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