Hi Mike:
I would say that it is true that we share the desire and satisfaction of sexual appetite with the 'animals'. I consider it as a part of our nature's as it is theirs. Obviously due to the fact that we are biological beings. We men and woman also have the 'higher' rational parts of our nature which manifest itself in such things as philosophy, religion, ethics.......to creating such things as the question you pose here.

Now, if I understand Kant's statement, we are debasing ourselves to enjoy together ( men and women ) the animal pleasures, particularly sexual pleasure.

I think since the existence of sexual drive is present as a part of our nature's ( and a powerful one to boot ) that its regulation, not its abstention is how one 'honors or dishonors' humanity. This regulation, of course, is best performed with reason examining given circumstances. As a married man, I am honoring humanity ( and myself and my wife ) by expressing and partaking in this animal like act with my wife only. I would also add that the sexual act has, as most of us know, profound intimacies, aspects of trust, and love often associated with it. It has additional uniquely human aspects. That Kant seems to not give this credit is interesting to say the least.

.........Logos

The sexual drive is said to be in service to species and most of the time it is expressed on an animal level in this reguard.As Logos states though it does not have to be that base,when love and compassion are elements of said relationship, it brings it up to a truely human level.This is rarer than it should be however.If a marriage is seen as a potential spiritual experience,it could rival any organized religion---for here to, one must be born from the heart.

Until one can seperate the physical body from the spirit/intellect (whatever you want to call it), I not sure it can be completely avoided. It'd be kind of like avoiding eating. I agree it's probably better to avoid basic lust versus an expression of love, as Bogie stated, but I don't think (as some religions do) that this avoidance is intended as a mandate but as a statement of truth. For example: One shouldn't cast off your material goods because it will make you better spiritually, but rather one should allow the spirit to grow and material goods will be less important and you'll cast them off on your own.

Well said.

Practically, sex is obviously not a bad thing. It pushes on the species & it's a fun pasttime - like masturbation, but with two people, making it more... unexpected. Kant's argument seems to me to be saying that humans are supposed to bypass the natural urges they can, to better be closer to God. He's implying that there's an obligation that humans have to be superior. Sex is what animals do, so to be less like animals, we shouldn't do it. Chad3006's point is good at explaining this, but I think Kant would probably assert that sex is not necessary like eating, unless you're having a kid in a purely intentional way, expressing love for the partner. Also, the food is not being dishonoured, is it? It has no honour to lose. Humans have the dignity of being the best, so they should uphold it.

Personally, I believe that it's a bunch of arbitrary statements without further background, which I don't have. I should definitely delve deeper, especially since my step-dad, with whom I live, is a philosophy/religion/ethics/logic teacher... That aside, I think that his point of view needs to be based on a lot of implications to mean much.

The exclamation point following the thread title is curious... does that imply a standpoint or a giggle?

Sexuality is involentary,the blind expression of the will to life as Schopenhaur might say.The fact that it is involentary and purely so, when not directed by the intelligence, is what Kant is getting at I think.This is also the condition of considering or treating an individual as a sex object which of course we all are to one another as opposites,it is a primary conditon,a primary relationship between the sexes,it is impersonal,involentary lust.:p:eek:

I find the argument interesting, however i believe that context and more importantly ego must be taken into account. Kant lived in a time when sex was usually not spoken about in polite circles, and man was obviously considered to be made in the image of a supreme being.
This being said; times have changed. Biology has shown us that we are, despite our wishes, merely mortals. We are animals who are no different to any other save that we have opposable thumbs and our ancestors discovered a rich source of complex carbohydrate, and as such the term 'human nature' should be discarded as it is no longer relevant. We are animals, not gods, nor images of gods, and as such we have the same basic needs as any other.
An argument for the supremacy of the human race and the baseness of all other beings is merely egotism. And afterall, even if we were created by a god, then is it not pushing us further from him when we second guess his intent in the belief that we are his equals or even superiors and go against nature?

To me, this seems to be a bit outrageous. For instance, Kant seems to be boasting himself, as well as the rest of the human race, by aborting the fact that we seem to be the be-all-end-all of all that there is. Having said that, try to follow the simplistic, yet possibly viewed as ignorant statement I am about to put out:

Even if a man and a woman feel to satisfy their sexual desires with one another, they are acting according to a certain instinct. If one is to take away any and all levels of religious beliefs, personal opinions, and even influential teachings, the way the human species is to survive is to reproduce.

Hypothetical: If there was two females and two males left in the entire world, what would be the motive? To reproduce and get the population going (even though there would inevitably be some incest involved down the line........). Love, in this case, would play no role in this situation (as unpractical and hypothetical as it stands), thus they would be acting on an "animalistic" level. Isn't an animal instinct that in which enables the animal to survive? How would this be any different for humans? This, of course, only works in my favor if the male and female are not using any sort of birth control.

This is why I am not a fan of Kant at all. It's almost, if not fully, impossible, even improbable to take away desire from an action. This very claim that he made came from some sort of desire, or else why would he have written anything? Either A) To make a difference and educate or B) To feel a sense of self-satisfaction. Both of which come from desire.

Would it stand true if you replace the act of sex with a hug? Here, look at it this way:

"If a man wishes to satisfy his desire, and a women hers, they stimulate each others desires; their inclinations met, but their object is not human nature but -hugging-, and each of them dishonours the human nature of the other. They make humanity an instrument of the satisfaction of their lust and inclinations, and dishonour it by putting it on a level with animal nature." - Lectures on ethics.