Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!rlgvax!guy From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: Sophie's choice! Message-ID: <271@rlgvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 03:51:12 EST Article-I.D.: rlgvax.271 Posted: Fri Nov 30 03:51:12 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 05:50:24 EST References: <65@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA Lines: 36 > [To love a woman because of who and what she is and has been with you in ] > [all her parts, physical, mental, emotional, spirtiual (however you want to] > [divide her up) is quite a thing. And to be loved in return. And to create] > [children together! Wow! I could sit down and weep for the homosexuals, ] > [they are so far wrong! ] All right kiddies, big question of the week: what's the internal inconsistency in the above statement? Answer: it says that homosexual *women* are right, not wrong (except for the bit about creating children together). Sounds like: 1) the author forgot about gay women 2) the author forgot about women 3) the author forgot that the word "woman" can be replaced by the word "person" above (except for the part about creating children) and yield a more correct statement Just because *you* have found satisfaction in a heterosexual relationship that's produced children doesn't mean that *everybody* can find more satisfaction in that sort of relationship. Hey, I have a lot of fun: working with computers reading (comics, the New York Review of Books, science fiction) making puns but that hardly means anybody who does without any or all of the above is just not living life to the fullest. So how about laying off the false claims, OK? They contribute no useful information to the debate, merely noise. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy