Subject:
|
Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 May 1999 18:36:12 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@ANTISPAMcclabs.missouri.edu
|
Viewed:
|
946 times
|
| |
|
|
Carbon 60 wrote:
>
> > Why are sex and walking different? Conceptually, at least. I am aware that
> > there are one or two technical differences. ;)
>
> Walking can be done on your own, coitus cannot. Sex is an intimate
> thing between 2 people originally for reproduction, nowadays for
> pleasure also. Homosexuals take away the original purpose of sex thats
> what it was made for. And you are aware of a few differences already :)
But I think what we need to know is which of these things make
intercourse different from walking such that the use of the activity
toward some goal other than the 'original' one is deemed an illness
rather than perfectly reasonable?
> > But a person who walks (regardless of A, B, or C) solely because they enjoy
> > walking is not accomplishing the intended purpose of walking. Again: Does
> > that make them ill?
>
> No, the purpose of walking is to move - when people walk for enjoyment
> they are still moving - are they not?
If the purpose of walking is to move (potentially at random, or without
getting anywhere) rather than the more reasonable assumption that it's
to move from place to place for secondary reasons, then why can't the
purpose of sex be some other thing than reproduction? It could be to
feel good, or to move (again at random), or to purge toxic waste from
the male's mind through orgasm, or whatever. What is the derivative
logic leading you to these purposes for action?
> > I will agree that (typically) anyone who knows they are ill wants, in general,
> > to get better. However, the orginal quote strongly implies an illness that
> > the "ill people" are unaware of.(1) Was that your intent? That is how I read
> > the sentence, so that is the premise I was operating under.
>
> Well they are aware of the illness but do not consider it an illness
> because society now accepts them, when will it stop? Soon they will
> accept padeophiles then murderers and armed gunman walking into TRU - we
> may laugh now and say it won't happen but that's what homosexuals
> thought 60 years ago but now people accept them.
I agree that this doesn't follow at all. No one is hurt by homosexuals.
There is a very clear difference between those other deviancies and homosexuality.
> > 1: Please do not infer from this quote that I feel homosexualilty is an
> > illness. It isn't.
>
> What do you consider it to be then?
A deviance from the norm. Most kids like potatoes, my kid doesn't, is
he ill?
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| (...) Sorry my mistake - however we don't lose posts like on USENET - I must be getting lapse. <Stuff snipped about ill and walking> (...) Walking can be done on your own, coitus cannot. Sex is an intimate thing between 2 people originally for (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
150 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
