No dear. You're wrong. It is perfectly relevant. As has been explained to you repeatedly, dense, is that if sex were intended for procreation,(the original claim), every sex act would result in pregnancy. What part of that are you not getting?(Oh sorry.... the sex. No pun intended)<quoted text>
And the fact that not every act of sexual intercourse results in pregnancy is as relevant to the point that SEX was intended for procreation,
Just because you can not grasp the logic does not mean it isn't perfectly logical AND correct.
What part of "unilateral pleasure" flew over your head?<quoted text>
as the fact that not every act of sex is pleasurable is relevant to the fact that SEX was intended for pleasure.
No one but YOU said there was NO pleasure in the act.
You are changing NRS point to suit your false premise. Logical FAIL.
Straw man. Now, go ask the wizard for a brain.
I'm suggesting that the fact that not all acts of intercourse result in pregnancy in no way at all PROVES that SEX was not intended for procreation.
Look who's talking about being ignorant!!
We're talking about sex and sassyjm's claim that G-d's intention for sex was procreation. We're not talking about procreation only idios.
Sex is NOT needed for procreation to occur ya dope."
THIS is the argument.
You being so smart and all, why are you pretending he said something else? Why do you need to change NRS original argument?
Why don't you dispute his actual claim???
Sex is NOT NEEDED for procreation.
DO try to focus. It only makes you look stupid or dishonest when you don't stick to the actual argument.
Well, I have to agree with you here. Since the bible is a fairy tale, it really can not be used to proved anything at all. Well, I suppose the bible can be used to prove what the bible claims, but not what "god intended" because there is no "god".<quoted text>
No, what's pathetic is being asked to prove your premise that SEX would be a chore if it was intended for procreation, and attempting to prove it by citing scripture.......
SO following *YOUR* "logic", scripture can not be used to prove what a non-existent entity intended, either way. Procreation or pleasure. Chore or not.
Oh, sweetie, that is SO precious. DO let us know when you have reached this lofty goal.*eye roll*<quoted text>
And yet I had no problem at all tearing your argument to bits..
Doesn't say much for you now, does it ?
Well, Dearie, FACT is, your delusions say nothing about him. They sure do say a lot about YOU, though.
I am finding it endlessly amusing that you are so busy trying to prove how smart you are, you keep missing the points, and logic, by miles.
NRS is right, it really is pointless addressing you. You are either incapable, or being deliberately obtuse. But thanks SO much for playing along. I love educating women like you. Your thought process is so much like Swiney's its spooky.