Svansfall at 1 Jun 2006: 02:42
QUOTE: "Ever hear of the priesthood?
Sexual 'urges' are biological desires, not needs. Remember?"
What I meant was: "it would ruin my life/not ruin my life" in the same way that it would for a heterosexual man to give up sex with women. I.e. it translates to the same feelings, and would affect me in a similar way.
QUOTE: "Oh, no you don't. I thought we discussed this."
The context this was in, was of the basic absolute needs for survival, such as it is necessary in a biological sense to eat, and it is necessary in a biological sense to procreate (for the species at whole). In the biological sense it is not necessary to give pleasure. In an emotional sense, it is however necessary for some people's mental health to be able to give pleasure.
QUOTE: "That's exactly what's under discussion. You can't argue using the points under contest."
Are you saying that unless everyone involved in a discussion agree upon the points of the discussion, it is impossible to explore and go in depth about those points? If I am not misunderstanding you here, that would mean that no discussion could ever get past the point of skimming the surface and never reaching any kind of point at all.
I have explained in detail how we see that the animals show that they feel pleasure, and show how they want it. If you wish to debate this, feel free to meet each part of their behaviour and interpret it in another logical way.