"Emerson Wainwright" <emersonwainwright@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:7c0007cc-349b-492b-9911-dcc754e727ab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 4, 1:32 pm, duke <duckgumb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 04:32:39 -0700 (PDT), RedDog <to...@[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.
This has not been demonstrated. The fact that some ***ual acts result
in conception doesn't indicate that the only purpose for *** is
procreation.
Let's do a little substitution with your premise: The demonstrated
purpose of the ***ual act is to spread ***ually transmitted diseases
(because some ***ual encounters result in the spread of STDs).
The reality is that the vast majority of ***ual encounters do NOT
result in conception, even when conception is the goal!
The explaination is quite simple. Duke is a brain dead Catholic and only
mimics what his church tells him.
|
