From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 05:58:04 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>In article <1992Apr15.185131.22860@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>
>>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) asserts:
>:
>:::The end result, the child has
>:::lost priority and is often forgotten. That's what having sex is
>:::for dude.
>:
>::Jesus H Christ, dude.  The primary purpose of sex is NOT to procreate!
>::If god wanted it that way, he wouldn't have made it so we could, or even,
>::WANT sex at any other time except when conception was possible.
>:
>::Get off your religion and start THINKING.
>:
>:
>:Hey dudette, I think you need more schooling.  The "Primary" purpose
>:of sex could be procreation and the SECONDARY purpose could be fun.
>:Logic wins again.

>	"could be"??? There are LOTS of things that "could be" true,
>such as Jesus Christ having been homosexual. Can't you think of any
>better argument than that?

Reread your quote:  "The primary purpose of sex is NOT to procreate!"
I merely refuted this universal negative of yours.  BTW Jesus Christ
could not have been homosexual.  Homosexuality is condemned by God.
It appears you think "Christ" is a last name.  It's not.  It 
actually means "Messiah".  So, follow carefully, if Jesus IS Christ
then Jesus could NOT have been homosexual.  Login wins again.

>:::And I'm going to try not to be rude, but don't you EVER treat abstinence
>:::as an insult again. Lemme guess - you obviously didn't wait till marriage
>:::for sex, but do you wait till Christmas to open your presents? There's
>:::a time and a place for everything, and promiscuity is sure presenting
>:::us with a hell of a problem now isn't it?
>:
>::I don't think anyone on this forum is against abstinence.  Abstinence is
>::quite proper for all of us at some time or another.  I think you took the
>::remarks in question as an insult because you are extremely sensitive.  
>::Not that there's anything wrong with sensitivity, women find it an attractive
>::trait, but on this forum, you can't wear your heart on your sleeve.
>:
>:Why shouldn't he be sensitive?  This group is full of insensitive
>:boneheads who continually ridicule him for his belief in abstinence.
>:I for one, am proud to see someone stand up for their unpopular
>:(in this forum) belief.

>	"Ridicule"? "Criticize" more likely, and legitimately so for
>insisting that people try to act like eunuchs when they don't want to
>and have no need to.

Nope, RIDICULE was the right word.  Actually if you paid more attention
to Steve (and asked instead of assuming) I think you would find that
he doesn't adovcate "eunuchhood".  Abstinence is only necessary until
a lifelong mate is found (unless of course you never marry).

>::I also think you're equating lack of abstinence with promiscuity.  While in
>::some cases, that is true, it is not always, nor is it the norm.  Most people
>::practice serial monogamy (as I've written to you in email, and you couldn't
>::be "bothered" to reply).  Serial monogamy is not the same as promiscuity, nor
>::is it bad.
>:
>:"Serial Monogamy" is PC promiscuity.

>	Why's that, bud?

The statement stands on it's own merit.

>:::   Incedentally, I don't think there is a shred of insecurity in me.
>:
>::He he. As a psychologist, I can tell you that statement is a red flag to your
>::insecurities.  A person who is unwilling to admit frailties is most boring
>::and most frail.
>:
>:As a psychologist, why do you hide behind PC?

>	She isn't hiding behind a damn thing.

Oh.  Gee.  You've convinced me.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: talk.abortion