the former seems rather arbitratrary to me.
I would argue that experiencing the pleasure of an orgasm brought about by someone for whom you care deeply can be exceedingly spiritual regardless of orifice or method.
If it is the latter, than you must know that sexual preference is irrelevant to the physical ability to procreate. By this i mean that heterosexual intercourse doesn't always make a baby. In fact, i'd even go so far as to say that
most hetero sex doesn't result in a visit from the stork. This idea would also seem to suggest that the infertile should be excluded from marriage but eligible for civil union.
I'm just trying to understand your perspective. Either way, you're entitled to your opinion and if you've actually taken the effort to reason it out on your own terms then that is commendable. Most people just repeat the talking points.