duke wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 04:32:39 -0700 (PDT), RedDog <tool_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>> On May 4, 7:23 am, duke <duckgumb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 21:06:29 -0700 (PDT), RedDog
<arealp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.recovery.aa/msg/3aa05460d9b65771
>>> Seems pretty obvious to me.
>
>> The argument is that the nature of human ***uality is ordered toward
>> the possibility ofreproduction...while it may have or be used to
>> other purposes, the "why" of human ***uality isreproduction,
>> otherwise, you really cannot explain it.
>> So the question is: is a ***ual behavior which completely rules out
>> the "why" of human ***uality acceptable?
>
>> Then perhaps you can answer my question, duke? (It's a yes or no
>> question, and since you said it seems pretty obvious, then the answer
>> should be simple, even to a ****wit like you.)
>
> 1. The demonstrated purpose of the ***ual act is procreation.
Even in instances where one is infertile or sterile?
> 2. God made it a pleasurable act so that male would pursue female.
Or male would pursue male or female would pursue female.
> 3. Take out the climax in the ***ual act and a man will prefer to go to
the
> ball game, or maybe shake hands.
You're a virgin, aren't you?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I do not believe in God because I do not *
* believe in Mother Goose." *
* --Clarence Darrow, 1925 *
****************************************************
|
