Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.motss,net.religion,net.flame
Subject: Re: The Kiss of Death
Message-ID: <1015@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Aug-84 14:54:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.1015
Posted: Mon Aug 27 14:54:51 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Aug-84 01:06:43 EDT
References: <3431@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 47

> Well, let's look at that one for a minute.  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?  If I cure my
> cold by cutting off my toes is THAT against nature?  People get put
> away (homosexuals beware) for those behaviors.  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."  Ergo the title of this posting.

"Nature" is simply a word to describe the way things happen and occur "out
there".  The problem is often that some people distinguish between "out
there" (the "natural" world) and us (human beings), as if what human beings
did somehow was not "natural".  "Nature" is not a set of rules that things
follow (no punishment from a 'mother nature' or a deity for not "obeying"), but
rather a set of observations that describe how things happen.  Thus the only
things that are "against nature" are those things that don't happen.  And once
they do happen, they're no longer "against nature".

> The question before the house is, Is it "natural" to consider the
> lower bowel to be a sexual organ?

Or the hand, Ken?  Or the mind?  By the above paragraph, clearly it is
natural to do so since some of the human beings out there (part of what
you call nature) do so.

>  Is it analogous to other self destructive behavior?

The use of the word "other" is pretty vacuous; it immediately assumes that
the behavior is self destructive while it pretends to be "asking" if it is.
As usual, no reason is given for assuming that the implied notion is true.

>  Sure we can work for a cure, maybe even get one.
> 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!) 

I thought that was already done.  Why are all of Ken's questions moot except
to him?

> Perhaps a giant body condom would help?

I'll agree with that in one case in particular. :-)
-- 
"Now, Benson, I'm going to have to turn you into a dog for a while."
"Ohhhh, thank you, Master!!"			Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr