I don't know just how religious you are but ultimately it doesn't matter, your opinion has no basis other than your most prominent religion of choice and or exposure.
And because you do appear to be fairly close minded on the issue I'm led to assume you are more active and at least selectively fundamentalist, whether you fully grasp it or not.
Given this I doubt there is much room for reasonable debate, for you intimate that you hold a conclusion.
None of your conjecture about the differences of male and female hold any authority or sustainable reasoning to suggest that the distribution of sexual pleasure should be confined to any restrictions, let alone sex combination discrimination.
For procreation, sure, sex, how so, what do you have to back up that assertion that isn't religious based opinion.
And do you want to know what really doesn't help your posisition on the matter, masturbation, how many times have you held a cock in your hands?
How many times have you had to wipe yourself clean of a hot gooey load of man juice you Jesus lover you?
Say it, admit it out loud, you love to stroke cock.
Does this mean you are gay? Probably. But never fear. The beautiful thing here is you're just paranoid, even if it did matter Jesus would forgive.
Though I'm sure you are too frightened to ponder such a thing, you and your religious or religious based conclusions could be wrong.
Then it could be argued that these boundaries are illusions, created by codes derived from any number of possible sources but most common is indeed a religious declaration and fear of reprisal, which can easily be argued to be a superstitious fear, if only because most religions proclaim this of eachother. (I for one feel inclined to concur when I see such overwhelming agreement, if they all say they are all wrong, so be it.)
And it is already a physical fact that sexual pleasure can be derived from and distributed freely between any combination of the sexes.
And although I too believe that sexual pleasure is probably meant to help procreation, I don't think it is limited to it. That's all, that's the nutshell of the difference of ideas, but you are probably like so many and will forever shun such possible expressions of pleasure and love creating suffering and hate in its stead, due simply to your indoctrination into religious paranoia that you likely ironically claim to be a source of love, acceptance, and forgiveness.
You see, when I spoke of such classifications as illusions, I don't think gay exists, at least not as a restriction, it can be a term used to speak of same sex relations but it doesn't mean that the people engaged in the act of a same sex relation cannot have, previous, later, or even simultaneous relations with the opposite sex.
I have these thoughts, I think they are true, but if I personally ever had the urge to act on them, I would fear ever even entertaining the thought of doing so, do you know why, because I have been to church, and witnessed the cold judgement of Christians in particular, this I find to be ironic.
Some are "saddened by the loss of a wayward soul" but are ok with it burning in hell, others are venomous and hateful, some to the extent of violence.
How is this sensible or righteous? And how can it allow for anything but judgement, bigotry, and persecution?
Didn't we learn this lesson from slavery and segregation?
Stop trying to justify your attempt to control the god given will of others when the acts are not violent or reasonably dangerous.
No, stop it.
"Normal" not gay
Sexual is normal, restricting it other than to allow for other activities and sanitation is open to argument.
Contrary to religious belief, humans didn't come with manuals dictating these things, to the best of our knowledge.
un-sexually disabled men teach boys to become men. "Normal" not gay
This is correct, for some reason, many men teach boys to not be gay or bi. And it would seem that this is mostly because they fear their believed interpretation of god punishing these boys, and of course of the judgement of their fellow indoctrinated peers, of kids bullying and adults harming or killing because of extremist views.
I hope you have a gay child. But only if you are able to snap out of it, many are so blind they would hurt their own children because of this, in all kinds of ways. Like telling them god will torture them for eternity for it. (Even people like you who claim they are born that way)
What are gays doing when they are having sex? "Pretending" to make children? An orgasm is the release of human seeds for the purpose of making children. You can show your love and commitment to someone without having sex. Gays having sex is artificial to it's purpose. What are they doing? So what are gays to do about those sexual feelings they have that don't produce what those sexual feelings were meant to accomplish?
This again is no different than the masturbation. Its all practice for procreation on one level yes, but this does not mean it serves no other purpose. Such an accessible source of pleasure and or simple release is quite sensibly interpretable as a needed means to help maintain chemical levels and emotions as well as just cleaning out the works of the ever producting and wasting of our reproductive system.
Its not unreasonable to suggest that a large source of imbalance in our societies comes from misshandling of such a delicate yet simple and balanced systems of nature by influence irrational superstitious beliefs.
Your views here are less orthodox, feel free to clarify if I seem to pigeon hole you as any degree of religious faith, as I mentioned earlier I don't know but I feel it is the underlying factor for your opinion, regardless of your actual beliefs.
Gays can live the family life, but the creation of that family is artificial and non-traditional.
This is utter nonsense. A family is a collection of many sexes and roles whose basic qualification is more than one person taking care of another but usually is thought of in terms of the raising of children.
If a father dies in a house of five, are they no longer a family, of course not. If two brothers raise the kids of their dead wives are they not a family?
These varieties create the expanse of perspectives and training in dealing with adapting to life and circumstance, this is the fatal flaw of many religions and such general beliefs of "abnormalities" instead of simple differences and adaptations.
It is normal for families to grow and shrink, to transmogrify with eventualities, your opinions are but close minded attempts to push your beliefs on others, more aptly, your programming to push the beliefs or wills of others onto as many people as possible. Some for religious purposes, some because they just want to feel certain and righteous, most just because they go with the flow.
They want to "take" the "real" meaning of marriage and apply it to their artificially made family life.
Marriage is the artificial family life, it is man made. Nature did not dictate it, and most humans don't follow your ideal marriage. Till death do you part, no cheating, ya right.
Gays having sex is artificial to it's purpose.
Again, procreation is not the lone purpose of sex.
Sure I can accept gay people and their lifestyles. What bothers me though is that they want to take something, a fundamental, sacred, the basic part of life, a meaning and actions, and change it to include them.
Wow, you accept but refuse to include, acrimoniously duplicitous and yet sugar coated of you. The definition of Politician I might add.
Why can't they come up with a new term and meaning that fits their lifestyle and values.
If the original meaning of the word specifies a union of man and woman from religious origins or not, than sure, But is that the case?
Just know that you are crushing millions of little girls in boys bodies dreams that have generally been force fed them since birth.
They are sexually disabled. Just like a car that is a "lemon" off the assembly line.
Nope, it can have sex and it can procreate, abled, its just european, it drives on the other side of the road.
The lifestyle that they want is kind of like marriage, but it's not in the basic fundamental, life creating sexual way.
Bullshit. Like any hetero household, gay households debate on child rearing and and indeed raise them.
Nature made two sexes for that pupose that were made to "fit" together.
You are silly aren't you.
I bet you never thought that the pleasant sensation that comes with a good solid shit could be the neon sign to just such a non baby creating alternative for such purposes as stated far above plus more?
Not to mention, things seem to fit.
The penis of a man was not meant to go up someones rear end.
It was made to be stimulated to expel its contents for procreation and waste.
The rear end was meant for waste leaving the body.
And in males houses the prostate capable of causing orgasm, fancy that, and is made of similar tissue as the vagina and mouth, all readily utilized by all sexes for sex and various functions.
A vagina cannot "fit" into another vagina.
Outstanding observation, but the penis is one the most easily and commonly recreated, imitated, and perhaps utilized artifacts on earth in human societies.
If you're a scietific type of person, than try to figure out how our species can reproduce if we were all involved in same sex relationships.
Oh ya, who said anything about "all" being "involved in same sex relationships. Actually, the argument is for not restricting to one such extreme when clearly what this reality deals in is balance.