Re: *** in public is a fine thing which doesn't bother anyone

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:42:28 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
> 
>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:15:36 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>
>>>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 18:50:38 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2008 17:35:57 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Peter Franks" <none@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:2QsSj.5285$1M1.3733@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>> gooddad@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> *** is not immoral if two forms of birth control are used, as
>>>>>>>>>>> the risk of pregnancy falls to nearly zero.
>>>>>>>>>> *** is immoral unless it is between a husband and wife, legally
>>>>>>>>>> and lawfully married.
>>>>>>>>> Is it OK in public (if they're married)?
>>>>>>>> It is a private matter that should be treated as such.
>>>>>>> Have you ever dispassionately compared your own arrogant
judgements
>>>>>>> against those of Islamic Imans?
>>>>>> These aren't my arrogant judgments.
>>>>> Then I must ask, "For whom do you speak?"
>>>> I'm not speaking for anyone.  I provided a couple of references.
>>> Nope, you stated that "*** is immoral unless..."  Who gave you the
right
>>> to judge for others?
>> I'm not judging anyone.
> 
> Now you're lying.

Nope.