Okay. So, why doesn’t homosexuality fit in that list?
The “natural elegance of nature”? Nature is messy and sweaty and painful and gross, especially when it comes to reproduction. Which is not to say that there isn’t love and joy and fun and beauty involved in the process but Lordy, it ain’t elegant.
You must be kidding. So, we bipeds are not designed to walk around on two legs? I knew a guy in college who could walk on his hands for quite a while, but the walking on legs seemed to work better even for him. And I guess thumbs aren’t designed to work on opposition to fingers? Interesting.
Because it doesn’t call upon the human body to be used in complementary fashion with a person of the opposite sex. It seeks to ignore the fact that penises and vaginas were made to come together. Now, that may not be a bad thing, and Im not implying that i is. Only that there is an elegance in nature that can be seen when things that have evolved are put to the use to which evolution encouraged.
I don’t know the answer. But you seem to be assuming that having orgasms occur more easily during intercourse would be a better plan. It could simply be that making orgasms less easy to occur during intercourse makes people work harder at it. 
I’m not a woman, but even as much as some past girlfriends might have enjoyed me going down on her, they all also enjoyed having intercourse.
Well, together or with the aid of a Hitachi Magic Wand…
Your comparison to any type of sex other than the standard type is walking on your hands? Yes, we evolved the ability to walk upright a long time ago (although you can survive even if you can’t walk). You’re right that it would be very difficult to walk on your hands full time and that’s not the best thing for your body structurally. A lot more difficult than, say, the stuff we’re actually talking about in this thread.
Absolutely. It’s less common now, but I used to hear a lot of people wax bemusedly on the question of how lesbians and gays had sex. As someone who, frankly, doesn’t really prefer PIV, I have a hard time countenancing such lack of imagination.
A while ago, a rather dim female co-worker chided me about the possibility of getting my (much younger) girlfriend pregnant. I responded that we really didn’t do anything that would lead to that. The dim one crinkled her brow and said “You mean you don’t do…anything?”
I didn’t know whether to feel more sorry for her or her husband.
Exactly. Confusion over that point may also be the source of your “elegance of nature” misapprehension.
It went to shoot a howitzer whole in the truthiness of this statement that you served up:
[QUOTE=Marley23]
And again, your body was not “designed to be used” in any particular way.
[/QUOTE]
Seems like you’re walking away from it now (;)) Is that right?
I’ll take “Selective Quoting in Order to Change the Meaning of My Words” for two billion, Alex. :roll eyes:
Aside from that, if you think humans haven’t been designed—and aren’t being redesigned constantly—you are the one with the misapprehension.
Who’s designing us, and what are we designed for?
-XT
:rolleyes: Nice try.
I’ll modify it this way: our bodies have evolved to handle some kinds of stresses and uses and not others. Not all of those are purpose-directed, but some are. Unfortunately this doesn’t support your argument very well because people can safely have anal sex, and by your argument we could claim that means it is indeed an intentional use of the body.
What you are saying about the “intent” and “design” of your body is wrong. It’s wrong with regard to sex, and it’s wrong with regard to anything else. You’ve also yet to explain the “interfering” comment. You’re not going to prove that vaginal intercourse is the best, the most beautiful, the “intended” type, or anything else. Those things can’t be proven objectively, and I don’t know why you’d bother to try. Sexual preferences don’t need this kind of validation. This continues to have nothing to do with the actual debate topic.
Greater efficiency and ability to survive. By evolution. Though I have to admit I’m a bit confused on how the genitalia of the two sexes evolved in a way that they were in sync. But that is fodder for another thread.
You continue to misunderstand. Adaptation is not “design.”
Because sexual reproduction is also something that evolved.
I generally is at least a nice try when it succeeds. As my attempt did. Which you should probably knowledge since you feel the need to modify your absurd statement, as in:
Only if you define “intended use of the body” as “every possible use of the body”. Which is odd to say the least. But based on your thinking, it seems that just because I can use a screwdriver to pop open a paint can or scratch an itch on my back, that it was not designed to turn screws. Hell, might as well ask the question: was the screwdriver designed to turn screws? Why or why not?
Let’s start with the question about the screwdriver: was it or was it not designed specifically to turn screws? I’ll make it even easier for you to get the right answer: was a Philips head screwdriver designed to turn philips he’d screws? Yes or no? Why or why not? answer that and then I’ll be able to address the rest of your post.
What do you think adaptation is? It’s constant redesign. Evolution is constantly redesigning things to work better and to address change. For instance the shape of bird beaks evolved to result in beaks better designed to take advantage of local food sources.
That one’s even better.
Since it’s a nonsensical concept you made up for no particular purpose, I think I can define it however I like.
Evolution doesn’t design things. It’s the process through which things change. Traits evolve in response to various pressures, but that doesn’t mean evolution wants them to happen. It doesn’t have preferences. You’re treating an abstract simplification as if it were a real thing, and you’re doing so in support of a rather ridiculous goal - trying to prove that one type of sex is better than another aesthetically - which wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference to anyone even if it were provable or true.
Marley23, you seem to have missed my questions about the screwdriver. Please do try to answer so I’ll have something to work with when I get back. And yes, you can define anything however you’d like. And I can point out when those definitions fall short of making good sense. I can’t wait to see how your answer to the screwdriver questions meshes with your notions about design and intent.
Be back later.