Re: Is "GAY MARRIAGE" valid because such may have existed in the past?

"juanjo" <jonpetry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:40dab566-1125-4e9b-ba11-4bc29d50c476@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Jul 4, 10:31 am, Okierazorbacker <okierazorbac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 9:28 am, calvin <cri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Kinky Friedman, running for Texas governor in 2006, said he
> > was in favor of gay marriage because there was no reason why
> > gays shouldn't be as miserable as everybody else.
>
> Kinky ran for governor? What a guy.
>
> I've always been amused by the specious argument that homo***uality
> must be OK because it's found in nature. If so, then I guess it's OK
> for us to eat our young, kill each other with our bare hands, and
> practice polygamy and *****.

Actually it is the argument of those opposed to homo***uality that it
is somehow unnatural and thus may be prohibited on that basis.  If it
were unnatural then it could not and would not exist in nature which
of course it does.  So the argument is not that it is okay because it
is found in nature but rather that the argument that it IS NOT found
is nature is specious and false.

---------------
Absurd.  Homo***uality is a perfectly natural response to sociologically 
generated problems.  For the lesser species in which it is usually the
most 
physically fit male who gets to mate with the females, homo***uality may
be 
the only means for the less fortunate males to release their  ***ual
urges. 
In human society, our greater intelligence should be sufficient for us to 
resist or otherwise overcome such primitive solutions to sociologically 
generated inadequacies (unavailability of or incompatibility with members
of 
the opposite ***). 


       ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Cor****ate Usenet News
Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com
offers cor****ate packages that have access to
100,000+ newsgroups