I disagree

> Little girls cannot get pregnant, which is THE ULTIMATE goal of
> sexual arousal. You cannot compare liking different kinds of foods
> or music to a difference in sexual preference, the gap is too wide.

The ultimate goal of sexual arousal is happiness. It just happens that sexual arousal helps propagate the species. Animals don't have sex because they want to procreate, they have sex because they desire it and it makes them feel good, and happy.

Why can't you compare liking different kinds of foods to liking different kinds of girls? I can turn around and say that "THE ULTIMATE" goal of food arousal is to rebuild cells and receive energy. But you see, that's not why people eat. There are also lots of foods that contain absolutely no energy content... look for example at the nutrition information on your bottle of mustard. Yet I see lots of people who just love to dip their finger in mustard and just eat it. Look at all the bad foods that make people sick rather than healthy, yet there are lots of people who still eat that. And what about drugs?

As far as I'm concerned, humanity with the aid of technology should separate sex and procreation. Sex is for fun, not babies. This way there will never be anymore unwanted pregnancies, and the whole prolife/prochoice debate becomes obsolete. The world will be a much better place.

Don't let evolution make the choices for us. Evolution gave us disease and sickness, not 100% healthy babies. Sex is not the best way to procreate, it just happens to be the first thing that evolution came up with. It's good to change our minds sometimes and not just stick to the first thing that we come up with.

- Heartfallen
(previously NewGuyTempNick)