[xzins]

>> Our arguing in favor of sex without procreative potential supports the rise and continuation of homosexuality.<< And Paul supports the rise and continuation of alcoholics right? 1 Timothy 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

Since your argument about Paul doesn't bear on the case at hand at all, then I can only assume that you acknowledge the connection between lack of procreative potential and that argument supporting homosexuality.

Do you honestly think your scripture cited supports alcoholism? It essentially says: alcohol can be used medicinally.

On the other hand, arguing for sex without potential procreativity in exhibit A can be used in support of arguing for sex without procreative potential in exhibit B.

[metmom]

So then, a couple who knows that they can’t conceive and yet still have sex is contributing to the rise of homosexuality because they know they are engaging in sex without procreative potential?

You need to follow your reasoning to the end a little better.

[CynicalBear]

Wow! That appears to have gone right over your head ey? NO, I don’t “acknowledge the connection” and that is a completely bizarre connection. To think that condoning sex between a man and a woman that isn’t intended for procreation as promoting homosexuality is just………well………..bizarre.

>> Do you honestly think your scripture cited supports alcoholism?<<

Did I really need to explain in detail that the comparison was sarcasm? Paul telling Timothy to use wine for his stomach or Jesus changing water in to wine is no more supporting alcoholism than married male and female having sex promotes homosexuality. Your contention that it does was just……..well…….bizarre.