Quote:
I would have to disagree that love is there for the simple act of procreation, but that would end up in another philosophical/religious debate- which there\'s been plenty enough of already.
Now, I didn\'t mean that love is ONLY for procreation..not at all. I was just saying that I do believe the feelings of \"love\" are there to \'encourage\' humans to be monogamous, while still fulfilling the need of procreation. If there were no love in the world..and I do mean true love between two people who devote themselves to each other and all that..there wouldn\'t be monogamous relationships. We\'d just have lust.
So no..love isn\'t -just- there for the procreating, it\'s much more than that, but love has its bases in said procreation in my point of view. I share your same ideals Rioni, in the \"if we couldn\'t have sex I\'d still marry\" thing, I wouldn\'t care about that either. Just, as I said, I think the bases of love..one of them leads to procreation.
Wow, am I making any sense? *hears crickets*
:rofl:.. Wind, that WAS a good one. And whoa BladeMan..calm down. It\'s good that you\'re not a spoiled brat anymore, and I applaud you for it..but you have to admit that alot of spoiled children end up expecting everything given to them on a silver platter. You\'re the minority, and we know that, we\'re just generalizing as humans do. No disrespect meant.