Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.motss,net.religion,net.flame
Subject: Re: The Kiss of Death
Message-ID: <387@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 26-Aug-84 01:03:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.387
Posted: Sun Aug 26 01:03:25 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 26-Aug-84 01:33:33 EDT
References: <3431@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 30

The lines beginning with ">" are from Ken Arndt...

> In what sense is something
> (anything) to be seen as "against nature"?  If I insist in jumping off
> buildings without a parachute is that against nature?  ...
> What is the result of
> homosexual behavior vis a vis nature???  Well, it is the contention of
> one leading British expert, writing in the BRITISH JOURNAL OF VENEREAL
> DISEASES in 1982, that the common mouth-anal contact of active
> homosexuals carries "the almost inevitable risk of transfer of bowel
> pathogens." ...
> 
> The question before the house is, Is it "natural" to consider the
> lower bowel to be a sexual organ?  Is it analogous to other self 
> destructive behavior?  Sure we can work for a cure, maybe even get one.

Are you still talking about bowel pathogens?  They *are* curable, y'know.

> Should you continue with the behavior in the mean time?  And does the
> presence of a cure really answer the question? (you remember, the one
> before the house!)  If I can fix up broken legs and heads does that mean
> that jumping is now NOT againts nature?  

You seem to believe that self-harmful behaviour is unnatural *because* of its
harmful consequences.  (You didn't say so explicitly, but you seem to use it 
as an assumption in your reasoning.)  If, as a result of medical advances, 
or of simply being more cautious, such behaviour no longer has harmful 
consequences, then it is no longer unnatural.  See?

	David Canzi, watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi