Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!speaker From: speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Laura Creighton's bull... (long message) Message-ID: <4208@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 3-Dec-83 19:00:05 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.4208 Posted: Sat Dec 3 19:00:05 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Dec-83 23:37:33 EST Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 113 My argument is that if human beings have not caught on to "sex is for procreation" it is unreasonable to assume that the rats do. Thus the whole idea of... And just WHERE do you see the words "sex is for procreation" in my article? The article that started this (possibly rene's) implied that because rats have natural homosexual tendencies, there's no reason why humans shouldn't. Read my comments on this article again and you'll find that I neither agreed nor disagreed with the statment. Rather, I urged caution in making sweeping judgements. Look at your argument again Laura. Are you saying that something is necessarily unreasonable because humans have not caught onto it? Does this mean that it is unreasonable for rats to eat their young because humans don't? I find this kind of thinking unreasonably anthrocentric. In fact, the burden of proof is upon you for stating that it "doesn't matter from the point of view of the rat *what* he has sex with." This is equivelent to saying that you know *why* rats have sex. What verifiable evidence can you produce that substantiates this sweeping statement? You state that "the rat that thinks it's procreating is a figment of your imagination." What evidence do you have to support your thesis that a rat will ONLY choose to have sex when he wants a little pleasure? You also claim that a rat has a teeny-tiny little brain that probably doesn't know if it's procreating or not. Well I can argue the same about a rat that "decides" to have sex with another rat. And besides... sex has nothing to do with brain size. My claim is that neither homosexual nor heterosexual relationships are founded on this programmed "desire to procreate" for either rats or human beings. I am attacking the idea of "sex is designed for procreation". Fine. You'll have to show that this is true for every species from planaria to man. In fact you won't be able to prove "sex is not designed for procreation" because all of the hardware in question was designed for procreation. I suggest you rephrase your statement to something like "animals do not always f_ck for procreation"... there is a distinct difference between design and usage. And where in my original article do you see the words "desire to procreate" or "sex is designed for procreation" anyway? This is why you aren't being objective. You've decided in your own imagination which side of the fence I'm on. Yes. the rat that thinks it's procreating is a figment of your imagination. Or it is a figment of some teacher of yours' imagination. This great myth has long standing in classrooms, but that does not make it any less a myth. This "teacher of mine" exists in your own imagination. This "great myth" does too. Before criticizing my background and making more sweeping judgements I suggest that you get to know more about what you are talking about. Especially me, if you want to talk about my background. Since when did you become an expert on my beliefs? What I was proposing was a theory as to why this myth that you spouted could be so wide-spread. Rhetoric. At no time did I state that "rats always have sex to procreate." Your theories are totally invalid because they are based on assumptions (i.e. these imagined "beliefs" of mine) and not facts. While you are at it you might want to look up the word "repressed" since you do not seem to understand its meaning. My, aren't WE on our high horse tonight?! yes, but this is long after I have proposed that "natural" expressed as a "programmed to procreate" is a remnant of Genesis teaching. If it is not, then you are left explaining where it came from, but if it is, then the whole word "natural" should be replaced by "moral" since that is the real topic of discsussion. I am left doing neither since I never proposed that procreation be the only use for sex. The difference between natural and moral is indeed the topic of discussion and I suggest that you pursue that line. You'll find that the word natural drops out of the argument and that the question of "is homosexuality okay" is a moral one. Why so sensitive? I'll bet that you read the whole article i wrote once, didn't see the break in the argument from the illogic of what you said to why it is interesting, and decided to roast me. Actually, I always type 's' and let these sort of discussions hang around in my directory a while. That way I can ponder over a period of days (yes, sometimes I never send them). Not that you will let me collect on that bet, though... You may collect upon any bet that you can win. I did, as an explanation of where that funny belief you have could have come from. Funny beliefs belong in net.jokes.beliefs. -- - Bessie the Hellcow speaker@umcp-cs speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay