You interpret my statement as though i mean for biological imperative to be synonymous with please. This is quite incorrect. I do not deny sexual intercourse as an expression of love and as a union whose beauty knows no bounds. Having said this it is the most animalistic of impulses to procreate. There is a reason it feels good is because if it didn't organisms would be like "forget it, lets just watch tv." instead of furthering their genetic lines.
I must say though this is not a defense for the argument for bestiality it is more or less a correction of your misinterpretation.
Now as far as your latter argument about not blaming me for my thinking I quite have a problem with. First off my view is nether atheistic or theistic. I argue that regardless of the existence of a god we are an animal specious. Religions speak of intelligent design as something so profound. So essentially you believe the following: there was no light until god thought let it be so, then he made the earth and the heavens, then he tweaked it, then he was like 'This is boring I should make some animals' made a bunch of animals and thought 'this is not enough." and made man. Then man fucks up. Generally this is how it goes is it not?
Would it not stand to reason that the argument between intelligent design and big bang supporters is essentially arguing the same thing? There was nothing than there was a pop and light and matter were formed. After a while it settled into some structures. On one of these structures, through a random conglomeration of enzymes and shit life was happened. Yes it was happened.
The only thing these two groups don't understand is that in essence they are both arguing remarkably similar points yet citing incredibly different sources. The only real difference between them is the one choose to believe that a god literally constructed all that is and the other refuse the notion of "construction" and more of a flow of universal self creation and the analysis thereof.
