[Bond]

Sorry, I know this post is extremely late, but I haven't been able to find enough time to post a full reply until now.

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Reproduction serves one and only one purpose. To avoid extinction.


The fact is, guys are naturally really really attracted to lots and lots of girls. If we want to get on the subject of moral bounds we can talk marriage. If you're putting yourself out there...i dunno. it's hard to argue.

Well, yes, we could debate that. I wasn't sure if this discussion should really head in a moral direction (where there will be some major disagreement) or stay at a point where most everyone can agree with the original editorial.

True, that guys are naturally really attracted to lots of girls, but that doesn't mean guys should have sex with lots of girls.

Originally Posted by fingersman

It's natural to want to have sex I mean this has always been there.........so it's not that back in the days people didn't want to screw around and have sex with numerous persons but it was their values that kept them from doing so. The values determined who, where and how. No values and "poof" natural desires run around uncontrolled.

Exactly. And only your instinct or your values can be correct. I would argue our instinct has gone astray and those damn values are correct.

Originally Posted by Perfect Stu

Bond, you're missing my point completely. I don't know if thats just a reading comprehension issue (I doubt it, you're a smart guy) or you're just trying to find an arguement when there isnt one there.

Using my example again...suppose the bear knew that biting off someone's hand is a terrible thing to do. Let's say the bear gets shot afterwards, assuming the punishment fit the crime. That doesnt change the fact that the person still is left with only one hand, and the only sure way for the whole situation to be avoided would be to not slap on a bunch of honey.

I cant stand people who commit crimes let alone rapists/sexual predators, but this has nothing to do with that.

I see your point. Actually, I saw your point before, but I wasn't sure in which way I should reply to it so I decided to use a sarcastic one-line reply that probably wasn't the best choice. While I understand your point, I still do respectfully disagree with what you are saying.

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

There was sex before religion.

Your point? There was a God before sex.