From: Spike Jones (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2002 - 23:00:43 MST
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Spike Jones wrote,
> > I would expect rural communities to be more tolerant of homosexuals.
> Are you guys trying to be funny
> or just playing devil's advocate?
I am astounded that modern society *still* has any problem fully
accepting homosexuality. All the arguments against it are so easily
shredded. Consider the common ones:
Objection: Homosexuality is not natural.
Answer: Anyone who says this has not spent enough time watching
Objection: Homosexuality is against god's plan.
Answer: I have only two problems with this argument. 1. There is
no god, and 2. There is no plan.
Objection: The purpose of genitals is for reproduction, not pleasure.
Homosexual contact cannot fulfill this purpose.
Answer: The average person uses the genitals for reproduction once,
twice, perhaps thrice in a lifetime. The average person uses genitals for
pleasure or entertainment of their favorite person 2000 to 10000 times in
a lifetime. So what are they for? Arguing that the purpose of genitals is
breed makes as much sense as saying the purpose of owning a car is to
change the tires.
Objection: Homosexuality just grosses me out.
Answer: So just dont do it. No one is making you. What's the problem?
Nowthen, regarding my original contention: I would expect rural
communities to be more tolerant toward homosexuality, but it
doesn't seem to work that way. My notion is that the teeming
anthill of humanity we call the city has a mind-opening effect on
people. Rocks in a tumbler polish each other. If there are not
enough rocks, they do not polish. Perhaps what makes rural
communities generally less tolerant is that they have not enough people.
We need more people, more ideas, more solutions, more brains,
more freedom. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:35 MST