Not sure where you've been but that is exactly the point I was making, which you are now partially agreeing with.

Animals have a sexual instinct which is enjoyable in order to ensure procreation, just as we have taste buds to make eating enjoyable so we won't starve. Ands we have a sense of pain to avoid injuring ourselves.

No it doesn't mean that we have to make a baby every time we have sex, but that's the purpose of the sexual function.

Hence any deviation from that purpose is............deviant

or dysfunctional.

Just like trying to eat with your ears.

Try mutating on that for a while

I responded to fxashun's post and you responded to mine with a strawman. This is the first I hear of you 'making a point'.
I've already debate your misleading argument about "purpose in nature". About 3 months back. If you'd like, you can go back to that debate and respond to my last post that you ignored.
btw.... In the last year, consider the number of people who had sex with a condom. Then consider that a woman is fertile a bit more than 8 days out of 28, more or less. So 20 days out of 28, when people have sex, they have no to little chance of procreation. Then add the condoms. Then add the infertile couples. Then add the pill. Ooof. I don't have hard numbers but you'd have to be disingenuous to not conclude the vast majority of sexual activity is not going to lead to pregnancy and thus is deviant and dysfunctional.

Way to twist the meaning right out of both words.

Last night I was watching a show on NGC about dusky dolphins corralling anchovies to feast on them.

After the feasting was over what did the dolphins do? They had sex. They always have sex after feasting. Has nothing to do with procreation, it has to do with the joy of a full belly and the fact that they are higher thinking animals.

That isn't what you said? How so? As I understand it, your argument is
(1) Having sex is for the purpose of procreation
(2) Sex is pleasureable so we procreate.
(3) " Hence any deviation from that purpose is............deviant"

I fail to see how "In the last year, consider the number of people who had sex with a condom. Then consider that a woman is fertile a bit more than 8 days out of 28, more or less. So 20 days out of 28, when people have sex, they have no to little chance of procreation. Then add the condoms. Then add the infertile couples. Then add the pill. Ooof. I don't have hard numbers but you'd have to be disingenuous to not conclude the vast majority of sexual activity is not going to lead to pregnancy and thus is deviant and dysfunctional." is not a direct response to your argument.
I look forward to your reply.

PS: Claiming that you are right until I perform Ridiculous Task X is a strawman because you know I won't perform RTX and thus expect to not have to discuss the issue. You need to actually write out your opinions rather than just short little inflammatory statements. If you did that, however, you would be providing enough material for someone to actually refute what you are saying and, in my opinion, that is the last thing you want. Please prove me wrong on this point.

Hetero and homosexual sex.

Having sex with a condom, plus all the other 'legitimate' sexual activities I listed, means that there is little to no chance of procreation. Since you didn't correct my summation of your argument, I'll assume I understand it correctly. You claimed that any deviation from the purpose of procreaction in sex was 'deviant'. I'm pointing out that this means the vast majority of sexual activity of 'deviant'. Since 'deviant' means differing from the norm, this doesn't make sense.

So rather than just stating you are right (Eg. " Nor does it alter anything about the dysfunctionality of homosexual sex or other deviant forms."), perhaps you could explain why you are right.