Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!oliveb!bu.edu!bu-cs!lectroid!cloud9!banyan!gil
From: gil@banyan.UUCP (Gil Pilz@Eng@Banyan)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: Sex, Babies, and Orgasm
Message-ID: <691@banyan.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jan 90 16:06:14 GMT
References: <1024@khijol.UUCP> <3591@hub.UUCP>
Reply-To: gil@banyan.com
Organization: Banyan Systems, Inc.
Lines: 20

In article <3591@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@hub.UUCP (Pete Gontier) writes:
>Now, if you don't buy evolution at all (and that argument probably really
>does belong elsewhere) and you think there _was_ a design behind all of this,
>it seems to me you've got a lot more rationalizing to do. Either sex was
>designed at least partially for fun (which is in opposition to more than a
>few religious ideas) or the Designer didn't do a real hot job (which of
>course is in opposition to a majority of religious ideas).

Either that or the Designer is the sort of vindicative bastard who
would purposely make it fun then tell you _not_ to do it except when
it _isn't_ fun, all of which falls in line with quite a number of
religious ideas (a fact that I find scary in the extreme).

"God if you're up there, listen to my prayer
 in future man should have a different design
 give him a switch so he can turn of his libido
 give him a tranquilizer built into his mind"
	- joe jackson

Gilbert W. Pilz Jr.       gil@banyan.com