Re: The Religious Rights' Unreal Understanding of Homo***uality:

"Free Lunch" <lunch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:agmc24lusn95lrsgi301d3e3s3aorpjbf3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>I'm not saying you have to go along with that. What I am saying is that
it
>>is a natural conclusion whether you agree with it or not. The corollary
>>conclusion is that believing that same *** relation****ps is natural or
>>normal is unreal. Ergo, Dr. Dobson has a valid view, you do not. You
argue
>>that Dr. Dobson has a wrong headed view, but I would argue his view has
>>better standing than does yours. Dr. Dobson has a view -- however much
you
>>do not like it -- that he can sup****t with a logical argument. Your view

>>is
>>only sup****ted by emotion.
>>
>></js>
>
> You have to remember that many cultures had no problem with men having
> more than one ***ual partner. Marriage was an arrangement that had
> nothing to do with love. ***ual trysts were tolerated, even when the
> Pope had them. There may be a few gays who are completely unable to have
> *** with women, but most are bi***ual to some degree, however small.
> Doing their culturally required duty may not have been what they wanted,
> but that didn't mean they could not.


You are defining the exception, I'm talking about the rule. *** is to make

kids, and if so then *** must include opposite gender participants. ***
for 
pleasure is fine and dandy, but homo***uals choose to be so because they 
have no chance of making kids, the only resoult of their ***uality is 
pleasure. The species can not survive on pleasure, therefore pleasure must

be a chosen goal. The pure animal in us says that we have *** to have more

kids. Instinct says that homo***uality will not further the species, 
therefore some of us chose to defy instinct.

The Pope might have 15 wives, but he makes children with them, so from a 
procreation perspective, it makes sense.