>>See, that's where you've gone awry. On the assumption that humans did not evolve, but were put on the earth whole made and ripe before the animals came along, then it is 'original' (and even quite 'creative'). And actually, I think it's not sex that is the original sin, but 'lust'.
>
>Ah, but that's just a PC expression for it. If you're not allowed to say "MacBeth", you'll call it "the Scottish play".

Oh, no. Sex is just nature's way of procreating. Lust on the other hand, doesn't even require sex. So, if lust is what leads to the sex act, and a child is the result, then I guess that is where original sin comes in.

Maybe if they hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of life, then it would have been more like, "What say, old girl. Feel like having another kid?" "Well, ok, I guess we could use another hand or two around here. Those animals are incredibly untidy creatures."

And there would be no slavering, no sweating, no grunting etc. Just get it done to get some help for weeding the garden.

>
>So it's somehow OK if two do it without actually wishing to do it? Why would they do it then?